The committee met at 8:02 a.m.

[S. Bond in the chair.]

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Good morning, everyone, on this Valentine’s morning. My name is Shirley Bond. I am the MLA for Prince George–Valemount and the Deputy Chair of the Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles.

We want to acknowledge this morning that we are on the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Our committee is reviewing passenger-directed-vehicle services, including taxis and ride-hailing, administered under the Passenger Transportation Act. Today we are continuing with presentations from organizations who have an interest in or an expertise in passenger-directed vehicles. We will also be following up with some public bodies who have previously appeared before our committee.

I will now ask committee members to introduce themselves. Perhaps we’ll start with my colleague Janet Routledge.

J. Routledge: Thank you, Chair. My name is Janet Routledge, and I am the MLA for Burnaby North.

D. Routley: Hello. My name is Doug Routley. I’m MLA for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

J. Sturdy: Good morning, Chair. I am Jordan Sturdy, MLA for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): We’re always very grateful for the help that we receive. This morning, we’re being assisted by Karan Riarh, Sean Morgado and Lisa Hill from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Danielle Suter from Hansard Services. We’re very grateful for their support this morning and throughout the work that the committee has done.

We’re going to start this morning with our first presentation. I see that Garrindar Parhar is online with us.

With that, we would remind you, Garrindar, that you have 15 minutes to present to the committee, and then there will be an opportunity for questions and answers. So welcome. We thank you for participating.

Over to you.

[8:05 a.m.]

Presentations on
Passenger Directed Vehicles

APT RIDES

G. Parhar: All right. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all today. I’m the owner of Apt Rides.

I’ll just give you a bit of background on myself before I get going. I’m born and raised in the North Shore — in Jordan’s riding probably, I believe — and I have grown up in the passenger transportation industry my whole life.

When I was a kid, my dad owned a mechanic shop. He did a lot of work on passenger-directed vehicles. My first job, at age 15, was as a dispatcher at a local taxi company. When I turned 19, while I was in university, I got my class 4 commercial driver’s licence. I drove a cab part-time while I was in university.

I had the opportunity, after I graduated university, to be a partner in a taxi company in a smaller resort town in the south coast. So, I learned a lot during that time. We were a different cab company, in that all our cabs were company owned. We had drivers that weren’t invested in the company.

It gave me a little insight into what keeps drivers happy. We needed to make our drivers happy, otherwise they weren’t going to work for us. We were in a transient city that had a transient workforce. People that came to the community didn’t have commercial vehicle licences.

That’s kind of my guideline, my driving force when I created Apt Rides. I wanted to create a company in which drivers could make money, in which they could be happy. That’s my background there.

My company. We have been operating for about 11 months. It’s been a bit more difficult than I expected. There are some challenges that I didn’t see, and it’s been harder convincing drivers to join than I thought.

What has worked well, I’ve found, is the helpfulness of all levels of government that are involved in the TNS legislation. Working with the PTB, ICBC, the city of Vancouver for the inter-municipal business licence program and the curbside and congestion management program…. They’ve all been very helpful.

Out of the Lower Mainland companies, my company is the only one that wasn’t operating prior to the TNS legislation in B.C. I started from a standing position, whereas other companies started running. They were running when the legislation was passed. I needed, probably, a little bit more guidance from the different levels of government than the other companies, and my experience has been great. Everyone I’ve worked with has been really good. That’s been a positive.

There have been issues that have popped up because I was a new company that started from nothing. One of them was in regards to the inter-municipal business licence plan, for example. This is one of the challenges that I think I’ve faced, one of the bigger challenges, that the system that was created for TNS in the province was, probably rightfully so, created for the big companies that operate in the market.

This meant that things such as data submissions, tracking for ICBC and for the PTB, and licensing fees, I think, were created with the big companies in mind. That’s definitely been a barrier, I think, for myself and probably for other smaller companies.

I’ve noticed that there have been companies, local companies and smaller companies, that have started that have closed up in the Lower Mainland and probably in other parts of the province as well.

I think that’s one of the barriers, because the tracking data submission, the licensing fees, are all quite substantial. Most companies won’t have the pockets of the big companies that operate in the market. That’s one of the challenges.

For example, for myself, dealing with the inter-municipal business licence fee…. How it works is you pay your $155 licence fee at the start of the year, and then you’re required to submit data monthly to the city of Vancouver for all your new active drivers. In my case, I assumed that active drivers would be every registered driver. I submitted that monthly, and it became quite obvious that the cost would be very, very high even though I wasn’t generating much revenue, because you need to have a baseline number of drivers before you can actually start generating revenue.

[8:10 a.m.]

For me, starting from the position of a brand new company, I needed to probably get, realistically, about 500 drivers on board before I can start generating a decent amount of revenue. The cost to license that many drivers without generating any revenue was going to be quite exorbitant.

Luckily, the city of Vancouver did work with me to create…. I think they adjusted, I’m assuming they adjusted, where we would only count active drivers as drivers that have actually accepted a ride. This is something that the other companies didn’t have to deal with, because like I said, they were operating before the TNS legislation was passed, whether in our own city or in other places in the world. So that was one of the challenges I faced.

The second challenge, I mean, obviously, is dealing with the two big companies that operate in the market. That’s something I expected, and I’ve created differences in my company I think will create and attract a niche of drivers that want to work for my company. But the big companies have the pockets to do things such as promotions that are maybe money-losing for them for a significant amount of time, but they could drive out the local competition. So that’s been a definite challenge.

I’ll give one example from my own case. I have a driver who is registered on my app and who is also registered on the other big companies that operate in the market. He had been working for those companies since they launched in February 2020. On the day I launched, which was three years later — so in 2023, which was a random day; it’s not a significant day — he got a message from that company offering him the best promotion that he had gotten while he worked for them. In three years, the best promotion he got dropped on the day I launched.

That’s an example of challenges I face, and other small operators would face, trying to navigate in a market where you have two companies that are so much bigger than everyone else. It’s something that I’m up to. I’ve set my expectations and my expenses to a level which I should be able to compete with them, but it is a challenge.

The third challenge for me was dealing with the public and also things like the airport authority, for example. It’s hard for people to understand if you’re a legal company or not. One of the most common questions I get from drivers is: “Are you legal?” I have to say: “Hey, check out the PTB website. Check out the city of Vancouver website. We’re legal. We’re around.” I think there’s a misconception that there are only two companies that operate in the province that are actually legal. That’s a challenge.

Dealing with the airport authority, the one thing that actually…. The Vancouver International Airport Authority. I feel like they don’t — I don’t know if it’s respect — take local companies seriously. I tried to work with them to allow my app to work at the Vancouver Airport, but they had told me there’s not enough parking at the Vancouver Airport. They took about three months to get back to me.

I was in communication constantly, messaging them. After three months, after following up three or four times, I finally got a message from them saying that unfortunately right now there’s not enough parking at the airport, which to me was a bit of a curious response in that the amount of parking spots at the airport is not determined by how many companies operate there. It’s determined by how many bookings are actually made at the airport, which wouldn’t change whether my company operates there or not. It would just be that maybe some people would use my app instead of using one of the other apps.

I do have a friend that works at Canada Customs at the airport who did actually tell me that he had people asking if they could book with my company at the airport, which I, unfortunately, haven’t been able to sort out yet.

That’s another challenge, you know, trying to work with local authorities on trying to get approval to work in areas where other companies are allowed. It’s a barrier to getting drivers if I’m not allowed to work at the airport, because many drivers do work out of the airport. It’s a popular place for ride-hail, TNS pickups. That’s been a challenge as well.

[8:15 a.m.]

Just a couple other things I wanted to say in regard to any legislation that’s made. I would hope that any changes that are made take into account the disproportionate effect that the legislation might have on the ability of smaller local companies to operate. There is a component, like I said, about the pockets of the bigger companies. They might be able to withstand some of the changes that are made and basically outwait those smaller local companies that might not be able to handle them initially.

I would hope, if major changes are made, there may be some component which allows for companies to reach a certain baseline before they’re impacted 100 percent. For example, if a company has under 100 drivers registered, there would be different rules and regulations, compared to companies that might have 10,000 drivers registered. That’s just my opinion, on making sure that there is opportunity for smaller local companies, perhaps, to have a chance to survive and compete. I think it’s important.

My company brings different ideas. I’ve seen some of the other local companies that have interesting ideas, too, some of which I’ve copied as well. I’ve seen them and said: “Hey, this is a good idea. It’s good for the customers and for the drivers.”

That’s basically what I have to say.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, thank you very much for your presentation this morning. We certainly hear the challenges you’ve faced. We’ll await the questions from our committee.

Who would like to begin? Does someone have questions?

D. Routley: Thank you for your presentation.

Congratulations on your business and on the energy you put into it. You’re obviously a very entrepreneurial person. It’s probably daunting to operate in an atmosphere of these huge, large companies and very few small companies. There’s a big difference. Of course, it’s difficult, with public policy, to recognize those differences in regulations, as you indicate.

Could you give, maybe, specific examples of where you think this committee could make recommendations that would help you in not having to meet this? There’s an economy of scale when you talk about data collection, for example. What’s onerous for you is not so, perhaps, for those large companies. Are there other examples you could give us?

G. Parhar: Thanks for your comments.

The data collection and that stuff is onerous at first. It takes the investment. Now that I understand it and I’ve been into it, it’s still hard, and it has cost me money. I had to spend more money to update my technology to get even greater.

I developed my app knowing that these big companies would compete. I would say that, for me, the biggest economy-of-scale challenge is actually, for Lower Mainland companies — I’m not sure how it works outside the Lower Mainland — the intermunicipal business licence fee, because this fee would be a fee that would run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars when you start ramping up. A company such as mine….

For me, I would hope…. I know it’s out of the province’s hands; it’s more of a city thing. It’s allowing companies that are small to be able to grow to a size at which they can actually compete, because it takes drivers. Originally, my focus was actually to just operate on the North Shore, so North Vancouver and West Vancouver and Vancouver, just that area, and try to grow out from there. But with TNS, it’s so interconnected; it’s much harder to do that. It’s much harder to say: “We’re only going to operate in this little area.”

In the Lower Mainland especially, people consider Richmond, Burnaby, New West, Coquitlam, North Van…. They consider it Vancouver. If they’re going, they’re not limiting themselves to one community. They’re travelling all over. When I tried to just do the North Shore thing….

[8:20 a.m.]

Another thing is that my drivers were spread out all over, so it was a little bit harder to get them to focus. Sorry, I’m kind of getting off topic.

The business licence fee. Allowing some sort of exemption until you reach a certain revenue level or a certain number of drivers would definitely help smaller companies expand.

I actually did have an idea for smaller communities. I think you’re an MLA in a smaller community or smaller area.

I would think that something that definitely helps smaller companies, with my experience operating a taxi company in a smaller community, is a similar thing where fees can be reduced for companies that decide that they want to operate in a smaller community, especially if they only operate in smaller communities.

Allowing some sort of exemption right off the bat and possibly allowing a little bit older vehicles…. Right now the legislation allows for up to ten years. I would suggest that even if you can do 12 or 13 years…. The vehicles will still need to get commercial vehicle checks, so that’s not going to be an issue. But one of the things I realized in a smaller town is you don’t have a lot of people that would have a car that’s four or five or six years old that they can use for TNS services.

Also some sort of streamlining of the ability to get a class 4 restricted driver’s licence. That is a lot less common when you get out into smaller towns as well. People don’t really think about it as much. So if there’s some sort of way to streamline the process to get class 4 — just for class 4 restricted, which is what’s used for taxis and for TNS — that would definitely help as well.

From my experience, I had a lot of drivers when I was in my smaller community that came there that didn’t have the licences. It took about six to eight months at that time. It probably takes even longer right now if you’re trying to get that licence.

I hope that answers your question.

D. Routley: Yeah, it does. Thank you very much.

J. Routledge: Thank you, Garrindar, for sharing your perspective with us, and thank you for being brave and entering this market that is so dominated.

Actually, that’s the part that I know you’ve touched on in many different ways in your presentation and your answer. I guess I just want to come at it from the point of view of: this is a market in which there is more or less a monopoly, and it’s a foreign monopoly.

Even thinking bigger, are there things that you think our government should be doing that would encourage local business, a business like yourself, in order to enter this market that is becoming bigger and bigger? More people are relying on it, and it’s not a local economy yet.

G. Parhar: It’s tough to say. There probably are things I can suggest. But they’re probably not things that will be well received.

The thing is there is demand for local service. The rea­son I keep going, and I’m committed to this, is because in talking to drivers, talking to passengers, people want a local option.

There are a lot of negative aspects. There is history. You can google about what the other companies have done. People want this service. The day I launched with minimal advertising, I had about 5,000 app downloads in the first five or six days. So there was demand. There is demand.

It’s so hard. It’s almost like the biggest problem I face is that drivers will want to work on my app, but we don’t have the customers. But we don’t have the customers because we don’t have the drivers. So it’s such a fine line between getting drivers on board and then getting the customers.

I’ve thought about this the last couple of weeks. I’ve been trying to think if there’s anything specifically the government can do, and honestly, it’s really tough.

[8:25 a.m.]

I don’t know if there’s anything specifically that the government can do. I don’t think you’d be able to encourage people to use local or drivers to…. That’s not something that’s, I think, allowed under law or that would be professional or government-like.

I honestly think it’s just companies such as mine keeping expectations right, just growing at the rate that works for them, keeping costs under control. Like, even…. I believe — I’m not 100 percent sure — there is another company, a local company that operated in the Lower Mainland, that shut down recently or is having issues. I know I’ve been hearing from the market. And there’s a company in Whistler, I believe, that is shut down as well or is ramping down operations.

It’s tough. There might only be my company and two other foreign companies operating in the Lower Mainland right now.

If I can think of something that I think would be lawful and ethical, I would let you know. But honestly, I think the easiest thing is just trying to keep the costs lower for companies until they reach a certain barrier, whether that’s through the PTB…. I mean, the PTB expenses aren’t super high, so that’s not an issue. Actually, mainly, the biggest is the intermunicipal business licence fee.

If fees can be kept down until certain benchmarks are reached by local companies, I think that would go a long way to helping companies, at least so you can establish a baseline level of business before you start spending a lot of money on fees.

I mean, one of the things I look at when I’m doing my expenses is that I’m supporting companies that are within five or ten kilometres of my office. They’re the companies that are supplying me with my signs, with my technology. My app developer lives in North Van. So I spend my money locally. I mean, it’s good for the local economy as well.

J. Routledge: A follow-up question. Earlier in your presentation when you were giving your history in the business, you talked about how you know how to keep the drivers happy. What are…? As you know if you listened to the news this morning, not all drivers are happy. What is it that you do? What is it that you know the drivers need in order to feel like they’re happy in this industry?

G. Parhar: The biggest differences with my company and with the other apps is we show the drivers how much you’re paying as a customer. The rate we give drivers, the percentage — that rate is set. We don’t shift. If the prices go up….

You see, one of the biggest problems drivers have with the other companies is they don’t show you much information. That leads to…. I’m going off what I’ve seen on ride-hail chat forums — that the amount that they give drivers changes all the time. It’s never the same for any ride. And one of the worst things that I’ve heard — this is, again, through driver forums — is that when prices double….

Let’s say there’s a snowstorm like there was a couple of weeks ago, and the price has doubled. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the driver’s earnings double. The amount that the driver gets fluctuates.

If I say a driver’s making 80 percent of the fare, and they can see the fare you’re paying, if the price doubles, the driver’s still going to make at least 80 percent of the fare. My idea is, actually, if we are increasing our price, theoretically which is done to attract more drivers on the road, we would give 100 percent of the extra increase to drivers because our expenses aren’t increasing.

If we can encourage more drivers to get on the road, we are going to make more money because we’ll complete more rides. And the drivers will be happy to work because they will get 100 percent of the extra money that’s being charged. So transparency: showing the driver what the customer is paying and having a consistent rate that drivers can easily verify. They’ll know how much the passenger paid. They’ll know how much they got. They’ll see it right away.

[8:30 a.m.]

And showing drivers…. When drivers are offered a ride, they all see where the customer is going as well, which other apps don’t show. I know why they don’t show it. It’s because they don’t want drivers to reject short trips or whatnot. But I think there are better ways to enforce that.

The other big issue is with drivers being randomly or arbitrarily kicked off the apps. I had one driver come into my office who had registered to work on my app, and he was telling me a story about how an inebriated customer had gotten into an argument with him. He thought the driver was taking a wrong route, but the driver was following what the app was telling him. He dropped the customer off. The customer had had some words for him when he got out.

Within five minutes, the driver’s app was deactivated, and he was told that he had been inebriated. The customer had complained. He’d wanted revenge on the driver. He’d said the driver had been drunk.

That driver went to the police station. He was willing to take a blood test to prove he wasn’t drunk, and still he had to wait three days to get reactivated on the app.

With my company, if I’m going to deactivate any driver, we’re going to speak to that driver directly, so that they know what’s going on. They have a chance to defend themselves. We’re not going to rely on an algorithm. Obviously, it’s easier for my company, in that we don’t have the volume and the amount of drivers as the big companies, but at the same time, drivers should have the right to be able to verify themselves.

I’ve worked in the industry long enough to know people can be quite bitter, and the easiest way nowadays, with a cell phone, to get back at somebody is to complain about them. You shouldn’t be kicked off and not be able to make money all weekend, a busy weekend, just because someone is mad at you over a perceived slight.

J. Routledge: Thank you. Very helpful.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thank you for those observations about rating drivers and passengers. We had a good discussion about that yesterday as well.

D. Routley: There are places where there’s potential intervention by government around this marketplace. One of them is around peak hours and around the traffic issues, congestion issues. Perhaps those offer places where we could balance the effect to at least not disfavour smaller companies. So if there’s a limitation on the number of cars on the road at a certain period of the time each day, there’d be a protection of smaller companies in that sort of a restriction. Just an observation and maybe a tag for the researching staff to look at.

If there are other jurisdictions that have taken measures to affect that marketplace that have offered some kind of protection to small, entrepreneurial enterprises, maybe your thoughts in the last minute or so that you have there? Thanks.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Doug, for that.

Before we end our time, we just want to thank you very much for your presentation. It has to be challenging. I hope, as you continue to operate, that you consider what your niche is. Is there a way to focus on the local and look at carving out a piece, as Doug has suggested? What are some specific areas? How can you tailor your services? When you’re up against the very large companies as you are, taking it on from an overall perspective has got to be challenging.

My question is a very quick one. You mentioned licensing, and we have heard that quite frequently. We do have a chance to speak with ICBC later this morning. Maybe just tell us about the challenges with licensing. I think you reference backlogs, those kinds of things. Could you just speak to that for us?

G. Parhar: As far as licensing, only the intermunicipal business licence fees are the ones that are quite high. It’s $150 a year, which gets prorated, so it’s a big barrier to starting up. The only thing that’s challenging with ICBC is that you do need to pay a three-month deposit up front for your following year. I mean, that’s acceptable, understandable.

[8:35 a.m.]

The business license fee from the city of Vancouver is one where I think there’s room to make some improvements to help smaller local companies. If they can find some way to have, like I said, some sort of baseline number you have to reach before you get hit with the full impact of the business licence fee, that would definitely be helpful, I think, for my company and for anyone else that wants to enter the market.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, thanks a lot for spending some time with us this morning. We really appreciate it. Your contributions will be helpful as we think about whether or not changes are necessary. Best of luck to you and your company, and thank you for stepping up and being an entrepreneur in what is definitely a competitive industry. Thanks for your time this morning.

G. Parhar: No problem. Thank you all as well.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): We have our next presenter, Jeannette Van Den Bulk of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Welcome to the committee today. You will have 15 minutes for your presentation, followed by a 15-minute question-and-answer from committee members.

Go ahead.

Briefings on
Passenger Directed Vehicles

OFFICE OF THE
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

J. Van Den Bulk: Thank you, Chair, Deputy Chair, and members of the committee.

I would first like to acknowledge and respect that I am presenting today from the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

As a representative, as an officer of this Legislature, I also acknowledge that I’m privileged to work with people across many traditional territories covering all regions of the province.

Thank you for inviting me here to share our office’s perspective on the use of cameras in taxis and ride-hailing vehicles in B.C. I’ll be focusing specifically on the data privacy provisions and security concerns around the use of the technology, with the wider lens of its impact on British Columbians’ privacy rights.

I want to set the stage by discussing the information and privacy rules for taxis and ride-hailing vehicles and highlighting related considerations. This will give us a shared foundational understanding before we move into the Q-and-A portion of the presentation.

In B.C., taxi companies and ride-hailing services are organizations subject to B.C.’s provincial private sector privacy law, the Personal Information Protection Act, or PIPA. This law establishes the rules for private sector organizations when they collect, use and disclose personal information.

PIPA defines “personal information” as any “information about an identifiable individual…,” with very limited exceptions. Notably in this context, personal information can include a person’s image and can also include their name, address, or an audio recording of them talking on the phone.

Employee information is also included. This means that when taxi companies and ride-hailing services capture images of drivers and passengers, they are collecting the personal information of both parties. Organizations can only collect, use, and disclose personal information if PIPA authorizes it, and organizations must make reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal information and prevent privacy breaches.

In addition to these rules around privacy, PIPA also establishes other rights, such as an individual’s right to access their own personal information that’s kept by an organization. This means passengers and drivers whose images are captured have the right to request access to those images, with very limited exceptions.

Based on the provisions in PIPA, the use of surveillance equipment, like cameras, raises several information and privacy concerns. Video surveillance is generally considered an intrusive form of personal information collection, especially when the recording occurs 24-7.

Regulators around the world have received complaints about the use of CCTV in taxis and other ride-hailing vehicles. In Hong Kong, for example, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data was alerted to concerns about passengers being recorded while breastfeeding.

[8:40 a.m.]

Several regulators have received complaints about audio recording in taxis where sensitive information may be collected. Others have received reports of footage from taxis being uploaded to social media or sold to media companies.

There’s a strong consensus among global privacy auth­orities that any use of CCTV should abide by privacy laws and be proportionate. In 2022, the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office issued two decisions following investigations into two city council policy requirements that all licensed taxis and most private-hire vehicles be fitted with CCTV systems that operated around the clock. This policy resulted in a continuous recording of all drivers and passengers, even when drivers were using their vehicles in their personal capacity.

The Information Commissioner’s Office ultimately issued a reprimand to the two city councils, noting that continuous recording in vehicles while they were being used for private purpose was neither necessary nor lawful. These instances demonstrate the real risk of harm posed by video surveillance, not only to the privacy rights of individuals but to their other protected rights.

I will now highlight some of the specific impacts on privacy from the use of cameras inside taxi and ride-hailing vehicles in British Columbia based on the core requirements of PIPA. First, organizations can only collect personal information for purposes that are authorized by PIPA and that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. Generally, PIPA requires organizations to get consent before collecting someone’s personal information.

I will note there are some exceptions to this, such as when collection is authorized or required by law. This would include the Passenger Transportation Board’s rules and procedures for the taxi camera program developed under the authority of the Passenger Transportation Act. I’m not aware of any similar laws relating to the use of cameras in ride-hailing vehicles. As a result, ride-hailing services likely need to rely on consent to collect personal information using cameras unless similar rules are passed, but first, they would need to ensure that the purposes for collecting the information are reasonable in the circumstances.

Our office looks at several factors when determining whether surveillance in a public place is reasonable, such as whether there is evidence that recording is necessary for a legitimate purpose. In the context of ride-hailing services, this could mean looking at whether there is evidence that drivers are at risk of harm that could be mitigated by the use of cameras.

Once a ride-hailing service determines that their purposes are reasonable, they would then need to consider PIPA’s consent requirements. There are several ways people can give consent. It can be explicit, such as a written consent form, or it can be implicit, such as when individuals are given notice of collection and they have the choice to opt out.

A sign on the door of a store indicating the premises are under video surveillance is an example of this. An individual can provide consent by entering, or they can opt out by choosing to shop elsewhere.

Regardless of how they provide it, individuals may refuse or withdraw their consent at any time. Organizations cannot refuse to provide a service because someone withholds consent to collect personal information unless the collection is necessary to provide the core service.

Ride-hailing services would need to show that the use of a camera is necessary to provide their service. For the purposes of this committee, what that means in practice is that ride-hailing services would need to turn off a camera or recording equipment if the passenger asks, unless they can demonstrate it is necessary to provide their core service. This consent would not be required for taxis, as another law authorizes them to collect the personal information.

The second important consideration is limiting the collection of personal information. This can be achieved in various ways, such as by only allowing internal-facing cameras, as external ones would collect the personal information of anyone outside the vehicle.

Similarly, the type of technology used can support limiting collection. Audio-recording equipment, for example, would likely involve the collection of more sensitive personal information that would be necessary for the stated purposes.

Then there’s the time factor. As I noted in the UK commissioner example earlier, a recording that runs 24-7 may be unreasonable for a driver’s personal privacy.

A third consideration is how personal information will be used and disclosed. Personal information should only be used and disclosed for the purpose for which it was collected or otherwise is authorized under PIPA. The Passenger Transportation Board sets out that the purpose for cameras and taxis is to make passenger transportation safer for operators and passengers. They also serve to deter attacks against drivers and help police identify suspects and prosecute offenders.

This means that taxi companies would either need consent or another authority under PIPA to collect, use or disclose the camera recordings for any other purpose. For example, if a taxi company were to use the images of a driver captured when they were off duty to terminate their employment, that would likely be an unauthorized use of the driver’s information. Or if the company posted images of passengers on social media in a name-and-shame sort of way or a “look at who was in Kelowna this week,” that would likely be an unauthorized disclosure of the passenger’s information.

[8:45 a.m.]

Another important consideration is how organizations will protect personal information against unauthorized collection use and disclosure. We often refer to these unauthorized activities as privacy breaches. The Passenger Transportation Board’s rules and procedures include some requirements that address the risks, such as requiring digital information to be encrypted and for access keys to be provided only to a limited number of people.

Again, a reasonableness standard applies here. That means that both taxis and ride-hailing services that choose to use cameras would need to take steps that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances to protect the personal information. The security threshold isn’t so high that it needs to be a guarantee a breach would never occur, but it must be reasonable, taking into consideration factors like the volume and sensitivity of the personal information and the risk to the individual if the information were to be breached.

As I mentioned, individuals also have a right to request access to their own personal information. Taxis and ride-hailing services need to be prepared to respond to requests to access images they have captured of passengers and drivers if they are requested. There are some exceptions to the right of access, a common one being if disclosing the information would be an unreasonable invasion of another person’s personal privacy. When an exception applies, organizations must provide the requester with access to the part of the record that they have a right to.

What this means is that taxis and ride-hailing services would also need to be prepared to redact or sever images from video recordings that fall under one of these exceptions. This could include the blurring of faces of third parties, for example.

Our office was also asked to speak to access by police services. PIPA provides fairly broad authority to disclose personal information to police services. The legislation was designed this way to ensure that police can carry out their lawfully authorized activities as mandated. Each disclosure would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it’s authorized, but broadly speaking, the scenarios considered by the current taxi camera program would likely be authorized.

One such scenario would be when police are investigating an assault that took place in a taxi. Under PIPA, a taxi operator could generally disclose a record to police investigating that incident.

PIPA also sets out the requirements for how long organizations must keep information, and that is for one year if the information is used to make a decision about an individual or otherwise for only a reasonable period. In this context, images of a passenger picked up and dropped off without incident that are captured through the camera in a taxi or ride-hailing service should not be retained for an excessive period. Limiting the retention period also reduces the risk of privacy breaches. If the recording doesn’t exist, there is no risk of it being disclosed in error.

However, if an incident occurs on video that results in a police report and footage being provided to authorities, that recording should be kept for at least one year. However, any period beyond that year must still be reasonable.

Any discussion about retention also includes processes around how to securely dispose of personal information when it is no longer needed. This includes any storage devices that retain traces of personal information after it’s been deleted, such as hard drives. Those devices should also be securely disposed of and not just thrown in the garbage when they are no longer in use.

Organizations are ultimately accountable for ensuring they comply with PIPA. This means that taxi companies and ride-hailing services must identify someone who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the legislation. They must also have processes in place to respond to and handle privacy complaints from passengers and employees.

As a best practice, taxi and ride-hailing services should also conduct privacy impact assessments on the use of new technologies like cameras to identify and address any risks that may arise. And they should have established privacy breach processes as part of a broader privacy management program.

Having these processes in place ensures taxi companies and ride-hailing services are prepared to respond to privacy breaches should one occur. Such situations require an effective and immediate response. If a vehicle is stolen and a camera recording is stored on a hard drive in that car, the organization would need to be prepared to respond to the potential breach of both the driver’s and passengers’ personal information.

I note the current rules include training requirements related to awareness of the rules and operation of the equipment. I would also suggest adding a clear requirement for basic privacy training to understand obligations under PIPA.

To recap, the following things need to be considered to comply with PIPA. Collection. Organizations need a reasonable purpose and authority to collect personal information and limit the collection to only what is necessary. Use and disclose that personal information only for the reasonable and identified purpose and keep it for only as long as is necessary and protect the information while they have it and when they dispose of it. Also remember that anyone who has had their personal information collected such as by a camera will have a right to request access to it, and organizations will be required to respond to that request.

[8:50 a.m.]

Finally, organizations should build privacy into their programs and make sure that they are involved in training on them and understand them. As this committee and the Passenger Transportation Board look to modernize the use of camera programs, there are many emerging issues that will need to be considered. For example, as new vehicles come equipped with both internal and external pre-installed cameras, this raises new challenges for privacy.

As a final note, the policy team within our office regularly consults with public bodies and organizations on information and privacy matters. Any taxi company or ride-hailing service that has questions or would like to ensure their program is compliant with PIPA is welcome to get in touch with our team.

As I expect the question may be coming, our office has not issued orders related to the use of cameras in taxis or ride-hailing services yet. However, members of the public can make a complaint to our office if they have a concern related to their information or privacy rights. Our office has published a number of resources, including a joint guidance document on overt surveillance in the private sector which we developed with the Privacy Commissioners for Canada and Alberta.

I understand the Transportation Passenger Board has identified modernizing its taxi camera program within its strategic plan for 2023 to ’26. I would encourage the board to consult with our office on any changes to the taxi camera program and any expansion to ride-hailing services to ensure information privacy rights are given their full consideration. I would also invite this committee, if it has any follow-up questions not answered today, to reach out.

Thank you for your time. I’d be pleased to respond to any questions.

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

I’d like to open it up to committee members now.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I very much appreciate it.

I understand the importance of the balance between protecting a person’s privacy and then also the use of technology to keep people safe and a variety of things. I was interested yesterday to learn — and to be honest, it was news to me — that a ride-hailing company actually has a safety feature that allows drivers and riders to record audio during trips. The rationale is it’s in case there’s an on-trip incident.

It does go on to say — the company did say — that just as you reflected on, the information is encrypted, but it’s stored directly on the rider’s or the driver’s device. So presumably, I can hop into a vehicle and turn on the recording.

Is there a requirement for people to be told that they are being recorded, or do people just have to assume that is happening? I mean, there is a requirement, I think, for people to know. So would that be indicated in a vehicle? Would there be a sign that there is the possibility that you will be recorded while you’re sitting in this vehicle? I think of the conversations that people have when they’re working in the back of a vehicle.

Could you just maybe…? I was surprised by that, actually — that, in essence, you can be recorded while you’re sitting there and may not even be aware of it.

J. Van Den Bulk: Thank you for your question. I hope we aren’t at a place where we just assume that we’re being recorded all the time. That makes me very unhappy. But, yes. In terms of the privacy and safety considerations, I’m not aware of the specific program you’re speaking about, but I can speak to, generally, the idea of being recorded.

The Personal Information Protection Act applies to anybody operating a business in British Columbia, and there are notice requirements, so we’re looking at the difference between overt and covert surveillance in this situation. With a program like the one you just described where audio is being offered as a collection by either the passenger or the driver, there would be requirements for notice to be provided.

The hope would be that the organization that was doing that collection had done their assessment so they could determine there was a demonstrable risk that was being addressed by the audio recordings and that they were doing what was necessary and proportionate to address those risks. And there would definitely be a requirement, in those situations, to have the passenger notified that that recording was taking place. It wouldn’t be something that would be done without that notice.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Would notification…? Is a sign notification enough so that if you are…? Is it indicated on the vehicle somewhere?

[8:55 a.m.]

I’m just interested because it’s described as a safety feature, but you did describe the difference between what is reasonable…. It could be that audio recording is done 24-7 — that there’s no assessment of risk. It’s just that if you get in the vehicle, you’re going to be recorded from an audio perspective.

I mean, the caveat was no one is able to listen to the recording unless a safety incident is reported. Somehow somebody stores it on their app, and then, I guess, if there’s some kind of incident….

But I guess I’m just concerned about…. Nobody says: “Oh, you’re being recorded.” What is reasonable when it comes to notification of the passenger or the driver?

J. Van Den Bulk: With respect to notice, I think, when I look back to what was done with the taxi camera program, my understanding of how that has rolled out is that there is quite a substantial degree of notice because the police are involved in the consultations in advance and the public is involved in consultation in advance. But, as well, there is a requirement to have decals on the vehicles that clearly state that recording is happening. That would definitely be something.

If you’re relying on implicit consent or any sort of collection of an individual’s information directly, you do need to provide that individual with notice that you are collecting it. Just having an assumption that you’re going to be recorded would not be adequate for notice.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I appreciate that. Thank you.

J. Sturdy: Aren’t we making an assumption that as we walk around this building, we’re being recorded?

J. Van Den Bulk: I’d like to think we’re not being recorded as we walk around this building, but I don’t have any sort of knowledge about what the security provisions are in this building.

J. Sturdy: I’m not talking about specific to this building, but there is CCTV outside on the street. And there’s no…. I was not provided notice in that regard. How is that a legitimate use of it?

J. Van Den Bulk: One of the things that I would draw a distinction here is that there is some difference between the rules that apply to the private sector and the rules that apply to the public sector. While the privacy principles are the same, the approach that’s taken in terms of the legislative authority is slightly different.

The private sector. So when you’re talking about taxicabs and stores, that’s based on a consent model, whereas in the public sector, when you’re thinking about commun­ities and cities and municipalities, that would be the public sector where it is more authorities-based. You would have to demonstrate necessity, but it wouldn’t necessarily be based on consent.

The requirements for how that CCTV camera use would be implemented would be slightly different. So you wouldn’t necessarily…. I would hope that there’s not audio recordings happening all around the city. But yes, I do hear you about the CCTV.

J. Sturdy: So the Privacy Commissioner creates a distinction between transit and taxi or ride-hail, even though they’re providing the same service in many respects.

J. Van Den Bulk: Yes. It’s not actually the Privacy Commissioner that creates that distinction. There are two pieces of legislation in British Columbia. There’s the freedom of…. Well, there are many pieces of legislation that speak to the privacy considerations. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or FIPPA, is what regulates the privacy and access provisions for public bodies, and that’s what sits over your municipalities and your cities and things like that.

The Personal Information Protection Act is a separate piece of legislation, and that’s what is for your private sector organizations. So the two different legislations are what create the slightly different rules for the different public bodies versus private organizations.

J. Sturdy: Even though, for example, Coast Mountain Bus Co. is a private company providing a transit service yet has CCTV.

J. Van Den Bulk: I’m sorry. I’m not clear on the question.

J. Sturdy: The bus operators, the transit operators are private companies.

J. Van Den Bulk: I’m not totally sure in terms of what the different operating systems are. I’m happy to get back to you if there’s something that I can find for you.

J. Sturdy: If I might…. The challenge that we have been presented with on this committee by the presenters is fairly common around an unlevel playing field, for one. So I guess I have some questions around the requirements in the taxi industry versus ride-hail — the technology associated with that and whether that’s something that the commissioner is concerned with. Or is that a PTB requirement? Because it’s quite expensive technology.

[9:00 a.m.]

I guess my other question would be around driver safety and passenger safety. This is often what has been described as a concern, where there is no…. It’s a he said, she said kind of circumstance, so it seems a reasonable approach to record for both the passenger’s and the driver’s safety.

Just for clarity, would an application need to be made? How would that work to say: “Okay. I, as an Uber driver or ride-hail driver, would like to have, for my safety and my passenger’s safety, recording in the cab or the vehicle.” Can I install one? Can I do it individually? Do I have to go through my company?

Then oftentimes these cameras have a limited amount of memory in them, and they just record over themselves. Is there a requirement to actually keep that data for a certain period of time, or just let it rerecord and erase itself and save it where it’s appropriate to save it or there’s a need to save it?

Sorry, a lot of questions there.

J. Van Den Bulk: That was a lot of questions. I’m going to try and address them, and if I’ve missed any we can absolutely circle back.

Maybe I’ll just work backwards. I think your first question was related to retention of the information in terms of…. The technology has advanced, so how much information you can store and for how long is substantially easier than it has been in the past.

What the legislation, the PIPA act, says about retention is that if there is any sort of decision being made, you need to keep that information for a year. So in circumstances where there’s been an incident, then that’s what would trigger you keeping it for a year. Otherwise, what the requirement is, is basically for a reasonable amount of time.

What is a reasonable amount of time is going to be a policy decision made — whether it’s a couple of days or a week. I wouldn’t necessarily want to speak at all to what that is without having more discussion with the program areas about that, but what we would say is that it’s not about keeping it indefinitely, and it’s not about keeping it for extended periods of time if there’s no need to keep it.

With retention, if you’re implementing a camera program, you really want to be mindful of how long that information is being kept, because a reasonable amount of time is not the same as indefinite. With storage capacities being what they are now, it’s very easy to have that happen.

Next, jumping back to the taxi versus ride-hail — whether they have the same requirements in the different tech requirements and whether there’s fairness. One of the things I would say is that just from a legislative perspective, they are under the same requirements. The Personal Information Protection Act doesn’t distinguish between requirements on either type of organization.

Where there’s a difference right now, as I understand it in the industry, is that the Passenger Transportation Board has provided rules for taxis in terms of how they do camera programs. So while there’s an established camera program for taxis, the same doesn’t exist for ride-hailing. So I think any discrepancy in what is allowed comes from that space, because PIPA would treat them the same. How they would use cameras, whether in taxi or ride-hailing, would be the same under the law. It’s just a matter of how it’s being dealt with right now with the rules for Passenger Transportation Board.

I think the last question, or maybe not the last one…. One of the other questions we talked about was the safety of passengers and drivers and sort of a little bit about, you know, whether there should be…. I think the question was related to just whether they could have an expectation of privacy and safety and how to balance those sort of things.

One of the things I wanted to sort of touch on from a privacy perspective is that privacy is not an absolute. The law recognizes that there are times that there are rights and interests that are going to outweigh privacy rights.

I don’t think, in this circumstance, this is a situation where you can have privacy or safety — that you don’t have to compromise one to have the other. I think it’s one of those things that if you have a demonstrated risk, you say: “Okay. Well, there are these risks to passengers and drivers, and cameras are something that are going to alleviate that. We have this evidence that has shown that cameras help reduce the risk.” Then once you have that demonstrated risk, then you look to: how would I implement a camera program in a legitimate and proportionate way?

This is when you sort of think about all these things that we talked about in terms of: how do you establish a camera program so that you ensure that it’s meeting its needs, but it’s also ensuring privacy? I don’t think it necessarily means that you don’t have one if you have the other. I think that’s one of the important things: if you’re clearly identifying the purpose, and you’re collecting the information and limiting it to that established purpose, you can have that safety and also ensure privacy.

J. Sturdy: A driver can’t make a decision to activate this. It can only be the company that has to make an application?

J. Van Den Bulk: That’s a bit of a difficult question just because, I think, how the taxi system operates and how ride-hailing services operate their business and models might be very different. I’m not necessarily clear on the relationship between drivers and organizations in all those situations, so it gets a little bit muddied.

[9:05 a.m.]

What we’re ultimately saying is that in terms of how the taxi camera program developed its rules, it was very clear on who had access to that information to ensure that privacy could be ensured while also ensuring that if there was a safety consideration, then that happened. So it’s not that the driver couldn’t just access it on their own. Although, like I said, PIPA does have requirements that if something happened to the driver and he or she wanted to have access to that information, under PIPA, they do have access rights, because it’s their personal information.

Under the taxi camera program, it wouldn’t be that the driver could just go home at the end of the day and scroll through the videos that they’d taken of the day. But if something happened they would, potentially, have access to it. Yes.

I don’t know if that made it more clear or less clear.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. Thanks.

J. Routledge: You have answered a number of the questions I had, but those answers actually then led to some other questions.

I do understand that when it comes to cameras, the Passenger Transportation Board has particular standards and rules that it applies to the taxi industry but not to ride-hailing. So then there’s a whole other discussion about whether or not there should be separate legislation that applies to them or they should just be incorporated.

Where this leads me is we do know, whether they’re ride-hail drivers or just people driving their car, there are people who have cameras in their car and who have cameras on their front doors. I only mention that from the point of view that this is fairly widespread.

A ride-hail driver who now has a camera in his car, because it’s his car, and there’s an incident…. For example, there was that incident in Abbotsford — we saw it all over the news — of him being assaulted by a passenger.

Where does that fit into what his legal rights are?

J. Van Den Bulk: Yeah, it’s definitely a more complicated space as more individuals start using their own vehicles in a professional capacity.

One of the things that might help to sort of untangle this a little bit is that if you think about a driver who’s using their own vehicle, they’re still operating as a business when they’re using that vehicle as a ride-share vehicle.

If you think of a daycare…. If you’re operating a daycare in your home, yes, it’s still in your home, but you are required to abide by the laws that are set for daycare. So if there are safety considerations or there are things that a daycare must do in order to operate….

It’s a similar situation with ride-hail drivers. If they’re driving their own car and they have cameras, the use of those cameras while they’re in their professional capacity still needs to abide by the Personal Information Protection Act requirements because they are operating a business in B.C. If they have cameras, they need to operate those cameras in compliance with PIPA, and they would need to look to whether they’re doing that in a way that is in compliance with the law.

They’re welcome to talk to our office about that if they have concerns about that. But we would encourage folks to really be mindful that, even if they’re using their own vehicle, that doesn’t make them exempt from requirements to meet the law.

J. Routledge: I won’t ask you about the cameras on people’s front doors.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Jeannette. A really helpful discussion in terms of answering some of the questions that have arisen through the earlier presentations. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

Now we have our next presenter from the Ministry of Labour, Trevor Hughes, deputy minister.

Trevor, I’d like to welcome you to the committee. We appreciate you taking the time to present. You have got 20 minutes for your presentation and 25 minutes for questions and answers from committee members.

Go ahead.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

T. Hughes: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I’m Trevor Hughes, Deputy Minister of Labour. I’ve got a short presentation for you I’ll speak to.

[9:10 a.m.]

You will recall that I was here some months ago to tell you about initiatives underway in the Ministry of Labour led by Minister Bains and our parliamentary secretary, Janet Routledge, who is, of course, here beside me.

In terms of some additional context about what the Ministry of Labour is all about…. As you know, the Ministry of Labour is the regulator and is responsible for three primary employment statutes in the province: the Employment Standards Act, which sets minimum terms and conditions of employment; the Labour Relations Code, which regulates how unions come to represent workers, how unions and employers interact, and the collective bargaining process; and then the Workers Compensation Act and the workers compensation system.

One of the themes of those pieces of legislation you’ll hear through my presentation is that these are pieces of legislation that provide certain minimum standards but are also designed to provide protections for workers. The flip side is that employers know what the minimum standards are that they’re expected to provide in the employment context.

One of the roles of the Ministry of Labour is to try to make sure we keep our employment laws up to date with the changing world of work. That changing world of work is really modelled by this ride-hail sector as the growing part of what’s called the gig economy. You know, 20 or 30 years ago, this kind of employment didn’t even exist. We’ve moved away — not completely away — from the traditional bricks-and-mortar type of establishment, like people working in a pulp mill or a manufacturing plant for their entire career.

Now people can work from home or work on an app in their car, sometimes without even ever seeing an employer. So how you adjust the laws of the land, as it were, to keep up with those types of changes is one of the challenges of the world that we’re in and part of what we’re going to talk about today.

I’ve mentioned the minister and the parliamentary secretary. The key piece of this is rooted in the minister’s and the parliamentary secretary’s mandate letters, which specifically set out that one of the things that they are to deliver is proposed employment standards and other protections for app-based ride-hail and food delivery workers.

Those things led to Bill 48, which was passed and re­ceived royal assent in November of last year. I’m going to talk to you about where we are on the implementation of that bill and some of the next steps.

I have talked a little bit about how ride-hail and food delivery is a new sector and part of this growing gig economy. There are other elements and sectors of the gig economy. The notion really, actually, is as simple as existing from what the term “gig” is all about, which originates in the context of musicians. They would go and do little gigs here and there. That’s really what this employment is all about, where people are picking up little tasks here and there.

The ride-hail and food-delivery sector is one of many types of gig work that exists in the economy. Our focus is on that sector. There are other elements of the gig economy that we’re not targeting at this point. Some of them are app based. Some of them are based on work that people do in their homes, and so on. We’re trying to figure out if we can get this right before we decide how we deal with other sectors. But certainly, the focus on the ride-hail and food delivery is where we are at this point.

One of the other things I think is important to note is that a lot of the workers in this sector are new to Canada. Yes, there are workers who do this literally as a side gig, where they have full-time work in more traditional em­ployment, and then, on the weekends or at other points, are jumping in their car and deciding to go and pick up people through a number of apps, sometimes at the same time.

This is another interesting piece related to gig employment, that you can be on an app and available for multiple assignments at once, or at least available on multiple apps at once, whereas if you’re in a bricks-and-mortar, you’re not working for another employer at the same time — or, at least, that’s frowned upon. So that’s one of the group of workers that are in there. But we have to recognize is that a lot of workers are new to Canada, racialized, single moms that are working, that are trying to pick up the work here and there when it makes sense to them.

It’s that group of workers that we’re mostly focused on, because there is evidence that these workers are not making minimum wage. They are not getting certain employment protections. That is because the platform companies have taken the view that while they, on the one hand, call it work, they say that these drivers are independent contractors. There is some logic to that in the context of somebody putting themselves out there to say: “I’m going to work for multiple apps all at the same time.”

[9:15 a.m.]

Traditionally, independent contractors have that ability where, if you’re a self-employed plumber, you’ve got your own van, you run around and pick up your own assignments here and there, and you’re not working for a specific employer. That may meet the test of somebody who’s an independent contractor, but in the context of ride-hailing, that’s one of the challenges that exists.

The companies have taken the view, mostly, across the entirety of this group of workers, that they are independent contractors. What that means is they’re not entitled to the minimum employment standards and workers compensation protections that employers provide in the traditional employment context.

Is that right? Should it be right? Well, that’s the issue that we’re tackling and have tackled in Bill 48, which is to say that these workers should be employees and should be entitled to certain minimums that other workers are getting.

To give an example, say that you’re a driver of a taxi or a limo working for a particular company. If you get assaulted, you are covered by the workers compensation system, because the employer has treated you as an employee and pays premiums to WorkSafeBC, and you are then covered. If you’re an independent contractor, if you haven’t provided your own coverage — which is called personal optional protection if you’re self-employed — you are not covered.

We have an example, and I think it was referenced by the previous speaker, of a driver who was assaulted, who was declared to be an independent contractor and wasn’t entitled to workers compensation, but if they had been a taxi driver or a limo driver, they would have been.

Does that make sense, just because you’re working on an app, when the app companies say that that’s work? That’s what we’re trying to address, which is the levelling of the playing field, to say: “Just because you’re taking assignments on an app, it shouldn’t mean that you’re not entitled to workers compensation, or the minimum wage, for that matter.” That’s what we’re trying to get at.

The PowerPoint I’ve got for you references that there has been increased public exposure with some media stories. We talked about those when I was with you last year — in September, I think it was — when we talked about the work ahead leading to Bill 48. This is not a challenge that’s unique to B.C., nor is it unique to Canada or in fact North America and beyond. A number of jurisdictions are trying to figure out how to navigate this space.

Of course, it’s very new, but it’s also balanced by these app companies, which are very sophisticated and which have managed, in various jurisdictions, to convince governments to go in a particular direction. What I mean by that is that it’s really split into two. You’ve got some jurisdictions that have accepted that these drivers are independent contractors but have provided certain minimum standards for them. Other jurisdictions, including in Europe, have declared them to be employees.

B.C. is in the lead on this in Canada with Bill 48, which establishes that the drivers are to be employees for the purposes of the Employment Standards Act and the purposes of the workers compensation system. Ontario has, a couple of years ago, established legislation but hasn’t brought it into force yet. So we were second in terms of legislation but will be likely first, once we get the regulations established which provide the specific alternate employment standards for the ride-hail and food-delivery sector. I’ll explain the alternates in a second.

That’s the exercise that we’ve been engaged in, and now we’re in the process of implementing Bill 48. Here we are talking about Bill 48 now, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act. What this does is a few specific things. It establishes a definition of “online platform worker” with the ability to capture specific sectors like ride-hail and food-delivery.

This point goes back to what I said in my introductory comments: that this is the first sector we’re looking at. We have the ability in the future to potentially add other sectors, assuming we get this one right. Others, likely, could potentially fit. Again, it’s a future decision of government.

The second point is that it provides that these workers are to be considered employees for the purposes of both pieces of legislation, and that the operators of the platform companies are to be considered employers for the purposes of those acts.

That’s significant, because we recognize that one of the challenges that exists out there is that, particularly where people are declared independent contractors, at various points you can get a different decision from the employment standards branch about whether you’re truly an em­ployee or not, and then a completely conflicting decision from the Canada Revenue Agency about whether or not you’re an employee for the purposes of tax.

What we’ve done with this legislation is make it clear that for the purposes of these two pieces of legislation, you’re an employee. It does not mean you’re an employee for the purposes of CRA — not just because we can’t regulate in the CRA space, but to deal with the reality that there is this challenge with multiple pieces of legislation that deal with your employment status.

[9:20 a.m.]

Then the third piece is we’ve added regulation-making authority for government to establish specific alternate standards under the Employment Standards Act for these workers. The significance of this is we have to recognize the uniqueness of how you come to get work in this sector. What do I mean by that?

Well, when we talk about traditional bricks-and-mortar employment, you are scheduled by your employer and you go to work. You work in that one place for your shift, and then you might have another job somewhere else. But how you get the work is based on employers scheduling you, and off you go. In the app-based space, you could be on multiple apps all at the same time. The employer does not schedule you.

Imagine a scenario of saying the Employment Standards Act applies to you for the entirety of the time you’re on the app. Well, how does that work when it comes to somebody who (a) chooses to schedule themselves and (b) is on multiple apps at the same time? You can’t say that somebody who’s sitting in their car at the corner of Hastings and Burrard in Vancouver on five apps at once should be paid five times the minimum wage, especially if there’s no work in that moment.

We’ve got to come up with an alternate, which is what we’re trying to do here, because it’s a bit of a square peg in a round hole. It’s not unique to have alternate standards. If you’re familiar with the Employment Standards Regulation, there are alternate standards throughout the Employment Standards Regulation to deal with all kinds of different employment situations and how the Employment Standards Act should apply to those workers.

For example, long-haul truck drivers. What should the overtime system be for them? That’s just an example. There are dozens in the Employment Standards Regulation. So it’s not going to be unique or odd to have alternate standards. It’s a recognition that this sector is a bit different.

How we figure out navigating what the right balance is, is part of the exercise that we’re engaged in now. Minister Bains has stated in the Legislature that the intention is to establish these alternate standards as soon as possible this year, ideally this spring, so we’re engaged in consultation and, of course, we need to have a reasonable period of notice for the companies to be able to implement them.

Let’s talk a little bit about some of the specific alternate standards that that we’re working on, because this is rooted not only in the bill but also in statements made by Minister Bains in the Legislature when Bill 48 was being debated and then, of course, in media coverage related to the bill before and after it was introduced, by both Minister Bains and Parliamentary Secretary Routledge.

There are a number of specific things that we’re going to address in this sector. The first one is the minimum wage.

What we’re establishing here, or the intention, is to establish an earning standard of 120 percent of the general minimum wage to engaged time over a pay period. I’ve emphasized engaged time because I’m going to come back to that. Then tips would be protected, but not included as part of your minimum wage. That’s not unlike any other sector — like the restaurant sector, for example. The minimum wage is exclusive of tips, and tips are to be protected and not taken by the employer. We’re confirming that in the regulation.

The 120 is to recognize that you might get an assignment when you’re parked at Hastings and Burrard. You might accept an assignment, but it takes you ten minutes to get to where it is. So you’re engaged in that spot. You haven’t picked anybody up yet. That’s part of why we’re starting at the 120. It also mirrors the arrangement that the United Food and Commercial Workers union has negotiated with Uber that’s applying across the country. So we’ll start there and see whether that’s the right amount or not.

The emphasis on engaged time is very important, and this is a little bit of an exercise in managing expectations. It’s particularly noteworthy, given the media coverage, including today, about a potential withdrawal of services by some of these drivers today across the country. They are seeking to be paid for more than just engaged time. To be clear what we’re going to do: we’re going to establish a minimum of 120 percent of the minimum wage, so that you should be making that for engaged time over the course of your time on the app.

You are not going to be paid for unengaged time, meaning that time that you sit on the corner of Burrard and Hastings waiting for an assignment. That’s not work. I get that the drivers expect to be paid for that because they’re saying: “Hey, I’m available. I’ve signed on. I’m ready to work.” But if the employer has no work for you, you’re not engaged. That’s not that’s not compensable time.

[9:25 a.m.]

Now the drivers expect that, and part of what they’re saying is the reason they’re making, in some cases, $6 an hour is because they’re averaging out all the time they’re on the app and including the unengaged time. That’s a problem for us, because outside of the ride-hail sector, when you’re scheduled in your bricks-and-mortar job, you’re scheduled to work from eight to four. You come in at eight; you go home at four. If you’re asked to stay longer by your employer because there’s work, you get overtime.

If you decide to show up at eight o’clock on a day you’re not scheduled, the employer hasn’t scheduled you. There’s no work for you. You can’t just expect to be paid because you’ve shown up. It’s the same principle.

If there’s no work for you on the app, you’re not engaged. You’re not going to get paid under the system that we’re establishing. But you will be paid for that engaged time between the acceptance of an assignment and then the time to pick up the person. You’re not just paid for the time you’re driving the person. So that’s to be very clear about that particular piece.

I understand you might be hearing from some drivers later today, and I think they’ll make that point to you. It’s apparent in the media clips today. I’m sure you’ll have a chance to read later about this withdrawal of services that’s connected to an expectation that government should establish standards to cover not just engaged time.

I appreciate you indulging me in a bit of an explanation of that, but I think it’s a very important point to be made about what government is going to do and what we’re intending to cover.

On expenses. This is a very important piece, as well, be­cause currently the companies do not pay certain expenses for the drivers. Now, if you are in a traditional — again, bricks-and-mortar — employment…. Or I’m not in a traditional bricks-and-mortar employment, but my employer pays my expenses. If I drive my car for work, I get a mileage rate, which is largely based on the cost of operating the vehicle — the gas and the insurance.

Canada Revenue Agency has established a rate that most employers use, so the question is: should drivers in this space be expected to pay their own business expense for the driving of a vehicle? We’re trying to figure out what the appropriate compensation standard should be to recognize that there are costs workers incur when using a personal vehicle for work.

Should it be the full cost of your phone, the full cost of your car and the full cost of your insurance? No. That would be a measure of absurdity, because you’re choosing to get a car and then you’re choosing to go and do some work. It should be the incremental costs associated with it.

For example, if you have a car and you have pleasure-use insurance and you want to drive passengers and be covered for that, there’s an additional insurance premium, the to-and-from-work that people are familiar with, and then business use. That’s an additional cost. Should we be figuring out what an amount is to cover that additional cost?

Or what about your cell phone? Well, people all have cell phones. Should Uber, for example, be paying somebody’s full cell phone bill for the month because they’re on the app? That probably isn’t fair either. But we have to acknowledge that there are costs to people doing this work and that they should be paid for it, because it is a business expense. And again, in the employment standards system, it’s contemplated that workers should not pay the employers’ business expenses.

Pay transparency. This is an issue that’s been very murky. I’m not trying to be funny by saying “murky” when we’re talking about pay transparency. But what we’ve heard is that there’s a desire to have platform companies, when they’re offering an assignment, be clear about what the worker is going to get paid for that assignment and then a requirement for the companies to issue wage statements like everybody else who gets a pay stub, every two weeks.

Now again, this is one of those issues that’s going to be a challenge for the drivers in terms of their expectation. On the one hand, I totally understand the desire to know what your pay stub is, what it breaks down to and what you’re going to be paid for an assignment. You should know that before you accept it. The thing that the drivers keep talking about, though, is that they want to know what the customer is paying. Well, again, it doesn’t work that way.

If you go to Home Depot and you buy something, the worker isn’t getting a specific cut of that $100 that you use to buy lumber. It’s part of their payroll, as that comes out of all their business expenses. So the expectation that somehow knowing what the customer pays and what the worker gets paid…. I don’t understand how we deal with bridging that particular gap. But again, knowing what you’re going to get paid is important.

Destination transparency is very important. A worker should know where they’re going to be required to go to pick somebody up so that they know it can be safe. If you don’t know until you’ve accepted an assignment where you’re going to go, you can’t then make the decision that would be safe for you if there are going to be consequences to you from the app company.

[9:30 a.m.]

“Well, we’re dumping you off the app. You accepted something, and you refuse to go down to the Downtown Eastside, as a single mom, at 10 p.m. on a Friday night.” I’m not trying to throw the Downtown Eastside under the bus, but that’s not necessarily the safest spot for somebody to go on a Friday night at ten o’clock.

Suspensions and terminations. We’ve heard a lot from drivers saying that they’ve been kicked off the app for no reason. So we’re trying to establish that there would be a requirement for the companies to inform a worker, with written reasons, why they’re being suspended or deactivated.

I totally get the point that the ride-hail companies have made about zero tolerance for somebody who assaults or harasses or does other things that might be untoward behaviour — and cut the driver off. We also have a system that recognizes…. In the Employment Standards Act, you can be terminated for just cause, meaning the employer had reason to terminate you. Or if they don’t have just cause, you have compensation in lieu of notice.

You can terminate anybody. You have to have a reason to do it without pay or no reason to do it with pay.

M. Elmore (Chair): Sorry, Trevor, to interrupt you.

T. Hughes: Am I running out of time?

M. Elmore (Chair): Yeah. We’re into our question-and-answer portion, so can you just wrap it up here?

T. Hughes: I will be very quick.

Then workers comp coverage. Making sure the drivers have protection for workers compensation and that the occupational health and safety system covers them.

Just to be clear, at this time, we’re not establishing standards for hours of work and overtime.

In terms of our next steps, we have been engaging with the companies, drivers and others on the details of what we’re proposing. We have sent out a regulatory approach paper on December 15. We sent out, two weeks ago, an expense paper to get feedback from folks. We met with people in person. We met with some drivers a couple of weeks ago. And WorkSafeBC continues its work to establish the workers compensation coverage.

That’s it. Sorry for the zip through the last bit there.

M. Elmore (Chair): That’s okay. Lots of ground to cover. I appreciate that.

I’ll open it up to questions.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. We do appreciate that.

I guess one of the things, and I raised this when the legislation was introduced, is the overlapping tasks that are underway at the moment. This committee is sitting. It has not yet reported out. One of the mandates is to look at impacts on gig workers in British Columbia. We then see a bill introduced in the Legislature, a surprise to this committee.

That is a concern from a procedural perspective. I can understand that work needs to go on, but here again, we have a committee that is tasked with looking at legislative change that deals specifically with gig workers, and here we are basically in the dark.

I would like to ask, in terms of the discussion papers that have been sent out…. Can you provide us with a list of the stakeholders that have seen the discussion papers? Are the discussion papers public? We’re a committee of the Legislature. I don’t know what they say. But we’re asked to bring back a report that talks about the need to look at ride-hailing and to look at the protection of workers and if legislation needs to be changed.

Maybe we’ll start there. Are the documents that have been shared with stakeholders…? We don’t know who they are. Are those discussion papers public? When we’re talking about…. You’ve noted that they relate to expenses. I think the other one was — what was the second one? — the standards, more generally.

T. Hughes: The material is not public at this point. We’re engaged in some consultations with them on what could potentially be draft regulations. I can get you a list of who we’ve been engaging with, though.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, I certainly appreciate that. That’s a good start. But when you have a committee that’s actually talking about this very topic, to think that regulation is being drafted before we’re about to table a report in the Legislature….

I understand the importance of the work of committees and understand it is not partisan by nature. I am not being partisan. I am being practical here. We are assigned a task, spend weeks and months looking at it, and now we find out that there are consultations underway, proposals, and here we sit.

I will just register that with the Chair. I registered my concern when the legislation was presented. It was a surprise to all of us. I’ve been around long enough to know that nobody shares legislation unless it’s under certain circumstances. But I just wanted to make that point.

[9:35 a.m.]

Could you just help us, then? There have been meetings with stakeholders, starting in January and working our way through this process. What is the intended timeline?

The bill, I think, had ten. I guess we call them clauses now. I think it was ten, most of which are not brought into effect. The vast majority of changes are going to be put in place through regulation. The situation for gig workers didn’t change at all, or in a minor way, because the work is yet to be done.

Can you provide for us the timeline of when we can expect to see…? I heard you say that we’re hoping to get this done, or the minister is, as quickly as possible. Is there a timeline for when we can expect to see changes, on the ground, for workers?

T. Hughes: I totally appreciate your question. I’m going to have to give you a waffly answer. I can’t be precise. I can’t give you a specific date, and I know you appreciate that.

The challenge is to try to figure out how we can do this work in this space, which is new and a bit innovative, and have it brought into effect as soon as possible because of the point you’ve made, which is that these drivers are waiting.

If the minister was here, I think he would say he wanted it in effect the day after the legislation was tabled. There is pressure on government to deal with this. It continues to be a story in the media, and it continues to be a concern that there are drivers without the coverage.

The flip side of that is…. As I say, this is a new and challenging space. We need to do our work, good policy work, which I know you can appreciate. That involves not only getting submissions from the companies and the drivers; it requires us going out and actually talking to them.

Once we get it all sorted, we’ve got the cabinet process to get through a regulation. Then we have to be mindful of a period of implementation.

Now, again, the minister would likely say…. I’m not trying to speak for him, but I’m trying to express the point he’s made. “Look, these are tech companies. These are sophisticated companies. They shouldn’t need a whole bunch of lead time to be able to implement the regulation.”

The significance of that, so everybody is on the same page…. If the order-in-council establishing the alternate standards comes into effect on March 1 and there’s no lead time, how do the companies adjust their payroll systems to be able to do that? We need a reasonable period of time. The companies have said anything between eight and 12 months is what they would need once the regulation is established.

Now, you can imagine. We’re struggling with that. That seems like a heck of a long time. But is it two days? We’ll have to figure that out. So that’s what….

When I say I can’t be precise, I’m not trying to dodge your question. It’s a totally fair question. It’s one that we’re struggling to figure out — how we deal with the company’s expectation, on the one hand, and, again, the drivers with the push that government has given us, in the mandate letter, to get this done this spring.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. I have another question, but I’ll wait till others have had their turn.

M. Elmore (Chair): Sure.

Questions.

J. Sturdy: Well, not so much a question but just the idea that this committee, which has been tasked by government to review and make recommendations on passenger-directed vehicles and a gig type of employment…. The government or the ministry feels that it’s important to consult with industry stakeholders and share information with them as well as workers yet denies access by this committee to that same information…. It just seems beyond the pale.

It’s very disappointing that we see this type of a response to this committee. I’d just like to express my concern with those actions.

M. Elmore (Chair): I’ll jump in with a question. Then we’re back to Shirley.

Thanks for your presentation.

It has come up from drivers, and also from the companies, with respect to this issue of drivers being on multiple apps at the same time. We’ve heard…. Anyways, yeah, I understand it in different ways.

[9:40 a.m.]

How does that work, that they log on to one at a time? We’ve heard drivers who say that they only log on to one at a time, and we’ve heard from the companies that they only require drivers to log on to one at a time but that they may be jumping on to different apps at different times. Can you just talk about that?

T. Hughes: I’m not sure I understand your question. Is your question whether drivers are on one app at one time, or if they can actually be on multiple apps at the same time?

M. Elmore (Chair): Yes, that’s the question.

T. Hughes: Our understanding is that drivers can be on multiple apps at the same time. Now, when you’re engaged in driving somebody because you’ve picked up a ride from Lyft, for example, you would not then be available to pick up the Uber one at the same time. But you can be on multiple apps at the same time. That’s my understanding.

M. Elmore (Chair): Great, thanks.

I’ll go to Janet and then back to Shirley.

J. Routledge: The drivers actually presented yesterday. They were pretty emphatic that they only log on to one app at a time, which was news to me. Basically what they said was: “If we’re not available to accept an assignment, we will be penalized for that. So we can’t be on another app when an assignment comes for a particular app. We have to wait. We can only be waiting for one.” Anyway, they were quite emphatic about that.

T. Hughes: I don’t know what to tell you. My understanding is they can be on multiple apps at the same time. Once you’re engaged, you can’t pick up another assignment because you can’t be driving two different people at the same time. I don’t know what the point is they’re trying to make about being limited to….

Maybe that’s something that’s in their arrangement that they’ve got with the companies. But it’s practically possible.

M. Elmore (Chair): Right.

Shirley, and then Jordan.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): You referenced in your comments and, certainly, very accurately described, the emergence of the gig economy. You referenced the fact that government is attempting to get this right and we’re not targeting other particular facets of the gig economy.

Could you tell us what other subsets of the sector might be contemplated for further work once…? The concentration, at this point, has been on ride-hailing and food delivery apps. What’s next?

T. Hughes: I don’t know yet. We haven’t established any other sectors. We’ve had some that have contacted us to ask. We’ve been asked just this week by a media outlet, “What’s next?” and our answer has been that our focus is based on these two sectors, given the mandate letter. We’ll see what comes later, based on either us proactively trying to figure out what other sectors are out there that might need this protection or based on submissions.

I don’t know. It could also be based on what’s in the next mandate letter. I don’t know.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thank you for that. For now, my last question, then. I’m cognizant…. Well, there is more time, and that’s exactly what we had asked for.

I just want to reiterate my request, our request, that the committee have the opportunity to see discussion papers that are being shared with stakeholder groups when we have a legislative committee that is apparently not being permitted to see those things. I think that’s…. Again, if we are expected….

When I look at the mandate of this committee, one of the principles of the work we’re doing is whether the act promotes employment in the passenger-directed-vehicle services and transportation network services industries. I would assume that one of the things that would promote employment is whether or not people are being paid fairly, whether they’re being protected fairly, appropriately. So I would simply raise that issue again.

I know it’s not your decision to make in terms of sharing that, and I appreciate and respect that, but I would ask that there be consideration made by the minister, by government, to provide this committee with all of the information necessary to finalize a report which has to be tabled in the Legislature.

Thank you, Chair, for that time.

J. Sturdy: In response to MLA’s Routledge’s comments, I think the companies…. It was denied that there were repercussions to not accepting work other than losing in­come because you’re not taking that job. Or, I think, there was a potential for less access to the premium work or premium services.

[9:45 a.m.]

Regardless, I had a question around employment stan­dards and the scheduling aspect of things. It seems to me if we get to a place where there’s pay for or compensation for standby time or full time, then we’re really at a point where companies are in a position to say: “Well, guess what. You’re coming on work at eight o’clock, and you can work through until six.”

At what point does an employer-employee relationship…? How does it need to change, or could it potentially change, to allow for a situation where an employer is scheduling their drivers?

T. Hughes: That’s an excellent question, and it’s an ex­cellent question for a number of reasons.

One is that we don’t know what the companies will do with the standards once they come into effect. They might take the position that if they’re going to be employees, we’ll start scheduling. You get at the issue that the drivers are after, which is how many people are on the app at once, because right now, the system could be flooded at various points.

We’ll see what happens today with this withdrawal of services in Vancouver. if it turns out that a whole bunch of drivers are off the apps, and people can’t get rides, and there are some drivers who decide to work, it might cost you a whole heck of a lot more today than it might otherwise, because there are fewer drivers because of how the company does the pricing.

There were stories during the transit strike a couple of weeks ago of Uber charging…. Sorry, it’s not fair to say Uber. Some of the companies — I don’t know that it was Uber — were charging exorbitant rates for folks because they knew that the buses weren’t running and people were desperate to get to work. So how the companies choose to operate in that space remains to be seen. They might take the position, either collectively or individually, that they’re going to start limiting the number of drivers. They might start scheduling, because it may be that it makes more sense to do that because of the standards that we’re trying to establish.

Right now it’s a bit of a free-for-all in the sense that there is an innumerable number of drivers that could be available, and then how their algorithms and all that thing works when it comes to figuring out the assignments, who gets what and who accepts what. That’s way outside my knowledge and comfort.

The reality is the companies may choose to do something to establish a more traditional relationship, which could include your point about scheduling. We’ll have to see. At the end of the day, from our perspective, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We’re trying to get some more of the common employment standards features that apply to everybody else. What is it about this sector that should be so unique that workers wouldn’t get the benefit of some of those protections? As I say, we’re only establishing some of the protections in the Employment Standards Act at this time.

I’m hoping that helps answer, even though it’s a bit of a waffly answer, because as I say, it remains to be seen what the companies choose to do. The ultimate risk has been, depending on what we do, what happens if one of the companies says, “That’s it. We’re going to leave,” which has been there as a backstop. It isn’t going to be what government makes its decision based on. But it’s possible the company will say: “We’re not going to stick around.” Now, we hope that it doesn’t happen, because we’re going to try to see if we can get this right.

J. Sturdy: Are you alive to the idea that it’s not a level playing field in some respects around urban versus rural? Sitting at Burrard and Hastings may well be able to generate enough trips that you can create an employment situation, versus a situation like in the community I live in, where you might have your app on the maximum amount of time but only get a certain number of rides because that’s all the business that there is.

The problem we’re facing is that these smaller communities haven’t, for a variety of reasons, the volume either of drivers or of work that justifies the companies moving into these areas.

T. Hughes: Totally alive to that, in part not because just you’re right that that’s the reality outside Vancouver. The other part of that is why we’ve gone for the 120 percent, which is to deal with the engaged time and the reality that there’s time you’re going to be working connected to an assignment.

Also appreciate there’s time you’re available, and there isn’t work for you. I think I probably spent too much time articulating our concern about that engaged time.

The other part of that is that there are sectors now where that happens. You know well the restaurant sector. It’s busy in the morning, then it tapers off while people go off, and then it picks up again at lunch and at various points. You’ve got split shifts and all those things to deal with it. Somebody might prefer to work 12 hours because they’re available, but in the restaurant sector, you might be working two four-hour shifts.

[9:50 a.m.]

Again, it’s the unique vagaries of a particular sector, and we will have to see how this unfolds over time. That’s why I referenced the 120, the percentage, being a start. It may turn out that that amount doesn’t accurately reflect what you should be paid for the time, again, though, that you’re engaged.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. Okay.

Trevor, I want to thank you for your time, for your presentation, and I note the request from the Deputy Chair in terms of access to documents that’s been expressed. I appreciate your presentation and also the work that’s being done. We look forward to seeing how that develops, and doing our best to ensure that our recommendations can be informed by that and that we are able to integrate all the work that we’re undertaking.

T. Hughes: Thanks for the time and questions.

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

Okay. We have next with us online from ICBC, David Wong, president and CEO, and also Jason McDaniel and Bill Carpenter.

Thank you very much for joining us. You have 20 min­utes for your presentation amongst the three of you and then 25 minutes for question and answer from the committee members.

I’ll hand it over to you. Thank you.

ICBC

D. Wong: Great. Thank you, Chair.

We are pleased to be here. I’m David Wong, CEO of ICBC, and along with me I have, virtually, Jason McDaniel, who’s our VP of operations, and Bill Carpenter, our VP of insurance.

Before I begin, I’d like to recognize that we’re coming to you from the ancestral territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ First Nations.

We are here following up on our September conversation, where we provided a general overview of the insurance products and qualification processes that we have for transportation network services.

I know that specifically you were interested in learning more about the products we provide for the transportation network services relative to the taxi products for insurance and then the safety records related to the class 4 drivers’ licences.

There are three slides I’d like to go through to provide some context. If I go to slide 3 in the package that we provided you, in the deck, the first one is really where the distribution of policies are. So where are the drivers related to the Ubers and Lyfts? As you can see, we have three zones, and 84 percent of the drivers are located in the Lower Mainland. There is a higher concentration in the urban centres, followed by the second area, which is the Fraser Valley.

Just flipping to the next slide, which is slide 4, I thought it’d be useful to remind the committee here about the types of products that we do have. You can see on the left side of the slide the TNS products. This is the Ubers and the Lyfts. It’s an important reminder.

When they are waiting for a ride or driving without a client, they’re going to be on their own policy, their own driver’s insurance policy. The minute that the app accepts a ride from somebody, so they start their trip to go pick the person up, and until they drop the client off, then they’re going to be under the company’s policy, essentially. There are two differences there. And then while they’re driving, they’re being charged on a per-kilometre basis.

On the other side, on the right-hand side, there are taxi products. The taxi insurance products are divided. We have two types of products there. We have the traditional flat policy, so you just pay a flat fee, similar to how all of us would be paying for our car insurance.

Or with the introduction of the TNS, we also have a policy that is a similar product to which the Ubers and Lyfts would have. They would be, while they wait for a ride, on the fleet policy, which is flat-based, but when they pick up the passenger, then they would be on distance-based pricing, just similar to the way that Ubers and Lyfts would work.

Let’s get some context, and then we will go into some details related to the types of products or the pricing related to those.

[9:55 a.m.]

Just on slide 5, as a reminder, for the class 4 requirements…. This is the type of driver’s licence that a taxi driver or a Lyft and Uber driver would need to have. It does have a higher standard and includes things like the medical test and the commercial road testing.

For the question related to the types of products that we have for taxis and the transportation network services, you can look at slide 6. We’ve tried to summarize it there.

Then we have the three columns, and you can see the first two are related to the TNS and the taxis. The message that we really want to get out there is that, essentially, they are very similar, almost the same. The pricing is based on what zone they’re in, the location. It’s based on the claims history, so how many crashes they’ve had in the past.

Assuming that taxi drivers wanted to take a similar type of policy, it would be based on the kilometres driven. We will charge based on how much they have actually driven. Then for a certain portion, the optional piece of the policy, it is based on the types of vehicles that they drive — the make, the age, the model of the car. Essentially, they are identical. If a taxi and an Uber have the same zones, the same type of car, the same driving kilometres, they would be charged approximately the same. There’s no difference there.

We added the private passenger there because that is what the Uber and Lyft drivers will be using when they’re off-hire. You can see that that’s basically what everyone would be getting, as they’re all private drivers.

I think that describes the types of products that we have there. I think the other thing we wanted to mention related to that is that this is one of ICBC’s first distance-based driving products. We’re really excited to be able to have that out there.

On the final page there — I’m just going to shift right over to slide 8 — you can see the crash rate percentages by different types of classes of licences. We have private passengers there, and we actually pulled out private passengers in the Lower Mainland to take a look, because that is where more of the Uber types of drivers are.

What we’re seeing is that for the taxi drivers and the TNS, we’re having a crash rate of around 10 percent. What we have found is that taxi drivers had a higher crash rate than private passenger drivers in the past, prior to the TNSs.

One thing that we are seeing related to that, of course, is that if you are a taxi or Uber driver, you are, as we saw earlier, in the more populated, denser urban areas. Then, of course, you’ll be driving in different locations, maybe not areas you’re quite familiar with. You’re using the app much more to figure out where you’re going to go. There are different characteristics to that, which we believe has an impact on the crash rates.

I think that covers what we wanted to cover. We’re absolutely here to answer any questions that the committee has.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. A very efficient presentation. We’ve got more time for questions, and I’ll open it up to committee members. Would anyone like to start things off?

J. Sturdy: I’ll start off.

Thank you for your presentation — nice and succinct.

It was pointed out to us on a number of occasions now that B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada that requires a class 4 or at least a class 4 without some amendments or a recognition that ride-hail may not require the same level or the same type of licensing. Has ICBC looked at that relative to other jurisdictions, including, I understand, Newfoundland and Labrador as the latest to create an amended licence? Has ICBC done any work on this?

J. McDaniel: David, if you want me to jump in….

I’d start with saying it’s not an ICBC requirement for the class 4 licence. That’s a regulated requirement. There are different jurisdictions that have approached it differently, with different levels of escalated licence.

[10:00 a.m.]

We are not the only jurisdiction that doesn’t allow a class 5 licence to be an Uber or Lyft driver. In B.C., it is the same as a taxi, an ambulance or a small shuttle bus. It is people who drive passengers for a living. Most people that drive passengers for a living have a class 4 requirement. There isn’t a universal answer to each jurisdiction, but having an elevated level is not unique to B.C. We’re not the only ones that don’t allow a class 5 licence for driving ride-share.

J. Routledge: Further to that, we had a number of presentations from rural communities and rural companies that talked to us about the delays in getting licensing and how that not only has impeded getting ride-hail and taxis up and running efficiently outside of the larger populated areas but is creating a real problem in social cohesion, I would say, and in people getting where they need to get to.

They talked about really long waiting lists, like a long time before they could get their tests. They talked about having to travel to Vancouver from small towns in the Interior.

Are there any solutions you can think of that could make that more efficient so that we could get more vehicles on the road to take people where they need to get to?

J. McDaniel: It’s a good question, I’ll say. If I add to the magic of science from my last answer, Alberta, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. all have higher requirements for licences.

In our resident offices, I’m very happy to say that we don’t have wait-time issues anymore, but we definitely did. Knowledge tests can be available, on average, in four days. The longest waits are in the Lower Mainland, and that’s at 15 days.

In all the road tests where we have a resident office, you can find an appointment within 30 days. You can find a number of appointments within 60 days. Now, that wouldn’t have been true six months ago, but we’ve done a bunch of things, including opening a new office in Surrey and shortening the road test, in a way that maintains the requirements. We don’t have long waits to get in for testing any longer.

I’ll add that some offices are not resident offices. Those are offices where we visit, in very small towns, intermittently. There are resident offices in the North, including places like Prince George. Then there are other offices where it’s a Service B.C. office that we attend at specific times and dates. If you’re in one of those towns, the wait is longer, because it’s the wait for us to come.

It isn’t necessary to come all the way to the Lower Mainland. There will, in the region, be a resident office with shorter wait times.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your comments this morning.

I think the word “long” is in the eye of the beholder. I would suggest that a 30-day wait, when you are attempting to be efficient and add capacity, is probably long. I will just point out that we have heard repeatedly, at this committee, that it is a barrier and that it is an issue in terms of operating effectively in British Columbia.

While I appreciate it may be shorter than it has been, it still is in the eye of the beholder. While ICBC might see that as not long, that certainly isn’t how consumers, or people who’ve appeared before this committee, feel.

I’m wondering if you could speak to the failure rate — let’s take it from a positive perspective; the pass rate — when we’re talking about class 4. When we look at the knowledge test, for example, one of the things that was pointed out, in the course of our discussions, was the fact that in acquiring a class 4 licence, not all of the material on the knowledge test is relevant, for example, to ride-share drivers.

[10:05 a.m.]

For example, it talks about trucks, trailers and school buses. Of course, when you’re a ride-hail driver, that’s not relevant to you. The issue that was raised was: does the content of the knowledge test drive a less successful pass rate? Could you just speak to what the pass rate is on the knowledge test?

J. McDaniel: Yeah, the pass rate on the knowledge test, on average, is 44 percent. The pass rate varies by region a bit, but it is a low pass rate. We have no quotas or anything like that on those pass rates.

There is only a single valid question set, in that there isn’t an Uber licence. There’s no regulated licence for ride-share that would allow ICBC to create a specific knowledge test for ride-share because the requirement is class 4, and that allows you to also drive an ambulance and a shuttle bus. I think there’s some limitations in us unilaterally changing the test because the licence allows you to do all those things as it stands.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I certainly recognize that. I guess the question on the thinking around the suggestion that’s been made about modernizing the knowledge test, when you look at a 44 percent pass rate, on average.

Could you also speak to the issue related to the periodic medical checks, with the challenges we have in the healthcare system? Maybe just speak to that process and what that means in impacts, specifically to ride-hailing drivers.

J. McDaniel: Yeah. The class 4 system, in addition to taking knowledge and road tests, does have some assessments for people to have confidence in drivers that they’re using commercially — meeting a certain medical standard and also the ability to do a pre-trip check.

That does exist as a requirement under the regulatory scheme. It’s not one that ICBC would be able, again, to unilaterally waive, but you have to bring in a certificate. Depending on your age, it determines how often you have to return. Starting at five years, the number of years when you have to get it verified shrinks. That is a requirement that, I think, is intended to enhance the safety for passengers driving with somebody that’s being paid to drive them. For ICBC it’s something we have to follow.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I appreciate that and absolutely understand it. I’m not commenting on the necessity of it. I just wanted to better understand the impacts of it. I guess this is the last question I’ll have for now, and I’ll let others have their time.

When you look at the requirements for a class 4 commercial licence, obviously, there are costs. There’s time. There’s a variety of things that are involved. There is a concern that has been expressed about the fact that not very many women are engaged when it comes to looking at a class 4 commercial licence. Can you speak to the percentage of drivers that identify as women that are successful in getting a class 4 commercial licence?

J. McDaniel: I don’t have that data at hand, but I think that’s something we could find and provide.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Right.

M. Elmore (Chair): I have a question. We heard previously, when we looked at taxi and ride-hail, the concept of a level playing field and a different treatment for each.

[10:10 a.m.]

Can you speak to that, maybe lay it out and explain it to me, with respect to how they compare on the insurance piece, in terms of what they’re required to have and the cost, just comparing between taxis and ride-hail?

B. Carpenter: Thanks. Yeah, I’ll jump in on that.

Yeah, they are required to have optional insurance. In particular, they’re going to have coverage to cover their vehicle but also higher liability limits. Of course, they have basic. Everybody has basic insurance.

I think that different companies may choose a little bit. Some may choose a $2 million. Some may choose a $5 million liability limit. Fortunately, that’s not a big piece of the insurance with enhanced care now. Enhanced care takes care of all injuries for your lifetime, so that difference in liability isn’t as big a deal now.

In terms of having a level playing field, taxis have the option. They can go for a flat-rate policy, where it doesn’t matter how many kilometres they drive, or they can choose to have a policy that their rates vary by how much they drive, which is the same as what TNS drivers have, as well, or TNS companies have as well.

Most taxi companies right now are choosing the kilometre-based rating approach. The rates were initially set. Your rate that you pay is determined on a base rate, and then it’s multiplied by a fleet discount. That fleet discount is based on your experience, your crash history for your entire fleet.

The way we set TNS rates initially was we looked at all taxi fleets across B.C. and what was their average discount, and that’s what we used for the TNS rates. So everybody, whether you’re Uber or Lyft or whoever, whatever company you are that’s offering ride-hailing services is getting the advantage of that same fleet discount. So in that way, they’re the same.

Now, as you might imagine, some taxi companies have…. The average is not what every individual taxi company has. Some are better than that average, and some have a little bit higher crash experience than that average.

If you’re driving for one of the companies and that taxi company has a higher crash rate than average, they’re going to be paying a little bit more than the ride-hailing company would be. If you have a little bit better experience than that average for all taxis across B.C., you’re going to have a little bit lower rate. It was the best way we could come up with apples-to-apples rates and have a level playing field.

M. Elmore (Chair): Appreciate that. Thank you for the answer.

Now, in terms of the insurance piece, is that comparable in terms of the approach in other jurisdictions? Are you continuing with that approach, going to be modifying it? From your perspective, is it working? Are you looking at changes? What’s the comparison in terms of other jurisdictions? Is that the approach that will be continuing going forward?

B. Carpenter: Well, I would say how our approach will change going forward is that each fleet is going to stand on their own crash experience. We set the rates for TNS the same, for ride-hailing companies the same. They’re the same for those first two years, based on that approach, so truly a level playing field.

Then following that, as one ride-hailing company has a worse crash experience than another, well, they’re probably not going to get as good of a discount as they did initially. Those that have a better crash experience will probably see an increase in their discount. But I think that’s still a level playing field in terms of you pay what your crash experience is.

[10:15 a.m.]

In one way or another, every jurisdiction has to do that. They may have different approaches for it, but the premiums that you pay need to cover the claims that you have. That’s the basis of insurance. So I think, in that way, it is going to be similar to other jurisdictions. They may have different flavours of that, but that’s, in the end, what they’re trying to do. Again, it’s all level in that in terms of your fleet, you pay for your claims experience that you have over time.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific, thank you.

Other questions?

J. Sturdy: Back to the class 4, I was just on your website now, and I see that you can’t book a class 4 test online. Why is that?

J. McDaniel: I’m pausing because I don’t have a great answer to the question off the top of my head on why we can’t book the road test. It may be because of the pre-trip check. They need to know you’re doing a pre-trip check, which adds to the length of the test. So in addition to the time on the road, they do a check around the vehicle and do that work.

I don’t have a more detailed answer for why we couldn’t find a way to adjust that within our system. Outside of the Lower Mainland, I understand you can, but in the Lower Mainland, you can’t book the class 4. And it’s a good…. I wish you could, is my real answer, so let me see what the barrier is, and we can come back to you on whether or not we can fix it.

It is related to logistics. It’s related to the logistics around the longer time booked because we have to do those pre-trip checks, and they have to make sure they have people available to do them. But it is an issue we should be able to solve. I can’t tell you when, but we should find a solution for it.

J. Sturdy: It looks like you can book a class 5, a class 6, a class 7 or a class 8, but not a class 4.

It was, I think, worthwhile to understand that while there may be regional centres, in a place like the commun­ity I live in, we’re required to either travel 100 kilometres to Lillooet or 90 kilometres to Squamish in order to get access to these tests. Again, that’s just for the class 4. I think for a class 1, 2 or 3, it’s even farther that you need to travel in order to have these tests, if they’re available at all.

J. McDaniel: No, that’s right. I should say that it’s tricky yet a real problem in that we are meeting demand in those areas. We often have unbooked appointments in the times we do go to the lower appointments. So when you’re an individual, that doesn’t help your issue — I think is fair. Are there enough appointments for us to have people going there more often? Not when you look at them in the global sense, so it’s a problem without an easy solution.

J. Sturdy: One of the questions we did raise earlier was: does a class 4 licence make you a better driver or a safer driver? Other than the crash statistics, which you have rationalized more than double the accident rate of taxi or ride-hail versus the regular driver…. I think it’s reasonable to look at that congestion issue in the urban driving situation relative to a more rural one.

Is there any other way to look at the statistics to see whether a class 4 driver is somehow a better driver or a safer driver than a class 5 driver?

J. McDaniel: It’s a question we’ve wrestled with in that, much like I can’t compare a person with a class 1 licence because I don’t have a sample of people that don’t have one that are driving the trucks, at class 4, I don’t have the sample of people that drive all day to compare apples to apples. So there isn’t an easy way to provably say class 4 will reduce the likelihood of a crash.

[10:20 a.m.]

What we can say is you have certain things that you will know with confidence. You will know their driving history. You will know the absence of driving convictions, fewer than four points in the past number of years, and that they know how to check the safety of the vehicle, that they’ve had a more recent test on knowing road signs and a more driver-of-passengers-focused road test.

We know that your baseline is higher, and you’ve proven that, but we are unable to provide data that says they’d have crashed more if they didn’t have it. It’s an emphasis on safety, but we’re not able to prove it out.

J. Sturdy: Perhaps there is some more opportunity now that you’re looking at or supporting distance-based insurance, so you have a sense of how much people are driving, and looking at people that have licences or have insurance for work use. One would assume that if you’re insuring your vehicle not for pleasure or not just to and from work but for work, it would maybe be perhaps a little more appropriate for comparison purposes.

J. McDaniel: I don’t know. Bill is our insurance guru.

Do you have any other thoughts?

B. Carpenter: I don’t think we’re ever going to get an apples-to-apples comparison, because it would take people with class 5s driving in the same situation as a class 4. I think Jason has talked about…. From expert opinions, our experts here and that you consult with, we think that a class 4 is safer.

We were asked for the data that we provided there, but it doesn’t really answer the question. I think the data — it doesn’t show on this slide — is actually for people who drive to work. It excludes the people who have pleasure use.

I think you’re right in terms of…. We’re getting more data on kilometres, but I know we don’t have that uniformly. We did some surveys last year, and the average TNS driver drives about double what the non-private-passenger TNS driver drives, and a taxi gets, on average, about triple. So you’re seeing about double, or a little bit more than that, in terms of the accident rates here, but they’re driving at least twice as much — two to three times as much — depending on if you’re a taxi, the average taxi, or the average TNS driver.

They’re roughly…. I think you adjust for that. It takes care of a lot of the differences. I just think taxis and TNS drivers are driving in higher-risk areas. They’re driving in congestion. They’re picking up and dropping off passengers on streets. They have to pick up and drop off people that have accessibility challenges, and they need the class 4 coverage doing that. So there are a lot of things that they need to be able to do that a class 4 licence covers and makes them safer.

As Jason added earlier, every other driver that drives passengers professionally in B.C. has the class 4 as well. If you’re getting in a car as a passenger, you want to know that we’ve done everything we can to be in a safe situation with that driver.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Just a couple of follow-up questions.

We certainly want people to feel safe in vehicles that are driven and when you’re using ride-hailing. But I would assume so do the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, who have actually moved…. I’m not suggesting we’ve decided or are thinking about doing that. But Ontario and Quebec drivers actually use their full licence, which is non-commercial. I’m assuming that safety matters as much there as it does here. So it’ll be interesting to see.

[10:25 a.m.]

I’m not sure. Someone made a comment about Alberta still having higher standards. Our understanding is that Alberta has recently modernized their class 4 licensing system to look at the issue of how it impacts smaller communities, for example, so there have been some changes there.

The question isn’t a wholesale “let’s do it or not do it.” The question was really around modernization, and part of that is based on failure rates as well. And when you’ve got a pass rate of 44 percent, one needs to think of that. So just in terms of pass and fail rates, what is the pass rate for the actual road test for class 4?

J. McDaniel: Yeah. Just a second. I do have that data in front of me. Hang on.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. Well, maybe while you’re finding that number….

The other thing I just wanted to reiterate was…. We talk a lot about the need to make sure that people in urban centres are supported, and we have…. Obviously, you can’t book a test online — those kinds of things. But one of the things we’ve heard repeatedly at this committee is the use of applying a rural lens. This is a big province with a very diverse geography and population.

I’m wondering if ICBC, when you look at the issue…. We’ve heard about delays in terms of tests, for example, particularly if you live in a rural community. It is one thing to drive 45 minutes for a test. It is something completely different if you have to drive two hours for a test in winter conditions. It is very different.

I think you made the comment that there are appointments that that are not filled. Does ICBC regularly have a conversation about why? Is it the timing? Is it when the people actually are there to do the testing? I mean, it is about trying to meet the consumer’s need, from my perspective, as someone who represents an urban-rural constituency.

I just wonder about that rural lens. We heard very much about the inequity that people feel in terms of transportation options if you live in a rural or more remote community in our province. Licensing, making sure there’s increased capacity, really matters. So we’ve been urged to think with a rural lens. I’m wondering if you can give me ICBC’s perspective on that.

J. McDaniel: I think there’s even more we could do in that space.

It’s a conversation we have been having in the most remote communities, particularly in Indigenous commun­ities. How do we work in regions to…?

Let’s be honest. It is in everyone’s interest, including ICBC’s, that when we go to a region, we’re really busy, to the extent that we could stretch ourselves on ways to make sure that we are maximizing. Then if that leads to more trips to those regions because we will be busy the whole time we’re there, it’s something we would be very open to. It’s not an issue that has been ignored. It is also an issue where I think we could find more to do.

As I saw pass rates, I have to say they are at — I realize it was last year — 42 on knowledge tests, not 44. Forty-four is the road test pass rate, so my apologies on that number.

On the road test pass rate, it very much, for class 4, ranges by region. It is at the lowest in the Fraser Valley, at 39 percent, and it’s as high in the northern Interior as 66 percent pass rate. In the southern Interior, it’s 63. Vancouver Island, 59. But because it’s more loaded, Vancouver is 41. Because it’s loaded to Vancouver and Fraser Valley, that makes the overall pass rate 44 percent, driven by those regions.

D. Wong: Maybe I’ll comment on the question.

Personally, it’s important for me to make sure we are providing the services in the rural area. Last winter or previously, before the end of last year, I went up to Prince George. We host a meeting with all the northern driver’s licence examiners, the people who are going out there who are in the communities and go out to the various smaller communities in the area to support those tests — really, to be able to have the conversations, reinforce ICBC’s support of that work. In turn, we learn what some of the challenges are so that we can support those teams out there.

[10:30 a.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks.

Can you explain to me again the collision accident rate across taxi, ride-hail/TNS and class 4? I understand that there are different metrics, but just in terms of a comparison, if you can. Thank you.

B. Carpenter: Okay. That’s just the number of, the percentage of, over the course of a one-year period of time, how many crashes there are.

If you go to taxi and TNS for 2022, it shows 12.27 percent. So there were 12, plus a little bit more, crashes per 100 vehicles insured for a one-year period of time. So I don’t know….

For private passenger in the Lower Mainland, the reason we showed that line across the middle is that most of the taxi and TNS crash experience is going to be in the Lower Mainland, so it felt like, as difficult as it is to…. We can’t get an apples-to-apples comparison, but that would probably be the best comparison. So for 2022, that was 5.64 percent. So there were 5.64 crashes on average per 100 vehicles insured in the Lower Mainland that were private passenger. These are the ones that drive to work, to and from work.

Does that make sense? Did I help you?

M. Elmore (Chair): So it’s lower for the passenger, but it’s also not relative to hours on the road. It’s by vehicle class. Is that correct?

B. Carpenter: Yeah, it’s just based on vehicles, so it doesn’t take into account how much you drive. We don’t have that uniformly for every vehicle.

I talked about some of the data we had from surveys that show TNS drivers in the 2022 period…. Kind of 2022 and early 2023 was when the survey was based on. TNS drivers drive about double what a private passenger vehicle drives, and taxis drive about triple what a typical private passenger vehicle drives.

M. Elmore (Chair): Right. Great, terrific. Thank you. Yeah, those were the numbers.

All right. Any other questions, folks? Okay, good. We were able to canvass a good number of topics.

Thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity for your presentation for us to consider with our deliberations, and appreciate your time today. Thank you.

D. Wong: Thank you very much.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. That concludes our presenters now. We’re scheduled for a recess, and we’ll be back at 10:45. It gives us 12 minutes.

I want to just welcome and recognize…. I think we’ve got our intern class of 2024 here. All right. Welcome to the Douglas Fir Committee Room. You are joining the Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles. We’re undertaking presentations, and then we’ll be going into deliberations as we finalize our report, which will be tabled in the Legislature later this year.

Welcome. Nice to see you here. Hope you’ve enjoyed, I believe, your first committee you’ve been seeing. There you go. Some of the action. We’ll see you again next week when the Legislature opens.

All right, committee members, we have until 10:45 to be back here. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 10:34 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, we’re ready to get back underway. We’re all settled.

Welcome. Great to see you all here. We have two sets of presentations. We’re going to go back to back.

The first presentation from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure will be for 20 minutes, led by Kaye Krishna, the deputy minister. As well, with the team we’ve got Steven Haywood, Jeremy Wood and Trish Rorison — excellent.

That will be followed by a presentation from the Passenger Transportation Board with the chair, Baljindar Narang, and Heather Stewart, executive director.

I’ll prompt you as well. The presentations will be 20 minutes from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Then we’ll go to the 20-minute presentation from the Passenger Transportation Board, and then we’ll open it up to questions and answers from the committee members.

All right. Looking forward to it.

Over to you.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE

K. Krishna: Thank you so much, Chair, and thanks to the committee for having us back today. As you may recall, we are back to present updated information at your request, and we’re really pleased to be here again, this time in person.

As the Chair said, I am pleased to have joining me today, to help answer any questions you may have, Steven Haywood, Trish Rorison and Jeremy Wood. Steven is the registrar under the Passenger Transportation Act. Trish is the executive director of the clean transportation and programs branch, which administers the PTAP program, which we’ll be talking about. Then Jeremy Wood is our executive director of strategic policy in the legislation branch.

I’m also pleased to be joined by my colleagues from the PTB, Chair Narang and Executive Director Stewart. We’re all here to answer questions for you after we present.

[10:50 a.m.]

I would also like to begin by acknowledging that we’re joining today’s committee from the traditional, unceded territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. We are honoured to be here joining you on these lands.

The purpose of our presentation is really to follow up on our presentation to you on September 7. We have received a series of follow-up questions from the committee. Our goal is really to provide further information on areas of interest identified by the committee that fall within MOTI’s oversight and jurisdiction.

Recognizing you’re at the end of your committee stage, if you have other questions that we are unable to answer for you today, we will endeavour to very quickly get you responses so that you can finalize and shape your report with those answers.

We have three themes today that we’ll be going through.

The first is accessibility, particularly around the passen­ger transportation program; data collection and our role in the data warehouse, the collection and use of data and some of the challenges we continue to face; as well as some general program questions. Specifically, the three areas that we’ll focus on for the other program questions are around criminal record checks, taxi cameras and transportation in small, rural and remote communities. Of course, we’re pleased to answer any other questions you may have.

I also wanted to note that as part of the public materials, we’ve shared this slide deck. But we’ve also put together a glossary of terms for reference, given some similar but different acronyms that we will be using and that we continue to use, so that everybody has that for their reference.

Okay, let’s move on to the first topic, which is accessibility.

The passenger transportation accessibility program, or we refer to it as PTAP, launched last January 2023. The goals of the program are really to reduce cost of acquiring and operating wheelchair-accessible vehicles, also known as WAVs; incentivize the wheelchair-accessible drivers; and support training for drivers. Because we’re only in our second year, and just really one year into the program, overall it’s very difficult, at this stage, to measure success of the program, although I will share some data points with you that I think are very good indicators of the program thus far.

Currently there are two funding streams. The WAV maintenance rebate is designed to partially reimburse eligible licensed taxi owner-operators for costs incurred to maintain their wheelchair-accessible vehicle. The first intake was last year in January. It was open from January to March of 2023. We provided $2.6 million in grants to 51 taxi companies for 382 vehicles for expenses incurred in 2022 — i.e., the prior year — based on the expenses that those drivers and owner-operators incurred and we reimbursed partially for.

We are now in our second intake, so this is the second phase of this program. It’s currently open January through March, so we are accepting applications as we speak. We have expanded this program based on what we learned from last year’s program, so we’ve included two additional qualifications. One is a flat-price insurance rebate. So again, a flat-price insurance rebate. People can qualify for up to $2,400 per vehicle. Then, also, a flat-price fuel rebate, which is approximately $3,000 per vehicle. Those are in addition to the criteria from last year.

We have also added a second program, which is around acquisition and conversion rebates. This is designed to partially reimburse taxi owner-operators for costs of purchasing or converting wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This is also open. This is the same intake window, until March 2024. Owner-operators can qualify for up to $20,000, so up to 20 percent of vehicle purchase costs for new vehicles or up to 50 percent of vehicle conversion costs.

The program has been designed based on ongoing feedback, both from the accessibility community as well as from drivers in the taxi industry.

We’ll continue to expand PTAP as the need and challenges or demands present themselves, so we’re constantly looking at opportunities to grow the program. But in our second year, we’re pleased that we were able to implement these two phases or program streams.

[10:55 a.m.]

For example, another program stream we are looking into is developing driver training programs for serving people with accessibility needs. We’re aware that there is a gap in training opportunities since the JIBC’s TaxiHost program ended. So we’re looking at opportunities to either develop or support more training for drivers, and as that program is developed, we’d be pleased to share more information.

Applicants to the program must meet eligibility criteria. First, the vehicle must be a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and the licensee must certify that it is being actively used for accessible trips. They have to provide proof of eligible expenses and proof of auto insurance. They also have to demonstrate compliance with our data warehouse submission requirements. So they have to be meeting the data requirement expectations in the submissions.

The ministry reviews applications before the approval and follows up with applicants if more information is needed. We can also audit all applicants for the information on the applications, and if we find any negative findings or questions or concerns, we can reject the appli­cation. We can re-forfeit the rebate, and we can request repayment if we find any errors or challenges.

The program is currently administered by four dedicated full-time-equivalent staff members in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. It’s also supported by many other ministry staff related to modernization and adjudication, information management, finance and reporting — that sort of thing. A number of staff support it, but not full-time.

PTAP as it relates to small rural and remote commun­ities. The PTAP program is open to all eligible licensed wheelchair-accessible vehicle owner-operators in the prov­ince. There are no regional or local considerations. Everyone is welcome to apply.

We’ve been engaging with the taxi industry since 2020, most recently in November of 2023, on how to shape and support more program funding to support the owner-operators and encourage more wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Part of what we’ve heard, we’ve really tried to apply into the program.

As I said, we’re continuing to improve and shape the program streams. Some of the key things that we’ve heard around the challenges in rural areas include the high fuel, insurance and towing costs for wheelchair-accessible vehicles, the low revenue from fares to offset additional costs and that there are really few wheelchair-accessible vehicles actually available, physically available.

Part of our expansion that I mentioned for this year was intended to respond directly to that feedback, so the fuel and insurance rebate in the maintenance and operating program is really to help owner-operators in smaller communities specifically. It will benefit others, but it’s based on the feedback from those communities.

Here’s some data on cancellations and refusals. In­stances where taxis drive by a passenger without picking them up are not specifically captured in data submissions as yet. It would likely show up as a refusal or a no-show in the data, but the challenge is that the data is dependent on the driver entering it and reporting a refusal or a no-show. So it’s driver-dependent.

Looking at the data that we do have, we note that of all trips, approximately 2 percent are cancelled, which means that the passenger initiated the cancellation, and approximately 1.5 percent are no-shows or refusals, which means the driver initiated the cancellation. That’s the distinction in the language. Cancellation is passenger; no-show is driver. Then relative to accessible trips, there’s a distinct increase in cancellations and no-shows, with about 4 percent cancelled by passengers, and about 6 percent no-shows are refused by the driver.

Enforcement around wheelchair-accessible-vehicle pickups is complaint-based. So taxi complaints are re­ceived through Consumer Protection B.C., or commercial vehicle safety and enforcement, and complaints where there is a potential violation of the Passenger Transportation Act and/or regulation are investigated by the ministry’s passenger transportation enforcement officers.

I’ll move on to the second area of our presentation, which is around data collection.

[11:00 a.m.]

Data is required to be submitted directly to the data warehouse by taxi and TNS companies on a weekly basis. Data reporting requirements were established by a series of inputs at the beginning of the program, first based on recommendations from the 2018 Hara report, a scan of best practices across North America at the time, data needs of the PTB, or the Passenger Transportation Board, and in consultation with industry.

The information collected is trip-specific data, again, on a weekly basis, and it’s two key areas. One is information about the driver shift. These data attributes include details such as the vehicle registration number; the driver’s licence number; the shift start and end time; and then information specifically about each trip, so the trip status; the hail type — whether it’s street hail, app, phone, etc.; the date and time information of the trip; the trip start and end location; trip duration; and distance and fare amount.

A variety of parties have interest in data and use the data to monitor and inform specific areas of those relevant parties, and I’ll speak to that. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure uses the data to monitor both the taxi and TNS industry for compliance with the Passenger Transportation Act, as well as the Motor Vehicle Act, and to inform policy and program development, such as the updates to the PTAP program that I mentioned, which were shaped by the data.

The ministry provides data to others to inform their work as well. Clearly, we provide data to the Passenger Transportation Board on an ongoing basis, and we’ll probably talk about that later, as well as to local governments and to TransLink. So there are a number of users of this data and information.

We established the data warehouse information-sharing agreement to support access to data. It supports municipal programming and permitting, and then it also supports transit planning. Signatories include TransLink, city of Vancouver, city of North Vancouver, Coquitlam and Whistler. Then we, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, participate in a subcommittee of the signatories to the information sharing agreement. We work together to ensure data is handled appropriately, properly analyzed in a consistent manner, and that we are sharing information and best practices as we analyze and use the data.

Our role andMOTI’s role in data collection is that we build, enhance, and maintain the data warehouse, so that technology is integrated into the ministry’s technology systems. We also perform data verification through monitoring of the submission frequency as well as auditing data to ensure accuracy. We communicate with the licensees. We provide technical support. We initiate compliance work, and then we work with them on questions and any other support they have around the actual content and the data itself.

We use the TNS data to support trip fee payment verification as well, so that supports our tracking of the trip fees. I believe we just spoke when we were here previously around resuming compliance work post-COVID. During COVID, we reached an agreement, given the impact to the industry, between ourselves and PTB that we would not go strong on compliance for data collection during that time, just given the challenges that industry was facing. So we agreed to resume that after COVID.

We’re now actively pursuing compliance work. We’re doing it on a region-by-region basis. The licensees are engaged through escalating levels of contact by the ministry. Licensees who remain non-compliant face the possibility of monetary fines, audits or suspension at the discretion of the registrar.

We continue to see some challenges for data compliance among industry, particularly for taxi companies. I’ll just list some examples of those challenges we’ve heard or seen.

One is around equipment. Some operators use analog taxi meters or call forwarding systems that don’t ade­quately support data collection or extraction. There is also routine maintenance and testing that has created some challenges and errors in the licensees’ daily reporting and the interfaces between our systems and theirs.

The second area is around administrative costs. Setting up compliant data reporting adds to the overhead, particularly for small companies who may not be equipped to support that or hadn’t planned for it. We’re continuing to adjust accordingly.

Third are, in a minority of cases, barriers related to knowledge or familiarity. Some operators are unfamiliar with how to extract data from their systems. We’re continuing to work with those particular operators around capacity building or support where we can help them to the degree possible.

[11:05 a.m.]

Some of the operators have been using manual systems for decades and, in some cases, are resistant to change or implementing technology to support the data collection. Very few cases, I would say, but they still exist.

Current status of our data collection. In September, when we presented the data, there was a percentage of taxi companies where we saw the data was a bit outdated, and it appeared low due to a disproportionate number of small-tax cities not reporting data. But I’m pleased to report today that, as of December, you’ll see that overall compliance across the province is over 82 percent for taxis and is 100 percent for TNSs. So that’s good progress but more to come to get it up to 100 percent across the board.

You’ll also note that the overall distribution between the Lower Mainland versus the rest of B.C. is quite distinct, so there’s a lot more work to do with the rest of the companies across B.C. to achieve compliance.

Reporting rates on the site are actually based on total approved fleet size for all taxi companies, just as a note. In other words, the percentage of vehicles authorized to operate as taxis for which data has been submitted to the data warehouse.

As we have continued to ramp up enforcement, we’re learning more about some of the technology challenges and gaps that the companies are facing. In addition to the challenges, we’re also seeing challenges around just data accuracy of what’s being pulled. We continue to work with companies on cleaning up the data so that it’s a much cleaner and seamless transition of data into the data warehouse.

As I mentioned, if there’s a demonstrated need for companies, we’re continuing to try to work with them on how we can provide support, and we’re looking at opportunities to provide other capacity support to those companies to try to help get the compliance up even higher.

Into the third area, and then I’ll be wrapping up.

Program questions. Criminal record checks. I won’t walk through the process because I note that my timer is quickly going down. Here we’ve included, for your reference, the process. If a company denies a record check certi­ficate, drivers can apply to the registrar, the passenger transportation for review. The registrar reviews records and notifies the drivers and the licensee of the termination. Drivers must display record check certificates in the vehicle. TNS companies must display record check certificates on the platform. And the registrar has the authority to audit companies for their compliance.

Criminal record checks. This was previously part of the municipal chauffeur permit. The requirement varies greatly by municipality. They had different or no record checks. Others had one- to two- to three-year renewal cycles. Drivers needed a permit for each municipality, so there were increased costs and administrative burdens by having multiple processes by municipality. Criteria varied between municipalities.

Decision-making was left to police, so there was no transparency around the decision-making. Drivers were, on some occasions, denied permits for matters such as inter­actions with police when no charges were made. Appeals, which were very rare, had to go through municipal councils.

We streamlined the process into one provincial process in 2019 to reduce duplication and efficiencies and gaps in the municipal chauffeur licensees. Our goal was to establish consistency, efficiency, and the highest level of safety all across the province.

The taxi camera program is administered and run by the PTB, and passenger transportation enforcement officers and police provide enforcement. We can speak more about that if you have questions beyond what’s on the slide.

Finally, passenger transportation in small, rural and remote communities, B.C. Transit plays a really significant role in transportation across rural and remote communities, mainly with service directly with those local governments and across 130 communities in B.C. It also provides some regional and/or city connectors. On Vancouver Island, Victoria to Duncan, Cowichan Valley to Nanaimo. In the Interior, the North Okanagan connector and the South Okanagan connector. And then in the Fraser Valley, Fraser Valley Express, which connects the TransLink network to the Lougheed station.

I have a few more slides, Chair. Is it okay if I proceed for a few more minutes beyond my time? Okay.

B.C. Transit also provides Highway 16 service in northern B.C. in the taxi saver program. In northern B.C., the province also provides funding to NDIT, the Northern Development Initiative Trust, for B.C. Bus North and the northern community shuttle program.

[11:10 a.m.]

We provided $5 million to NDIT to extend these programs through 2027. There’s also a series of connections and supports through the Northern Health Connections bus, and there’s a series of federal government subsidies as well.

There’s a lot of work underway between ourselves at the ministry and the three economic trusts across the different regions in B.C. I’d be pleased to speak about that. We have supported them to do local grants to both local governments and First Nations to support planning governance and pilot projects for service enhancements. The ministry is also looking at opportunities to increase and expand rural and remote transit across the province. We’ll use the findings from those organizations to do so.

The final slide is just a comparison of ride-hail vehicles criteria versus taxis. They have the same requirements regarding the class 4 driver’s licence, vulnerable sector and driver record checks, submissions to the data warehouse and compliance and enforcement by the MOTI registrar and by commercial vehicle safety and enforcement.

Key differences are that ride-hailing is not required to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles. It is subject to a 90-cent per-trip fee, and they’re not eligible for funding under PTAP, the passenger transportation accessibility program. Taxis are required to provide some portion of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. They are not subject to the 90-cent fee and are eligible for PTAP funding.

I appreciate your time, and will turn to my colleagues from the PTB.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific, thank you. Great job. It’s a lot to present. I appreciate that.

Over to Heather Stewart.

You have 20 minutes, and then we’ll open it up to questions from everyone.

We’ll just make sure you have access there to the slides.

All right, there you go. You’re off.

PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION BOARD

H. Stewart: Thank you for the opportunity to present this information today on behalf of the Passenger Transportation Board.

The board acknowledges the traditional territories of the many diverse Indigenous peoples in the geographic areas we serve.

With gratitude and respect, we acknowledge that the board’s office is located on the traditional, unceded terri­tories of the lək̓ʷəŋən–speaking peoples, Songhees and Esquimalt, who are the traditional keepers of this land and whose historical relationships with this land continue today.

The agenda, starting on slide 2, will be covering accessibility, the taxi camera program, data and models, a congestion study and systemic decisions.

First we will discuss accessibility. The board’s economics and analytics team has examined the trip database, also known as the data warehouse, to provide data analysis on wheelchair-accessible vehicles, or WAVs, to the special committee. The first chart is on the number of accessible trips completed during 2023. We’ve divided the data into various zones. Zone 1 is the Lower Mainland; zone 2 is the CRD, Victoria; zone 3 is the rest of Vancouver Island; zone 4 is the interior of B.C.; and zone 5 is the north.

As you can see, in the Lower Mainland, or zone 1, there were between 5,000 and 7,000 WAV trips per month in 2023. The total number of WAV-accessible trips completed in the Lower Mainland in 2023 was around 75,000. About half of those trips were prereserved, and half were dispatched on demand.

The next chart shows median wait times for WAV in the Lower Mainland, covering the three years from 2021 to 2023. Median is the middle number in a data set, meaning that half the points are smaller and half are larger than the median. The median wait time best represents the typical experience for completed WAV-accessible trips.

Over the three years, the median wait times have ranged between eight and 16 minutes for accessible trips. We have heard some anecdotes about lengthy wait times for WAV-​accessible trips, some exceeding two hours. These lengthy wait times showed up in the trip database. However, these were not typical experiences, based on median wait times. A wait time over one hour is an outlier; it represents a service failure that ought to be reported to the registrar to investigate.

As well, the board imposes terms and conditions, on all licensees with WAV fleets allocated, that they must prioritize accessible trips over conventional trips. Because it is a term and condition of licence, this prioritization is also enforceable by the registrar.

[11:15 a.m.]

The next chart shows how many WAVs have been approved by the board.

As you can see, the largest allocation of WAVs is in zone 1, the Lower Mainland. When compared with the total fleets approved across the province, the board’s WAV allocation is currently at 18 percent of the total fleet in zone 1 and between 7 and 11 percent of the total fleet in the other zones. The board acknowledges that it needs to further refine the approved WAV fleet to ensure that it’s matching demand from those requiring accessible rides and providing adequate coverage for the whole province.

There is a difference between fleet allocation and fleet utilization. Fleet allocation is the maximum fleet size ap­proved by the board, and fleet utilization is the number of vehicles on the road at any given time. While it is likely that the board has approved sufficient WAV fleet allocations, notwithstanding the need for refinement, the data tells us a different story about WAV fleet utilization.

Turning to the fleet utilization for the Lower Mainland, the orange line denotes the fleet of 508 WAVs approved by the board. The blue line shows the number of that WAV fleet actually on the road in 2023. This amounts to just over half of the board’s approved fleet. Our assumption was that a vehicle reporting at least one accessible trip per month was a WAV.

Slide 8 shows WAV fleet utilization for zone 2, the CRD. The board approved 33 WAV vehicles for the region, but only about five are on the road. This represents about 15 percent of the WAV fleet allocation. However, there is poor data quality in the CRD, which made it difficult to see how much of a WAV fleet was actually on the road.

For zone 3, Vancouver Island, the board approved 25 WAVs. However, only five WAV were on the road, which is about 20 percent of the board’s WAV allocation for this area.

The board approved 35 WAVs in zone 4, the Interior. The blue line shows between ten to 20 WAVs on the road providing accessible trips, which is over half of the board’s WAV allocation for the area.

The board approved 20 WAVs in zone 5, the North. The blue line generally shows less than 5 WAVs on the road. However, there are data anomalies. It is important to note that in this zone as well as zone 4, the levels of data completeness and quality are low, and this makes it difficult for the board to see what is happening with WAV utilization.

What is the data showing us about the WAV situation? Notwithstanding the need for refinement, the issue is likely not the board’s WAV allocation. The issue is that only half or less of the approved WAV fleet is on the road.

Taxi licensees have consistently explained that WAVs are not financially viable. Buying a WAV costs more. Outfitting and maintaining a WAV costs more, and drivers spend more time loading and unloading. There is a public policy issue here to consider. If a WAV costs more to pro­vide, then should the users have to pay more for the service?

The board has been approached with ideas, like allowing WAV drivers to start the meter during loading and un­loading or allowing WAV to charge higher meter rates. The board has consistently resisted this, because we do not believe that people with disabilities should pay more for services than others.

However, on the other side of the equation, taxis are private sector businesses that must be financially viable, or they will not be able to provide sustainable service. This is where subsidization can directly impact the issue. If the PTAP is adequately subsidizing all of the extra costs associated with WAV, then these can become just as financially viable as conventional vehicles.

If the WAV could be made equally financially viable to conventional vehicles through subsidization, then there would be no excuse for the board’s WAV allotment to not be on the road. Imagine the improved service to the community if double or more WAV vehicles were on the road providing that service. Furthermore, financially viable WAVs could provide a market niche for taxis, to help maintain that sector’s sustainability.

Next we’re going to discuss the taxi camera program, starting at slide 13.

In 2004, the board began its taxi camera program. There are three mandatory programs covering greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and greater Victoria. There are two voluntary programs in effect, each with one licensee, in Williams Lake and Prince George. Generally, the current program requirements include participants installing taxi cameras from a board-approved list, utilizing a designated installer and affixing decals informing passengers.

[11:20 a.m.]

Technical requirements include that taxi cameras are to take still photographs, triggered by specified events, and be wired into the car to prevent tampering. Average installation costs are about $1,200, and annual maintenance is around $200.

There are several issues that make the current taxi camera program unsustainable. As a result, the board has undertaken a project to look at the future of the program.

The technology is becoming obsolete. There has been significant evolution with cameras over the past 20 years. There is now only one camera model approved by the board, with not a lot of options.

Designated installers are also very difficult to come by. Many have closed their businesses, and distance travelled by taxis is increasing. There are reported problems downloading and accessing camera content due to outdated systems and failing software.

Privacy requirements have also evolved over the past 20 years. What information is collected by taxi cameras, how it’s stored, who controls it, how it’s accessed and how it is destroyed are all issues related to privacy.

As a result, the board commenced a project last year to review the taxi camera program. The project will examine a number of areas itemized on slide 17. The board is currently at the research and consultation stage.

Next we are exploring data and models, starting at slide 18.

As discussed in the board’s September 2023 report, the board’s mandate expanded in 2019. This was due to the regulation of TNS but also because the board was to collect and analyze data to support decision-making.

Data and evidence are not the same thing. Raw trip data cannot be entered into evidence unless systems-level analysis occurs. Economics expertise is required to analyze the data and develop an expert foundation to contextualize the evidence. This turns the data into evidence, which must be introduced into the board’s decision-making process in an administratively fair manner.

One of the key data sources for the board is the trip database. The data requirements are determined by the board, but the trip database is administered by the registrar under the act. Since June 2023, the board has produced a data coverage and data quality report for use by the board and registrar.

Data coverage or completeness is calculated based on fleet size, as each vehicle should be submitting data for its trips. This report concerns taxi submissions, as TNS companies have, for the most part, been data compliant. In terms of coverage, slide 20 shows the status of the trip database as of December 2023.

The board has a reliability threshold of 90 percent. Zone 1, the Lower Mainland, has reached that threshold of data coverage at 92.8 percent. It would seem that the CRD, Victoria, is close to the reliability threshold. However, as you will see in the next slide, data quality is an issue. For the other three zones, there is insufficient data coverage at this time.

Data quality is determined by looking at 19 key fields of data in the trip database. A data quality issue will be identified if any of those key fields have issues like missing values; invalid locations, like picking up in the Pacific Ocean; or zero values.

In terms of data quality, slide 21 shows the status of the trip database as of December 2023. It’s hard to establish a reliability threshold for data quality because it depends on what is being measured, and the data quality is in the related fields. Ideally, we would want to see data quality over 75 percent.

The more data quality issues, the more resources and time it takes to scrub the data to make it usable in analysis or models. At certain points, data quality becomes so poor that the data cannot be scrubbed effectively and nothing reliable can be determined from the data.

As you can see, zone 1 has the highest data quality score, 72.9 percent. However, the opposite is the case in zone 2, CRD. Zone 3 has fair data quality, and the other zones have inadequate data quality.

I’m going to leave the discussion about data temporarily to talk about the models. The board requires internal economics and data analytics capacity to create econometric modelling in support of decision-making. Econometrics uses a combination of economic theory, mathematics and statistical inference to quantify economic phenomena. It measures the relationship between economic variables and explains how different variables influence each other.

[11:25 a.m.]

The board’s use of econometric models is unique in the regulation of a passenger transportation market. It is a way of seeing what is truly happening in the market and is a way of understanding the potential outcomes of different market events or interventions.

The board is undertaking two econometric models, one for supply and one for demand. These are two sides of the same coin from an economics perspective, requiring balancing by the board as the regulator.

The first model is related to supply. The model is essential to the board’s consideration of sound economic conditions. However, this model is meant to go beyond a measurement of supply in relation to demand. In considering sound economic conditions, the board needs to model the factors that impact the sustainability of various sectors of the passenger transportation industry, such as the taxi sector.

There is an underlying public policy consideration here arising out of the previous select standing committee’s deliberations. The question is whether taxi and TNS sectors should be maintained as separate sectors, competing against each other in a healthy manner. This is the foundation of the board’s regulation, as this was the direction of government and supported by legislation.

As we have seen in other jurisdictions, this is a difficult goal to achieve, and it requires careful regulation by the board. While taxis or TNS businesses may or may not benefit from a monopoly, our research shows it is the most beneficial to the public and drivers to have both sectors. This is because taxis and TNS are not perfect substitutes for each other. Each sector has its own benefits to society. Therefore, the board supply model must also reflect sustainability so that both sectors can survive and compete against each other for the overall benefit of the public.

Once the supply model is constructed, it can help the board monitor supply levels and forecast key issues related to the regulation of the passenger transportation industry, like if there is a significant undersupply or oversupply, determining taxi rates to promote sustainability of that sector, thresholds to determine if the market is moving into unhealthy territory, and testing what interventions may produce the best result.

The second model is related to demand. This model is essential to the board’s consideration of public need. As you can imagine, public need involves a lot of factors, many of which are outside of the control of the board or industry.

Picture for a moment your choice to go to work this morning. You had certain transportation modes available to you, like walking, personal vehicle, public transit or a vehicle for hire. You made a choice on what mode you would use to get to work. What consideration was that based on — convenience, safety, time, cost, something else?

Within this geographical area of the CRD, there were thousands of other people who made their mode choice. These choices can be correlated to understand mode choice preferences in a particular area and the factors that influence them. These choices can be affected by numerous factors internal to the passenger transportation market, like price, marketing and service quality. However, they can also be affected by external factors, like the availability of other modes, tourism levels or pandemics. These external factors need to be understood so that their influence on demand can be understood.

Demand is important to model because it is so complex yet directly impacts the supply levels that are needed to address it. The demand model can give us insight into market share for taxis and TNS and why people are choosing what mode. Once the demand model is constructed, it can help the board forecast key issues related to the industry regulation, like travel demand for taxis in a given area, impact on demand when fares change, demand for services in rural areas and identifying underserved areas.

This brings us back to a discussion about data beyond the trip database. The board’s models are like two cars, but the data is like the fuel that makes the cars go. In addition to the trip database, the board needs other business information from licensees to fuel the models. Other data sources include TransLink, B.C. Transit, ICBC, local governments and Stats Canada.

Right now the board is relying on the kindness of other organizations to provide their data, and we have experienced generosity so far. It is not clear that the current legislative framework allows the board to obtain data from outside of the regulated industry.

[11:30 a.m.]

Now we are going to touch on the board’s congestion study. The board is concerned about congestion, so in 2023, the board contracted with Acuere, Clark Lim, to undertake a congestion study in greater Vancouver. The board has dedicated the majority of its contract budget over two years to undertake this study, which will be completed in 2025.

The congestion study takes into account both temporal and spatial elements related to congestion. Temporal elements include the day of the week or season. Spatial elements include identifying congestion hot zones. Not every road in Vancouver has congestion all of the time. There are certain roads that are congestion hot zones, and this study will help us to visualize where those are.

In the Vancouver area, the board has reliable trip data on taxi and TNS pickups and drop-offs through the trip database. This data will be included in the study. However, to identify congestion hot zones, the rest of the users on the street need to be included. This study allows us to see all of the traffic and what is happening on the street level in a more holistic way to identify the congestion hot zones using data. Then the causes of the congestion can be analyzed for those hot zones.

There are many causes of congestion, some of which have nothing to do with vehicles. For example, congestion can be influenced by city planning or geographical features like water and bridges. There are many vehicles on the road which can impact congestion, like personal vehicles, vehicles for hire in e-commerce, including pedestrians and bicycles.

The board has contracted with Acuere because they possess a wealth of traffic and engineering expertise and can focus on the true causes of congestion in these hot spots. The data analysis will be augmented by in-person observations. We will happily share this comprehensive study with the city of Vancouver so that effective solutions can be explored.

In making data-driven decisions, it’s important for the board to properly identify the problem, understand causation and analyze potential solutions and their effects. Congestion is a complex issue, and right now we have no objective evidence that taxis or TNSs are causing it.

As discussed in the next section, activating a lever like fleet caps can have serious consequences to the industry, the public and drivers. After the congestion study is completed, we will have the facts about congestion hot zones, and the board can explore solutions that can help address the causes with the least negative solutions.

Finally, we will discuss the board’s regulation of the passenger transportation industry, starting at slide 30. The board is tasked with regulating the industry at the provin­cial level. This is, essentially, a market that provides commercial passenger transportation services to the public, not dissimilar to other regulated markets like the stock market or the energy sector.

One of the outcomes of the board’s expanded mandate was to move to a market regulation focus. Even when the board is determining individual applications, it still must consider the overall system as part of the public need and sound economic conditions criteria.

The board does not need to intervene in the passenger transportation market when it’s operating in a healthy way with normal fluctuations. The board needs the models to monitor the passenger transportation market and to know when the market is moving into unhealthy territory. Then the board would consider using one of its levers to stabilize the market. These levers are also called systemic decisions by the board, as they represent decisions that impact larger groups of licensees, certain sectors or the whole industry.

If the board is in a position where it needs to intervene in the market and make a systemic decision or pull a lever, then the process needs to be efficient. There were numerous recommendations made by the board in its September 2023 report that would support efficient systemic deci­sion-making.

There are three market levers the board uses to intervene in the market. The first one is pricing, the second one is fleets, and the third is operating areas. All of these levers represent significant interventions in the transportation market. These levers are strong medicine, and each has its own side effects. The board needs to apply the right lever at the right time, considering the negative effects that may occur. Otherwise, unforeseen and potentially destructive market shifts can occur. These shifts can result in the opposite of what was intended.

Any decision to use a lever is the board’s responsibility after careful analysis. The board intends on using econometric models to monitor market health and test intervention scenarios to mitigate, as much as possible, the nega­tive side effects of these systemic decisions.

The board appreciates the opportunity to provide this submission to the special committee.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you very much, Heather. Appreciate the presentation.

I’ll open it up now to committee members for questions or comments. Who’d like to get us going here?

Janet, go ahead.

J. Routledge: This is a lot. I am still getting my head around it.

I have a number of questions. Some of them may sound random. I’ll start with them as I see them, as I wrote them down.

My first questions are for MOT. Again, sounding random. Okay. So data. I know that right now what you’re focusing on collecting is data with regard to trip duration, like where someone is picked up, when they are picked up, where they are dropped off, how long it takes.

Have you considered collecting data on log-in time? I’m thinking particularly in terms of ride-hail, because that is an issue. It’s a contentious issue. We’re hearing conflicting anecdotes, one set of anecdotes from the companies and another from the drivers. It would be very helpful if we could get real facts.

How long is a particular driver logged on for? How many apps are they logged on to at a time? That would really give us a good picture.

S. Haywood: Thank you for the question. It’s definitely an interesting one, when it comes to the ride-hail drivers.

Now, we do track their hours. We don’t track exactly when they log on to the app. But once they take their first ride, they have a requirement to stay within the hours-of-service requirements that are in the Motor Vehicle Act Regulation division 37, which is your hours-of-service regulations.

It’s something that’s, off the top of my head…. So 13 hours of driving and 14 hours on duty. That haul has to be completed within a 16-hour time window. It’s the same regulations for truck drivers.

That is something that our officers do look at. When they are performing an audit of sorts, they’ll look at which drivers are on. Then they can go into the data warehouse and see if the drivers are working for multiple apps at the same time.

J. Routledge: They can determine that.

S. Haywood: Yeah.

J. Routledge: Okay. Thank you.

Others may have questions. I can come back.

M. Elmore (Chair): Go ahead, Janet. Go for a little while, and we’ll switch off.

J. Routledge: It hasn’t been within your mandate in the past. But because of the overlap, the evolving economy and where we’re going with this, have you considered including food delivery as part of what you’re monitoring and regulating? A lot of them do…. The work overlaps.

S. Haywood: No. At this time, the Passenger Transportation Act is focused on passenger transportation.

J. Routledge: Not the food they eat. Okay.

Surge pricing. Do you have any data on surge pricing or any thoughts on surge pricing?

H. Stewart: We actually can see what the surge pricing is, and we use it in our analysis in terms of the fares.

We can track what the algorithm was doing by looking at what the fare amount was. So we do already have that data from the TNS.

J. Routledge: I’ve got some other series of…. If anyone else wants to….

Interjection.

J. Routledge: Okay. So training. You talked about training and the PTAP training, training so that drivers are using the cameras properly.

Something that has come up a lot in the previous presentations is TaxiHost. My question is: why was that discontinued? Would you consider reinstating it and including ride-hail?

[11:40 a.m.]

K. Krishna: I’ll start. Then I’ll ask Steve to add and will welcome anything from anyone else as well.

There are two different types of training you referred to, so I wanted to clarify. The PTAP training would be for accessible wheelchair drivers. It may or may not include cameras or other driver training requirements, but it’s really about the specific needs to support accessible passengers. That’s where we’re really looking at that funding and support.

Then I’ll ask Steve to speak more about general training and the TaxiHost program.

S. Haywood: The TaxiHost program was a program run through the Justice Institute of B.C. on behalf of municipalities. The municipalities were requiring the TaxiHost program. That changed with the legislation introduction in 2019 — when the regulations took effect in September of 2019.

J. Routledge: And that was for ride-hail, to include ride-hail?

S. Haywood: Yes, that was the regulation. Yes, sorry.

For the past while, our teams have been working on a training program, consulting with industry, consulting with stakeholders on what a curriculum could look like, specifically around the needs of accessibility users: wheelchair users, guide dog users, those that are hard of hearing. That’s something that’s in progress right now.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): All right. Well, thank you very much for the presentations, both of them. There’s a lot of information there, so I’ll just do a few. I’m sure other people have questions as well.

If we can go back to the PTAP program, please. Can someone tell me how much has been collected since it was started?

K. Krishna: I’ll start while Steve is getting a specific number.

There are fees that have been collected from the beginning of the program, and those fees cover a large number of criteria and program costs, including the data warehouse, staff, the Passenger Transportation Board costs. They also contribute to the program.

The total number of fees cover all of those costs. Then a portion of those are allocated to the PTAP program. Steve can speak to the specific proportion of that, or perhaps Trish.

T. Rorison: Last year I think we provided $3.2 million in funding. That was the first year we operated the program. This year we have $7.8 million available.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. That wasn’t my question.

My question was…. I understand that there are a variety of costs covered, but people are paying a fee with the assumption that it goes to certain improvements in service. How much, totally, has been collected as a result of the fee?

You’ve spoken to $3.2 million was distributed, and then we had a fancy press release talking about up to $7.8 million being available in this round. How much…? We have heard numbers from other people who have come to committee saying: “We’re paying this fee, and it has collected millions of dollars. What is it delivering on the ground?” How much was collected?

K. Krishna: I can take that.

Year over year, in fiscal 2021, $2.6 million was collected. In ’21-22, $4.4 million was collected. In ’22-23, $9.4 million was collected.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So almost $10 million. Was that ’22 to ’23?

K. Krishna: Correct.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Sorry, ’22-23?

K. Krishna: Yes.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. Of that, how much has been allocated — I understand staffing and overhead costs and all of that — to improve service on the ground, through the program lines?

K. Krishna: Through the program, because service is also….

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So there are applications. You’ve launched a second intake. It says up to $7.8 million dollars.

K. Krishna: Yep.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Let me let me try this again. Since the program was launched, what is the cumulative total? You have mentioned nine, three, two…. What is the math in terms of how much has been collected over the years that it has been in place?

K. Krishna: I’m just adding it up for you. I have it listed year by year.

I believe it’s $16.4 million, if I’m doing my math correctly on the fly, total collected.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): So $16½ million has been col­lected. How much has been allocated through the streams…?

[11:45 a.m.]

We have maintenance and operation, which has been in place. Now we have a new stream, a stream related to acquisition and conversion. Out of the $16.5 million, how much has been distributed?

K. Krishna: The $2.6 million last year for the PTAP program, which launched last year, and then $7.8 million for this year.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): And up to $7.8 million.

K. Krishna: Last year it was fully utilized, so we fully expect it to be utilized this year. So, yes.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. So there is conceivably….

Was the balance of that money, then, spent on administrative? Or is there money sitting there?

K. Krishna: No, we don’t have money sitting. It’s used in programming, as I mentioned before, including compliance for people who are on the road and helping to ensure that the program is administered effectively as well.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I guess the other thing that…. I listened carefully to the presentation from the Passenger Transportation Board. Graphs indicate that waits for WAV are short, according to the data that we have, with lack of…. First of all, we don’t have all the data. Secondly, the quality is in question.

That is not the experience that we’ve heard from people here. The comment was it’s an anomaly. Well, it may well be. It was described as a service failure. Yet in the recent news release related to $7.8 million in WAV funding, it actually says that persons with disabilities often experience longer wait times or lack of service. That’s hardly an anomaly. That sounds a lot more normalized than simply how once in a while somebody….

Perhaps someone there…. We have heard about this repeatedly, not just from people whose service has not been equitable: passbys, won’t take the service dog, long waits.

An experience of a person who is unsighted, who was dropped in a place…. She didn’t know where she was. She was asked: “Where do you want the taxi to come?” “I don’t know, because I don’t know where I am.” Those experiences are unacceptable. Perhaps they’re an anomaly, but that is not how this committee has heard about the need for people who have a particular need. That is exacerbated if you live in a rural part of this province.

Maybe you could speak to: when you describe the situation as an anomaly, what is done, and if it’s a service failure, how does that translate to conversations with companies? If it’s a service failure, what are we doing about that failure, and what happens as a follow-up?

I have to say that when we’re hearing that the time — was it median? I don’t know what it was; I wrote it down — was seven to eight or ten minutes or something…. I mean, most of us wait far longer than that for a taxi, and it is not a WAV. Could you maybe just give me some sense of comfort about what happens there?

I feel very concerned about the fact that there is a portrayal that it’s an anomaly. I’ll get to the funding policy, the policy issue, in a minute, but could you just describe that for us? How can you characterize it in that way when, certainly, that is not the experience of many British Columbians?

H. Stewart: Yeah, I can maybe start and then pass it over.

That’s not the way it’s intended to be characterized. This is data analysis of the trip database, so the median wait time is in the middle. Therefore, it is acknowledged that there are many longer wait times than that.

We actually saw that in the data. They’re, from a statistical perspective, outliers. That doesn’t comment on the difficulty that people are having when they’re having to wait that long.

In addition to that, it doesn’t capture people who have given up on their trip, who never got the trip in the first place. You know, maybe you waited for two hours, and then the taxi didn’t show up at all. Those aren’t captured in the trip database.

[11:50 a.m.]

The only thing that’s captured in the trip database is a completed trip. So what we’re saying is out of completed trips, this is the median wait time, while acknowledging there are probably a lot of incomplete trips or even people with disabilities who have just given up on trying to have this service at all because of the concerns that they have.

The data itself in the trip database is pretty good in the Lower Mainland, so in analyzing the data, that median trip wait time is fairly accurate. But when we get out into rural areas, it’s harder to see that. So thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I do appreciate that because, certainly, that has not been the experience of our committee. And you’re right: median means middle, which means there are a whole lot of people who are not having equitable service.

I guess that brings me to….

Chair, thanks for the latitude. I do have a couple of questions around another issue, but if I could just pursue this for a moment.

In your presentation, you also noted there was a public policy issue that you are grappling with, and it included: should users pay more if you need a WAV? You gave other examples of that as well. Should there be a more adequate subsidy?

Could you describe for us what steps are being taken to deal with accessible supply? I mean, I can’t imagine we’d be wanting to charge a premium for somebody who needs a specialized vehicle, so I’m assuming the public policy issue isn’t veering in that direction. What is being done, then, to deal with the issue of accessible supply? Because there are higher costs and the issue of an adequate subsidy, what work is being done to grapple with that issue?

K. Krishna: Given the public policy question, I think it’s best to start with MOTI. That’s exactly why we’ve created the accessible program, looking at opportunities to create incentives to help create a greater supply and availability of accessible vehicles.

We’re also very open to other ideas on how to incentivize — in addition to the enforcement and compliance side — not just the number of vehicles but the quality of the experience.

We would agree with you, from a public policy perspec­tive, on two fronts. One, even if the experiences that you’re speaking to tend to be anomalies, they’re not acceptable. So we are trying to do what we can to help support industry, but mostly the accessible community, to ensure that they have a similar equitable experience to getting ride-hailing and taxis. That’s really what that program is designed to do.

Then on rural and remote specifically, I think that’s why we’ve tried to evolve the program this year: to hear from those companies on what else they need, to be able to support them and try to get to an equitable position where having a wheelchair-accessible vehicle is no different, in theory, from a financial point of view. And taxi drivers are encouraged to do it.

We are looking at the various policy levers. As part of PTAP or other mechanisms, we’re looking forward to ideas that come forward from this committee. But we would tend to agree, from a policy point of view, without any formal deliberation from cabinet or others, that having the users pay more is not in the public interest.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): One of the ideas…. One of the — we thought, I thought — innovative suggestions and things that have happened in other jurisdictions is WAV Calgary, which has centralized dispatch. It means it doesn’t matter what taxi company you belong to. You register, a person calls, and the closest available vehicle is sent.

One would think that having a centralized approach, knowing where everyone is, can speed up the response. So has the ministry looked at WAV Calgary? I believe Toronto is also doing work, looking at a centralized approach, working with taxi companies that feel frustrated, too, be­cause they want to provide good service. When they’re late or their vehicle is in repair, that’s a challenge too.

Has anyone talked to Calgary around the program that they’ve started?

[11:55 a.m.]

S. Haywood: Yeah, we are aware of the Calgary program. It’s not something that we’ve undertaken yet, as a province, to look into, taking over taxi dispatch at this time, but it is one that has been considered.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I think, when we’re looking at cost as one thing and effectiveness, looking at a centralized dispatch means working with taxi companies to say: will you work with us here?

I would really urge…. It’s certainly something…. We had them come and speak to us, because we had heard about the way that it makes things a lot easier. You don’t have to pay extra. You don’t register. It’s on-demand, and it is a collaborative process.

Very quickly, I realize I’ve had a fair degree of time here. I wanted to raise the issue of training. You mentioned the Justice Institute. As we know, the TaxiHost program was discontinued. The Justice Institute came back with options for two modules of training. It’s one thing to get a wheelchair-accessible vehicle or for ride-share drivers to have to provide assistance. The Justice Institute brought two suggestions about how they could do online components of training.

Is there a follow-up being done with the Justice Institute about how they can partner in making sure that we have quality opportunities for people to understand and pro­vide better service?

S. Haywood: We definitely have worked with the Justice Institute over the years on their program and what they’re capable of.

With any government program, though, we have to do requests for proposals. If we are going to be using any type of government funds to institute any program or requirement for a program, it wouldn’t be likely a single-source contract. It’d be something we’d work through the proper processes on.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Well, I think the point is that we’ve heard lots of examples of how drivers need help, and they need training and sensitivity and awareness and all of those things. I know all of you know that, so the Justice Institute…. I’m not suggesting it’s a sole-source contract. I’m simply saying they came with some great ideas for how we help enhance the service for people who require additional assistance. I would also leave that. Training is certainly something we’re going to be looking at.

I am not being rude with my computer, but I wanted to bring up the other thing that you mentioned. The Ministry of Transportation mentioned that there were engagement reports published. There were three regional economic trusts, so the three regional economic trusts were asked to go out and talk about passenger transportation in small, rural and remote communities.

We have heard that over and over at this committee as well — that there is not equity of opportunity in this prov­ince for people if you live in 70 percent of the geographic north or rural part of the province.

In fact, one of the studies pointed out that there’s still hitchhiking taking place along a highway where, certainly, we would pray it didn’t happen.

I’m wondering…. Those reports were made public, and I appreciated one of them was done by Northern Development Initiatives Trust, which has done really great work in our part of the province.

There are some very practical recommendations there, and the observations…. When you look at who responded to the survey and how often they have to travel, 27 percent of respondents are travelling 50 to 150 kilometres five times a week, and 12 percent are travelling in excess of 150 kilometres. Why? For health care, for their jobs, for a variety of other things.

I’m wondering what has happened with the reports that are posted. There were some very practical recommendations, some related to B.C. Transit. We have heard about the lack of flexibility perceived by very small communities with B.C. Transit. Again, what is the rural lens that’s being applied? My most specific question is: what are we doing with the recommendations that have been presented after these three trusts went out and talked to people about their experience?

K. Krishna: Thank you for the question. Yes, we funded them specifically to try to tackle this question. Part of the reason we did it with each of the trusts is because they’re regional, and they understand their regions, and they have the close connections with their different partners, the local government and constituency groups to lead that work.

They are also, as you mentioned — specifically through, say, NDIT — actually running some programs. They’re getting real experience. They’re doing things like testing some data platforms and other things to increase access­ibility of the service as well, and figuring out how they can model that.

[12:00 p.m.]

Then we, within the province, are looking to them for those reports as well as other feedback on how we’re thinking about a rural and remote transportation strategy and what connections we can bring to bear to help with better integration with existing services, including the medical services that you refer to, the health services, but also gaps in service. We’re taking all of that as direct input. We funded them specifically to do the work and bring it back to us to inform policy work.

We’re also doing our own level of engagement. We’ve had a number of engagements with First Nations across the province on their transportation needs as part of our commitment to the Declaration Act. So we’re using a series of inputs, as well as our own data and analysis, to shape what we hope will become a more formalized set of actions and ideas to support transit in the North. Well, rural and remote, not just the North, but you mentioned the North.

The other thing I would say is in the meantime, we are continuing to do things like improve the PTAP program. We extended support for the B.C. Bus North program for two more years to make sure that there’s continuity in service. So we’re trying to do real-time, practical things, but any of those near-term actions that are applicable and we can start to implement, we will be committed to doing that.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Just one last confirmation that when these reports come in and there are specific recommendations for action related to, for example, the Passenger Transportation Board…. There is a request here, in this one report, for improving flexibility of intercity services. It’s a regulatory requirement.

Does the ministry share these recommendations with those organizations like B.C. Transit and the Passenger Transportation Board? People participate in these processes with the hopes they’re going to see improvement based on their input. And if it’s simply a process they go through and then nothing happens…. Are the other agencies that are referenced in these reports made aware of these as part of their policy debate?

K. Krishna: Yes, and will continue to be as we explore the policy and have ongoing conversations with our colleagues at PTB, with B.C. Transit and others. There are a number of examples of small companies who are running shuttle services and other things, so it’s really working with all of those entities as we think about how we can apply the recommendations and what could work where.

J. Routledge: I have a few more questions, kind of general, I guess. I guess context….

I would say that perhaps, when speaking for myself…. I won’t speak for other members of the committee, but I think when we started our work, we were thinking that we were looking at ways that the system might need to be tinkered with and improved here and there. And I think as we’ve heard more and more presentations, we’re less at a point of thinking it needs to be tinkered with and more that it needs a holistic rethinking and that we need to dig deeper into some systemic changes.

Some of the things I’ve heard that really struck me…. For sure, a lot of the presentations that we heard from organizations representing people with disabilities, people with disabilities speaking on their own behalf in terms of their experiences…. Also just even today, hearing that 50 percent of the licensed WAVs are not even on the road. That’s huge. We need to get a handle on that.

I don’t know what the answer is. I’m not even asking you to give me the answer. I just think that we need to ask those deeper questions: what do we need to do to fix the system, to get them on the road?

In the meantime, we do have people, and they are not statistics. The 1 percent — they’re not statistics. They’re real people who are standing on the side of a street, a busy street in the rain, not knowing whether or not a taxi is coming.

Then the whole issue of zones. You know, someone calls a taxi…. Someone who needs assistance calls a taxi in their own neighbourhood, their own zone, goes to another zone, and that taxi can’t come and get them, so they have to start all over again. These are things, I think, that we need to fix.

I’m still unclear about, I guess…. Is the PTAP program…? Is that the 90 cents that is paid for…?

[12:05 p.m.]

K. Krishna: Can I clarify? Well, the 90 cents is collected from the TNS, and it pays for all program costs, and it also supports the PTAP program.

J. Routledge: Right. So that’s the funding.

K. Krishna: Yeah.

J. Routledge: So in my mind, is that a false distinction? We have basically…. From looking at the statistics you’ve presented us, the charts you’ve presented to us, this is the massively growing part of personal directed vehicles who are able to opt out of participating in accessibility because they’re paying into another fund that is not being fully accessed.

I’m asking: do we need to rethink that? Do we need to find a way to merge those two systems in order to provide a better service to the people of British Columbia?

K. Krishna: It’s a great question and I think one we look forward to hearing perspectives from the committee on. It was a fundamental distinction at the beginning of this program, if you recall. This was pre-COVID, which seems like some time ago, in a different world. Part of the distinction was to help ensure competitiveness and distinction among the taxi industry. The research…. We came up with a made-in-B.C. model specifically to help support taxis. This was one of the distinctions to help ensure taxis would continue to have a distinct service.

As Heather mentioned, one idea could be that this could be a way to actually help create more of a unique niche for the taxi industry. When we were doing our research during that time and looking at other cities, in cities or provinces that did not create a distinction, the taxi industry was really obliterated in some places and really struggling. So that was part of the consideration at the time.

Part of the value of these kinds of standing special committees is to re-evaluate and look at the program objectively at a current point in time and to look back on a significant and huge program such as this that we launched, and pretty distinct to B.C. So we look forward to any findings that you have on that specific distinction, but the rationale at the time was pretty intentional and significant.

J. Routledge: I understand. Thank you.

J. Sturdy: With regard to PTAP revenue, we’ve heard from industry estimates as high as $25 million being collected. There seemed to be some uncertainty as to that total, and I wonder if MOTI would like to go back and be confident of the number around how much revenue has actually been collected. We’re happy to receive that at a later date.

K. Krishna: Yup. Happy to provide the specifics. I’m not sure what industry would be speaking to that, but we’re happy to give the very specific breakdown of the revenues by year.

J. Sturdy: Thank you. I think industry, as they are responsible for collecting it, would certainly have a sense of how much is being collected.

Even if we use the numbers that were provided today of $16.4 million and $2.1 million being distributed to date, that leaves a $14.3 million amount that is somehow being absorbed through administration and then the employment associated with the PTAP program. Is that accurate?

K. Krishna: Yeah. It’s since the initiation of the program at the end of 2019 and hiring the staff, enforcement, developing the database and the data warehouse, maintaining it — there’s quite a significant capital investment in that data warehouse; it was all net new technology — and also supporting and funding the board for the work. So it’s been the total amount year-over-year since the end of 2019 when the program was ramping up.

J. Sturdy: Well, that seems like a pretty significant overhead. What is that — 20 percent that’s being distributed to actual WAV vehicles, or less, versus administration?

K. Krishna: The program just started last year, right? The PTAP program started in 2023, but the actual administration of the rest of the program has been going for several years.

J. Sturdy: Well, that’s a pretty significant number. Now, what precipitated the increase from — what was it — 30 cents a trip to 90 cents a trip?

[12:10 p.m.]

K. Krishna: Yep. We went back to look at the fees and what was being collected at the time. In order to be able to, at the time…. It was also during COVID, when the demand was lower. But in order to cover the costs of the program and ensure we were getting sufficient revenue to expand the PTAP programs and the suite of programs we were expecting to deliver on, we wanted to ensure that we were collecting sufficient revenues to fund all of those accessibility programs.

We expect the delta of that will increase over time so that the proportion of those programs continues to grow. And we expect that the demand will be there. We’ll see how it plays out. We’re only in the second year of the PTAP programs. We were also looking region by region at what the other fees were for collection. We looked across the different provinces, and that was the fee that we thought was defensible and reasonable.

J. Sturdy: Okay, thank you. I think it’s important, also, to look at it from a consumer perspective and recognize that every time you’re taking one of these trips, almost a dollar of it is going to this program. Affordability is something that we certainly need to keep an eye on.

If I could, with regard to some of those PTAP programs, the fuel rebate based on mileage — how does that program work? Who is eligible?

T. Rorison: The fuel rebate was based on the assessment of what the average cost of the fuel is for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and that’s how it was applied.

The insurance rebate is similar. It’s sort of an average cost of what it is to insure a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. It’s used to support both urban and rural areas, because we know urban and rural areas have different needs and different usages, and fuel is often a large cost of more rural wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

J. Sturdy: Would clean energy vehicles be eligible?

T. Rorison: They would be, except wheelchair-accessible vehicles currently don’t have a clean energy option.

J. Sturdy: Okay, fair enough.

And then with regard to utilization, and maybe this is for the PTB for WAV vehicles, does the data distinguish the utilization of people who are calling for WAV vehicles that are looking to get their luggage to the airport or their flat screen TV home versus somebody who actually is needing it for its intended use?

H. Stewart: I can answer that, actually. The data that is collected divides trips into conventional trips and accessible trips. I probably asked our economics team this three times to make sure that this was correct — that what we’ve presented here today are only accessible trips. And we can distinguish those quite easily from each other.

We can’t say for sure that they’re all WAV, because there are some conventional vehicles that could list an accessible trip, for example, if they were driving a guide dog or service dog. But they are definitely not conventional trips that would be used to go to the airport or transport a lot of goods.

J. Sturdy: What’s the threshold for the requirement of taxi companies to have a WAV vehicle? I know in particular we heard a delegation from Whistler, which I am certainly familiar with, recognizing that there’s quite an accessible industry for ski visits, for example, yet there are no wheelchair-accessible vehicles in Whistler. I think that fleet is some 20, 25 vehicles, yet there doesn’t seem to be a requirement for a WAV vehicle. What is the threshold?

H. Stewart: I can answer that. The board does have a policy regarding wheelchair-accessible vehicles, which they’re revisiting. There is a certain proportion that the board will allocate in the Lower Mainland. For the rest of the province, if the population is larger than 15,000, then the board expects to have a wheelchair accessibility plan submitted as part of the application process for taxis.

[12:15 p.m.]

The board can allocate wheelchair-accessible vehicles to any licensee, either in an application or through their systemic decision-making process. When we talked about refinements, that’s what we’re talking about: to go back once we have our model that allows us to see better what kind of need there actually is in different areas. This could be affected by a lot of things. For example, if you have a demographic that tends to be more elderly, there might be a higher percentage need for accessible vehicles.

We can refine, based on those models and analyses, and make sure that we’ve got it in the pocket in terms of the allocation and, also, in looking at rural areas to make sure there’s coverage in various areas. We need our models to do that. That is a project that the board is planning on embarking on, doing that refinement, but it doesn’t address the fleet utilization that’s on the road, which is the PTAP program.

J. Sturdy: If we’re collecting PTAP charges in areas that are never going to get a WAV vehicle, then we’re essentially subsidizing urban areas, in some respects.

If I could, I wanted to touch on transit for a second. I’ve heard statements around what a great system we have. I think it was interesting that Dr. Breen yesterday provided us with a map of all the gaps, and they’re significant, in rural British Columbia. As I’m sure the deputy is aware, in my case in the Sea to Sky, there has been a long-standing proposition from local governments and First Nations for the development of a regional transit service.

I received some correspondence talking about the work that the trusts have done. I think it was important to point out, particularly at this time, that the Sea to Sky is not in the Columbia Basin Trust, it is not in the Northern Development Initiative Trust, and it is not in ICET.

I hope that just because it’s not in one of those trusts…. It has been overlooked, and certainly, these propositions or proposals from local government and First Nations have been in place since 2019, I think, and haven’t seen any changes to date.

I have two more quick questions, if I may, Chair.

With regard to TNS services and licences, there were some comments about parking licences. Again, in my experience in the Sea to Sky, Whistler has permission from the TNS companies or from PTB to operate in Whistler, but they don’t. How does that work? Is there such a thing as parking a licence, where you have the permission or the ability to operate but choose not to operate? Does that hamper other entrants to entering that market?

K. Krishna: Do you want me to take a crack at that? Okay.

In 2019 and 2020, before we really knew what was going on with the pandemic, there were a lot of TNS licences that were granted after an application. Then COVID hit. It takes a lot of resources for a TNS company to start up, because they have to be able to have all of those drivers on their platform to be able to meet service. So for the most part, a lot of those licensees delayed their start-up until recently.

It’s just happening now, in 2023, when we’ve started to emerge out of COVID. There were a lot of companies that were licensed but that did not start. The bigger companies — I don’t need to name them — had the resources to be able to start up, but even then, they were in reduced service because there just wasn’t the demand during COVID. That was mostly in the Lower Mainland.

I think it’s more of a delay in start-up as opposed to parked licences, and it’s something that’s just being sorted out at this point.

[12:20 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: With regard to the licensing fees, two pieces. Certainly for the regional licensing in Metro, we had some comments yesterday, or maybe it was this morning, that it is a real challenge for smaller companies to get into the market and be required to buck up that kind of significant money when it’s building customers and building a driver base at the same time and having to pay that regional licensing fee.

It seemed a disincentive and a challenge to smaller operators or entrants to the market versus some of the, as you say, unnamed companies who may have deeper pockets.

S. Haywood: Just for clarity, are we talking the fees in the Passenger Transportation Act or the inter-municipal business licence?

J. Sturdy: The municipal business licence in particular.

S. Haywood: Yeah, that’s not something the province undertakes. That’s through the municipalities themselves.

J. Sturdy: I thought the province had a part to play there when it came to — certainly, the elimination of — the opportunity to have to require a business licence for each municipality that you operated in, and there was a coordinated approach instead.

S. Haywood: Yeah, the province has helped with that coordination, but it’s still a municipal-based licensing, to my understanding. It’s not run through our ministry, but that’s our understanding.

J. Sturdy: There’s no provincial requirements or regulation around that. At this point, anyway, local governments could still require a business licence for each municipality if they so choose?

S. Haywood: Yeah, and that’s what happened out of the gate with ride-hail. There was a requirement: if they wanted to operate within each of the different municipalities, they were required to have a business licence in each one, which is different from the taxi structure. Taxis are generally within one municipality.

The board’s policy on ride-hail was regional-based. So with that, the Mayors Council directed the staff in the cities back in, I guess, 2019-2020, to come forth with an expedited inter-municipal business licence program for the ride-hail industry.

M. Elmore (Chair): I have a question just to…. We’ve had a lot of discussion in terms of access to transportation in rural areas outside of Metro Vancouver. Maybe more towards the Passenger Transportation Board, just if you could…. I know you’ve gone over it, but in terms of plans in place or providing service in rural areas and thoughts around being able to address that and meet some of the challenges.

K. Krishna: Yes, maybe I’ll start, and then pass to the PTB. Just to clarify, if I said our transportation was great all across the province, that’s not what I meant. We definitely have gaps, and we’re aware of that. We’re trying to bridge some of those gaps in partnership with B.C. Transit, as well as other providers.

I think we are all aware that once Greyhound left, the intercity services have really diminished. We’re certainly not the only province dealing with that. We have those conversations at the FPT table quite a bit, how to try to solve the problem. We are ahead on trying to find solutions with things like B.C. Bus North.

We acknowledge we have a long way to go, which is why we are doing the policy work with the economic trust, as well as other stakeholders, on what the needs are to better connect communities and support people within communities for transit.

I think there are a lot of opportunities for us to continue to look at rural, remote and small-city transit services, and that’s a big piece of the work that we’re doing at the ministry, as it relates to service and support and supply and demand.

Maybe the PTB can answer questions around other things that they’re looking at there.

B. Narang: I’ll take that. I think it’s important to know the board has limited options to encourage service across the province under the current system. The board prioritized a rural service project, which is referred to on page 16 of the strategic plan. This project involves consultation with the public and local governments in rural areas to ascertain the current service levels and the ability for the community to sustain a passenger transportation service for the long run.

[12:25 p.m.]

There are several challenges for the board to successfully undertake this rural service project. The board economics team would need a model supply and demand as it pertains to the whole province, including the pockets that have no service or are underserved.

Fortunately, the public need demand model the board is currently building on can be leveraged and help identify those pockets. We would still need data from these areas to fuel the model. Once the underserved areas are identified, the board would need to calculate whether there is any way to make a passenger transportation service commercially viable and sustainable for the long term. Fortunately, the sound economic conditions supply and sustainability model that the board is currently building can be leveraged for this calculation.

After the board has conducted its review, there are three potential outcomes for any given rural area:

(1) The area will not be able to sustain a commercial passenger transportation service at all. This is where the existence of basic public transportation or transit services are most relevant.

(2) The area could sustain a passenger transportation service at a higher cost.

(3) The area could sustain a smaller passenger transpor­tation service at a regular price.

The board does not directly provide passenger transport services, and it does not have the ability to subsidize a rural area. Therefore, a potential licensee would need to step up in the area and make an application. The board could then choose to support the service with higher rates, if needed, or by restricting other entrants.

Those are our limitations that the committee needs to be aware of.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. More questions here?

J. Sturdy: A quick one with regard to data. We had some comments yesterday about the challenge of submitting the data, especially from small companies that were having difficulty with it. This was more on the TNS side than taxi.

I noted it was mentioned that a weekly submission of data…. I’m not sure if that just weekly submission was one of the challenges. But is that data necessary to collect it weekly? If it’s not being acted on, on a weekly basis, it seems rather onerous. Could it be simplified by collecting it quarterly, for example, or is there some rationale for why it’s weekly?

K. Krishna: Maybe I’ll start. I don’t know if you heard specifically that the frequency was the issue. That would be helpful to understand.

J. Sturdy: We did hear that.

K. Krishna: Our sense is it’s not just the frequency. It’s the technology, the readiness, the type of data that’s being requested they might not be collecting. Some of the companies are paper-based.

As you’ll note in the slides that we presented, the TNS compliance is actually 100 percent. So maybe we are not hearing from those TNS companies that are still just ramping up, and maybe that’s an issue. Most of the TNSs are app-based and data-based anyway, so it’s much easier for them to kind of convert their applications to accommodate what we’re asking for.

I don’t know if the frequency is the issue, but we can dig into that.

J. Sturdy: I am not convinced either way either, but it seems that having to make a submission on a weekly basis as opposed to having to make it on a quarterly basis…. It adds a complication and a burden.

K. Krishna: If you set up your system, it shouldn’t matter. It’s automatic.

What I will say, though, from a compliance point of view is if we don’t have more ready data, quarterly might be too inefficient and ineffective for us to actually get real-time issues, if there are themes or other things that we’re seeing that we would want to follow up on from a compliance point of view. There might be something in between if frequency is a real issue.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Any other questions? We’re just getting started, just getting going here. So keep a good thing going.

I want to thank…. Okay, Baljindar.

B. Narang: I would like to make a statement on key messages from the board if I have your permission.

M. Elmore (Chair): Certainly.

B. Narang: Thank you so much for your indulgence.

As discussed in the board’s report in September and our presentation today, the board’s mandate has expanded. The board is not only making individual application decisions but now must regulate a complex industry where taxi and TNS are competing with each other.

[12:30 p.m.]

It has taken us time to obtain funding to meet our expanded mandate and to understand how to navigate in the new legal framework. We now have a clear vision of where we want to go and how we want to get there, but we need time to execute our work. The board is on the cusp of creating a unique regulatory system that uses data and economics to help produce a sustainable and high-quality passenger industry that serves B.C.

Regulating the board at the passenger transportation market is complex, and it is easy for decisions to set off chain reactions resulting in unintended outcomes if care is not taken. The board is committed to creating an industry environment where different modes of passenger transportation will be able to coexist and flourish.

The board is responsible for making decisions about supply in a dynamic and rapidly evolving market. The board makes systemic decisions about supply in using certain levers: pricing, fleet and operating areas. Pulling any of these levers can cause serious disruption in the market and can lead to negative consequences.

The board will not intervene in the market unless it is the right time — for example, when there is unhealthy competition, when a sector survival is in danger, or when the public will be adversely affected. The board will use data and econometric models to run scenarios to use the right levers at the right time to mitigate negative or unintended consequences and ensure goals are achieved.

The board is an independent tribunal with specialized knowledge and expertise in the passenger transportation industry. Due to the pandemic for three years, market restructuring caused by competition and rate squeeze, the passenger transportation market is vulnerable right now.

The board will not make systemic decisions that affect supply or pull any of the three levers to intervene in the market without thoughtful analysis of data and an understanding of consequences. We’re asking the special committee to support the board in the manner outlined in our report and presentation.

We need your support in three areas:

(1) Adequate resources to create our econometric models and undertake meaningful, ongoing analysis of the facts and data relating to the passenger transportation industry.

(2) Access to data we need to fuel the econometric models of demand and supply as well as high-quality trip data.

(3) Modernizing the legislation to improve our ability to regulate the industry effectively and efficiently for the 21st century.

I would like to take the time to personally thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for really focusing on an industry that is, as I said, vulnerable at the moment, but has a very, very promising future in the communities in B.C. Thank you for your time and indulgence.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you, Baljindar and Heather from the Passenger Transportation Board; and Kaye, Steven, Trish and Jeremy for joining us from MOTI.

We appreciate it, really kind of capping off our presentations. There’s just been a lot of interest, pretty wide-ranging presentations that help, in terms of your perspective, to really anchor that for us.

We appreciate that and your time to answer all our questions. There may be more that come up, so we’ll get back to you as well as we go forward with deliberations. Thank you very much for your time and for joining us here today.

That’s it for our public meetings. We’ve already breezed through those.

[12:35 p.m.]

Deliberations

M. Elmore (Chair): We’ll just take a few minutes after we come out and just have a chat in the committee in terms of our next steps.

I’ll take a motion to go in camera and just touch base.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 12:36 p.m. to 12:48 p.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, we’re back on the record.

I want to thank everybody. Excellent presentations today. Thanks to the team and Hansard as well, and to the committee members.

I’ll have a motion to adjourn today.

So moved. Second.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:49 p.m.