The committee met at 8:39 a.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I’d like to call the meeting to order. My name is Mable Elmore. I’m the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington and the Chair of the Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles.

I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting this morning on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

[8:40 a.m.]

The committee is reviewing passenger-directed vehicle services and transportation network services, including taxis and ride-hailing administered under the Passenger Transportation Act.

To support this, the committee is holding a public consultation to inform our work, and we are looking forward to hearing presentations from a number of organizations and individuals today. We’re also accepting written input until November 30. Information on how to participate can be found on the committee’s website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/pdv.

For today’s meetings, each presenter will have 15 min­utes for their presentation. followed by 15 minutes for questions from committee members. I’ll now ask the committee members to introduce themselves.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Morning, everyone. I am Shirley Bond. I’m the MLA for Prince George–Valemount.

J. Sturdy: Good morning. I’m Jordan Sturdy. I’m the MLA for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Routledge: Hi, I’m Janet Routledge. I’m the MLA for Burnaby North and Parliamentary Secretary for Labour. I’m so sorry I kept you waiting. I should have taken a taxi.

M. Elmore (Chair): Assisting us today we have Karan Riarh, who’s the Clerk to the Committee. Outside welcoming you was Sean Morgado, who’s the Parliamentary Committees Coordinator. We have here from Hansard Services — thanks to them — Danielle Suter and Dwight Schmidt, who are here to record today’s proceedings.

We are prepared to get underway. We have our agenda. We have a number of presenters here.

I’d like to now introduce and welcome our first presentation, from the B.C. Taxi Association, Mohan Kang and Tag Gill.

Welcome.

Presentations on
Passenger Directed Vehicles

B.C. TAXI ASSOCIATION

M. Kang: Thank you, Hon. Chair, Deputy Chair and members. My name is Manmohan Kang, though I’m known as Mohan Kang. I have been involved with the taxi industry for over 45 years, including having the honour and privilege to serve as the president of the association for the last 25 terms.

Mr. Tad Gill, VP of the association and director for the north, is joining me. He also manages Teco Taxi Ltd. and Fort St. John Cabs Ltd., two small taxi companies in Fort St. John. I would like to acknowledge the Lower Mainland directors, members and colleagues from the taxi industry who are present now or who will be later.

I’m appearing before this committee in my capacity as the president of the B.C. Taxi Association, which is a non-profit organization. The association represents the majority of the taxi companies in the province as corporate and associate members. Our membership is from one end of the province to the other — for example, Fort Nelson, Prince Rupert, Osoyoos, Tofino to Port Hardy and in between. There are duly 13 elected directors who represent all regions of the province.

The legislation to introduce ride-hailing in the province was done in September 2019. It was stated that a review of the taxi or ride-hailing companies would be done by a special select committee, which would be formed in January 2022. This was subsequently changed through a miscellaneous statutes bill passed in December 2021, extending the date by 18 months.

Our association has been a proud member of AMBER alert since summer of 2004. It is a matter of fact that the taxi industry has been instrumental in avoiding thousands and thousands of cases of break-ins, sexual assaults and physical violence by being present and/or reporting to the police.

It is also a matter of fact that thousands of students have subsidized their education by driving cabs, besides many other government employees and others who supplemented their income by driving cabs on weekends as a part-time or full-time job.

[8:45 a.m.]

The association has organized educational workshops for the national safety code, CVIP, the passenger transportation branch and the Passenger Transportation Board. We also arranged training workshops, for Train the Trainer and Disability Awareness and Sensitivity Training, through Richmond Centre for Disability, besides the in-house training provided by the taxi companies.

The B.C. Taxi Association is committed to ensuring the fair and equitable co-existence of the traditional taxi in­dustry and the emerging ride-hailing services within the province. In a rapidly evolving transportation landscape, the B.C. Taxi Association recognized the need for regulatory adjustments that promote fair competition, passenger safety and the sustainability of the taxi industry. The impact of COVID-19 and the subsequent introduction of ride-hailing without a fair, level playing field has negatively impacted the daily livelihood and the investment.

The following recommendations are requested and suggested to create a fair and level playing field for the taxi industry in British Columbia to ensure that the general public at large throughout the province has a safe, dependable, responsible and accountable taxi service available to meet their transportation needs, serving the customers in this fashion: “We serve one; we serve all. There’s no discrimination; there is no distinction.”

In conclusion, I would say it is requested that to provide a fair and level playing field for taxis and ride-hailing, the following need serious attention for legislative changes.

The requirement for class 4 lessons must be continued. It is imperative that class 4 driver lessons must be there for commercial vehicles, like taxis and ride-hailing; this enhances customer safety. ICBC has issued 17,445 new class 4 licences from September 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023.

Limiting the fleet size and operating area for ride-hailing should align with the taxi industry. It will also be instrumental in a reduction of congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Passenger Transportation Board made it mandatory in 2007 that any new taxi licences and their replacements have to be environment-friendly vehicles in the Lower Mainland and the CRD, except for accessible vehicles, because there was no accessible vehicle available at that time which could have met those requirements. That’s why that exemption was given for the accessible vehicles.

It was quite expensive to comply with those rules at that time, but we understood that it was essential for the taxi industry to play their role in the reduction of greenhouse emissions. Many other taxi companies gradually bought those vehicles in the province. Small companies, medium companies that couldn’t afford them — still bought those vehicles to ensure the greenhouse gas emissions were decreased.

Justice Institute driver re-training for taxi and ride-hailing drivers should be mandatory. TaxiHost 1 and 2 were compulsory for any persons who chose the taxi industry as a profession in Metro Vancouver or Lower Mainland, to qualify for those courses at the Justice Institute of B.C., which helped them to have the basic knowledge and qualification for a career. I personally attended those courses; I didn’t need to. I never intended to have a job in the Lower Mainland, but I still wanted to see those courses and also their value and importance.

Non-operating companies — I’m talking about ride-hailing — should be held accountable for their inactivity. Those TNC licensees have the capability to operate at their convenience and not for the benefit of the convenience of the customers. Safety cameras should be mandatory. For around 75 per cent of the taxis in B.C., the safety cameras are mandatory.

[8:50 a.m.]

The association played a crucial role for safety cameras in the Lower Mainland and is fully responsible for the safety cameras in the CRD and Fraser Valley, besides playing its role in PG Taxi and Town Taxi, Williams Lake.

The average price of those safety cameras is approximately $1,300, if they are available now — whereas, you will note, the ride-hailing companies are ignoring the privacy act and using unauthorized cameras. It is beyond anybody’s thinking how they’ve been allowed so far, publicly stating the fact, to be are operating those cameras.

Maybe those cameras are $100 or $150. We would love to do that, but we had fought for almost four years with the Privacy Commissioner till one of the drivers was shot dead in Surrey, which forced them to allow us to put the safety cameras in, in the Lower Mainland. This was started in 2004, completed in 2005, upgraded in 2009, and is going on.

Then we are going to go on to the harmonizing of our work regulations and national safety code to align with the taxi industry. It’s a fact that in a normal fashion, a cab driver may be actively engaged from four to 4½ hours in his 12-hour shift; the rest is a waiting period. Cab drivers sit at the airport for a long time. The same goes for the ferries, especially in winter, when they come every two hours, and other stands.

For the taxis, it is log in and log out, though you may take about 40 to 50 minutes to get into the line at YVR to pick up a fare. Ride-hailing got a special deal, as I have mentioned in my written submission of September 25, 2019. Their time is counted: when they pick up a fare, they drop a fare.

There’s no way on this earth that anybody can judge how much they have worked, and there will ever be a problem with the hours of work. There’s no way on this earth the taxi companies at large have faced that problem — hours of work — because you simply can’t switch off at your will. If you’ve got a fare, you have to complete it. When there’s the audit, you’re docked.

For gig workers, security and benefits should be priorities. Taxi and ride-hailing drivers are doing the same type of job or work, picking up a fare from point A to point B, and charging money. Yet they are classified differently as “partners.” What a fancy title. It is amazing how far and for how long some entities or companies can get away. At the same token, what justifies overlooking this so far?

Ride-hailing does not provide service to people with disabilities requiring accessible vehicles. It is common knowledge and a fact that providing accessible vehicles is very costly. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that nobody can be or should be discriminated against for any reason. Yet ride-hailing companies do not have a mandatory condition to have a certain percentage of accessible vehicles. It is simply cherry-picking, and it must stop.

It is a matter of fact that the ride-hailing companies are not obliged to accept any rides that might be for accessible needs of a regular customer or of an urgent or emergency nature. This creates a major disadvantage for the general public that depends on a reliable taxi service, especially in the small communities.

Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that the taxi companies in Fort St. John and Williams Lake are providing heavily subsidized accessible service to their communities, despite having an average of only one to 1.5 trips per day. Maybe it is even down from that. This reflects heavily on the commitment of the taxi companies towards their communities.

[8:55 a.m.]

It is also requested that the lease system of the taxi driv­ers should be legally allowed. It is a fact that more than an absolute majority of past and current owners were lease drivers who made deals or agreements with the owners of the taxi company, thus converting their lease money into payment and thus creating their ownership over time. The association tried in-person meetings, correspondence, with very little achieved. The income of our drivers is calculated on a monthly basis, where previously, it was counted on a day-to-day basis.

We would also emphasize the fact that the introduction of ride-hailing in areas with smaller populations would be detrimental to the taxi companies and to the communities they serve. The PT Board has divided the whole province into five zones for the ride-hailing companies. The impact of the ride-hailing company is going to be different in different localities.

I had met Mr. Michael van Hemmen, manager of Uber Technology, on December 4, 2017, at the New Mobility Forum workshop conducted by TransLink. For clarification, I asked him what the population base is where it is financially viable for Uber to operate. Mr. van Hemmen stated three places: Metro Vancouver, the Victoria region and Kelowna. He also stated that they work in a dense population. This was also stated in my submission to the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations on January 8, 2018.

The continuation of ride-hailing under current rules and regulations would lead to discontinuation of the taxi companies in small towns. It is for the public interest, public safety and public convenience that a financially viable taxi service is a must for the province, especially in small communities. The taxi industry is not simply there for the convenience of the community, but it is also the right of every community to have a safe, dependable transportation service available to them.

Respectfully submitted. I beat the clock by 17 seconds.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Kang, for your presentation.

I’d like to open it to committee members for questions and comments.

J. Sturdy: If you don’t mind, could you explain the issue of the leases to me? I don’t understand what’s prohibited and what’s allowed.

M. Kang: A lease is a certain amount which a cab driver used to give to the owner. In view of that, he gets a vehicle dispatch business, and he also paid his gas money with that one. This has been prevalent in the taxi industry since a long, long time. I’ve been there for 45 years. I was one of those that did that, maybe more than 40 years back.

What it does….

J. Sturdy: Sorry, but is it not allowed now?

M. Kang: Legally, it is not counted, because the minimum wage has been imposed on the taxi industry from day one. We can put on a piece of paper and say that we got the lease system. It means nothing when you see that the minimum wage is going to $16.75. The driver has to make money.

After COVID-19, business has gone down, especially at nighttime, and it is not the same. The companies, the drivers, tried something new: “Okay, we’ll go to the ride-hailing.” They tried. It doesn’t work, because they have to spend everything from their own pocket. Then from their earnings, they take the 20 percent or 25 percent that goes to the ride-hailing company and say, “Sir, have it.” Pardon my wording, but that is slavery.

Why should somebody be getting rich on my earnings, my hard work, my honest work and my investment? In the taxi industry, that is not the case.

[9:00 a.m.]

J. Sturdy: I still don’t understand, necessarily. I think perhaps I do. The situation is currently that your cab cannot be leased and then operated by that lessee without being subject to minimum wages.

M. Kang: No, it is my understanding that you can lease a cab, but at the end of the day, if a driver complains, then the lease is nowhere.

You must have read…. Last year I was involved in that in Prince George. It was in the papers. The guy complained, and he got more than $19,000 plus — the driver, although he was working there for three years and he just countered for one year. I have been involved with a number of cases in the Lower Mainland and other places where it has happened.

J. Routledge: I’m looking at your written presentation. In your written presentation and your presentation here, you make comparisons between ride-hailing and taxi.

If you wouldn’t mind, I’d be very interested in knowing, just kind of in a nutshell: what do you see as the fundamental difference between what it’s like to be a taxi driver, what it’s like to be a ride-hail driver and what needs to change?

M. Kang: I’ll answer half. I’ll let Tag answer for small places.

The difference is that in taxis, the drivers do not spend a penny from their pocket. Every shift, when they start, we call it the pre-inspection. They have a look at this thing. They feel the taxi is not safe. They’ll simply tell the company or the owner: “I can’t take this cab. Give me some other cab which is safe.” All those expenses means…. Till that thing is rectified by the owner of the company, that vehicle will stay off the road.

In the case of ride-hailing, the owners, the real owners of what we call the ride-hailing company, have no responsibility. The gentleman who’s a driver — it does not matter if he’s called partner or he’s called by some other name. He does everything. He gets his own vehicle repairs, his own gas, his own depreciation.

By the end of the day, if you see, he’s taking a headache by going to the ride-hailing because he thinks that maybe he’s more free. Freedom has become sort of an idea that has been sold nicely by the ride-hail companies.

I believe, not because I’ve got a biased mind but from my experience, that the taxi industry is much better, and they’ve proven it to be better. They’re here. They pay their taxi here. When we look at the ride-hailing company, where does their own 20 percent go? Does it go for the hundreds of thousands, the $1 million, which the government, being the taxpayers’ money, has spent on the infrastructure? No.

They use that infrastructure. They take that money, flies over the border. We, meaning the association, did write to Ottawa, actually the GST part, but I’m not sure if they’re paying any income tax on the 20 percent or so. I’m not sure. I could be…. You know, if somebody says I’m wrong, they have to prove that I’m wrong.

T. Gill: I would just comment that in a smaller community, ride-hailing has a much bigger impact on the taxi industry, the reason being that distances within small communities are so small.

Many of these small communities are only five minutes across town. So one driver using a ride-hailing app can operate in that whole entire community. When they please, during peak hours, they can operate, whereas the taxi company has trouble counteracting that the same way in a bigger community. You make it a….

Many drivers from Uber say they start from Surrey, but they come to Vancouver. It’s a bit of a challenge for them to dominate a local area the same way they can in a small community like Fort St. John. Even one or two extra drivers on the road disincentivizes people to sign up as a taxi driver because they’ll make less money. A 30 percent hit to your earnings will force you to stop being a taxi driver altogether.

[9:05 a.m.]

We’ve already had a ride-sharing company enter the market, two weeks ago, and the impact has been worse than COVID, overnight. That’s what it will do to small communities. And this is not something that’s going to go away, like COVID did. It’s something that will stay for a long time.

The financial viability of our company is in jeopardy because a ride-hailing company has entered the market, and they can leave tomorrow. There’s going to be no obligation for them to stay. There’s going to be no public outcry, saying that there needs to be service at certain hours, whereas the taxi company has all those obligations to the public and in the public’s mind. I would just say that small communities will be impacted greatly if ride-sharing companies enter those markets.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, first of all, thank you for your presentation.

Your record as…. You’ve been there — what? — 20, 25 terms. I can tell you that many politicians and elected officials would like to have that kind of record of 25 terms.

I’m really interested in the issue of driver training, and you recommend that the training be mandatory from the Justice Institute. What exists today? You mentioned TaxiHost 1 and 2 were compulsory. So are there any requirements today? If so, what are they?

M. Kang: To my understanding, there is no requirement now. When the new legislation was brought in, it was brought in a hurry, because they simply wanted the ride-hailing. We didn’t try to see the mistake they have done at the other parts. Also, what will be suitable for B.C.? We didn’t think that way.

If we had thought that way, the training was a good idea, because whatever was produced here is that…. Drivers are the first ambassador for the tourism. Tourism is the biggest thing for any government anywhere in the world. Putting a new guy there who has no training or idea at all, it is not always that he can do the right things. So I think the training was a very good idea, because the majority of the taxis are based in Metro Vancouver.

All these things started from Metro Vancouver or the Lower Mainland. But then, when we’re talking as a whole, one size doesn’t fit all. Same thing when they did the area from Whistler right up to Hope, it doesn’t make sense. Like, how many companies are working in that area? And the ride-hailing can go right through. Nobody thought about it.

I believe that this committee has the historical duty or authority to recommend those changes. If you don’t, then you are keeping the province somewhere it shouldn’t be.

I’m not saying it because I’m biased. When the Liberals came, they had 77 seats, and there were only two seats with the NDP. I sat in that Legislative gallery every day. I attended about more than 95 percent, sitting there, because it was new to us. We had to protect ourselves. I think they did a great job at that time.

My job is not simply to say: “No, no, don’t do this.” No. You’ve got a bigger duty to do. But at this conjecture…. It is very important, whatever changes you recommend, to make sure that in every part of B.C., small communities, mom-and-pop operations, thousands of families which are connected with the taxi industry, don’t lose their livelihood.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Just one other question. I just wanted to ask about the issue of safety cameras.

You have been a significant advocate for safety cameras. Is the issue that there isn’t a set of standards about what camera you can use? Taxis, for example, are using a certain type of camera that you suggest is $1,300. So are you suggesting that there should be a standard camera that is involved, that is used in vehicles no matter whether they’re ride-hailing or taxis?

[9:10 a.m.]

M. Kang: That’s correct. The safety cameras…. There are certain rules and regulations how that camera can be used. Nobody — no driver or his friend or anybody — can touch the images. They are protected by the Privacy Act. In the case of ride-hailing, they can do whatever they want to play with those images, and they have the gall to play it openly, publicly, and say: “Hey, we are using the cameras.” They’re not scared. They’re breaking all the rules.

What I’m saying is the cameras should be with those rules of the…. Also, because the expense which has oc­curred is for the public safety, there has to be some sort of surcharge when they are changed or replaced. If you ask a cab driver tomorrow to spend $1,300, he has to. That’s his living. Where is he going to bring that $1,300? But if I have to go and buy, from London Drugs, a camera for $100, I won’t think even. I’ll say that’s fine. Big deal, right?

That’s the difference. They are regulated. The police make sure. The PT Board makes sure that they adhere to the privacy rules.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, I’m going to get one more question in here on the record, and I want to thank you, Mr. Kang and Mr. Gill, for your presentation.

My question has to do with…. I hear clearly, and it’s also outlined in terms of your written presentation, the recommendation…. Mr. Gill, is that Fort St. John you’re talking about? I hear about the impact in small areas.

The question I’m interested in is your recommendation around.… I hear about the standardizing in terms of regulations and different aspects. That seems clear.

Also, with respect to limiting the fleet size and operating area for ride-hailing to align with the taxi industry: can you just talk a little bit more about that in terms of your recommendation? I know there are limits on numbers in terms of taxis. Just what are your thoughts on that?

M. Kang: Absolutely. When I was saying about the rules…. It doesn’t make sense if I live in Surrey…. I go to the airport because I’m an airport car, a YVR car. I will go there in the bead. It takes me 45 minutes or something. If more traffic, it would take an hour or so. My time is counted as an hour of work, and that hour of work, I’m not doing anything. I’m not picking up anything. Till I go back home, after gassing up, that is my time. It’s counted.

If I’m dropping downtown and going back to YVR, it takes half an hour, 35 minutes or whatever. That time is counted. If I’m sitting at the ferry or in the bead for the next fare, that time is counted.

Why is that time not counted for ride-hailing? If they have changed the national safety code rules, they should change them for taxis also and take out those times when they’re not doing anything.

Anybody in the taxi industry will tell you that in a normal fashion, probably they work from four hours to 4½ hours. That is for the time of hours of work.

Now coming back to the area. They have been given so vast an area here. It is counterproductive. Let’s say from Whistler, they go to Hope. That’s one area they’re counting in one job. That guy, after dropping, is on the road creating congestion, creating green gas emissions and doing nothing, when there will be probably 29 or three dozen taxi companies or so in that area.

[9:15 a.m.]

I’m just giving a figure. I can give you the exact figure: say, 29 here, two in Squamish, four in Whistler, one in Pemberton, seven in the Fraser Valley. So when you count altogether, they have the same area they’re serving. It is not fair. It is not fair at all.

It also impacts both the livelihood of the taxi driver as well as the investment. It has gone right down. At the end of the day, we are doing the same thing they’ve been saying publicly. Maybe it was propaganda saying the taxi industry has a monopoly. We didn’t have the monopoly, but now we are creating a monopoly. A bigger company with big, deep pockets is going to not hurt the taxi industry. They’re going to run out all other ride-hailing companies.

There were 25 plus one granted. And now out of 19, 11 are not working. Eight are working full-time, full area or partially. What happened to the others? Gradually, they are going to go, because you can’t compete with a rich person. You can’t compete with a person who doesn’t care.

They can talk about $100 million. Ask a cab company or their management: “Hey, can you afford $500 a car because we have to do this?” And everybody will be up and: “Are you crazy? Where the hell is the money going to come from? Does it grow on trees?”

So the difference is the fairness will come, impartiality will come when you’re looking in those causes, when you give your recommendations.

M. Elmore (Chair): That’s it for time for the presentation. I want to thank you very much for taking the time to join us today.

M. Kang: Thank you kindly.

M. Elmore (Chair): We invite next the Vancouver Taxi Association, Carolyn Bauer.

All right. Welcome.

VANCOUVER TAXI ASSOCIATION

C. Bauer: Good morning, hon. Members. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak this morning on the Vancouver Taxi Association’s concerns.

I submitted a report. I’m not going to gloss over the damage or the harm that ride-share has done to the taxi industry. You’ve received many reports on that by specialists. We’re going to skip to some of the comparisons that I have noticed and that the operators in Vancouver have noticed and where we are struggling.

One of the concerns we struggle with is the criminal background checks, and that was included in your report. The requirements of the criminal background checks are consistent and required for both taxi and TNS. We need to find a solution, though, in some issues that we are faced with.

Some of our operators have similar names. Those names have to be sent back to Ottawa and tested, and it can take up to three or four months to get the results back. And 99 percent of the time, there’s nothing wrong with this operator. He’s been driving for the last 30 years.

We have no recourse to go in and offer any kind of a permit that will allow for a temporary solution while these fellows are waiting for the results to come back. That does hinder their ability to earn a living. So we need to look at a process where we can have that. We need to streamline efficient processes for the permits that are issued.

Prior to taxi modernization, taxis received their chauffeur permit through the municipal police or the Vancouver police. They went through any of the issues that the taxi drivers had and issued the permits in Vancouver for a two-year period, and in Burnaby, they issued the permits for a three-year period.

We have been legislated to a one-year permit. Can you imagine a fellow that has had this problem with his name? He’s been cut off from driving for three or four months while Ottawa returns it. We do not have the ability to issue him the right to drive.

[9:20 a.m.]

He’s done absolutely nothing wrong. We know that, yet we can’t put him back to work.

Our ask in this section is…. I’ll just skip through it. I put the record checklist for you to review, and we can go through that after. I really want to touch on the points that are important to the taxi industry.

Our ask in this section is to offer, or allow to offer, a temporary operating permit, known as the RCC, record criminal check, and to make that renewal of the permit either two or three years. The expense to the operator, whether it’s a third-party background check they use or the Vancouver police or another municipal police force, is approximately $100. Once they start…. They have to start the process over again, and it’s a hardship on these operators.

In the record criminal background check, it does speak to pending charges. Any charges that are pending…. You cannot issue a record check whatsoever.

There is a review process with the passenger transportation branch. You can go under that review, and you can say: “I want to know why I can’t have this.”

A lot of the charges are quite incidental charges. Every charge is important, and every charge is there for a reason. But we need to have an avenue where you can look at these charges.

In speaking with the Vancouver police prior to taxi modernization, if a fellow had a charge on him…. Perhaps he and his buddy got into a fight when they were drinking, and one of them charged the other. The police would say: “You know what? We’re going to allow you to still drive, and we’re going to watch your permit.”

This is something that we need to look at. There need to be avenues there. A person is innocent until they’re proven guilty. Right now we’ve said: “You’re guilty, and you’re not driving.” Due to our court system, we may not have that operator in court for two years. We’ve had that situation, where the operator was found not guilty, and he was not able to drive for two years.

Those are some of the suggestions on that portion of it.

We applaud the government for keeping the class 4 licence. It is so important for the safety of the passengers and the safety of the public out there that these people are trained properly. They understand all of the operating policies and procedures and what to do in the event of an accident. We just applaud the government. Please maintain that class 4 licence for us.

Now we’re going to go into a different kind of a topic here. That is the taxi app.

The taxi app, prior to taxi modernization, whether it was a prepaid app or whether it was just an application process where you could order a taxi, similar to ride-share, was…. We were using it. All taxi companies were using this.

Some companies moved ahead. They put in a prepaid app prior to taxi modernization. Along comes taxi modernization, and prepaid apps are not allowed to be used in taxi companies unless they go and apply to become a TNS.

In a few companies, they’ve had to go and apply to be a TNS, which is an exorbitant cost. Not only does that company pay $5,000 for a taxi licence, but it also pays $5,000 for a TNS licence. It also has to do double the reporting. Not only that. Now that this taxi, which had a prepaid app prior to legislation changes…. Now that they have to become a TNS, they also have to pay that 90 cents per trip to the government to go into the PTAP program.

It’s just such a cost…. It just makes no sense to me. I’ve been speaking on this for years, since taxi modernization began.

Our ask is…. We believe it was previously overlooked by government. Legislation needs to be changed to allow taxis to be exempt from this and not to become a TNS. Maybe make it specific. If a vehicle is used as a taxi, with a meter and a top light and a taxi licence, and holds a taxi licence, then they should be exempt from having to apply for a TNS and having to pay these exorbitant costs.

[9:25 a.m.]

I want to tell you. Yellow Cab has had a prepaid app, and Yellow Cab had to become a TNS. To date, we have paid $298,967.50 — since 2020, since taxi modernization changed — just to keep our customer base that we had prior to taxi modernization.

Moving on, TNS transparency is another issue and concern that we have. Prior to ordering a…. When a person uses a TNS…. They’ll get on their app. They’ll push it. They’ll see the price. The price may say $36 to go to the airport. What fails there is….

There’s no transparency for the consumer. I gave a copy of this in the report. The consumer does not see the booking fee. The consumer does not see the YVR charges. It does not see the B.C. licence recovery. It does not see the municipal licence recovery surcharge. All add up to $57.42.

I believe the TNS needs to be more transparent with their consumers, especially in light…. They do get that $5 cancellation fee if someone cancels a trip. People are really stuck and holding there saying: “I’ve got to get into my ride-share car. I don’t want to absorb that $5.” I believe that when a trip app is booked, it should actually show everything — what the costs are and what is associated with this.

In just reverting…. You’ll see on that receipt that the ride-share company does recover the 90 cents per trip. Yellow Cab and other taxi companies that have prepaid app trips cannot do that. The reason we cannot do that is…. When a customer looks at us, they look at us as a taxi, and our meter goes on even for the app trip.

Onto ICBC insurance. The TNS product and taxi pro­duct are quite similar: “app is online,” “app is offline,” “trip is accepted,” and “you’re on a trip.” What ICBC left out of the picture when they made the presentation was the difference in zone pricing. For taxi zone 1, for a taxi we pay 0.127 from the time we accept the trip to the time we drop off the trip, whereas the TNS pays 0.0944.

I’ve given you a copy of what they are. I’ve shown you a brief summary on that report, which outlines the difference in the kilometres being charged there.

That’s a 35 percent difference between a taxi and a TNS under the same company. We’re travelling the same roads. We’re on the road for the same amount of time. I can assure you that 95 percent of those Uber drivers or Lyft drivers or ride-hail drivers were taxi drivers, and they’re driving the same amount of time.

The other one is that when a driver…. When ICBC spoke about their accident ratio and what was going on and how many accidents were in a TNS…. What they failed to realize is that when an accident happens in a ride-share or in a taxi…. Those operators must report and file some sort of claim for taxis. In that case….

Our accident report was attached as a sample. The driver has to put down purpose of trip, driver not working, driver is working with no confirmed fare, driver has accepted a fare, driver is enroute with a vehicle with a fare in the taxi. There’s no documentation or no data or anything to support when any vehicle is getting into an accident, just that there is an accident.

I think it would be imperative for everybody to understand…. How many people or how many ride-shares or how many taxis are on the road? Were they working at the time? Were they not working at the time? Were they on board with a fare?

It all comes down to the data and the data reporting and what you’re seeing. It’s pretty easy to gloss over and make a picture look pretty. But without the actual numbers in front of you, it’s very difficult.

Moving fast. This time goes so fast.

The unique vehicle counts from MOT, as of July 2023, state that taxi has a unique vehicle count of 2,924, and TNS has 11,333.

[9:30 a.m.]

The travelling public considers taxi to be 7-24. That’s not the case. Since taxi modernization, many of these vehicles have been allowed to split, meaning we now have a taxi 1A and a taxi 1B using two different vehicles. Those vehicles then take their vehicles home.

Taxi 1A is a day driver. Taxi 1B is a night driver. Those vehicles then go home with the person that’s driven them, and the other vehicle comes back on the road. The B would come back on the road. In a lot of instances, there are no B cars, because there are no drivers to put these B cars on the road. So the operators pick and choose which shift that they are comfortable with, whether it’s day shift or night shift.

What this comes down to is that we need more transparency on hours worked. My esteemed colleagues spoke on that as well. Hours worked is very important. So if you understand that, if you go on a true picture from Yellow Cab, you would come to me and say, “Carolyn, I’d like you to identify how many shifts, 12-hour shifts, you had operating at that time,” rather than unique vehicles. The unique vehicles count does not give you an accurate or a true picture.

Moving fast, one minute and 52 seconds, data reporting. In reading this data reporting, it amazes me. We have 28 percent compliant in the province of B.C. We have 50 percent compliant in the greater Vancouver area. It does not surprise me at all. It’s too complicated.

We piloted the project at Yellow Cab, when the system was started, and it was too complicated. No one can just all of a sudden pull these reports and upload them the way they want them uploaded. So most companies have had to go to a third party. Those larger companies have no problems going to the third party because they can afford it, although they put the cost back on the owner operators. The smaller companies can’t afford this, so they’re not going to be in compliance.

Now, not only do we upload data for our passenger transportation warehouse, but we also have to upload data for ICBC, and that has to be done on a per-kilometre basis. So every time your car pings, you have to capture that data, where it moves, so you can get accurate kilometres on this. For Yellow Cab, we’re paying approximately $2,300 a month just for the ICBC data.

Our ask is that we need to review how the data is being collected. We need to examine. We need to understand better. Otherwise, all you’re doing is putting money down, and it’s not working. If you look at Calgary — I did attach Calgary, the vehicle for hire report for you — this report has been ongoing in Calgary for the last five years.

Down to the…. My colleagues are going to have to pick up, because I’m definitely going to run out of time. But I did give you the report.

The cameras, I also applaud. The camera program is under review right now; howsomever, the cost to the operators is not acceptable. We need some help in funding this. It’s $1,400 to install this. I understand the board has started their review, so I’m hopeful.

One last thing, and that is — I mean, I’ve got lots more — congestion. The congestion is going crazy. My esteemed colleagues will take over from where I cannot finish. Hopefully, we get it all in for you.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. Terrific. Thank you for your presentation. We’ve got your materials as well.

C. Bauer: Perfect. Thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): So that helps.

I would like to open it up now to committee members for questions.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for your presentation.

I’m interested in the data reporting because, in fact, that was brought to our attention when Passenger Transportation was here, the lack of compliance. I asked questions about that, I think, at the time or at least made notes about it.

It’s that the complexity is part of the reason that there is lack of compliance. So your suggestion is that we should look at how that data is being collected and how we make it less complicated, in order to have a higher participation rate. Is that it in a nutshell?

C. Bauer: That is it in a nutshell.

All companies, or most companies, other than the smaller Interior ones, in the GVRD have the digital dispatch, some company. They do have the ability to run the reports.

What we need to do is we need to find the uniqueness from each company — whether it’s the latitude or the longitude, the destination, the pickup, the drop-off, the fare — and be able to upload that information by ourselves, rather than having to have a third company do this, because the costs, just for that data, are so expensive. Smaller companies, they will never be in compliance. We spend a lot.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): The shape and the way…. What is required and how it’s required — is that determined by the PTB?

[9:35 a.m.]

C. Bauer: Yes, it is.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So, in other words, they could look at this. I mean, they certainly report on lack of compliance. They could actually look at this and say: “How can we do this differently to actually incentivize people providing the detail?” Is that what you’re saying?

C. Bauer: That’s what I’m saying, yes.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. Well, that’s important, because we do need to have another conversation with PTB. I think we’d already had that discussion.

And just quickly, Chair….

You noted that the taxi camera program is currently under review. Can you just tell me a bit about that review?

C. Bauer: You bet. The Passenger Transportation Board sent out an email request for a survey to be done on the current taxi cameras. It is ongoing now, and it’s just begun. So we will all have input in that. All companies will have input in that. I hope that it goes forward.

The camera program is for rear-facing cameras only, at a cost of $1,400 to the operators to have it installed. We are not legally allowed to have forward-facing cameras, which is something that’s very important to us. With technology, I mean, costs are not that expensive. It’s what the requirement is that police want as well, when they are accessing the video in order to have charges laid or in order to use for any kind of criminal check that they’re working on.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So you would support, then, the discussion we had earlier about some sort of standard that looks at the cameras that levels the playing field as well.

C. Bauer: Absolutely. The cameras for rear-facing need to be in ride-share as well, or ride-hail. They have to be.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Yeah, which is the point that was made earlier.

C. Bauer: Yeah. That’s right.

We’re good? Perfect. Thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Sorry, just to…. Thank you. I know it’s…. In terms of identifying the themes, I appreciate that.

If you could just, in terms of the…. It’s laid out well in your presentation, but just explain the app situation and the temporary app and how that impacts taxi. If you could just go over that again, please.

C. Bauer: Currently, taxi cannot operate using a prepaid app, but it’s called taxi modernization. The only way that it can operate using a prepaid app is if it becomes a TNS.

You have to make an application, as Yellow Cab did, to the Passenger Transportation Board. You have to become a TNS. You have to pay $5,000. You then have to pay 90 cents per trip. You then have to report driver earnings every three months, which is an additional $1,500. The expense is astronomical to Yellow. And everything has to be reported as a TNS.

Yet we’re taxi. We had that app prior to taxi modernization. And I think I’ve spoken on this till I’m blue in the face, saying this is so unfair. Everybody thinks that taxi needs to modernize and taxi needs to change. But when we get there, we’re told we can’t do it, we can’t use it, not unless we now have a new company.

As I said, just on TNS trips, just on paying the government the 90 cents — or before, prior to, it was 30 cents — Yellow Cab has spent $297,000. It’s gone into the pool. Now imagine this: this $297,000 has gone into the pool for app trips that we had prior to. But that money now goes into a fund to support accessible vehicles, of which we have 54 of them. We’re charging our accessible drivers 90 cents per trip for app.

The meter goes on when the customer gets in the taxi, regardless if it’s prepaid or not. The meter still goes on. It just is so unfair.

I understand legislation is written the way it is. But we need legislation changed on this to perhaps say if a taxi is operating and using a prepaid app, and they have a top light and so on and so forth, then they should be exempt from having to have a TNS licence and to go through this.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, thanks. That’s helpful. Are there other companies that are…?

C. Bauer: Yeah, there are a few. But there are many that have not moved into this future because they can’t afford it, and they are being blocked. So they’re losing business to ride-share because a lot of people want their trips simplified.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Yeah, that helps.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Can I sneak in one more?

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, Shirley. Go ahead.

[9:40 a.m.]

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I want to…. I’m very interested in the….

You showed us the receipt here. So what you’re saying is that when a person goes to book using a ride-hailing app, they are told: “Here’s the amount that your ride is going to cost.” But then when they get the charge, there’s a whole bunch of other things that are added on. So the person goes, “Oh, that’s great. It’s $36,” and then when they get the bill, it’s $57.42 because they add all of the other things on top.

What you would like to see is that here’s the basic fare, but all these other things will be added on with a more accurate total. Is that what you’re saying?

C. Bauer: Absolutely. I can tell you on this one…. I know the person that took this trip, obviously, and had they known that it was $57 for the trip from this area out to YVR….

They were only flying overnight. They would have parked their vehicle at the airport and paid the $30 to park there rather than spending the $57, because they had to come back from the airport using a…. But at $36, they thought with gas, everything else….

It needs to be transparent to the consumer. It allows consumers to make a choice, because right now the hindrance is that you never know when Uber or ride-share is going to surge. If they surge, you’re really not going to know how much they’re surging or what they’re surging, what their component surge is going to be. Is it going to be your booking fee that goes up rather than just the price of what the trip is? You have to have transparency to the consumers.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you. That was…. I’ll follow up, because we’ve got some time here. So that example — is that mainly applied to airport trips because there are more fees, or how does that relate to other trips?

C. Bauer: No. That’s all trips.

M. Elmore (Chair): All trips. So the fee that comes in on the app, $36 — it’s not uncommon, when it’s processed, to actually cost more.

C. Bauer: Absolutely. Well, you’re going to be charged the 90 cents as well. Because that’s….

M. Elmore (Chair): That’s not on the….

C. Bauer: That won’t be on what your estimate is for your ride. You will get charged that. That would be on your receipt after, the 90 cents, and the municipal fees.

M. Elmore (Chair): So the amount…. They book it, right? It’s $36. They book that, so that’s what they pay, but there are additional fees on top of that.

C. Bauer: Absolutely.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, Thank you very much.

All right. Whenever you’re ready to go, Mr. Sahota.

YELLOW CAB

K. Sahota: Okay. Good morning. My name is Kulwant Sahota, and I’m the president of Yellow Cab. I have worked in the taxi industry for over 30 years. As the president of Yellow Cab, it’s worth mentioning that I personally drive a taxi. This unique arrangement showcases my dedication and firsthand experience within the taxi industry.

In British Columbia, taxis operate similarly to a co-op model where they charge a dispatch fee to cover wages for dispatch, admin fee, office and building expenses. The taxi companies aim to make marginal profits as the drivers who work for these companies, including myself, are either owners or shareholders. This cooperative structure ensures that both the companies and the drivers have a vested interest in the success of the business. I hope this clarifies how most taxis operate in B.C.

In regard to the app, the taxi industry has experienced significant changes and regulatory impacts over the years. In 2012, Vancouver taxi companies introduced a prepaid app called eCab app. However, due to technological advancements and customer dissatisfaction, the app did not gain much popularity. As a result, taxi companies have evolved and introduced their own apps, with some offering prepaid options to meet the changing demands of customers.

[9:45 a.m.]

Yellow Cab is one such company that had embraced the prepaid app. However, in order to continue using its existing prepaid app, Yellow Cab had to become a transportation service, TNS, instead of shutting down the app. This transition has caused significant expenses and challenges for Yellow Cab.

Yellow Cab had a customer base of over 8,000 using their prepaid app. Becoming a TNS meant additional costs, including paying $298,967.50 to use the app on a per-trip basis. Yellow Cab also had to obtain a $5,000 licence and engage in double reporting monthly, which is both time-consuming and costly.

It is important to note that Yellow Cab operates a fleet of 54 accessible vehicles, which will receive funding through the passenger transportation accessibility program. The funds paid by Yellow Cab for using their app contribute to a portion of the funding through the program. In the past, Yellow Cab was able to reduce dispatch fees for accessible vehicles to compensate for their expenses, but they no longer can afford to do so.

The taxi industry is continuously adapting to the changing landscape. Finding a balance that addresses the concerns of both taxi companies and consumers is crucial. The current legislation overlooks the exemption of vehicles from being categorized as TNS if they use a taxi meter radio and hold a taxi licence. It is necessary for the government to revise the legislation to allow for such exemptions.

In regards to ICBC, regarding the distance-based insurance premium, as Carolyn mentioned earlier, the taxi per-kilometre rate is 35 percent higher in Greater Vancouver than what TNS currently pays. This is unfair, considering that most TNS operators are operating their vehicles on a full-time basis, just like Yellow Cab. It’s important to address this disparity and ensure a more equitable solution.

Karan also mentioned that Yellow Cab disagrees with insurance being charged for the C kilometres driven while en route to pick up a passenger. Yellow Cab believes that insurance under the per-kilometre basis should only be charged while the operator has picked up the passenger and has dropped them off. This is a valid concern, as there may be instances where a passenger doesn’t show up, and the operator doesn’t receive any compensation for the kilometres driven.

Additionally, the accessible vehicles sometimes have to travel long distances across town to pick up passengers. But due to traffic concessions or cancelled appointments, they may not be able to complete the trip. It seems unfair that these accessible operators are still being charged for the kilometres travelled. Similarly, sedan taxis also carry transferable accessible passengers who face similar circumstances. It would be beneficial to consider charging the C kilometres only when the passenger is on board.

Perhaps ICBC could look to increasing the basic monthly premium slightly. This could potentially help offset some of the charges and address the concerns raised by Yellow Cab. It might be worth exploring this option further to find a more balanced solution. It’s essential to ensure fairness and address the specific challenges faced by different operators in the industry.

I just want to give you an example. In Yellow Cab, we pay two rates, basically, with the same company. If we have a regular trip, we’re paying 12.7 cents per kilometre. Being the same taxi, if we get a prepaid trip, which is run through the app, we’re paying 9.44 cents, which is the TNS rate.

We’re doing the same job. The only difference is we have a prepaid app trip, and we have a regular trip. We’re paying 12.7 cents. The calculations for ICBC are done differently. We have two rates. We have two calculations. We’re paying 35 percent more on a regular taxi than a prepaid app trip.

[9:50 a.m.]

Congestion. Traffic congestion these days has caused significant delays and affects the efficiency of transportation services. Just the other day I had picked up a customer from downtown, going to the airport. Traffic was backed up to Templeton Street. I had to drop the passenger off downstairs at arrivals, otherwise the passenger would have been late for his flight.

I also want to point out that for every taxi, there were about six ride-hailing vehicles lined up, waiting to drop off on the departure level. Perhaps this congestion has grown so drastically due to passengers transitioning to ride-hail rather than using public transport.

Transit has posted the following: 38.6 million trips in August 2023, compared to 43.5 million trips in the same month in 2019. The Passenger Transportation Board’s up­coming congestion study in 2024 is a positive step towards finding solutions.

In the meantime, we ask that you explore temporary measures to alleviate the congestion by implementing a cap on the number of ride-share vehicles until the study is complete. This would help strike a balance between the number of ride-share and taxi vehicles on the road. With so much congestion, there has been much more increase in aggression on the roads, and safety must be taken into consideration.

In regards to the background checks, just want to ex­pand on Carolyn — what she was saying. One of the things that…. When a person has to go to the police station, they have to be printed. Now, the date on the application is from the date they applied, so if they get it three months later, they haven’t got a chauffeur’s permit for three months.

We have to basically date it from the date of the applica­tion, even though they haven’t got the clearance, so the driver actually only gets a chauffeur’s permit for nine months. If it takes six months, then they only have it for six months, because the date of application is what the police put on that application when it is approved. It is a year from that date of application that we give the chauffeur’s permit for.

One of the things that could be looked at is maybe having like the police do…. In the old days, it was from the date of birth. So whenever the date of birth comes, they apply, maybe, two months before, and we issue it from the date of birth.

Before we go to taxi cameras, I just want to go to an important point that Carolyn had left out, top lights. Before, top flights used to be part of the rules and regulations that were set by the municipalities. Now the municipalities don’t have that jurisdiction. Now it’s regulated by the province, and they are no longer mandated, basically.

The province of British Columbia currently does not mandate the use of top lights on taxis. However, this report argues that implementing a law requiring top lights on taxis would greatly benefit both customers and law enforcement agencies. This requirement would enable easier identification of available taxis, enhancing convenience for customers and streamlining enforcement efforts.

Improved customer experience. The inclusion of top lights on the taxi enables customers to easily identify available taxis from a distance. This eliminates confusion and reduces the time spent searching for an available taxi, enhancing overall customer satisfaction.

Clear identification of available taxis through top lights helps prevent illegal and unregistered vehicles from masquerading as taxis. This reduces the risk of passengers unknowingly entering unauthorized vehicles and en­hances overall passenger safety.

International precedents in many cities and countries worldwide have already implemented laws mandating the use of top lights on taxis. Examples include New York City, London, Tokyo and Sydney. Drawing from these successful implementations, British Columbia can adopt a similar approach to enhance the taxi service experience.

[9:55 a.m.]

Many TNS vehicles have dark, tinted windows or inadequate lighting, making it difficult for customers to identify them as legitimate service providers. This lack of visibility can lead to confusion and potential safety risks.

Some authorized individuals or unregistered vehicles falsely display TNS signage to attract cash trips illegally. The lack of well-lit and standardized signage makes it easier for these individuals to deceive passengers. Well-lit and easily visible TNS signage would enable passengers to quickly identify authorized vehicles and avoid unregis­tered or fraudulent operators. This reduces the risk of passengers unknowingly entering unauthorized vehicles and improves overall passenger safety.

Regulatory compliance. Stricter requirements for illuminated signage would help law enforcement agencies identify and act against non-compliant TNS operators. This ensures that TNS companies operate within the framework of regulations, promoting fair competition and maintaining industry standards.

A level playing field. By implementing better-lit-signage requirements, both taxis and TNS vehicles can operate under similar identification guidelines. This creates a level playing field for all transportation services providers, reducing confusion among customers and ensuring a fair competition.

Potential solutions: lighting standards. Establishing specific guidelines and standards for TNS and taxi signage lighting, including brightness, placement and visibility, would help ensure consistent and easily identifiable signage across the industry.

Enforcement and penalties: strengthening enforcement efforts and imposing stricter penalties for non-compliant TNS.

I’ve got about a minute, so I’m going to go into driver training, because that did come up before. We have training today. We have about 30 drivers that we’re going to be training.

Yellow Cab has a one-day training course. We train our drivers in regards to the dispatch system: how that works, how to sign on, credit card terminals, how to process payments, rules and regulations of Yellow Cab.

Most important of all, we give training with Ask-Listen-Act. It’s a video that we have with the taxi companies. It was made with the disabilities community. There are different sections. Drivers are shown how to park their taxis near the curb or away from the curb for wheelchair passengers or passengers with walkers, passengers with dogs, passengers with hearing impairment, visually-impaired passengers; how to load passengers into wheelchair-accessible vehicles; how to tie down the wheelchair passengers.

We also have dangerous goods training for transportation of blood and moving of goods.

I’m done, I guess.

M. Elmore (Chair): That’s good. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I would like to open it up for questions from committee members.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): The top light issue. What does it cost to put a top light on a taxi?

K. Sahota: Fifty bucks.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): It would display red, green…?

K. Sahota: Usually, if you are available, it lights up. If you’re engaged, when the meter is on, it automatically turns off. Now we are actually coming out with taxis…. They’re coming out without top lights because it’s not in the legislation, and I think for safety purposes, it’s got to be mandated.

Even with the ride-hail vehicles, you’ll see vehicles…. You’ll have, maybe, a sticker — Uber, Lyft, whatever it is. It’s on the back, on the inside, and it’s a tinted window. You can’t see anything. Or it’s at the top, at the front. Again, you’ve got the tint. You can’t see anything.

If you have a standard for lighting where, from far, you can see, for the passenger, it’s great. You have a vehicle that’s coming. They know it’s a ride-hail vehicle or a taxi coming. I think it’d go a long way for safety.

[10:00 a.m.]

We had a passenger some time ago that was masquerading as a taxi, and the lady actually jumped into one, and there was a sexual assault on that. So it goes a long way.

M. Elmore (Chair): I have a follow up on that.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Sure. Then I have one other, but you go ahead.

M. Elmore (Chair): It’s not mandated, so there are some taxi companies that are not installing them.

K. Sahota: It’s currently… It has started that. I think it’s important to stop that and to mandate it.

M. Elmore (Chair): Then is your…? I understand that in terms of taxis. But with respect to the TNS, is your re­commendation for them to also have an illuminated indication?

K. Sahota: In the window, yeah. A lot of them do have it. Not all of them.

M. Elmore (Chair): Right. So that’s also the recommendation that it should also be identified accordingly.

K. Sahota: Yes.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I want to go back to the app. I find that whole discussion interesting. So I can download the Yellow Cab app today. And the difference is that you are paying two fees in order to be able to allow prepayment. Is that correct? So you have an app and I can go on there and I can book my cab?

K. Sahota: Yes. When we go to the Passenger Transportation Board every year, we get a licence for a taxi, which is $5,000. Then we also have to get a licence for a TNS. I don’t think it was…. When it was actually…. It was overlooked. We have to pay another $5,000 for TNS because we have prepayment in the app.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Because you’re using technology, which actually levels the playing field for taxis and ride-hailing companies. But you are being penalized the $5,000 additionally to, actually, level the playing field.

K. Sahota: Yes. Additionally, we have to pay the 90 cents just like anybody else. But for the very vehicles that we’re trying to compensate, they’re being charged as well. I mean, if it’s a van and it’s a prepaid app, they’ve been charged 90 cents. Well, I guess this is collected for the vans to compensate them so they stay on the road.

So we have been…. It’s expensive for us. We just paid $298,000, and we used to compensate the wheelchair-accessible vehicles so that they would stay on the road.

Now it’s costing us that much, and we can only afford to do so much. We can’t afford to raise our rates. We’re like a co-op. We’re not there to make money. The reason we can compete with these entities is we’re just, basically, taking enough money so that the drivers only pay what their costs are just to operate.

M. Elmore (Chair): I have a follow-up question on the app as well. Why is it that there’s a different fee? You said there’s a 30 percent difference.

K. Sahota: Insurance.

M. Elmore (Chair): Is that the insurance?

K. Sahota: Insurance. We pay 12.7 if I’m doing not a prepaid app trip. If I’m doing a prepaid app trip, then I’m charged 9.4.

M. Elmore (Chair): I understand.

K. Sahota: When we give the kilometres to ICBC, we multiply 12.7 by the kilometres I’ve done on regular trips. Then we do a separate report. When we have the prepaid trips, then we multiply 9.4 cents times the kilometres we have. We pay two rates.

M. Elmore (Chair): Got it.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Just one last thing then. You’ve spoken very…. We’ve heard about Yellow Cab and the app. Do other cab companies feel the same?

K. Sahota: A lot of them, they don’t have the prepaid app so they’re not getting the TNS licence. The ones that do…. I mean regulations, they have to do the same.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): But if there were not that double requirement, would other companies move to the prepaid app is what I’m asking you?

K. Sahota: Absolutely. That is a hindrance. Yes.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

J. Routledge: Yes. First of all, I guess I just want to say that the whole issue of the apps and the role that apps are playing in this industry is something, I think, we need to dig into a lot more deeply.

But specifically you talked about the congestion on the road, and you have suggested that there should be a temporary cap on the number of ride-hail drivers.

K. Sahota: Yes.

J. Routledge: So why temporarily?

K. Sahota: The board is doing a congestion study starting early next year. So a temporary freeze until the study is done and then….

[10:05 a.m.]

J. Routledge: I see. Okay. But there may be other reasons for caps.

K. Sahota: I mean, at the moment, there is a lot of congestion. From what it used it be, what it takes for a driver from downtown to the airport, it used to take maybe 20 minutes. Now it takes 30 minutes and sometimes even longer. So it just depends. I mean, during rush hour, it could take up to an hour or so.

J. Routledge: Partly where I’m coming from…. I know you raise it in the context of congestion, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth or go down a different direction. But I think it’s the…. I’m wondering about the whole issue of how one makes a living.

I would actually like to hear…. I mean, we don’t have to do it here if, you know, in terms of time, but I’d like to hear more about how taxi drivers make a living and hours of work and what’s predictable and what’s anticipated, compared to ride-hail drivers, where it seems it’s very supply-and-demand driven.

K. Sahota: As taxi drivers, our income has gone down quite a bit in regards to ride-hail. We get so many drivers that have gone to ride-share. They’re driving their vehicles and they find out what they earn.

I mean, the kilometres — I can tell you with the kilometres. With the taxi, our meter is standard. We want to keep it as standard. We would do about 100 kilometres to make $200. They’re the opposite. They would do 300 kilometres in order to make $200. The reason is because of the ride-hail companies. They take the majority.

A fare for a taxi from here to the airport would be $35. For the driver that’s going to get paid for ride-hail, they may be charging that, but they are only getting $15. So in order for him to make the $30 or $35, well, guess he’s going to do twice the distance. It works differently.

Where the ride-hailing companies are there to make money for themselves, taxi companies are not. We’re just here to make sure that…. I mean, our dispatch is paid, we have the call-takers and all, and that’s a big cost, too, which they don’t have. We cover that because we have a lot of phone business, taxi savers — all those passengers we have to serve.

M. Elmore (Chair): Any other questions?

J. Sturdy: Just one on that example around the $35 fare to YVR, for example. How much of that does the driver receive?

K. Sahota: All of it.

J. Sturdy: A hundred percent of it.

K. Sahota: A hundred percent all of it. The difference that Mohan was talking about — if it’s an owner, they get all of it. They pay, obviously, the dispatch fees to the company. The cost for the company has to be covered. But otherwise, everything that’s on the meter goes under the driver’s earning.

J. Sturdy: For an owner-operator.

K. Sahota: And lessees. The only difference with the lessees…. Lessees are counted as owner-operators. The only difference is they’re renting the vehicle for a 12-hour shift.

The renting of the vehicle will include the repairs and everything in the taxi. The only thing they pay is the gas, basically. The rental covers anything that’s wrong with the car, everything that’s included, the payment terminals — everything’s included in there. They just pay a specific fee.

Usually you have the daily drivers unless you have an absentee owner. The drivers that drive on a daily basis are basically there to recover their costs. Because if the taxi is parked — you drive six days; on the seventh day, you have a driver on there — you just want to recover your cost for the cost, basically. They don’t make a profit, or not to make a profit or anything.

J. Sturdy: Just for clarity, the model is: you’re either an owner-operator or a lessee. There are no employee drivers.

K. Sahota: No, there are no employees.

M. Elmore (Chair): I have a question about the…. In terms of the recommendation and the background checks, you recommended they be longer, two or three years. We also heard that previously.

K. Sahota: Yes.

M. Elmore (Chair): Then how does that compare with the TNS? Is it also…?

[10:10 a.m.]

K. Sahota: They should be the same too. It’s the same at the moment.

The biggest hindrance that we have is when we go to the police station on the record check. They put the date on when you put the application in. Sometimes we’ve got a person that received their check after six months for some reason, and we have to put it on whatever the date on that application is.

M. Elmore (Chair): Yeah. I understand.

I think you mentioned the number maybe previously. Was this Carolyn? In terms of the number of vehicles, was that 29, 24 taxis and TNS 11,333? I think that was your number. Sorry.

With respect to, and I know you referenced, the issue of the congestion issue…. This gets back to also scope and jurisdiction and that piece around the cap on the number of ride-share vehicles allowed. But I thought, yeah, that was just…. I don’t know if you have more to say on that. I think that’s an issue.

K. Sahota: The vehicles, I mean, the reason it’s not ac­curate is because you could have a vehicle, a taxi. A taxi, like my taxi, is one taxi. It’s 125, but it runs both shifts. You could have 125A and 125B. Well, it’s one taxi, but it’s counted as two. If both are on, I guess you’ve got two different vehicles.

So if ICBC is counting vehicles the A and B is counted as two vehicles, but in essence, it’s one taxi. It could be running as a full taxi, or it could be running as A and B.

That’s why Carolyn mentioned if you count the hours, then you can’t go wrong, because if a taxi has been 24 hours, well, it’s going to get counted as 24. If A is only driving as 12 hours, then it’s driving…. Same with ride-hail vehicles. If it’s whatever numbers, hours they’re driving, that’s what it’s going to be comparative to.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you.

Okay, Janet, we’ll wrap it up here.

J. Routledge: A quick question, I hope. If I understand correctly, taxis, like the cars…. The taxi driver either drives a car that the taxi driver owns or drives a car that the taxi driver leases.

K. Sahota: Yes.

J. Routledge: Are taxi drivers covered by employment standards branch? I think they are.

K. Sahota: Yeah.

J. Routledge: They are?

K. Sahota: Well, we’ve had different views. So the current…. I’m not sure what the new labour laws are and all that.

J. Routledge: But we know they’re covered, and we know that ride-hail drivers aren’t.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, your presentation.

Next we’ll be hearing from Bonny’s Taxi, and we’ve got Emon Bari. Is Emon there?

Oh, terrific. If you want to just give us a minute here.

All right. Okay. Welcome. Go ahead.

BONNY’S TAXI

E. Bari: Thank you, hon. Chair, Deputy Chair and hon. Members, for giving me this opportunity to speak today.

I would like to touch base, everything my colleagues have already explained, and put it on your report.

[10:15 a.m.]

I’ll start with hon. Member Janet’s last comment. Yes, we do like to see a cap on TNS vehicles. The reason for that is to survive the taxi industry. If you look into this number, 12,000 and 3,000, that tells you the story of what’s going on and how, if there’s no cap, then we are going to be gone from the cities.

I’ll try to explain. The big job has been left for me, but I’m the least experienced. I’ve been at Bonny’s Taxi from 2006. This is the only job I have done after school. I’ve driven as a driver, so I have kind of both sides.

Initially when the Passenger Transportation Board and the branch used to issue licences, they were looking into a lot of things: how many licences a taxi company could operate and the kinds of reasons for that — that the drivers are going to make enough money, there are not going to be hundreds of vehicles on the road or if there are enough wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

Every taxi company was mandatory to operate 15 percent of their fleet as accessible vehicles. They used to go through a lot of reports before they even issued five, ten, 20 licences for each company, whereas we see these days that anybody could just bring a car and be a ride-share oper­ator.

That being said, these days taxi companies are facing a lot of things, a lot of cost, which is coming up after the modernization. I’ll try to explain a couple of things here. ICBC insurance, which my colleagues have explained, that C kilometre, which is…. It says that ICBC insurance phase C and no short trips on the per-kilometre-based insurance model.

Currently no-show trips are included in the calculation of insurance cost, resulting in approximately 22 per cent of the total insurance cost. Taxis are charged insurance when a driver accepts a trip — that’s called a C kilometre — until he gets to the point when a passenger sits in the vehicle and then they drop them off.

A lot of the time, I think I would say around 10 percent of this time, when a taxi is called, the passenger is not there — maybe got a different vehicle, maybe got a ride-share, doesn’t need a taxi — but we are still charged for those kilometres. Those C kilometres almost cost 22 percent of our total insurance. Any place or amount. So that’s one thing.

Another thing is when the driver is going for that trip, it costs him ten to 15 minutes to get there, and then there is a no-show. On top of it, he’s paying that kilometre fare on there, whereas the TNS companies have this option of doing a $5 to $10 charge for no-showing to the passenger. But we can’t because if the passenger is not in our vehicle, we can’t turn our meter on. So we’re not getting any money paid.

These no-shows, which are the passengers who are not there when we get there, are around 7.8 percent of our total insurance cost. So 20 percent is the driving time we are getting there, and out of that, 7.8 per cent we are not even getting a fare at all. We are going no-show.

This is one thing I want to bring up. If this committee recommends…. We have been trying to talk to ICBC about that many times. Personally, I have emailed ICBC, but I haven’t got a reasonable answer from there. I think it is fair for both if we could eliminate this phase C, which is travelling time because the passenger is not there.

If you have seen in our report, the ICBC accident report is different for us. It has to mention the passenger was en route, not en route or whatever it is, so it gives a clear picture to ICBC when they are evaluating an accident report.

[10:20 a.m.]

Another thing I wanted to touch base on today is about this data reporting. For the companies like small companies or medium-sized companies, the data reporting costs almost around $40,000 a year. The reason for that is the taxi dispatch system, which is designed by the companies not for only this province; it’s for bigger, larger customers. They don’t design this dispatch system according to our needs.

So if we ask them, “Okay, we need to provide this data to PTB, and we need this insurance data for ICBC,” then either we have to pay a big chunk of money out front to redo the whole software, or we have to go to a third party who can get the data out on time, put it to PTB’s website and give us the report on the end of the month for ICBC payments.

That costs…. Bonny’s Taxi alone paid around $40,000 per year to maintain this data warehouse. If government and this committee could help us, giving some kind of subsidy to run this system….

That’s why we see, in our province, only 28 percent of compliance with the data, and 50 percent in the Lower Mainland, if I am correct. Yeah, in the whole province is 28 percent and 50 percent in the greater Vancouver area. Those are, being said, wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This is something I would like to ask this committee to look into, because we are obliged, and we need in every city….

We deal with people who are not tech-savvy or don’t have a credit card. We have to deal with people with taxi saver, disability, people with the phones — not the smartphones, with the old phones — for the doctor’s appointments, for haircuts and all this we are seeing. Our old generation needed taxi because they are not as good in computers or phones to go through all these, to get….

And when we are doing that, we are seeing that accessible needs are there, and we cannot cover all the accessible trips. So that’s why TNS companies should be obliged, or there should be some kind of mandatory percentage of accessible vehicles for them too.

We are running this accessible vehicle in subsidy. As I have mentioned, C kilometres — when we have a limited number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, when we are sending them from one end of the city to another end…. And if you see the news every day, there is half an hour, 40 minutes because we are a limited number.

That’s another thing we would like to see, that TNS should run the accessible service too. That way our clients…. Or when we fail to do that, there is someone there to help them with the accessible needs.

Another thing I think my colleague mentioned, about the training of drivers. Before we had this training program with the Justice Institute, which was mandatory for all the drivers. There were two kinds, level 1 and level 2, that used to give us drivers who were trained — well trained, to be honest — with the accessible vehicles, with the blind dogs and all these.

But now at companies we have to train our own drivers, and there are costs. When we are hiring a driver, because they just have a class 4 licence, now we have to train them. As my colleague mentioned, we have to put them through a training session. We have to hire a trainer, and we have to go through this Train the Trainer program. Sometimes we ask different entities to help us with training, but that costs us money.

This is why if there is a training…. These training programs are costing us money. This data is costing us money. This ICBC is costing us additional money, and we are losing business every day. The numbers are in front of you. When there are only 3,000 taxi and 12,000 TNS vehicles, we are barely surviving.

About the app — Bonny’s Taxi has a TNS licence. As you have asked before. Now, I am trying to call a taxi. But if I add my credit card on the Bonny’s Taxi app, Bonny’s Taxi ends up paying that 90 cents for that trip and the $5,000 additional, for the same vehicle, same trip.

[10:25 a.m.]

Whereas if I don’t have my credit card on that app, I’m just calling as a taxi, and it’s coming. We had to stop our TNS licence because there was an additional cost. I want to serve people who are willing to pay and get out of the car, but I can’t afford it. There is a $5,000 yearly cost. Then there’s 90 cents for the same trip, for the same vehicles, for the same company. That’s the reason.

As Yellow Cab is a bigger company, they’re running it. I can’t. I can’t do that, because then I have to have two sets of data produced for the same fleet, same vehicle, same a driver, to be honest.

Thank you for bringing this up to you. I think there are a lot of things that we tried to explain in this today. I would emphasize that if my drivers are not making money on the street, we are not going to be surviving. We have seen a dramatic change in our industry. We have lost a lot of drivers. We have lost a lot of vehicles.

Hours of operation are another thing. Our drivers, when they sign on or get into a taxi, according to national safety code, their duty hour starts, even if they make a trip or not. They do go to a mechanical shop to get something fixed. That’s our hour of duty.

For TNS, I guess, when they are only on a trip, that’s when they are. The TNS driver — if they could drive for…. We have no idea how long they are driving. We can’t let our drivers drive until after the certain hours of our dispatch system. So the drivers are not making enough money, because within that time frame, there is not enough fare. I think that’s pretty much it.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. We appreciate it. Two things.

One, you talked about no-shows and the percentage of no-shows. Obviously, if you have a no-show, there’s nobody you can charge. They’re not there.

E. Bari: That’s correct.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Can you explain to me what ride-hailing companies can do if they have a no-show? What is the difference there?

E. Bari: They charge $10 as a cancellation, as a no-show, on your credit card.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So it goes on your credit card if you…?

E. Bari: For me, as a taxi, I can do nothing. I just have to drive back and pay that travel insurance amount, and my time of 15, 20 minutes.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): For a no-show, you not only lose the fare but you’re charged additional insurance for a ride that doesn’t take place.

E. Bari: That’s correct.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Secondly, when Mr. Kang spoke earlier, he talked about the fact that the B.C. Taxi Association acknowledges the coexistence of ride-hailing and taxis. We see a lot of new licences on the ride-hailing side.

Has the taxi industry asked why people choose ride-hailing over a taxi? How do you close the gap there? What are the things that incent people to choose ride-hailing over a taxi? What needs to be done to level the playing field on that?

E. Bari: The first thing is that in a normal day, the taxi fare doesn’t change. It’s regulated. So I need a taxi going back from here to Burnaby. If I search, the taxi is going to cost me $35 or $38. But a ride-share could cost me $15, depending on the day and the time. So I’m going to take that ride-share vehicle, because I have to save money too.

They have this opportunity of making the fare go up and down whenever they want. Their algorithms tell them: “Okay, in downtown there are 50 ride-share vehicles at this moment and only five fares. So we’ll put the fare price down.” These are done through algorithms, so nobody has to sit and do that. It’s automatically done. Okay, you want to go to Burnaby? It’s $15. Whereas even though there is a taxi if you go outside in the street, you know that it’s going to cost $35. Why would I do that? That’s the biggest gap.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): The cost.

E. Bari: That’s the biggest problem: the cost. Sometimes at night when the taxi still costs $38, ride-hailing costs hundreds of dollars, even. We have seen $150 going from here to Burnaby. So it depends. It depends on the time and if it’s raining.

[10:30 a.m.]

Another thing is that the gap is getting bigger. The reason for that is that we are losing drivers on the street. On a busy night, we wouldn’t be able to cover it because we don’t have those…. It’s only for a certain time of the week when we need these 400 taxis. The rest of the week, 200 taxis are not making enough money, so those additional 200 drivers are not there.

J. Routledge: I have several questions, but I guess there’s just one I kind of want to get my head around. It’s the whole app thing.

I think just from the presentations you’ve made this morning…. If I understand correctly, the difference between, sort of, traditional taxi driving and now that apps have been introduced is that with an app, no money or credit cards change hands. Is that right? It’s all kind of virtual?

E. Bari: That’s right. Virtual, yeah. I can give you an explanation.

You live in Burnaby, so you called Bonny’s Taxi. So what you have done…. You download Bonny’s Taxi’s app. You call the taxi. It automatically pings your address. You confirm the driver is there. When you get out, you pay through credit card or whichever means it is. You pay cash or credit card.

But if I wanted to get paid, as a company, from you, and you, as a customer, wanted to pay like TNS…. You wanted to pay without talking to the drivers. You have business, you have phone calls to complete, so you wanted to do it without getting involved with the driver or anything. That’s going to cost me 90 cents for that trip — an additional 90 cents per trip — and $5,000 per year for the licence.

Not only that, it’s another $3,000 to $4,000 for the re­porting of that source of trip, because I have to run a TNS side by side with Bonny’s regular licence — a TNS licence. So even though the same….

When you’re calling the same driver, the same taxi is coming to pick you up. But if you’re paying through the app, then, as a company, there are additional costs for me. Nothing for the passengers; you’re fine. You know it’s a metered rate. It’s going to cost me $38 to go to downtown whichever way you pay, either prepaid app or pay cash or pay in the vehicle. That’s how it is.

That’s what our issue is. We do have passengers who want to pay that way, but we can’t take the money because we have additional costs around that, that way.

J. Routledge: Just on the issue of the role of the apps and the impact of the apps on the industry and the drivers…. I think we are going to be hearing from ride-hail drivers today at some point, so I would really like to hear, from the perspective of a ride-hail driver, the impact of working through an app.

The other…. I’m trying to get my head around ICBC. So as a company, you are starting to pay…. You’re paying ICBC costs from the time that the driver goes on shift. Are they covered by WCB from the time they go on shift?

E. Bari: WCB? No.

J. Routledge: But you’re paying ICBC.

E. Bari: That’s correct.

Our kilometre-based insurance is based in four categories, so it’s A, B, C, D. A is when the vehicle is idle, parked. B is when he’s ready, online, to take a fare, so he’s in the queue for taking a fare. C is when we dispatch them on a trip. He went from point A to point B to pick up someone — that’s C. When we pick up the customer and drop them off, that’s D.

What happens…. C and D are the same price. We are getting charged for driving there to get to D, but we are paying the same amount of kilometre money for them. That’s what I was trying to explain when I mentioned that C kilometre.

J. Routledge: Okay. I think I understand.

[10:35 a.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): I have a question. It’s cost for…. One taxi is $5,000 to be registered?

E. Bari: Just the licence.

M. Elmore (Chair): Yeah, the licence. For the whole company. It’s not per….

E. Bari: That’s correct.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Got it. It has really become clear. Thank you for explaining the reporting components as well.

E. Bari: I can…. When I’m paying $5,000 to get a TNS licence to get your money through the app, then I have to have a separate team to do reporting separately for those individual trips that are paid through the app and send it to the PTB. Then I have to run another ICBC report for that because that TNS price is 35 percent less than the taxi kilometre price.

That’s where these costs are coming that the smaller and medium companies are avoiding. I do have a licence for TNS, but I can’t run it because of the cost.

M. Elmore (Chair): Right, in terms of the software system that’s needed.

E. Bari: That’s correct. You have to have two sets of everything running. Companies like Yellow Cab are big. They can do that, but not small, medium-sized companies. That’s not affordable anymore.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Can I just follow up?

We’ve learned a lot about the app today, and we’re also learning about insurance. I think you did a really good job of A, B, C, D. Now tell us how, in the same way, it’s different for ride-hailing. You’ve given us the taxi bill. How is it a disincentive when you compare it to ride-hailing? What happens in their insurance coverage?

E. Bari: Now our A is when our vehicles are idle. For ride-hailing, when I’m driving my private car, I’m paying for the insurance. I’m driving around. When I’m online, that’s when my insurance starts. I believe their hours of work and insurance are calculated from when they’re online, when they are ready to….

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So not the waiting. Whatever else they’re doing, they have a basic rate.

E. Bari: That’s right.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): But the minute they are on­line, then they get a different charge for insurance?

E. Bari: No, no. When they have a passenger in there. Only when there are passengers there. That’s when their insurance is calculated. And not only that, the price is different. TNS insurance is 35 percent less than the taxis’.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So it’s not only a different trigger, a different mechanism; it’s also a different cost. So there are two factors. Is that right?

E. Bari: That’s correct.

M. Elmore (Chair): You mentioned there’s also a shortage of drivers. Do you have more cars that can’t get…?

E. Bari: Yes, we do have. I think most of the companies don’t have their 100 percent fleet on the road. As Carolyn mentioned, now we have…. Because every taxi has two shifts, we have vehicles running one shift either day or night, not both of the shifts, just because of lack of drivers. They’re making less and less money every day, and they are looking for different work rather than….

As I’ve mentioned, when I was in SFU, I used to drive two days every weekend. That would have made enough money for me to at least go through the week, as a student. But that’s what we have seen previously. We have seen a lot of part-time drivers who had different jobs come to drive. Then they didn’t have to buy their own vehicle or anything, just lease it for those two days or three days and drive.

We don’t see them more. We only see most of the owner-operators and some of the lease-operators. That’s all we see these days.

M. Elmore (Chair): I don’t know if you can comment on this, but in terms of the impact of ride-hailing in other cities or jurisdictions…. I think it’s compelling.

All the presentations have made the argument with respect to not only the historical legacy of the service that taxis play within communities large and small across our province but really taking into consideration the hospitality, the awareness in terms of interacting with a broad range of clientele, of dealing with clients who are not tech savvy and who are either on taxi saver or on phone calls or older clientele.

[10:40 a.m.]

I don’t know if you can comment in terms of the impact of providing that service in community compared to, also, other jurisdictions where we’ve seen this.

E. Bari: I will give you an example. What happens…. When there was enough money to be made for the drivers, we have seen all of our accessible vehicles on the road. Now, we can’t run it. We can’t run it because to buy an accessible vehicle is almost $80,000, $90,000. Then maintenance is almost $1,500, $1,600 per month because they are heavy. They have a ramp on those. That’s why we are seeing that.

Our accessible trip numbers are going up. We cannot serve those people. Another thing we are seeing in busy times when we have less taxis on the road, because of the TNS…. There are so many TNS trips that drivers are not making enough money.

When it’s needed, we are not able to serve the people who really need to go to the doctors’ appointments and all this. We have to bring vehicles from the other end of the city to serve them. That’s taking us time. But the customers still think that we will be able to get a taxi by ten, 15 minutes.

Because of a lack of vehicles and the small number of drivers, we are having a hard time serving those people too. If you look into any city, the taxis are concentrated in the busier area. But we do need to serve the areas where people need taxis.

Then we have to bring them on from there; it’s taking time. That’s when the drivers are saying: “Oh, I have to drive from South Burnaby to North Burnaby to pick up a wheelchair-accessible fare, which is not, maybe, more than $10.” So I’m paying this insurance here. Going down….

Before this, taxi companies used to subsidize those accessible vehicles for those special needs. We can’t afford that anymore. We absolutely can’t afford that. That’s when we had programs. Most of the companies had programs subsidizing the drivers for, less lease, an additional $5 paid from the company for going to those trips and stuff.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate that. That’s the end of our time.

We are going to take a ten-minute break now before we have our next presenter, and that’s Mark Thompson.

The committee recessed from 10:42 a.m. to 10.56 a.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, we’re back on air here for the committee. I’d like to welcome everyone back.

We have our next presenter, Mark Thompson. You’ll have 15 minutes for the presentation, 15 minutes for question and answer.

MARK THOMPSON

M. Thompson: Good morning, and thank you for the invitation. I’m Mark Thompson. I taught industrial relations in the Business School at UBC for about 30 years, but I’m not here to talk about that today, because I had quite different experiences outside the classroom — which, I think, are relevant to this inquiry.

I was a governor of the Workers Compensation Board, representing the public interest for slightly over five years in the 1990s. During that time, the board voted to expand coverage for several occupations, agriculture and entertainment being two. That led to my being asked to chair a committee to draft health and safety regulations specifically for agriculture, which we did. That was the first in Canada.

Subsequently, it fell to me to chair the board of a health and safety committee for the agriculture industry. We promoted those regulations in various ways. These were tripartite committees, so I learned a lot about the industry from the growers and the workers.

I believe this led to my appointment as a commissioner to review the Employment Standards Act in 1993-1994. So I had a lot of public hearings. I know how tiring it is, but we had a good time. I produced a report which is still notorious because I had over 100 recommendations, most of which were implemented in amendments to the act.

Subsequently, I chaired the board of a health and safety committee for the entertainment sector.

My experience in these areas showed me new groups of workers, such as farm workers, actors and other workers in the entertainment sectors, could be included under the Workers Compensation Act and the Employment Standards Act. My goal, then and now, is to give all workers in B.C. the basic protections of employment legislation.

[11:00 a.m.]

The extension of the Workers Compensation Act to agriculture was controversial. I could tell you lots of stories about what people said. “We don’t need health and safety regulation, because we never have any accidents,” and so forth. You’re politicians. You are better at dealing with those kinds of arguments than I was.

We drafted regulations with participation in both growers and workers. The association promoted safety, and it’s now accepted in the industry. The notion of having health and safety regulations is widely accepted.

Still, we had special problems with entertainment. There was resistance from the hospitality sector to the extension of minimum wage and other expansions of coverage. So the systems we have under these two acts are not perfect, but the coverage is now accepted, and the goal of public policy, in my view, should be to foster good, quality employment.

Then I turn to the taxi industry. Man, you’ve heard a lot about the taxi industry this morning. I started when I made a presentation to Ms. Routledge, when she was parliamentary secretary. I said the taxi industry…. That’s heavily regulated. It’s a good thing. We ought to keep it.

Then I thought: if I’m coming here, you’re going to ask me questions. I better know what I’m saying. So I boned up on these things. You probably know that this is going to be a little bit repetitious, and please forgive me. Also, the Passenger Transportation Board has provided you with information on their role, so I just want to highlight a few aspects of the regime that we have.

In the metropolitan areas, drivers own licences and vehicles. They can and do lease those vehicles to other persons to maximize their use. The owners are responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles, and they have formed, basically, co-ops, such as Yellow and Black Top, to provide dispatch, safety training and managerial services.

In the smaller communities, drivers are employed, typically, by local companies. I read one of the decisions of the board on Fort St. John and an application for additional licences. It’s my position that taxis are a public utility, that the Passenger Transportation Board sets regional rates, relies on economic data and costs. Drivers must accept fares. If there are complaints, the Ministry of Transportation receives those complaints. They have to provide reasonable levels of service. Even the meters in the taxis are regulated.

In my experience going to different cities in Canada, taxi drivers are invariably immigrants. Here in British Columbia, I have never had a taxi driver who wasn’t a male South Asian. When I go to Ottawa, they are Lebanese. When I go to Montreal, they’re Haitians and, in Toronto, West Indians and maybe some other immigrants from eastern Europe. StatsCan confirms my experience. They did a study of six cities and find…. This is an industry where immigrants can come. They work hard. I’m not saying it’s an easy job. They can make a life.

I talked to taxi drivers. If you want to get a conversation with a taxi driver in Vancouver, you mention Uber, and then you get a monologue. So I asked him: “What about your family?” “Well, you know, my son’s going to BCIT,” or whatever. I mean, they have a life.

But there’s not much data on their earnings. Maybe you have it more than I. I saw one source online saying $52,000 a year, which was kind of vague, and that’s not very high. Whether that is net of expenses or tips or not, I don’t know. So I spent time on the taxi drivers, because I think this is a successful system. It has its flaws, but public policy should not let ride-hailing services put them out of business.

[11:05 a.m.]

There was a study I recently read, in Toronto, where UBER kind of let slip: “Our goal is to put the taxis away. We’ll take over.” I don’t think that’s a good idea.

Turning to the gig workers, it’s just about the opposite to taxis — very little regulation by the public, by the provincial scheme. The licences are owned by the companies. Dispatching is controlled by the companies. They’re not covered by the Workers Compensation Act, Canada Pension Plan or employment insurance. So if there’s an accident in those industries, the medical costs are borne by us, by the public medicare, not by the workers compensation system as it would be otherwise.

The companies set the fares. They set the routes. They collect the payments. There’s no guarantee of hourly or weekly earnings.

What about disputes? Well, the situation is kind of murky. The Supreme Court of Canada declared that the Uber system was unconscionable. I really like that word. It’s not in my spell-check. But it’s so bad, was so one-sided that they nullified it. And the company said: “Well, we’re going to change.” So I thought: what did they change to? Well, I don’t know.

They impose arbitration to avoid class action lawsuits. That’s the purpose of having arbitration. The companies maintain that their drivers are all independent contractors. That’s a controversial issue. I was going to explain about where the litigation is going on that, but the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has a brief for your committee. If you haven’t received it, you will.

I looked at that, and I looked at the federal study by Professor Gomez. Basically, in the Anglo-Saxon countries and the European Continental countries, when the litigation comes down, the drivers are employees. They’re not…. They don’t have the characteristics of independent contractors.

There’s not much known yet about working conditions. I’m sure you heard a lot this morning. The Passenger Transportation Board is gathering information. As far as anecdotal information that I’ve gotten, here is parallel to other jurisdictions.

The federal government did a thorough study. Drivers are unhappy that they don’t get paid for waiting time. Wages that they receive can fall below the hourly minimum. They are not happy with the situation if they are removed from the list or suspended, and they don’t have a reclama for that. There’s a lack of social benefits, and there are concerns about safety.

In conclusion, for all of these reasons, I support classifying ride-hailing and food delivery drivers as employees under all relevant provincial legislation.

Those are my remarks, and I hope I haven’t been too repetitious for the taxi part. Thank you for your attention.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. Appreciate that.

I’d like to open it to questions from committee members.

M. Thompson: I was going to…. As I came in a few minutes ago, there was a discussion between you and the presenter, Ms. Routledge.

There was a Court of Appeal decision in this province involving five taxi drivers. There was an intervening company, Beach something or other, which I don’t understand…. They spent a lot of money fighting this issue. A 78-page brief to the court — even the court found that excessive. They wanted my report on employment standards to be legislative history, which is unheard of in Canada.

But basically, the drivers who own the licences and the vehicles, I think, are accurately described as independent contractors.

[11:10 a.m.]

They have the equipment, and they can lease it out. They can have a chance of profit or loss. But the drivers who lease the cars are employees and should be — and, presumably, they are — covered by this legislation.

I read those decisions, or two or three, starting with the employment standards determination. I was hoping for broad inclusion, but I had to agree with the conclusion that the drivers who own the licence, they own the vehicle, they can do what they want. That falls within the definition of an independent contractor. They can buy workers compensation insurance, personal protection policies, which would cover them if they wish. But that’s a voluntary thing.

J. Routledge: Thank you for your presentation, Mark. We have spoken before.

I guess my question at this point, given that what we’re looking at here is the Passenger Transportation Act…. Of course, there is an overlap and an impact on employment standards, but looking at it from the point of view of the Passenger Transportation Act, what are your views on…?

What we’ve heard so far today and in previous days is the importance of levelling the playing field between the taxi industry and ride-hail industry and drawing some comparisons between where the drivers themselves fit in.

Do you have, from that point of view — I think we’ve got some ideas, and I’m not even sure how relevant it is to this discussion about what we would do under the Employment Standards Act — any concrete recommen­dations of what we can do under passenger-directed vehicles?

M. Thompson: The classification of the drivers is very controversial because the big companies — Uber and Lyft; we know who they are — spend a lot of money, millions and hundreds of millions, in some cases, to maintain the status quo. Well, why are they doing that? At some point, I’ve read…. They kind of let it slip: “That’s our profit margin.”

These statutory withholdings that we all pay when we work run around 20 percent of the payroll. I mean, that’s a rough number for the employer. They don’t have to pay that, so that gives them an edge, a substantial edge. That’s why they spent millions of dollars in California to buy their own labour legislation.

Your mandate, as I recall, says that we should…. You’re going to look at maintaining the ride-hailing services. Your mandate isn’t to put them out of business, and I’m not suggesting that. They have a role to play, and they’re popular enough that I think they deserve a place in the marketplace. I know people who use them. But they shouldn’t take advantage. We don’t let other industries escape employment legislation and thereby survive.

I had push-back from the taxi industry when I was doing the employment standards. I remember somebody from a taxi association in Victoria saying: “You can’t make a living in the taxi industry unless you work 12 hours a day.” That wasn’t a very compelling argument. We don’t demand that of anybody else. Why should we entrench that? And they didn’t want to pay overtime. That was 12 hours a day in straight time. So they didn’t succeed.

[11:15 a.m.]

That’s my general view. The Legislature has the power through regulation to include these ride-hailing drivers as employees. That’s what we did in the aftermath of my report and whatnot. When I was a governor of the Workers Compensation Board, we had the power to vote who to include. We had the power of law, but we didn’t have to go to the Legislature.

Subsequently, I wasn’t sure how that was working, be­cause there was Grant’s law — that poor boy that was dragged to death in a gas station, so the Legislature acted. That was an employment standards issue, as far as I was concerned, quite apart from the tragedy of it all.

I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Passenger Transportation Act to offer much advice on that, but within the acts that I do know…. You’d probably want to extend the employee status to the labour code. The labour board had this issue put to it, and they dodged it. “Well, we don’t have any members. We don’t know.” It’s, yadda, yadda, yadda. They wouldn’t bite the bullet.

The review of the Employment Standards Act, which was conducted by the Law Commission…. They sent me a draft of their report, were very complimentary. I said: “This is fine, but you haven’t hit the gig workers.” That’s the coming…. Why worry about last year’s problem? This is the coming problem. You should do something about that. So they wrote back, saying: “Yeah, you’re right. We’ll look into it.” Well, you know. Nothing. As far as I know, nothing ever happened.

That’s about as much as I have to say.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. As I understand it, Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has actually moved toward dealing with gig workers. Is that correct?

M. Thompson: Yes, I believe so.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): And their act does not actually guarantee a minimum wage for an entire period of time with a gig worker with it, when you look at ride-hailing. In fact, it’s only during the actual ride period.

M. Thompson: Yes.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So it actually doesn’t guarantee them the minimum wage, because they spend a lot of hours waiting.

M. Thompson: They sure do.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So I’m certain there’s a fair degree of criticism or analysis, and I know that that was only done, I think, in 2022.

I appreciate your input. I do want to recognize that any…. If this were a simplistic or uncomplicated issue, other jurisdictions in the country would be looking at it as well, and that has not happened. I’m not suggesting that that doesn’t mean that it should be considered, but there is a lot of debate about what’s happened in the U.S. in some states where, in fact, they are determined to be employees. In other states, they are not.

In Canada, the only jurisdiction that has actually taken any action is Ontario, as recently as 2022. Again, there’s criticism about that, because it hasn’t proven to be effective in the sense that the worker doesn’t get minimum wage from an overarching perspective. In fact, one of the articles that I looked at suggested that the wage rate based on that law would be $9 an hour.

So again, legislation is certainly an avenue to consider. I appreciate the input and your experience, but it has not been something that at least Canada has leapt to do. If you look at the work that’s been done, there are consequences to either decision — determining they are employees or not.

I’m sure we’ll look at our mandate, but that is a very far-reaching discussion that is taking place, obviously, not just with this little committee, but frankly, across the country and around the world. So I do appreciate your feedback, and I think that it’ll be an issue that continues to be debated for some time into the future as well.

I do appreciate your presentation today.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. Thompson: Well, thank you. A comment. If you see the CCPA brief, you’ll see a lot of decisions — which, by and large, come down on the side of them being employees — in different jurisdictions in the U.S., in the U.K. and in Europe, to name some examples. That’s one thing. The Ontario act was a separate legal regime — a compromise, if you will, and not very satisfactory, in my view.

The companies have said and will tell you that they want a separate regime, and they’ll talk about a benefit package and some other things. I’m saying that based on my experience, the existing legislation can accommodate this new group of workers just as it did ranch hands and stunt people and other performers back in the 1990s. I guess I’m urging you to grasp the nettle and do that.

It is controversial, and it’s partly because these companies spend buckets of money lobbying to keep the status quo. I mean, you can always have controversy if you want. In California, they have this crazy referendum system where you can overturn an act of the legislature by paying people to sign a petition and all this kind of thing. That’s what happened. It still hasn’t taken effect.

The consequence, to be fair: if you’re going to pay drivers for their waiting time, then the company has to control who has access to the application. Right now, somebody wants to sign on for one hour, three hours, five hours, they can do that and take their chances on what they get. Well, if the company has to pay them, they’re not going to let them sign on willy-nilly. You might consider that when the companies come and talk about these things.

They’ll talk about the flexibility. That’s valuable. I mean, we have cases where women like to spend three hours in the afternoon before their kids get out of school. They make some money, and it’s very good. There’s a whole book about ride-hailing in Boston, where there are a lot of graduate students and so forth.

That’s all to the good. There’ll be some sacrifice of flexibility by the drivers in exchange for being paid for waiting time. Certainly, the companies have the power to do that — that’s no problem — but it will mean a change in their business model.

M. Elmore (Chair): I have a question, Mr. Thompson. You referenced a federal government study. Do we have that? What’s the name of it to take a look at it?

M. Thompson: I’m sorry for not being more explicit. I think it’s Greater Labour Protections for Gig Workers. It was commissioned by Labour Canada or whatever they call it now, and the author is Prof. Rafael Gomez from the University of Toronto. Very thorough. I was going through it on my screen. Quite academic, I thought. I’m not sure who the audience was. He had different models. It’s all very academic. I know Raffi; he’s a very smart man.

Anyhow, it’s available online. If your staff have any difficulties, have them contact me. It’s on my desktop uh for me to read. I consulted that, and I went through it again last night a little bit and there they say that legislatively, the trend is to inclusion.

[11:25 a.m.]

The federal jurisdiction is always a little tricky because a lot of these occupations aren’t under the federal jurisdiction. I always tell the feds: “You’ve got to set a good example.” Maybe that’s what he was doing.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. Okay. Well, thank you very much.

M. Thompson: Thank you for your attention. Sorry if I was too repetitious.

M. Elmore (Chair): No, not at all. I appreciate it.

Next up we have Clark Lim.

Welcome Clark. I hear you’ve just submitted your presentation. We’ve got that online. You’ve got 15 minutes for your presentation and 15 minutes for a question and answer.

CLARK LIM

C. Lim: Chair and committee members, thank you for having me here and to listen to what I have to say.

I was here in the previously related parliamentary select committee. I spoke at, I think, the 2018 and 2019 hearings here as well. Some things I will say will reiterate some of those concerns and issues. There are additional issues that I’d like to raise as well.

If you are looking at the slides, the topics I’ll address, there are only six or seven slides. Hopefully, it’ll be quick.

I just want to start off with the fundamentals-based and holistic approach. I think that is foundational and gets us in the right direction. I will just speak to that. Some things you will already know, and others might be new to you. It’s always good to have those fundamentals at the beginning. Then I want to talk more specifically about some of the impacts.

I forgot to introduce myself as a transportation engineer. I teach at UBC as an adjunct professor in the civil engineering department. I teach transportation engineering and planning for the grad and undergrad students. I also run a consulting firm, Acuere Consulting, located in Burnaby, B.C. We focus on transportation data and analytics. I have over 30 years experience in this field — everything from traffic flow to collision studies as well as planning studies.

I’ve seen changes over time. Some things have changed and some things haven’t. I think it’s important to understand some foundations as to why things change and why they don’t, and how we can use that information to move forward.

Other issues I’d like to address are the impacts to the traffic flows and safety — how these vehicles impact the operational interactions of vehicles as well as pedestrians, sustainability and also social equity. I want to end it off with a look-see ahead and beyond, and I’ll address that when I get there.

On the second slide, the fundamentals-based holistic approach, it’s important to address some key things — when we make decisions, what are the starting points? — being holistic about it, to ensure that we don’t miss anything. I think we all agree that we want fairness to all parties. That requires us to identify not only those directly affected but also those indirectly affected. The questions are: who are the groups, and to what degree are they impacted?

That’s something that you have a good handle on, but we always seem to learn about new groups that come up, and we realize that they’re impacted. I think we always need to be open and aware for new groups that do come. It’s not just negative impacts; there are positives. A lot of people can’t drive; they don’t have vehicles. This actually opens up a new world for them. There are always positive and negative impacts to any change.

I think we all want to promote economic growth. We want to promote the positive economic conditions without excessively impacting the social and environmental conditions. It starts with affordability — housing affordability and food affordability. That’s probably the number one issue right now. That’s all there, obviously, because of wages and how wages aren’t keeping up.

[11:30 a.m.]

With ride-hailing, I think there’s an issue of fair wages, fair earnings. We have to consider not just what they’re getting paid, but also the net, really. It’s the operating costs and then the depreciation. I’ll get into that later.

Ultimately, there are goalposts that we heard about. Minimum wage, I think, is $16.75 right now. Then there’s also a living wage, which is about just under $10 more — just over $25 right now. We’re hearing that you need this kind of a wage in order to stick around here in this region. Those are some things to consider.

Then innovation…. This whole ride-hailing really came about because of the innovation of the smartphone, these mobile devices. Innovation is always a good thing.

It can also be a disruption. We’ve heard of these disruptions. Depending on which side of the fence you’re on…. If you’re the one innovating, then it’s a positive disruption. You’re disrupting the status quo and making change. But then if you are a part of the status quo, it is causing problems. Industries will grow, they will live and then they will eventually die. That’s part of the natural cycle of our human economy and innovation.

How do we do this, though, in a way that we minimize the disruptions to the point where…? Sometimes disruptions are good. But minimize them and really, ultimately, maximize value to society. How do we deploy innovation in a gentler way? That’s what I’m suggesting.

Then the other point is to really develop and apply an equitable evaluation and regulatory framework. This re­quires a transparent, auditable and evidence-based ap­proach. I think the PTB has that right. I think they’re in the right direction, where we need to collect information. Now we’re in a world where data is the fuel of the modern world. There’s a lot of data out there.

Then the next step is to manage it through proper indicators and analytics. With that, you can’t be accountable if you don’t have the right indicator. The data is ultimately summarized in the form of indicators. You have targets, and you’re accountable to those targets. What is the score? Where are we at?

I think the accountability part is key. You can’t have accountability, you can’t have things really done and success measured, without any sort of indicators. That re­quires evidence. It requires data.

Those are just some fundamentals I’d like to start off with.

Just getting into it, the next slide is impacts to traffic flow and safety. I think we all are aware, after these few years of studying ride-hailing, that there has been documented evidence of increase in distances travelled.

Clearly, when you have somebody picking you up, they drove to you. That trip portion was not very effective. There is nobody really travelling. It’s only when you get into the vehicle that it’s a productive portion of the trip. Then they drop you off, and then they end up going somewhere else, maybe repositioning themselves. That’s called deadheading — when they’re sort of not being productive.

Why is that a big deal? Well, if I drove to a location, let’s say ten kilometres, it’s ten kilometres; whereas if I get a ride-hail trip, it could actually be double that because of the deadheading. There are more distances travelled in the vehicle, and there’s more fuel used. That actually causes, again, increased congestion and increases in vehicular emissions.

The other thing that is maybe not as well known is the impact to traffic turbulence and collision. What is traffic turbulence? Essentially, for our transport systems to be efficient, we want the flows to be very smooth — no real harsh disruptions or stoppages. When you get that, we actually reduce the capacity of the roadway — i.e., we create congestion. When you have vehicles that are at the curb trying to park, stopping, parallel parking and then also, later on, leaving, especially when it’s during peak periods, they cause disruptions.

In traffic engineering, we actually calculate the effective capacity based on how much turnover there is. If you have a high turnover location, like a coffee shop or a laundromat, you get a lot of movement. Therefore, the actual effective capacity is not two lanes. It’s actually maybe 0.8 of a lane, because it can actually be less than one lane sometimes. When they do go in and out, you actually get what’s called a shock wave. That shoots back. You can have that congestion shoot back for kilometres long.

[11:35 a.m.]

If you’re on the highway at times where the highway is moving at high speed, if somebody stops at the side of the road, that can cause a huge bottleneck that can go on for tens of kilometres, in fact, in some places. That one little disruption can actually affect the flow.

We’re all sensitive as human drivers. We’re sensitive to these things. When you tap on the brake, the brake lights shoot back, and that is the shock wave that you see.

What does this all mean? Well, we have seen that when you have a lot of turbulence, a lot of movement from the curbside, you get these shock waves. We can actually see that in the data. Ride-hailing has the potential to increase these disturbances and, therefore, increase congestion. When you do have these increases in congestion, there are impacts to sustainability.

Firstly, we all know that more distances travelled re­quires more fuel usage. There are more tailpipe emissions, therefore. But what’s not really known is that when you do have these disturbances and a lot of stop and go, what you actually get is a lot of vehicular wear and tear. That’s really in the form of, for example, tire and brake dust. Basically, you’re wearing out your tires. You’re wearing out your brakes. That actually creates microscopic particles, which eventually get into the environment, into the air, eventually settle down and get into our water systems.

This is not just…. You know, we think about: “Oh, well, they’re buying electric vehicles, and electric vehicles will solve this problem of emissions.” Sure, that will help. But every car, regardless of whether it’s electric or an internal combustion engine, does create brake wear and tire wear.

In fact, electric vehicles…. When you drive a car and you slowly use up the fuel, it gets lighter and lighter, so there’s less energy required to move and less wear and tear. Electric vehicles stay the same weight all the time. Electricity doesn’t have any weight. Whether it’s full battery or not, it’s still the same weight. In fact, electric vehicles, because of, also, their sort of torque — “high torque” is what it’s called — tend to wear out tires faster. Again, these technologies may be a solution. But then again, there are some unintended consequence of those solutions.

The third impact slide is impacts of social equity. This is actually something that I think the previous speaker talked about. Nothing really new here in terms of the fact that we need to consider those that are part of the system here. We typically focus on passengers, so I won’t get into that. That’s the cost of travel. It’s really about, I believe, driver equity, and we need to focus on the drivers.

The drivers are key. The vehicles are key to the supply. If you don’t have enough supply, then the cost will obviously go up, and it will be more costly to use these services. You need a lot of drivers, but you won’t get drivers if they’re obviously not being paid well. So there’s a balancing act here.

Driver equity is a question here. Again, what are their earnings? What is their net? It’s important to understand there are operating costs, out-of-pocket costs. To change your oil right now, these days, it’s close to $100. There are tires. There’s a lot of maintenance that’s required. Also, the vehicles have a life. They depreciate. As a driver, you are putting a lot of kilometres onto your vehicle, so your vehicles depreciate faster. These things have to be considered, and whether they’re considered or not by the drivers, I think these need to be looked at.

Then you can calculate what is the effective, fair wage that they should be getting — again looking at, maybe considering these thresholds of minimum wage and living wage.

I won’t even get into the policy impacts, obviously, here. I spoke about that previously. The policy impacts being that ride-hailing trips can actually increase SOV trips. What you’re doing is that if you don’t have a car, but ride-hailing is now an option, you end up getting out of the transit vehicle, getting into a car.

It’s not ride-sharing. It’s not a shared car pool. The driver is like a human algorithm. They’re not really taking that trip downtown with you, so you’re not sharing the ride. They’re driving you down there. You’re essentially a single-occupant vehicle. We need to get the driver out of the equation.

What we’re doing is…. With ride-hailing trips, the argument is, “well, people don’t buy cars,” but again, we find a lot of the trips are being moved from either the passenger seat of an HOV, so a car pool, or from a transit vehicle. That’s going backwards with our policies, and that is a big policy impact. That will also threaten the transit ridership into the future.

[11:40 a.m.]

There are a lot of other impacts that I can get into, but just quickly, looking ahead, really, ride-hailing is the tip of the iceberg.

A lot of issues are not just unique to ride-hailing. For example, there are issues, as the person previously mentioned, on food delivery; there’s delivery of goods, e-commerce. These actually generate a lot more trips than ride-hailing does, and these all have similar impacts.

They increase congestion through either more kilometres driven or they cause more turbulence. How many times do you see an Amazon truck or a food delivery stopping in the middle of the road, just to quickly deliver something? A few seconds can actually add up and cause kilometres of backup.

There are increased safety issues as well as driver equity for these other industries. Again, this is beyond the scope of the committee, but possibly, you might need to expand or at least the government needs to expand their purview to consider more of a consumer-directed vehicles kind of scope, which again may address some of these other issues that are coming up.

Metro Vancouver just completed a study on e-commerce, looking at some of these issues as well. You can find it on the website. I think it was Colliers that did the study. They did identify the need for adequate curb space and issues of congestion and other environmental issues.

I will end it with that, and I will take any questions. I think, hopefully, I just went over a few seconds. Thank you again for your attention.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you very much for your presentation.

I’ll open it up to questions from committee members.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, thank you, and thanks for the presentation. Very thoughtful discussion and much appreciated.

I want to speak to the issue of social equity for a moment. I can understand we need to increase our focus on drivers. But for me, passengers are pretty important too. Passengers have rights and have choice and have all of those things too. I don’t think it’s an either-or equation; I actually think it’s both. And I think you do point that out.

I guess I’m interested in your reaction to…. When we talk about driver equity, if you look at what’s happened, we’ve seen and heard over and over again that there have been a disproportionate number of licences issued on the ride-hailing drivers’ side, so we see much larger numbers.

We hear about the benefits of flexible hours for people who choose to be a driver on the ride-hailing side. There’s also the consideration for people of whether or not that’s a primary or secondary income, because those things matter too.

The core of your argument seems to be that we have to take care of some things or it will be a disincentive to drivers. That certainly hasn’t seemed to be the case so far. We seem to have lots of people willing to do it.

Can you just speak to that issue? Do you see this as something that’s going to emerge as an issue? Because we’re hearing the other argument — that, you know, man, there are a lot of licences, there are a lot of drivers, people like it, people do this, that and the next thing.

Your focus is on drivers, yet it doesn’t seem at this moment that it’s critical, in our province at least.

C. Lim: Yes. And I wasn’t suggesting the focus should be on drivers. It’s just, given my limited time, I’ll focus on the drivers because there’s a lot of, obviously, discussion and study on the passengers. They are the main focus of all of this. But we tend to forget the supply.

Yeah, there are definitely a lot of benefits, and it’s an opportunity to make more money. It’s an opportunity to live in this very difficult place, in terms of affordability. It goes back to a lot of….

We talk about human rights and how, you know, you create jobs in some countries where there’s child labour. They could argue, well, it’s a job. There have been cases, obviously, even now, where you have a job, but there are some impacts to your health that you may not know about.

[11:45 a.m.]

The issue is more about, I think, clarity and to ensure that the drivers understand that there are other costs, like, for example, the depreciation.

There was an economic study done — this was a while back — in the U.S. where they looked at how much these drivers were making. They subtracted costs, including the depreciation of their vehicles. They were really subsidizing these companies. They’re making maybe $3, $5 an hour. You’re really sort of subsidizing through your vehicle. Eventually when you sell it, it would be at a loss because of the excessive mileage that’s put onto it.

I guess my message would be more about ensuring that they’re aware of these issues and they consider before they make a decision. Of course, it’s their decision. It creates a lot of benefits. I’m not saying there are no benefits. Of course, there are a lot of benefits. But as long as, I think, we can open up information and provide, sort of, clarity so when people make decisions, they are fully aware. I think it’s the onus of the government to help with that. That’s all it is.

Maybe there would be a calculator, for example. I have seen calculators that can calculate, based on your vehicle, what you’re truly getting. These are things that are out there already. But do most of the people who download the app and try to make a few dollars to pay for the rent, are they aware that this is happening? If they are, then that’s fine. It’s completely their right. But if they’re not, then maybe that’s something that could be done. Again, maybe there’s….

This is an issue of equity. I find the issue of equity…. A lot of times there are things hidden. Once you uncover things, you open it up, you have a more holistic approach to considering equity, you’ll find a lot of these things are really due to sort of the ignorance or lack of information and awareness. I think if we can open that up, we’ll have a more equitable society.

J. Routledge: Thank you, Clark. I guess where I want to start is I really appreciate that you made the connection with child labour. One could give other kinds of examples of what, at one time, was an emerging type of work relationship or a new industry, a new kind of economy that maybe, in the moment, sounded like a great idea. Then, over time, we found out that there were dire consequences. I like that your presentation looks ahead. I like that you’re looking at the big picture and that you’re providing context.

I think this is the thin edge of the wedge. I think that this is a signal of what could be a profound shift in the economy and a profound shift in working relationships. So I think it is really important that we take a proactive rather than a reactive view.

One of the things that I grapple with, and I don’t really have an answer to, is the nature of the popularity of app-directed, be it ride-hail or food delivery. The popularity of it, to me, in some ways seems counterintuitive, and I don’t know that we should just be making a fundamental change to the economy because it’s popular. We may pay for it later as a society. I don’t know what your thoughts are on that.

C. Lim: Yes. It’s the magic of marketing. Convenience is queen, I like to say. I think that’s what the world wants, really, right? Something quick. They expect it. In the modern world, things are real time. And with the benefit of real time and information, there’s also the dark side of false information, you know, and it spreads. As I mentioned, shockwaves. Things just are travelling so fast. It’s a connected world that gets complicated quickly.

But then the fundamental principles don’t change, and I think we need to really be founded, have a solid footing on that. Then when you move forward, you test everything, all decisions, based on that. That’s kind of, really, the thrust of my argument here, my position here.

I think going back to the gentle density discussion, this is just one of many other issues that will come up and continue to come up throughout and into the future, on other committees. Government has to grapple with this. Innovation is a good thing, of course. But how do we move and how do we make change?

[11:50 a.m.]

There is no solution I can think of, but, I think, as good decision-makers, politicians, it’s really up to you to come up with the good questions. The good questions will lead people to, hopefully, find solutions that are effective.

As an educator, I always like to tell my students that it’s not so much answers but good questions that are important. Answers, actually, are dependent on questions. You can’t just…. Thirty-five — what does that mean, right? But if I say that’s the secret number to enter some door, then of course, that’s very important.

I think this committee if you have some very good questions…. This is where I’m trying to hopefully help you and identify some things that may be questionable. I think that is a real value, and then it’s up to, obviously, the staff and everyone else to come up with, hopefully, solutions. But your leadership is really in the form of questions.

J. Sturdy: Thanks, and thanks for your presentation.

In terms of the comment around the potential for in­creased distances travelled, can you provide us with some references that confirm that or deny it and some place that we can assess that? The other piece associated with that would be: could you argue that the more ride-hail vehicles that are available, the potential is for less distances travelled?

C. Lim: Yes, exactly. That’s actually a good question, and a good point, I think, you’re trying to make.

There are studies. I don’t have them with me, but actually, the previous presentations I do have. If you have access to those previous committees…. There were a number of studies done, I think, in Austin, Texas, and San Francisco where they did study that. There was an additional increase in Colorado as well. There were additional increases in kilometres travelled. They did the surveys. They actually kind of asked the drivers to record their information. That’s obviously not a good thing.

If you do have, as you’re kind of pointing towards, less supply of drivers, then they have to drive around more to support the demands. If you have more of them, then chances are they’re closer by you, and that’s reduced. So exactly.

This is where the balancing act is very key. How do you try to support this industry? Ride-hailing is an economic enhancer. It’s a good thing, but how do you ensure that there are not too many? Again, it’s a supply-demand issue. How do you balance it? You want to have adequate….

If you have too much demand, that could affect, obviously, the costs, but if you have too much supply, even though that would reduce costs, that would affect the driver equity, right?

There’s a balance that you have to pick, and it’s not an easy decision. But I think this is where you get evidence. You get information, data and use just some tried-and-true, good wisdom in all this. I think you can make the right decisions, and it’ll hopefully move the economy forward, and it’ll have the sort of minimal social and environmental impacts.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for that answer.

In terms of the studies referenced around distances travelled, despite what MLA Routledge was mentioning, we weren’t exactly early adopters to ride-hail — in fact, probably a decade behind everybody else. Those references to San Francisco and Colorado and Texas are probably over ten years old now at this point, or close to.

Would the findings of those assessments be as relevant today as they might have been back then?

C. Lim: I think so. Definitely, it’s a different context. The urban structure…. There’s New York as well. Are they comparable to Vancouver in terms of the demographic, obviously the urban fabric, distances travelled, things like that?

I think the general gist is everyone can agree, the academics as well as professionals, that ride-hailing can increase, and probably will increase, kilometres travelled had you driven on your own.

If you were to drive again from your garage to your office and it’s right there, door to door, that’s the shortest distance, and everything else — including transit, actually — is a bit of a meandering. We always find the distances for vehicles are the shortest when it comes to trips. If you were to take transit and also carpool or ride-hail, those distances will usually be greater. Rarely will they be shorter. They’ll basically be equal or greater, essentially. You can guarantee that they will be pretty much greater in most cases.

[11:55 a.m.]

J. Sturdy: Just one more. In terms of the Passenger Transportation Board’s assessment, their current study on congestion in B.C., are you familiar with the terms of reference?

C. Lim: Yes. Yes, I am.

J. Sturdy: Do you have any comments on that?

C. Lim: Well, I’m actually working on that, so I don’t think I can really comment on it. But it is actually….

J. Sturdy: You are working on the development of the terms of reference?

C. Lim: Yes, yes.

Yeah, so we developed kind of a unique system to measure congestion for…. We applied it, for example, when there was the atmospheric river event, where we had no data. Our system can actually see what’s going on around B.C. in real time, and we can tell you what’s happening.

The same system we use, we basically use big data. We aggregate the data from various providers, and then we produce information as to what the congestion levels are. We can actually see, as I mentioned, the shock waves. I can see in bridges the shock waves grow, and you can see how far they go back.

This is all aggregating data from people’s cell phones and things like that. Obviously, we don’t get the personal information. We just get the traffic engineering-level information. But that’s the kind of technology….

So this is a technology. We also apply technologies to review these and hopefully help to regulate. It’s a combination of innovations and working together to eventually find, hopefully, a solution where ride-hailing is ultimately beneficial to society. And I think that’s the true goal of this this committee and, ultimately, the service.

M. Elmore (Chair): I’m going to sneak in with one final question here.

Thanks for your presentation. I appreciate you laying out the framework with respect to our discussions. And I appreciated your suggestion to broaden the approach with respect to taking a look at consumer-directed vehicles to capture as well…. Was it e-commerce? It’s well on the rise — and food delivery, which is just increasing in popularity.

Can you reference again the Metro Vancouver report? Now, is it on e-commerce?

C. Lim: Yes, it was on e-commerce, specifically on goods. Not food, just goods. Colliers completed the study. I was sort of involved in that as an interview. Metro Vancouver — you would find that on their website.

It doesn’t necessarily…. It has some suggestions. Obviously, it’s an introductory study. There aren’t really hard analyses, but it does kind of frame the issues. Some of it is very eye-opening, I think.

You will find similar studies around the world. You know, e-commerce, especially the pandemic…. It’s boomed, and it’s changed the way we do things, for better and worse in some ways. So how do we tame this in a way that, again, is maximizing value, minimizing negative impacts?

Again, I believe…. I don’t have the numbers. It would be great to get those numbers. There are obviously quite a lot of trips generated from ride-hailing. But I think, again, as I mentioned, it’s the tip of the iceberg when you consider food and e-commerce. I don’t know how many times I see the Amazon driver down my street. You see the postman, post person, once a day and Amazon at least a dozen times sometimes. You can just see him always, constantly roaming the road.

So what is that doing to our society? And is that just sort of…? Is it material, basically? How material is that? That would be something that, I think, is sort of the next forward. Again, it’s obviously beyond the scope of this committee. But just to give you, to kind of shadow…. It shows you the significance of this study itself.

I think it’s important, because what you find here could affect those kinds of issues in the future. What you do here can actually shed a lot of light to what will happen there, including, for example, the trip database that you created. Those are actually quite phenomenal things that are very leading edge around the world. I think it opened up our eyes to that as well as these other issues.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lim. Appreciate it.

C. Lim: Great. Thank you. Good luck on your study.

[12:00 p.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, I would like to welcome now Jasper Vaillant to present.

Now, Jasper, I understand you’re undertaking a documentary, and we’ve got some still photographs being taken? Is that correct?

J. Vaillant: Yeah, correct.

M. Elmore (Chair): So all members are okay with that? We’ve also got some members in the audience.

J. Vaillant: We’ll try our best to…. The pictures are just going to be of me and maybe the people I’m directing my speech to. We won’t try and get pictures of….

M. Elmore (Chair): I think they gave a thumbs-up too, so they don’t mind being in the shot.

Okay. You’ve got 15 minutes for the presentation, and then the following 15 minutes for questions and answers.

JASPER VAILLANT

J. Vaillant: Hello. My name is Jasper Vaillant. I’m a lifelong B.C. resident.

As I’ve grown into my adult years, I’ve depended a lot more on the services of our local taxi companies. But time and time again, I and fellow wheelchair users have been underserved by this essential service. I’d like to share with you a story of one of my experiences.

One evening I fell out of my shower, hitting my head on the toilet. Bleeding profusely, I needed several stitches immediately. After being discharged from the hospital, I called for a wheelchair-accessible cab. This was around 6 a.m., and they told me it would be about 20 minutes. So I sat there waiting, and 20 minutes turned into 40 minutes, and 40 minutes turned into an hour, and then an hour turned into three hours. As I sat there watching the morning sunrise come into full effect, my wheelchair-accessible cab showed up, just before 9 a.m.

This is just one of several stories where I’ve been left stranded by our local taxi companies. I thought this accessibility issue would come to an end with the long-awaited introduction of ride-hailing into the city of Vancouver in January of 2020, but when they arrived, it would be under one notable stipulation: the ride-hailing vehicles were not required to be wheelchair-accessible. Now four years later, they’re still not required to be wheelchair-accessible.

So I decided to make a documentary about the ongoing issue. It’s called “Ride-failing.” I got to talk to representa­tives in the B.C. transportation field, such as the president of the B.C. Taxi Association, Mohan Kang, representatives of local taxi companies and the mayor of Burnaby, Mike Hurley. While all these conversations have given me great insight into the inner workings of the taxi and ride-hailing industry, they have failed to answer my biggest, lingering questions.

Why don’t we have more accessible taxis on the road to accommodate the supply and demand of the disabled community? Why isn’t there a wheelchair-accessible ride-hailing service in the province yet?

In other cities, such as Toronto and Montreal, there are wheelchair-accessible ride-hailing services, yet B.C. doesn’t have any yet. This leaves our community with few options.

In a February 1, 2023, government news bulletin: “The B.C. government is providing about $3 million in rebates to taxi owner-operators in a bid to increase the number of taxis available to people with disabilities. The rebate will help offset maintenance costs for wheelchair accessible taxi owner-operators…. Over the next two years, the provincial government will launch three more programs focusing on reducing the cost of operating, purchasing, converting wheelchair-accessible taxis and providing better training to support passengers with disabilities.”

While this is great to see, in my mind, it doesn’t get to the heart of the issue. There just aren’t enough accessible taxis on the road to provide adequate service. I’ve experienced this several times, calling for a cab late at night, and they will simply tell me: “There are no accessible cabs on the road right now.”

This is a direct violation of the taxi licensing agreement, where it is mandatory to have at least one wheelchair-accessible taxi on the road at all times. While it’s a great idea to offset costs of operating wheelchair-accessible vehicles, we won’t see the benefits of it for some time.

I have another question for you. Are members of the disabled community being consulted on decisions that shape accessible transportation in British Columbia? What will it take to get accessible ride-hailing options in Vancouver and the surrounding areas? The ride-hailing per-trip fee was intended to fund possible accessibility solutions. I’m curious where the funds were being used. Were they put into the rebate that was announced, or are they being used in another program?

[12:05 p.m.]

In my closing thoughts, disability is a community-wide issue that can affect anyone’s life at any time. The common consensus around disability is that it’s a medical diagnosis that burdens an individual, but the true disability comes from the barriers built into society that don’t accommodate the individual.

This ongoing issue with the lack of accessibility within the taxi and ride-hailing industry is a textbook example of manufactured barriers negatively impacting those with disabilities. Collectively, together we can break down these barriers and create a more accessible society.

Thank you for providing this platform. It’s been an honour speaking with you today.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you very much for your presentation. I’d like to open it up for questions from the committee.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, first of all, thank you very much for being here today. We appreciate it. Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you for sharing your stories. We have heard from others who have been in similar circumstances, and I think that one of the things that all of us on this committee are very focused on is ensuring that is a priority of the work and the discussion that we’re having.

Just to respond to your questions, we are very much encouraging organizations and individuals to come and talk to us about the barriers that they’ve experienced, so your personal experiences are really important to us.

We actually had a presentation about the fund, and we’re going to go back and ask some more questions about that, because we have similar questions about how much money has been distributed. Where has it gone? What are the actual outcomes? It’s one thing to announce a fund, but we need to make sure it’s working. So I think your questions are very valid.

I would also just like to reflect. I live in Prince George, so 500 miles from here. It’s snowing as we speak. I’m very concerned about accessibility, not just in metro communities but also around the province, because sometimes…. In our community, we’re lucky. We have a fairly significant taxi fleet, but in smaller communities, often there are no other alternative modes of transportation.

I don’t know if you have experience in smaller or more rural communities or if you have friends…. I guess, my worry is it’s even more exacerbated in smaller communities than it is in urban communities at times.

J. Vaillant: I have some friends that speak to, like…. Yeah, in rural communities, the situation gets worse the further you get out in the province.

I guess I’m curious to kind of go back to the ride-hailing per-trip fee. I guess you guys don’t know where that money went or how it’s being used, because that’s been like a lingering question through the journey of making this documentary. No one has quite given us an answer to how that money is being used and where it’s gone. I’m just kind of curious. I don’t know if you can shine a new light on that.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Are you talking about the $3 million that was announced?

J. Vaillant: Yeah. No. Was the $3 million taken from the ride-hailing per trip fee, or did it come from somewhere else? Yeah. I’m just curious if you have any information on that.

M. Elmore (Chair): Those are good questions, Jasper. I think we’ll also have those questions and be looking to get those answers. That’s part of our deliberations.

Here, we just echo the appreciation, in terms of sharing your perspective and looking at how we address these concerns, dismantle those barriers and provide the service I think that we all expect across British Columbia. Those are answers we’re also undertaking in the course of our course of our hearings.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I think you’ve just confirmed that we’re asking the right kinds of questions when it comes to exactly.... You know, there is a fee that’s charged that does go back to support accessible transportation.

Government has also had programs to provide support, because it is more expensive, for example, for taxi owners to provide those vehicles. So those are the kinds of questions that I think are important for us to deliberate on. I think you’ve just confirmed that we are headed in that direction, and it is an important part of the discussion we’re having.

We’ve just basically started our work, so I appreciate your input today, and we’ll continue to pursue those answers and look at how we can better serve all British Columbians. That is part of the work that we’re focused on.

[12:10 p.m.]

J. Vaillant: Yeah, thank you.

J. Routledge: Yes, thanks, Jasper. Thanks for coming to speak to us and for your stories. You’re not the first one who has come to speak to this committee and expressed the frustration and, well, the inequality and the injustice of what you’re faced with.

Yes, I do think that this is something that is pretty clear — that we are going to deliberate about this and try to figure out what the solutions are. Having someone like yourself come and talk to us gives us some evidence to work with.

At this point — early stages, in my mind, in terms of where to go with it — the question in my mind is: does the current model work? Maybe we need a new model. Maybe it’s more than just funding, where we get the funding from and where we use it. Maybe we need a new model.

J. Vaillant: Yeah, I think it needs to be dramatically restructured just in terms of how it’s built. I think that it’s underserving many communities, not just my own. But I think that instead of trying to solve it with, like, a patchwork method, I think just kind of restructuring the whole network…. Yeah, I think it just needs a restructuring.

J. Routledge: Yeah, I think that that’s exactly the direction that we have to go in. Right now it seems to be that we’re jammed up on supply and demand of appropriate vehicles. That’s too narrow an approach. So we need to take a different approach.

I asked one of the previous presenters: what about more just dedicated vehicles? The response was that, well, they’re called handyDARTs. But I don’t know that handyDARTs address it. You need to be able to call a vehicle when you need it and have it come.

J. Vaillant: The issue with handyDART is, yeah, exactly what you said. You need to call a vehicle when you need it. HandyDART is more designed for passengers that are having more of a leisurely Sunday than “I need to get to this place at this time.” Yeah.

I used handyDART when I was younger. I couldn’t really use it because their goal isn’t really to be on time. Their goal is to get you to the place that you need to go but not necessarily when you want to go there.

J. Routledge: You need access to vehicles that are transportation.

J. Vaillant: Yeah.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I don’t know if Jordan had a question. Did you? No.

One of the things I am hoping we will look at…. This was after we had another presentation, a previous presentation. Calgary has worked on a model which actually has central dispatch for wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Instead of calling a single company and trying desperately to find someone that has a vehicle on the road, taxi companies in Calgary all have agreed to have a central dispatch. So you actually call….

It’s called WAV. That is a dedicated dispatch for wheelchair-accessible vehicles that are on the road. I think that’s one of the ways that other jurisdictions are looking at: how can we begin to address that issue?

I am hopeful we could actually hear from that organization. I think we brought that up at one of our previous meetings. That’s the kind of innovation that other jurisdictions are looking at to say: “Instead of having to randomly call a taxi company, there is a centralized dispatch.” They know at any given time how many wheelchair-accessible vehicles are on the road and where they are. You can get a more direct contact.

I just wanted you to know that there is some innovation going on. We will hopefully get a chance to learn more about whether it’s working and how they bring that kind of cooperative approach to serving people with disabilities.

J. Vaillant: Yeah, I think that would go a long way into fixing the issue, because I think there are only about two or three taxi companies per city. If those two or three don’t have accessible service, I’m stranded where I am. I think that having a centralized dispatch would be a great idea.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, thanks. We’ll certainly, hopefully, get more information on it. We just learned that they were doing it and thought: “Well, maybe that’s a pragmatic way to deal with the issue.”

Anyway, thank you again for your time.

[12:15 p.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Jasper, thanks for your presentation — sharing your story and experiences and recommendations.

You referenced that it was Toronto and Montreal that have ride-hailing with…? Providing…?

J. Vaillant: Yeah, they have accessible ride-hailing services. How it works is that they partner with a third-party company that has wheelchair-accessible vans, and then that branch will be, like, their accessible service.

So I guess my question is…. Vancouver was one of the…. It took us a long time to get ride-hailing into the city. We got it in January of 2020, and ride-hailing has been around since about 2008. I’m just curious as to: when there is accessible infrastructure done in other cities, why wasn’t it transferred over here?

M. Elmore (Chair): Shirley, did you…? Okay.

Jasper, yes. These are some of the issues that we’re looking at and considering — underway.

I want to thank you for your presentation, taking the time. Good luck with your documentary that you’re working on. We appreciate your advocacy and taking time to join and come and share experiences with you today.

All right. Okay. That concludes our presentations this morning. We are now going into a committee recess, and we’ll return at 1:05. We’ll be back at 1:05 for our afternoon presenters.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you to everyone in our audience.

We’ll have a recess.

The committee recessed from 12:16 p.m. to 1:11 p.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): I’d like to call the committee back to order after our recess and welcome our next presenters.

We have, from TransLink, Andrew McCurran and Natalie Corbo. You’ll have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by 15 minutes for questions and answers.

I hand it over to you.

TransLink

A. McCurran: Thank you so much, Chair.

I’m Andrew McCurran, director of strategic planning and policy at TransLink. Natalie Corbo is the planner. Our policy team has been doing a lot of the analysis and heavy lifting following the ride-hailing and the TNS file over the last number of years.

As you know, I think, TransLink is Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation authority. Authority is set out in the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Act. We actually have a pretty broad legislative purpose to plan, fund and manage the regional transportation system; to move people and goods; to advance regional and provincial environmental and emissions objectives; as well as to support the regional growth strategy.

It’s that broader mandate that we’re coming to you today and speaking about. Often people think of us as the public transit agency. We also have that responsibility. Here today we’re thinking about the broader transportation system.

I just wanted to mention that transit ridership, in particular, has bounced back significantly from the pandemic. We’re getting close to 100 percent of pre-COVID ridership, which is exciting to see. We’ve also seen a really strong return of traffic volumes in the region. They’ve bounced back much faster than transit ridership, and we’re seeing congestion and traffic levels continue to worsen. That’s an issue I’ll pick up on in a little bit.

Also, I’ve got a couple of key recommendations I’d like to put forward for your consideration. I wanted to contextualize those in the context of Transport 2050, which is the region’s long-term transportation strategy. It really underpins the recommendations that we’d like to share.

The Transport 2050 overall vision…. The theme is “Access for everyone.” Every person in Metro Vancouver, no matter who they are, where they live or how they choose to get around, can easily connect with the opportunities they need to thrive.

We’ve got a couple of ambitious targets that are relevant to the work you’re considering here, I think. The first is…. We’re looking for half of all trips to be made by active transport and transit in this region by 2050 and at least the majority of the remaining trips made by car to be made in shared car trips. So by car-share, taxis and ride-hailing.

To that point, we are explicitly stating in Transport 2050…. We see ride-hailing as a really important part of the shared mobility ecosystem, along with taxis and car-share, and we would like to support them to carry more of those auto trips that can’t be made by walking, cycling and transit.

We’ve also got targets in Transport 2050 around reducing congestion — to see 20 percent less congestion in 2050 over today. That is, to be honest, one of our hardest targets. That’s pretty ambitious.

Then, where people have affordable options…. No one needs to spend more than 45 percent of their household income on housing and transport. This is the subject today. It’s also highly related to affordability and affordable mobility.

We’re looking to see zero traffic fatalities by 2050.

The last key target is around GHG emissions — zero GHG transport system by 2050 and an interim target of reducing emissions from light-duty passenger vehicles by 65 percent, from 2010 levels, by 2030. That’s also quite ambitious.

[1:15 p.m.]

It’s those targets that really sort of set the tone for the recommendations that I’ll just describe briefly now.

We have been monitoring closely and following with great interest…. We made a submission to the original legislative panel a number of years ago. We’ve been looking forward to having this opportunity to check in again with you in a couple of years.

We took an early role in coordinating the region 1 municipalities. TransLink, together with the province, has helped facilitate an inter-municipal business licence. You’re likely aware that 28 participating municipalities on the south coast, region 1, have signed on to that. We’ve worked with all of those partner jurisdictions and the province to establish a data-monitoring program, commissioning and conducting research and working really closely with municipalities to understand their challenges and experiences. All of that informs these recommendations.

The four key areas I’d like to focus on…. The first is around data and data access. The second is around the GHG emissions reduction framework. The third is around promoting accessible transportation services for people with disabilities. The last one is around monitoring and making sure we have the tools to manage the impacts on congestion and transit ridership.

I’ll start just with the first one, data. The province committed to sharing the data collected from ride-hailing operators with public entities and local jurisdictions back when the legislation was introduced in 2020. We’re quite excited by that.

I’d have to say…. B.C., I think, was a leader in North America. We took our time. Your colleagues took their time to get the legislation right. I think we managed to learn from the mistakes of a number of our peers such that we were able…. You, in this province, have some of the best data on ride-hailing anywhere in North America.

That being said, we, unfortunately, haven’t been able to get access to that data, as we had hoped. It took until just early this year, so three years after the services were introduced, to be able to get access to that data. Unfortunately, we’re still not able to use it to inform analysis or share with our decision-makers because of some data quality issues.

I could go into that in more detail in the discussion or questions, if you’d like. Overall, we’d like this to be, really, a top priority. The recommendations of this panel ensure that there’s quality data provided in a timely manner to local partners to enable them to manage the streets and understand the impacts of ride-hailing.

In particular, I’ll just mention…. We would like to see a move towards more real-time data. Right now we’ve been getting sort of retroactive reports.

It took a number of years to get any data at all. Moving into the future, in a more digitally connected mobility world, where we think there’s a lot of potential to communicate in real time with mobility service providers and manage incidents on the roadway and monitor and audit and enforce traffic rules and licence requirements, having that real-time data would be a great next step. In the near term, just ensuring that quality data for planning and decision-making is our key recommendation.

The second key piece is around GHGs. We’ve got ambitious targets. The province has ambitious targets. Our read right now is that the existing regulations don’t really have a GHG reduction component, other than the age of the vehicle, which is an indirect proxy around fuel economy. Our proposal is that you introduce a more formal GHG reduction framework and specific targets.

We’d suggest that an industry-wide target of 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2030 would be reasonable. It’s reasonable in part because it’s already in line with Uber and Lyft’s own public corporate commitments as well as regulations in other jurisdictions like New York and Toronto.

We also recommend setting out reporting requirements for industry. Data that the province is already collecting is extensive and very good quality data, but it doesn’t currently include information about vehicle or fuel type. So getting better data and then introducing regulatory requirements to move to zero emissions, especially given the scale of the growth of this fleet and the number of kilometres that these vehicles drive, four to five times more than the average vehicle in the fleet….

The last piece there is…. We suggest that rebate or grant programs could be established, through existing provincial emission reduction programs, to promote an equitable transition to zero-emission vehicles and provide incentives for individual drivers.

[1:20 p.m.]

The third area is around accessibility. I know this is something that you and your colleagues really grappled with when you initially introduced legislation several years ago, and the proposal that you landed on was having a 90-cent fee for vehicles that were not accessible. There was a question for a number of years of sort of exactly where that fee would go to.

Our sense right now, although I think we still need to see how it plays out to some extent, is that it’s not adequately meeting the needs of people with disabilities and who need to use wheelchairs. Lots of people with disabilities are using ride-hailing. We’ve done…. Natalie’s actually led some primary research surveying folks within the region who use accessible transit services to talk about their use of ride-hailing. Lots of them use it for the convenient, shorter wait times, easy-to-use service.

We’ve got two key recommendations here, though. One is that the province adopt requirements to encourage accessible TNS services, including service level standards and monitoring programs. That might seem challenging. There are a number of other jurisdictions who have done this, though. The companies have been able to make up for the lack of maybe wheelchair-accessible vehicles from individual owners by relying on other service providers like a First Transit or a local HandyDART service or something like that to fill in the gaps.

So the first piece we offer for your consideration is to introduce requirements for accessible services in the TNS fleet. Another barrier that folks identified in our survey was lack of training and awareness around disabilities amongst ride-hailing drivers, so we’d also recommend that disability awareness training be required for all passenger-directed vehicle drivers.

The last area I’ll touch on in the last couple of minutes is…. We acknowledge, as I mentioned at the beginning, that there is a huge amount of benefits to expanding the passenger-directed vehicle fleet to people, giving more affordable options. It’s all part of that shared mobility ecosystem that, at the end of the day, can help give people more options to not have to rely on their own personal car.

The two main negative impacts that we’re concerned about continuing to monitor around traffic congestion, both on the roads and at the curbside, and around transit ridership decline…. Those two are the main, really main broader societal negative impacts that we’ve seen in other cities that have had longer experience with these services.

Unfortunately, because of our lack of data, we don’t have…. We were hoping to have more evidence-based conclusions we could analyze ourselves and discuss with you today. In the meantime, for now, we’ve got preliminary data from a University of Toronto study that looked at ride-hailing adoption in Metro Vancouver.

The survey showed that about a quarter of respondents were reducing their transit use because of ride-hailing, which is quite a bit higher than the number who reported increasing their transit use. I think we do need to take an ecosystem view, so that’s just one sort of slice of data. But we do see curbside congestion in busy urban areas. Traffic congestion is increasing, and there are some negative impacts to transit ridership.

So we do need more data, but we also support ensuring that the province continues to support local governments, local and regional partners, to have the tools they need to manage traffic congestion and curbside issues in their communities.

I think I’ll just finish up here. Oh, sorry, one more point around…. With changing technology, the arrival of automation and robotaxis is something that we really see. The work you’re doing now is going to be setting up, at least partially, the framework for the arrival of more increasingly automated vehicles. Obviously, we’ve been seeing what’s been happening in California as kind of a bellwether that might not be here in British Columbia for a number of years.

Our key message is that the impacts from services like that, we feel, would be significant in urban areas, and we would welcome the opportunity for more robust consultation before that next step is taken. But we think that a number of the recommendations we’re putting on the table here will help set the stage for a better system into the future where we can leverage the benefits of ride-hailing and automated taxi and ride-hailing services while mitigating some of the negative impacts.

[1:25 p.m.]

To summarize, then, our key recommendations.

Ensure that local and regional jurisdictions have reliable access to high-quality data — ideally, increasingly in real-time into the future.

That we’ve got a greenhouse gas reduction framework comprised of incentives and requirements, including a target of 100 percent zero-emissions vehicles by 2030.

Adopt requirements and incentives to encourage wheelchair-accessible ride-hailing vehicles and a disability aware­ness training requirement for drivers.

Fourth, continue to support local and regional jurisdictions to implement programs that address congestion and encourage public transit.

And that we have further conversations about the tools that we need to manage level 4 and 5 automation when that arrives in the province.

Thank you so much for your time, and we’re happy to take questions.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I’ll open it up to questions from committee members.

J. Routledge: Thank you. I have a number of questions, but maybe I’ll come back to some of them.

One of the things that troubles me about the shift to app-based ride-hailing and just some of the trends that you’re talking about is…. I ask myself: who’s getting left behind?

A. McCurran: Yes.

J. Routledge: You’ve addressed it in terms of being more proactive in terms of having a plan, a model for accessibility. But then I wonder as well in terms of reducing…. Where reducing GHG emissions and ride-hail intersect, that basically requires ride-hail drivers to drive electric cars.

As it stands now, those companies don’t subsidize that in any way. Again, it’s favouring drivers who can afford what are now a lot more expensive cars. I’m wondering if you’ve had a chance to give any thought or what you think about what we do to make sure that nobody gets left behind, economically.

And then another quick question is when you talk about data, I’d just be interested to know some examples of what kind of data you think you need.

A. McCurran: Thank you for those questions. Maybe I could start with the data piece.

Then, Natalie, if you want to speak to, specifically, what other jurisdictions maybe have done with respect to GHGs, electric car requirements and disability wheel­chair-​accessible requirements.

On the data front, beyond…. The two additions that we had talked about were vehicle and propulsion types of fuel, so that we have a better sense of the GHG emissions of the overall system. Otherwise, the data that you’re already collecting is, we feel, quite robust. The challenge has been more in disseminating it, on the one hand.

The second piece is about real-time versus more in­frequent reporting. The infrequent reporting is useful for planning, like retrospective planning. But to the extent we can actually establish better real-time data, we can actively manage what’s happening on the roads kind of as we go.

We can make sure that the companies are following the traffic rules, parking rules and also their licence requirements and audit and enforce. That’s sort of a key gap. Making sure we’ve got the data, improving the frequency, the real-time of the data and then adding some about emissions was kind of the key area.

J. Routledge: Maybe just a quick follow-up question on that.

When it comes to accessibility, do you have data now, or would you be able to get data on how many vehicles are accessible? And what is the wait time?

N. Corbo: That is a field that’s available within the data that we’re receiving. Currently, there are not any wheelchair-accessible TNS vehicles that are operating in this region. In the future that is, if we were to see….

J. Routledge: What about taxis?

N. Corbo: Taxis. There have been a few more data quality issues with the taxi data than the TNS data. But that is something that I believe we would be able to calculate, given reliable data.

A. McCurran: Yeah. We should conceivably have that ability to answer your question in the future.

Electric car requirements was the other thing that you had raised. Do you want to speak to that at all, that sort of incentive?

[1:30 p.m.]

Because that’s one of the challenges for sure in that who are the drivers of TNS services, and are they able to afford expensive electric vehicles? So what sort of systems could we put in place?

N. Corbo: Yeah, absolutely. This is an interesting one. A couple of other jurisdictions have been looking at that.

I think Andrew mentioned New York and Toronto have recently introduced legislation. In both cases, they’re looking at graduated requirements for those fleets to transition to electric or to low-emission-capable vehicles, like a hybrid vehicle, over time. It is possible to include clauses in there to grandfather existing licences, existing vehicles.

I would also note that the current regulations require vehicles to be no more than a certain number of years old. So over time, people would start needing to purchase newer vehicles in order to even be eligible to drive an internal combustion vehicle. The idea is that fleets can electrify at a similar rate as what we’re requiring in terms of vehicles that are being sold in the province. We’re looking at regulations here requiring that all new vehicles sold must be electric within the next decade or so, so that would sort of mirror those requirements.

I think there’s also that piece of existing grants, subsidies, for private vehicle owners that they can tap into.

I would also just note that already this sector is electrifying more quickly than general private vehicle owners. In 2022, about 10 percent of TNS vehicles in this region were electric, compared to about 4 percent of the average here.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, I have some questions as well.

Oh, Shirley, go ahead.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay.

I’m really interested in the whole concept. You said that there are no wheelchair-accessible or accessible vehicles available under TNS services in our jurisdiction. You mentioned that there are jurisdictions that do have those services, Toronto being one of the examples that you provided. I think, in fact, they have some guidelines in terms of response time and all of those kinds of things.

From your perspective, are there people who have expertise in looking at what we could do here in British Columbia to ensure that, between taxis and ride-hailing, we have a far more accessible…? We just had a young man present to us who talked about the situations he’s faced. Are there leading examples of who we should be looking at in terms of creating more accessible options for people in our province?

A. McCurran: Yeah. I think it’s a great question.

Natalie, you’ve got the most experience. I think those examples, Toronto, New York, Portland…. Do you want to speak a bit to how they’ve unfolded there? Toronto, given that Canadian context, is probably a good one to draw on as a peer.

N. Corbo: Yeah, I think that would be one of the primary ones.

Portland is an interesting one too. Obviously, they’re a close neighbour, and they’ve had experience for a little longer. They’ve been trying to implement those requirements over seven or eight years or so. They’d be interesting to learn from as well, I think, because there have been some challenges there in terms of service levels and response times. So just learning how they’ve been able to mitigate and try to improve those response times would be interesting.

California, as well, at the state level has some interesting experience with having transportation network service companies self-report on the standards that they’re meeting in that context as well.

Those would be a few to look at for sure.

A. McCurran: I think the interesting lessons from those places…. Because I think when…. We all, a number of years ago, agreed with you that that was a challenging thing to require, wheelchair-accessible vehicles, given that these vehicles are largely privately owned by individuals.

If you take a step back and think about the broader company, especially larger companies….

[1:35 p.m.]

A number of the cities have these wheelchair-accessible requirements only once the fleet reaches a certain size, so it sort of….

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I think it was 500 in Toronto.

A. McCurran: Five-hundred, exactly. Yeah.

In that example, your smaller operators wouldn’t have to bear that burden. But once you’ve got a fleet that’s large enough, then you can start to tap into some of those alternative means to provide a wheelchair-accessible service by, essentially, kind of contracting out. To the extent you don’t have any vehicles in your own fleet, you can partner with or contract out.

If you’ve got regulations in place that have strict auditing and enforcement and penalties, if they’re not meeting the regulations, then…. You know, the companies are pretty creative at being able to find ways to meet those requirements.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I’m a strong believer that data drives decision-making, and if you don’t have it, then you are missing a key component when you try to plan, especially for the longer term.

I think Janet sort of started down this path. When you are asking for real-time data, you also want to include information like type of vehicle, those kinds of things? Is that the expansion of the data that we need in British Columbia, from your perspective? What else do we need?

A. McCurran: Yeah, I think the real-time data is…. It doesn’t all need to be real-time. It actually gets into a fairly nuanced data governance conversation. The emissions data doesn’t need to be real-time, for example, but it’s not being collected at all right now. So that’s one piece that we’d like to see added.

A lot of what would be useful for real-time is knowing vehicle location. Does it have a fare right now, or is it available?

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So trip data.

A. McCurran: Trip data, exactly, the dynamic transportation system management data. Where are they? Are they following the rules? Did they pick up somebody where they’re not supposed to pick somebody up? That sort of thing is, in the near term, what real-time data would be useful for.

We didn’t raise it here, but as you’re interested in the data question, we’re also interested in supporting mobility as a service as a broader concept, the ability to have all services — mobility services, the ability to plan, book and pay for a trip — on one app. So that’s also sort of an entry point. Having that sort of trip booking and payment data available in real-time would help facilitate that ecosystem. But that’s sort of a parallel conversation.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): The focus of your conversation and all of the recommendations relate to ride-hailing, but the ecosystem is bigger than that. It includes taxis. In fact, taxis have a key role to play in accessibility when it comes to transportation. So how do you incorporate the data?

We’ve certainly heard that there are two challenges. One, the Passenger Transportation Board tells us the compliance levels of taxi drivers. Then we hear the other side of the argument, which is that it’s complicated to try to get the data in the format that it’s being asked for.

What’s the bigger picture that you have in mind? I mean, ride-hailing has obviously disrupted the world we live in, in positive ways and negative ways. But what about the bigger picture? Taxis and other forms of transportation — how do they fit in your picture?

A. McCurran: Yeah. I think that idea of all of those mobility services, especially shared mobility services — so taxis, ride-hailing and car-sharing — we really see as part of one ecosystem that’s providing that alternative to needing to have your own personal car. They work really well with active transport and transit.

Ideally, from a data perspective, we’ve got good real-time data from all of those services coming into a central data warehouse. We talk at length about this in Transport 2050. Whether that’s a provincially managed data warehouse or something that TransLink manages in cooperation with the province and our local partners, that allows us to have access to all that trip data.

We’re collectively managing the system out there on the streets, the curbs and the traffic lanes, as well as the transportation options for people, so we’re able to present out all of those options to the travelling public — so definitely seeing it as one integrated ecosystem.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I guess my last comment…. There are lots. Thank you for your presentation.

I think the other thing is the challenge you face, because studies would tell us that when you look at ride-hailing and the ecosystem, you’re actually taking people…. In many cases, there’s a reduction in people using public transit. Is that accurate?

A. McCurran: Yeah. That’s what some of our preliminary work, this U of T study that I referenced, does show — that a number of folks who took ride-hailing trips would have otherwise taken transit trips, and it probably, overall, was a net reduction in transit ridership.

[1:40 p.m.]

I think the question is finding the right balance. Obviously, if people are able to make more trips on ride-hailing or taxis or car-sharing instead of owning their own car or maybe not having to own two cars and just owning one that sort of supports an overall increase in active and shared modes.

That’s our broader philosophy, why we see all these things as being complementary. That said, we think that the regulations and the tools, the incentives and the ability for us and local street authorities to effectively manage the negative impacts will help us leverage the positive benefits.

We don’t want excessive poaching, for example, of really great transit trips that could easily and affordably have been made by transit in convenient corridors, by low-cost ride-hailing services travelling that same corridor, because they’re just adding to congestion. But where ride-hailing, taxis and car-sharing fill in some gaps, we absolutely want to support those. I think it’s having the tools to regulate them together.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So you don’t see yourself, in essence, in competition. You see yourself as part of a broader system and looking at the key things of reducing emissions, making sure we’re dealing with congestion, those kinds of things.

A. McCurran: Exactly.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. Thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): I’m going to sneak in one last question here, Andrew. If you can submit your report, that would be great.

A. McCurran: Absolutely.

M. Elmore (Chair): I appreciate that.

Looking forward to the vision of an integrated mobility service app, looking at integrating these different components, are there other jurisdictions moving in that direction or running some pilots along those lines, the complexities of public services and private companies? What’s going on?

A. McCurran: Yeah, the broader umbrella of that kind of idea, this concept, has generally been called “mobility as a service.” I’d say that it’s evolving in a number of ways in different places in the world. In some places, it’s emerging from the private sector. In some places, it’s bubbling up from local or regional governments experimenting with pulling partners together.

That’s what TransLink is doing right now. We’ve got a prototype we’re about to launch, at the end of this year or early next year, in partnership with Mobi, the local bike-sharing, Modo and Evo, the two-way car-sharing and one-way car-sharing, and TransLink. You’ll be able to sign up and register for all of those services at once in one app.

Right now you need to sign up for all of them, submit your licence for all of them, your credit card, and have all your own apps when you’re booking the trips. You have to go to four different apps. That’ll all be one single sign-on, one user ID, one account, for trip planning, booking, payment and accessing the vehicles. That is this vision of helping to digitally integrate all these things.

To the earlier point of seeing ourselves as one complementary ecosystem, that’s a digital tool that helps us make it as a one single, seamless offering that’s more competitive to owning a private automobile.

Where are other cities going? I’d say that Berlin is a great example. Vienna has really led the way in developing those solutions. Finland is the notable jurisdiction in the world that has taken a state-level approach. It got nationwide in their updated motor vehicle act; I believe they call it the transportation act. It requires all mobility service providers — truckers, transit systems, taxis, ride-hailing, car-sharing — to provide specified trip data in real time to an urban data trust, as they call it.

The goal there is, through regulation, to create support of a competitive, open ecosystem. Then any app providers can come along — whether it’s TransLink, in the app we’re building, or a transit app or Google or any private company — and have access to the data. That’s the key thing. Then they can provide those seamless options to the customer.

M. Elmore (Chair): Interesting, terrific. I want to thank you very much, and I appreciate your presentation. I look forward to your having your report in for us to consider. I appreciate your time.

A. McCurran: Thank you so much, and good luck in your deliberations.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right.

Next we’ve got Ryan Staley. Welcome. We’ve got 15 min­utes for your presentation and 15 minutes for questions and answers.

COASTAL RIDES

R. Staley: My name is Ryan Staley. I started, own and operate Coastal Rides, which is a TNS service.

We currently have active drivers in the shíshálh and Squamish First Nations, Tla’amin Nation, K’ómoks First Nation, Wei Wai Kum First Nation, Campbell River, and, recently, Doig River First Nation in Fort St. John.

We’re operating in smaller communities. It’s a different perspective than a place that has a great organization like TransLink.

[1:45 p.m.]

Coastal Rides started probably over ten years ago when I got off the ferry in Langdale. Inevitably, the ferry is late, and the B.C. Transit bus leaves on time. Years later, when you introduced the ride-hailing legislation, I thought: “Well, let’s see if we can start something like this here and make it happen.”

I’ve got a number of things I see that could really help us to expand our service into these small communities and that I want to point out to you, as well as some things that I think you need to look at addressing in terms of equity and accessibility.

While my original experience was having to wait maybe 40 minutes or an hour for a bus, after starting this service, I realized there are a lot of gaps that we’re now filling, and some that we’re not able to fill.

In most communities where we operate, there are limited, legacy, passenger-directed vehicle options and limited public transit. We’re often filling a gap in cases where there was no option other than, maybe, hitchhiking in the past.

On a lot of the trips, beyond people going home drunk at night or travelling to and from the ferries, the ones I think we’re missing are the ones where people may be marginalized and can’t afford our service. Previous presenters were pointing out that a vehicle less than ten years old or an electric vehicle is quite costly. The drivers we have, obviously, can afford to have these vehicles. We have to charge rates to fairly compensate those drivers. That leaves people behind, if they have no other transportation option, in many cases.

The other type of trip where we see a big gap in our community, in Sechelt, is for people who have mobility challenges, particularly to and from the hospital but also to and from medical appointments. A lot of those people, particularly seniors, have difficulty using our app and using any online system. We’ve created a transportation system that works great if you can jump through the technological hurdles.

I’d like you to see if you can address the vehicle-age restrictions. What we’ve found: people looking to operate on our system have a commercial driver’s licence, so that’s not an issue, but they’re often living in remote or rural coastal communities where vehicles last longer and don’t need to be replaced, like if you live in Vancouver and drive every day.

For example, I have a driver. His name is Michael. He’s the only driver on Texada Island. He drives a 2013 RAV4 with 75,000 kilometres on it. As of February 1, with the current legislation, there will no longer be service on Texada Island. That’s one thing that I really hope you could address.

Obviously, it’s not the same situation in urban areas, where emissions reductions, etc., are key. In the smaller communities, it’d be great to have a bit more flexibility on that age requirement. We’ve got the NSC, and we’ve got commercial vehicle inspections, to make sure the vehicles are safe. So the vehicle-age restriction seems a little bit excessive.

The other thing that we’re finding challenging is both the annual licensing fee as well as the per-trip fees. Our annual licence fee is $5,000. We pay at least that or more in per-trip fees, and we have, I think, last time I looked, maybe 30 vehicles altogether in our fleet. We’re looking at fees to the government that are five, ten or more times, on a per-trip or per-vehicle basis, as compared to those of the legacy operators. That’s an extra cost that we have to pass on to our customers.

Another point on the per-trip fees is the 90 cents per trip. Right now that money is flowing out of our community and supposedly going to help wheelchair-accessible vehicles in Metro Vancouver and major centres.

[1:50 p.m.]

We heard discussion about requiring operators to offer a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. We’d probably need a per-trip subsidy for that vehicle, somewhere of $5 to $10, to be able to operate a vehicle and have it available all the time, so that people who do have wheelchair-accessible needs can have access to that vehicle.

On the accessibility front, we operate under the TNS app rules from the board. One of those is that the trips need to be booked and paid for through the app.

We get a lot of phone calls to our phone number, which we decided not to answer anymore because we couldn’t actually take trips over the phone, where people are looking for a transportation option. We’d send them a text message with a link to our app. But in more than half of those phone calls, they’re not finding what they need. They’re not able to book through the phone and get a trip right away.

It’s costly to have somebody answer the phone. But I think if we were allowed to do it, we could make those things happen and probably facilitate some more trips, particularly for people who are maybe older or maybe have other accessibility challenges that make using a digital device challenging.

On that affordability front and looking for money to, say, subsidize accessible vehicles, and you mentioned data before, I think one piece of data that you need to seek from the Ministry of Health and EMS is the number of trips done from hospitals that are not emergency and are done by ambulance.

We regularly see, at the Sechelt Hospital, people being admitted to hospital so that they can get to and from appointments in the city via ambulance, because they have no other transportation option. So look at the cost of having people occupying a hospital bed and being transported to and from appointments by ambulance, and I think you’ll be able to find some funding to support a broader accessible transportation system.

On that note, I think that the integration and leadership in…. We’ve got TransLink here, but in other parts of the province, we’re reliant on B.C. Transit. The handyDART service is a great service, but you’ve heard before that it is not flexible. So there needs to be some leadership, probably from the province, in terms of encouraging local governments to look a little bit more broadly at how those services are delivered. I think TNS — you know, ride-hail — taxis, other transportation options are a great way to integrate those kinds of services.

On that note on integration, one of the challenges that we face in small communities is that there really are not that many qualified drivers and service providers.

When I try to work with a local taxi operator, for example, or a local charter operator, one of the challenges I have is that they’ve already paid their insurance for passenger transportation to ICBC, and I have to layer a per-kilometre charge back to ICBC when they operate on our system as well. So clarifying, I guess, with ICBC and coming up with a strategy for allowing existing operators, whether they’re taxi or charter operators, to operate on TNS systems using their existing passenger transportation insurance….

Those are the key things that I wanted to share with you. Obviously, we’re working on providing an accessible and reliable service in some communities that really haven’t had much in the past.

I’m happy to comment or answer any questions you might have.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you, Ryan, for your presentation. I’ll lead things off.

I appreciate hearing from you and your experience outside the Lower Mainland. You’ve been operating about ten years. Is that correct?

R. Staley: No. I received the TNS licence on February 28, 2020. The ten years was how long I’d been thinking about it.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, thinking about it. Yes, since you got left behind there, B.C. Transit leaving on time.

You mentioned you had about 30 vehicles. How many different communities do you have? There’s quite a list.

[1:55 p.m.]

R. Staley: Yeah. We’re on the Sunshine Coast, so Se­chelt, Gibsons…. Basically, that’s 100 kilometres from Port Mellon to Egmont, with a population of 30,000 people. We’ve got Texada Island, a driver there. We’ve got a few drivers over in Powell River that are not online all the time, but for longer trips, if somebody books in advance, we can do that.

We’ve got quite a number of drivers in the Comox area, as well as Campbell River. And we’re just working on onboarding people in other parts of Vancouver Island, as well as Fort St. John now.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, there you go. And then do you operate…? Also, you’ve designed an app.

R. Staley: Our app is software as a service. So the app system, the customer-facing app, is designed by a third party. Most of their customers are paratransit systems, things like handyDART services in other cities and countries throughout the world. But they’re a Vancouver company.

M. Elmore (Chair): How would you characterize your business now?

R. Staley: Yeah, I mean, it’s growing. It’s certainly a challenge to grow it enough to make it sustainable. It’s not my full-time job. I have to keep my day job still. So this is sort of on the side of my desk, making [inaudible recording] in the community.

In addition to contract drivers, we do have [inaudible recording] staff drivers to make sure we’ve got service all the time on the Sunshine Coast. And that sort of hybrid model between staff and contractors is probably going to be the way forward in these smaller communities.

M. Elmore (Chair): Does anyone else have questions? Or I’ll just keep going. Does anybody else have questions?

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I do have a question. You operate in Fort St. John. Do you operate anywhere else in the Interior?

R. Staley: Not yet. No, we’re licensed in areas 3 and 5. I’ve looked at other communities. I’ve had discussions with the regional municipality of Northern Rockies, more broadly in that area. I’ve been contacted by municipal governments.

The reason we went to Fort St. John is that the CAO from Fort St. John reached out and said, “Hey, could you guys do this here?” and we said: “Sure, we can try if we….” It’s a matter of having drivers in the community that want to make it happen, right? I can’t be everywhere.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): No. Having said that, I looked at the reviews, and you got some pretty doggone high ratings from people in terms of your service and the…. Well, to be honest, there isn’t a negative one. They’re all positive.

Tell me a little bit about the fact that you do not use surge pricing. Is that correct? If not, how do you…?

R. Staley: Pricing is sort of variable depending on time of day and type of trip. We don’t yet have the technology to have dynamic, variable pricing. Probably something that is needed really long term is to have dynamic pricing. Any type of service that has like a limited shelf life and limited capacity really needs to have dynamic pricing.

We do have some fares that are available only at certain times of the day, some fares that are only available if a driver is nearby that are less. We also offer a lot of pooled trips, particularly to and from the ferry, and those are less expensive. So no surge pricing where it goes two or three times the rate, but we do have higher prices at certain times of the day when we know that demand is high and we only have a certain number of drivers.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So a pool trip would be four or five people or three people getting off the ferry. They’re all heading in the same direction and just all hop in.

R. Staley: Yeah, and our system does that dynamically and figures out where….

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So they book that.

R. Staley: Yeah, they have that option to choose a pooled ride or private ride, and they pay a premium for a private ride.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So you would have had to pay the $5,000, then, to become a TNS service?

R. Staley: That’s correct, yeah. That’s the annual fee.

[2:00 p.m.]

J. Routledge: Thank you for your presentation. I find your perspective kind of refreshing. This is a local company trying to provide a service locally. I’ve met with a lot of ride-hail drivers who work for the big international companies, and I suspect their experience with you would be quite different.

If you could just say a bit more about the surge pricing. Do you use surge pricing to even out costs? I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

R. Staley: We use higher pricing for certain times of day. For example, if somebody requests a ride at 3:30 in the morning to get to the airport, it’s going to cost more in order to wake up a driver to go do that.

Then we have higher pricing for a private ride versus a ride that could potentially be shared with others. The challenge in a small community is, and I think this is part of the challenge that taxis have had, once you’re booked on a trip, no one else can book you. If you only have two or three drivers in an area, then the wait time becomes very, very long. So by pooling trips, you can say: “The driver is doing something, but they could also do something else now.” That reduces the wait time.

M. Elmore (Chair): You just mentioned that you have contracted drivers and full-time. How are those managed?

R. Staley: The full-time drivers drive our vehicles. We’re just doing that in Sechelt right now, partly because we have a demand from the hospital to take their staff to and from work — all the travel nurses. You know, 75 percent of the nursing staff at the hospital is contract nurses. They’re flown in and out.

Interjection.

R. Staley: They stay in Airbnbs. Their places are rented monthly to the companies. It’s considered a long-term rental, but the people staying in them are there for about six weeks or so.

M. Elmore (Chair): So basically you have full-time and part-time staff.

R. Staley: Yeah, we have full-time staff and then part-time contractors. Most of them are contractors. I don’t have any contractors that are doing this full-time as their primary source of income. Everybody that’s a contractor is either semi-retired or has another full-time job.

Then the people who are full-time need to be on all the time, whenever we want. Those people are staff.

M. Elmore (Chair): Do they have benefits, or…?

R. Staley: We’re working on benefits and things like that. They’re paid like an employee.

M. Elmore (Chair): So they’re on salary?

R. Staley: Yeah.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, great. Interesting.

J. Sturdy: Really interesting. How many drivers do you have for a community of 30,000, for the Sunshine Coast?

R. Staley: For the Sunshine Coast? Let’s see. I think we’ve got eight people signed up on the coast. Maybe ten. Then, at any given time, there would be three to five, or sometimes one, depending on the time of day.

J. Sturdy: What’s the barrier to getting more drivers? Is it the work availability or is it licensing?

R. Staley: To some degree. The ability to go and get a class 4 road test is a big hurdle. I had one driver sign up recently. He’s like: “The nearest road test I could get is in Kamloops.” He has the means to go and do that. Not everybody has that.

The people that are driving are people that are semi-retired or have another job. They can afford to have the electric vehicles. I think 20 percent of our vehicles on our fleet are electric. But still, the fellow on Texada Island that’s retired and on a fixed income, and this is sort of a bonus for him, is not going to be able to go out and buy a new vehicle. Texada has 800 people. He gets a couple of trips a week, which is fine for him. He loves it.

We’ve considered going and applying for a taxi licence for him so he can use an older vehicle. But I’m not sure if the demand there will meet the requirements to have….

[2:05 p.m.]

Even switching from being able to have personal insurance and then having our TNS insurance kick in…. To switch him over to having taxi insurance on his vehicle pretty much eats half his profit for the year. To have any service in a community like that is a great option, as long as there’s somebody there that’s game for it.

J. Sturdy: Would you be not…? Are you able to meet the demand?

R. Staley: Often no. It depends. Yeah, like 11 o’clock on a Saturday night? No, but that’s the reality of somewhere like the Sunshine Coast. I mean, you’re lucky if you can get a bar or restaurant open after 10 o’clock. These things that are going on. But, yes, it’s certainly a challenge to meet the peak demand. Then, of course, off-season demand is limited.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I’m assuming that Fort St. John reached out because there weren’t enough taxis, for example, to meet the demand. So they were looking for another way to supplement?

R. Staley: Yeah, that’s my understanding. Some of the feedback is negative feedback around how those operators were serving the community. Obviously it’s a challenge to do what they’re doing if you’re a small taxi or any kind of operator in a small community. Trying to do it by…. Often, for the dispatches, you’re calling the driver in the car. If they’re having a bad day, the whole experience is not very positive.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I think it’s really important. I just like the fact that you bring a different perspective that this is a big province, and one size doesn’t necessarily fit all. I think that that’s really important for us to hear and to learn about. It is a challenge when it’s minus 30 outside and there are a limited number of vehicles that can take people from an airport to a hotel. I have experienced that in many small communities across the province.

Your system is cashless, then. The person would book, and they’d pay online.

R. Staley: That’s correct, yeah.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So the driver doesn’t deal with the…?

R. Staley: The driver doesn’t deal with any payment. Right. That’s so that’s part of the rules for TNS.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): And tips are done online as well?

R. Staley: They’re online, yeah. I mean, people can give cash tips. There’s nothing to restrict people from that. But the booking and payment is all online. Booking and payment could be done via phone and securely collect a credit card. But one of the benefits for the drivers is that they don’t have to deal with the payment.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): And then you just transfer their earnings?

R. Staley: Yeah, that gets all transferred automatically.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I really appreciate that perspective. I think it’s important to know that it’s a big province with a lot of different circumstances. So thank you for that.

R. Staley: Yeah, you’re welcome.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, well, thank you.

R. Staley: Thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): I appreciate it.

Harpreet, 15 minutes for your presentation and 15 minutes for questions and answers.

Over to you.

HARPREET SINGH KAULDHAR

H. Singh Kauldhar: First of all, good afternoon to everyone. I’m thankful for the special committee for giving me time to speak over here. Thanks to the Committee Clerks. I called them and then they were happy to give me ten minutes to speak.

I’m a taxi driver in Vancouver. I have been listening to a lot of people in the morning. Everybody has said everything. I was thinking about what to say, right? Everybody sent all kinds of feedback according to their respective departments. Today I will just touch four or five base points, because everybody has said a lot of things.

I drive a taxi every day, almost five to six days, full-time. I joined in 2018. The main impact which came was after the ride-hailing came into Vancouver. After that, I saw a lot of drop in business. Business means in my income also. Day by day, as the ride-sharing cars are increasing, that’s very worrisome for me.

[2:10 p.m.]

I would like to work. I’m 40. I would like to work until I’m 65 as a taxi driver, because I love it. I love this taxi industry. That’s why I’m here to present myself. Measures should be taken so that the taxi industry, which has been serving the community for a long time, should get a respected, primary share.

After the ride-sharing has come, a lot of things are changing. That’s why I’m here. The changes are that…. A lot of people who sit with me as customers also drive ride-sharing, or they also hire ride-sharing.

Now, the customer…. Suppose on a rainy day in Gas­town, my cab is sitting over here. He has already ordered ride-share. He can’t cancel, because he has cancellation fees. I roll down the window, but he says, “I’m waiting for Uber; otherwise, they will charge $5 to $10,” or whatever that is. That, I believe, should be…. It’s a recommendation from myself that that should be taken off, so that the customers who want a taxi, because their credit card is on the system….

I also feel sometimes…. Sometimes they cancel, and they sit with me. As a human being, I feel that it’s not good, because they have already paid $10. Again, he’s paying me $30, $25 to go to UBC. So I will suggest that that should be cancelled.

Then the class 4 should always be there, because that’s…. I believe taxi driving is a very…. I don’t know what word to use, but it’s a very different department. When I drive a taxi, I feel I owe the city. Like I belong to the city. I have that feeling when I drive a taxi, when I sit in my cab and my top light is on. While with the ride-sharing, the feeling is not there. I have seen that. That is why I’m focusing on that.

The training JIBC was giving before — that should be implemented. I got that training. I went to four or five days of the training, and then it helped me mentally to focus on what to drive. Safety, wheelchairs — all kinds of trainings were there. Now the new drivers, even in the taxi industry, they won’t get that training. They should also get it, the ride-sharing.

I’m on the road, always. I see ride-sharing, young guys. They don’t know the city — north, south, east, west, directions which we were taught in the school. That should come back. These are the couple of things why I would want the class 4 JIBC.

One was the camera. The camera which they use is like any personal camera. The camera which we use, only the police can take it whenever they want anything out of the camera. They tell our company or the meter shop. Over here, there’s no regulation for the camera.

The camera issue is a very safety kind of a thing that should be…. I don’t know how you guys will implement it, but that’s one more thing for the safety of the passenger and the driver also. That should be done.

One more thing. It’s my analyzation that…. A lot of people sit in my cab — I can’t tell you the politicians’ names — and I speak to them. Today, these days, we hear that there is a shortage of workers. There is no shortage of workers. The ride-share has taken that. A lot of people just come and just drive Uber or Lyft. That has taken a major chunk of workers from restaurants to warehouses to ride-sharing.

Once there is a gap, the workers, the people who are driving ride-sharing, will have to find a job, because ride-sharing was kind of a part-time thing to fulfil the customer service the taxi industry was not able to do on a night, on a weekend or at new year, kind of. That was probably the reason it was introduced in Vancouver, and I welcome that. No problem.

The customer service should be there, but not on a level that it has increased so much that taxis are getting behind. There should be a level playing field.

Now everybody is coming to drive an Uber or a Lyft or any other ride-hailing. What happens is that a lot of people are leaving full-time jobs, their original jobs, to come here. I’m listening to the term. It’s called flexibility. Flexibility, flexibility — that flexibility is causing a lot of unemployment to the other departments which people looking for hiring.

[2:15 p.m.]

That flexibility is also causing congestion in the city. I drive every day from Denman to Davie. If there are 60 cars, forty are ride-shares, with five taxis and ten local people. Every day it looks like there’s some kind of a fair or a concert happening. It has been increasing day by day. The congestion is there, so there should be a cap, the cap in a sense that….

The main motive of the bringing up of ride-sharing was to serve the customers. But it should happen in a limited way so that the taxi industry should survive, not in an unlimited kind of a way. So that is a major….

That will also reduce the unemployment when there’s a cap. Suppose, I will say, like, 5,000 in the morning, 5,000 in the evening. So they have a system. Anybody who logs in will do a shift. Other people then have to find another job, and that will help the whole economy. Every factory will get their workers. Warehouse people will get workers. Tim Hortons will get workers. McDonald’s will get workers.

I’m thinking not as a taxi driver. I’m thinking as a whole, as an economy. This unlimited kind of a thing which is happening in the city…. And one of the terms and differences about the smaller cities — you can imagine if everybody is going to drive Uber or Lyft or any other thing. How can the other small shops or warehouses get workers? This is my main concern.

I believe…. I have told this, I think — put a cap. People will get customer service. The taxi industry will be happy. Other departments which need workers will get workers.

I have told a lot of people, and they were happy with this solution. This is not, this solution, my idea. It can be wrong or whatever, but it serves everyone. You guys are the committee of politicians. You guys make the decisions, and it’s for the public, right? It’s for everyone. I don’t see it as a taxi or ride-share, but I think I see it as a whole.

That’s it. I don’t know what to say, because a lot of people have said a lot of things. These were my main concerns, and I wish that my recommendations or my review or my suggestions would be taken very seriously.

Thank you so much. Any questions?

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Kauldhar. I appreciate your presentation and sharing with us your experience as someone who works full-time in taxi. It has come across that you love and enjoy your job and really take pride in providing that public service. So thank you very much.

I don’t know if we’ve got more from…. Shirley.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Just a quick question. How long was the training program that you took? Was it called TaxiHost?

H. Singh Kauldhar: Yes, TaxiHost.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): And there were two levels, I think. Were there not? Was it TaxiHost 1 and…? Maybe just remind me. I remember the program, and I remember the goal behind it.

H. Singh Kauldhar: It’s two.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): There are two. And did you have to go to JIBC take it?

H. Singh Kauldhar: Yes.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. And there were two sections of it, I recall. And that no longer exists?

H. Singh Kauldhar: No.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. Thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Okay. We have an addition to our presenters here with us. Our next presenter is Gurdip Sahota.

Sorry we didn’t have an opportunity to make a card for you.

Mr. Sahota, over to you.

GURDIP SAHOTA

G. Sahota: Thank you, hon. Chair and members. This is an impromptu presentation, as I was co-opted to attend at the last minute by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Mohan Kang, president of the BCTA, to accompany him today.

I actually sent this via email to the Clerk. I don’t know if you…. He was supposed to send it to everybody, but in any case, you will eventually get it.

[2:20 p.m.]

By way of introduction, I started driving cab in January of 1990. I was a newly married 21-year-old immigrant, and this was my introduction into the Canadian economy. I started in the South Surrey–White Rock area and, a couple of years later, got my airport ID and then drove at the airport as well as a night-shift driver in downtown Vancouver for about four years.

In 1995 or ’96, I was one of the first drivers to drive a wheelchair-accessible taxi when the first of these licences were issued to taxi companies in British Columbia. I drove a wheelchair cab for about 12 years and loved it — loved every minute of it.

My driving career then transitioned into a management role in 2008, when I became a general manager at Delta Sunshine Taxi company in the Surrey-Delta area. I also managed companies on the North Shore and other taxi companies in Surrey until October of 2022, when I left the industry and became a realtor on a full-time basis. I had got my realtors licence in 2017 but went full-time after October 2022.

I have sent the Committee Clerk my op-ed, which appeared in the Daily Hive, a Vancouver paper, on July 28, 2020. It has many good points which are still valid today with respect to the need for a level playing field between taxis and ride-hailing services, including parity in operating areas to reduce deadheading and GHG emissions, and increased customer service and driver income.

I should also maybe mention here that we did appear before the previous committee, when my dear friend, the MLA from North Vancouver, Bowinn Ma, was the Chair. I think Mr. Sturdy was on that committee as well, along with other MLAs.

Earlier some of my colleagues spoke about wheelchair cabs. And just before lunch, we saw the powerful presentation about the shortcomings of wheelchair services, from the young man who spoke, and the challenges that customers with disabilities face when they’re trying to get around in a cab.

I would like to point out the distinction between the public provision of this service by handyDART drivers and the taxi companies, which are providing this service through a private business with drivers who are independent contractors. They are making their own business decisions re maximizing their income with the least amount of driving and incurring low gas usage.

HandyDART drivers are on the clock all the time during their shift. More importantly, I’d like to point out that their standard of service is a door-to-door standard of service, while traditionally cabs provide a curb-to-curb. We’ll pick up the passenger on the curb and then drop them off on the curb as well. Tthe driver only makes money when the meter is running, unlike HandyDART drivers making money throughout their shift.

Of course, in our contract with HandyDART, we are required to provide the door-to-door service, but the driver is still only paid when he starts the meter, after loading and strapping in the wheelchair passenger, and must stop the meter before unloading the passenger at the other end.

In various meetings with TransLink, Coast Mountain Bus and HandyDART, we have pointed out this disparity and suggested increased compensation for drivers to moti­vate them to opt for these trips. They’re making the independent decisions. They are choosing which trips to accept. For a driver who gets a choice of getting a trip out to the airport from any town, as opposed to having to drive maybe five, six or seven kilometres for a $5 wheelchair trip, you can pretty much guess which trip he’s going to opt for. These drivers are sometimes reluctant to take these wheelchair trips.

Also, many of these wheelchair vans are also used to transport people with lots of luggage at YVR or the ferries, or when people use them to move cargo in town. For example, somebody buys a big TV, and they need a wheelchair van to move it home from Future Shop, or wherever they’re buying it. So they use these vans. All these other users take them away from providing wheelchair trips.

One solution could be to mandate that TNS companies must provide accessible services with dedicated providers, like in Ontario. We just need more vehicles and need to recruit more drivers who are willing to drive, by offering higher compensation to these drivers for their time.

We would also like more integration with TransLink for the first-last-mile trips, through their transportation hubs and apps.

[2:25 p.m.]

That way customers, for example, can book a multi-mode trip where they could use a taxi to the SkyTrain/bus exchange and then maybe get another cab at the other end of the trip where there is no bus service to the customer’s destination.

By way of cooperating with TransLink, in about 2012, the taxi companies, as part of the B.C. Taxi Association and the Vancouver Taxi Association, participated in a year-long study to reduce congestion in Vancouver by allowing taxis to travel but not stop in bus lanes in downtown Vancouver. That study was done. All of the data was studied.

It was found that there were very substantial savings in time, in terms of…. You could be driving up, for example, Seymour Street or along Georgia Street, and the traffic is jam-packed. If a cab could drive in the bus lane, that would help them to the destination quicker.

At that time, we had advocated that the bus lanes on the North Shore be also included, but for some reason, they were excluded. For the longest time, we tried to lobby with MOTI and TransLink, the ministry, to allow another similar project on the North Shore. But there are some vested interests within TransLink, where there was great opposition from the bus drivers, who didn’t want to see cabs using their bus lanes to access, for example, the Lions Gate Bridge southbound.

You have all these cabs who are from the airport taking passengers to North Vancouver, for example. They are allowed to use the bus lanes in downtown Vancouver. But once they’ve dropped off their passengers on the North Shore, they’re going to get stuck in traffic, or one of my North Shore or Sunshine cab drivers picks up a fare going to the airport. They can’t use those bus lanes to access the Lions Gate Bridge southbound. Those are some of the issues.

I think we just need to work harder. There are solutions out there, but we just need to keep these cabs moving. We have limited resources. My op-ed speaks about the need to harmonize or bring parity with respect to operating areas. Earlier, you heard comments from my colleagues to say that ride-hailing has been given this huge massive zone, from Whistler all the way out to Hope.

Basically, what they can do is, within that area, pick up and drop off wherever they want to — this has been a bit of a pet project of mine — whereas in Metro Vancouver, we have municipal boundaries. For example, if one of my drivers from North Vancouver picked up a trip going out to Surrey, once they dropped off the fare in Surrey, they had to come back empty, which is a colossal waste of their resources and time. They’re not making money. Similarly, a Yellow Cab driver taking a fare to Coquitlam has to come back empty-handed.

I mean, there are 2,500 cabs. Imagine all of them on one system, where they’re able to pick up and drop off wherever the demand is. Try to imagine running Trans­Link or the B.C. Ferries on one-way trips. It’s like telling a business: “You can open up for one hour. Then you have to close for the next hour and then open for the hour after that and then close again.” That’s the kind of wastage of resources that we have because of these archaic boundary rules.

I have addressed that in my op-ed. I’m hoping that the committee can look at that, as well, because this way we can move the resources much quicker. Right now, for example, if you looked outside, you would see, yes, we have Vancouver cabs, but there are hundreds of cabs who are dropping off passengers from YVR. They’re having to go empty-handed back and waste all that time, then get back in line. Pretty much every cab at least a few times a day is doing one-way trips, which is a wastage.

Those are my comments. I’m more than happy to answer any questions.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We have received your submission. It’s on our system here, so appreciate that.

I’d like to open it up, for questions, to committee members.

J. Routledge: You make a very compelling, articulate case.

I’m curious about the zones, and that makes sense. Like what you say about that totally makes sense. Usually, I take a local taxi downtown, and I know they can’t pick me up when I’m ready to come home. I was under the impression that this was brought in at one point at the insistence of taxi companies.

[2:30 p.m.]

So what has changed? What arguments can we use today to change that that are different than the arguments that were used in the first place to bring that in?

G. Sahota: Like any industry, there’s a multiplicity of views. Obviously, we have…. My friends in the four Vancouver taxi companies have historically been opposed to the relaxation of the boundaries, because they feel that that would dilute their earnings.

Now, it is just by fate that Vancouver is the centre of all commerce and tourism, Metro Vancouver. We’ve got the cruise ship terminal here. In 2011, 17 suburban taxi companies had made an application to the PTB to allow 15 percent of their fleet capacity to work in downtown Vancouver during peak periods on the weekends from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.

The PTB did an investigation. They found out that, yes, there was an issue where, for example, the taxi fleet in downtown at that time…. The problem was that you had all these young people coming into downtown Vancouver for an evening out on the town. At the end of the night, early in the morning, during shift changeover, just before four o’clock, when the clubs were closing, none of the Vancouver drivers wanted to drive them out to Coquitlam, Surrey or Delta. These poor people were waiting for a ride home.

So we made an application and said: “Look, we have all these cars — 500, 600, 700 cars — at the airport who are finishing their shifts. They’ll be more than happy to…. There’s unused capacity in their fleets. Rather than let them go back empty, why don’t you allow them to pick up that excess demand in downtown Vancouver during the peak period?” Seven companies from the Lower Mainland were allowed a total of 38 licences to be operated in downtown Vancouver after an investigation by the board.

Our friends then took us on a nice little trip through the law courts by challenging the PTB and taking us to court, first through a judicial review at B.C. Supreme Court. They lost, and they appealed the decision. Then they went to the Court of Appeal, and then, after that, to their friends in the city of Vancouver. One of the councillors, who, later on, worked in the Premier’s office…. They brought in three successive six-month moratoriums to block the operation of these 38 cabs, all to appease a block within the taxi industry.

I think the motivation on our part was to serve the public where…. I would have my drivers driving back to the North Shore on West Georgia Street. There would be people flagging them, but they were not allowed to pick them up because they could get a $1,150 fine for picking up. Many of those fines were issued in order to deter them.

I sometimes had to work night shifts with one of my supervisors here, looking for North Shore Taxis to make sure they were not flagging illegally in downtown. I didn’t want any of them to get the penalty points and the $1,150 fine, which was, incidentally, given to the company. It was not issued to the driver.

We’ve tried all kinds of…. It was a simple argument. We have these resources. Can we find a way to increase our efficiency and use them to provide service during shift changeover?

For example, it’s four o’clock in the afternoon. You’re a passenger waiting in the lobby of the Hotel Vancouver. You have a flight to catch at YVR. To you, every cab looks the same. You don’t care if it’s a Yellow Cab or a Coquitlam Taxi. You just want to get service. If you want, you should be allowed to pick up a cab and go. It’s a no-brainer.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks. Any further…?

Well, thank you for your presentation. Appreciate it. Appreciate your effort.

That concludes our presenters for the day. I thank everyone here and our friends in the audience.

We’re going to take a recess now, a committee recess. Then we’ll be going in camera.

Thank you very much, friends. Appreciate it. That’s our conclusion today.

The committee recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Thank you, everybody. That’s the conclusion of our presentations today.

I’ll ask for a motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 2:36 p.m. to 3 p.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): We’re on air. That concludes our public hearing and the work for today. Thank you very much, everybody. Very fruitful presentations and discussions. I look forward to tomorrow.

Motion to adjourn, please.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 3 p.m.