Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call the motion standing in my name, Motion 16. I could continue with the full motion. If members are fine with that, we can proceed straight to the motion.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 16 — CROWN CORPORATIONS
COMMITTEE POWERS AND
RIDE-SHARING REVIEW

Hon. M. Farnworth: With that, I move Motion 16 standing on the order paper in my name.

[Be it resolved that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on ridesharing in British Columbia;

That the Committee be authorized to meet for up to 3 days to hear from expert witnesses;

That the Committee shall limit its consideration to forming recommendations on the following in its report:

– How provinces with public auto insurance companies have provided, or are looking to provide, insurance to both transportation network companies and the taxi industry;

– Assessing the impact transportation network companies would have on different communities across the province; and,

– Considering the regulatory regime that may be established between the Province and municipalities, including looking at the issue of public safety.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee shall be empowered:

a. to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b. to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d. to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report as soon as possible to the House, but no later than February 15, 2018, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[10:50 a.m.]

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise here and speak in favour of Motion 16 on the order paper today. I’m very, very happy to be standing here to this advancement. This is a momentous, to my knowledge, occasion. This is a first time that I recall that an issue raised in a private member’s bill has been brought forward to a committee, a select standing committee, in recent time here in the Legislature.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When I tabled my ride-share enabling bill for the first, second and third time, I said I was doing so to help move the discussion forward, and I’m very glad we have been able to do so in such a productive manner.

We in British Columbia want to view ourselves as innovators in the tech sector, but you’ll never be viewed as an innovator if you’re not willing to embrace the innovation that is before us in that industry. At long last, this issue will finally be addressed in a collaborative fashion by all three parties, and it’s been six years — six full years, pushing seven now — since ride-hailing companies first attempted to enter the B.C. market.

Despite all-party agreement that we need to bring this disruptive technology to British Columbia in a regulated fashion, we’ve yet to see any progress until now. Instead of my bill being called for second reading, ride-hailing will now go to an all-party committee, the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, made up of MLAs from all three parties.

For several weeks, the B.C. Greens have been working with the B.C. NDP to develop an approach that would allow important questions related to ride-hailing to be canvassed with stakeholders in British Columbia. The committee, comprising MLAs from all three parties, will engage with expert witnesses, debate issues related to the industry and, ultimately, produce a report to be released by February 15, 2018.

The committee framework is the opportunity for government representatives to talk to ride-hailing companies, consult with stakeholders about their concerns and analyze how this sector will impact the variety of communities across British Columbia.

Sometimes people think that ride-hailing is only a metro issue. But let me tell you: when I’ve travelled British Columbia and I’ve talked to taxi drivers from north to south and east to west, I recognize that it’s a desire to come provincewide.

On the Select Standing Committee on Finance, we were in Cranbrook recently, as part of our travels. The taxi driver who picked me up there told us about ride-sharing in her area. She said she wants it to come there because it costs her a $100 a day to rent the cab from a licensee holder. On some days, she actually loses money, whereas if she were able to be her own boss, travel when peak demand is there and not travel when there’s not peak demand, it would allow her greater flexibility. She was all for it in the Kootenays.

As we move forward, we must recognize that we already have ride-hailing companies operating in this province, not only in Metro Vancouver but here in the capital regional district. They’re already here. They’re already operating — in Chinese language, mind you — but they are operating in an unregulated environment. And that poses a risk to public safety that this government has a responsibility to ensure is dealt with.

This isn’t about just major ride-sharing companies. We’ve all heard Uber. In fact, we all hear the discussions that it’s all about Uber. Uber is but one name that seems to be in the press a lot, but there are many others. We recently heard about the company Lyft moving to North America.

What’s more is that as I toured British Columbia speaking to tech leaders in all jurisdictions — from Kelowna to Kamloops, to Vancouver, to Victoria, to Prince George, to Fort Saint John — I recognize that there are also B.C.-based entrepreneurs, B.C.-based innovators, B.C.-based start-ups that are keen to move into this disruptive space too. But they can’t because they want to play by the rules. The rules have not been set, so they can’t enter the market.

It’s our expectation that this report will be used alongside the work of Mr. Hara to inform all future legislation the government brings forward to regulate both the taxi industry and the ride-sharing industry.

Now, I appreciate that the government has taken steps towards bringing ride-hailing to British Columbia by hiring an expert to begin to look at modernizing our out-of-date regulations for the taxi industry. However, my colleagues and I were concerned when we saw that explicit reference to ride-hailing was missing from the terms of reference of that review.

[10:55 a.m.]

We felt that this would be an opportunity to use our Legislature in a new way and promote a multipartisan, collaborative response to this issue for which there is pent-up demand like I’ve never seen before in British Columbia.

While this committee will be tasked, the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, with taking on the specific issue at present by ride-hailing services, I hope that what we are doing here today provides a blueprint in this province for how we might deal with future issues as well. The world is changing, and our economy is changing. We have the responsibility as legislators to ensure that we are not simply keeping pace with the change — or, in this case, struggling to even keep up with it, years behind — but that instead, we’re preparing for the challenges proactively and creating opportunities for this generation and next.

Let me tell you: while we still debate the introduction of ride-hailing and the introduction of transport network providers here in B.C., other jurisdictions are already talking about driverless cars. They’re already talking about creating a regulatory environment that allows transportation without a driver. We are so far behind in British Columbia, yet we have so much opportunity to be leaders in this area, as well as others in the emerging economy.

For two years, my staff and I have been meeting with representatives from the taxi and ride-sharing industries to discuss the opportunities, the barriers and the challenges facing B.C.’s transportation systems. Let me say that while there are some licence holders of taxis who are concerned that their investment may be affected, without doubt, the overwhelming number of taxi drivers and taxi companies that I’ve spoken to support the introduction of ride-hailing. They recognize that it’s happened throughout North America, throughout the world, and their industry has not suffered.

We know that the introduction of ride-hailing targets a generation, the millennial generation, who otherwise would not be taking taxis. They’d be driving their cars or not going where they want to go. It’s the generation of people who, on evenings, on Friday and Saturday nights, are stuck in downtown Vancouver trying to get home or sometimes taking that risk that perhaps they’ll drive home themselves because they can’t get access to a taxi, when they shouldn’t be in that car.

This is a safety issue for which a solution exists and for which a solution has existed for years. I’m delighted that we’ll start to explore this further in the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. Quite excited by the makeup of that committee too. It looks like it will be some…. I think I’m one of the older people on that committee. There’s a relatively young demographic represented on that committee — the member for Vancouver–West End, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale. It looks like we’ll have a generational perspective as we move forward in the discussions on that committee.

Over time, it’s become increasingly clear that B.C. has fallen behind when it comes to evolving with innovation, unlike almost every other major city in North America. Other jurisdictions have had ride-sharing services in their communities for nearly a decade, and we just now are getting to work on it. And as I’ve mentioned, others are already talking about autonomous vehicles.

There’s many an anecdote of executives and tech innovators coming to Vancouver on a jet from the Silicon Valley and getting off that plane and saying, “I’m going to access the ride-hailing company here because I have an account,” and not being able to and then wondering what’s going on in this jurisdiction that’s trying bill itself as an innovator in the modern economy.

Some cities are getting driverless cars, as I said, before we can even allow ride-sharing apps to be operated here in British Columbia. It’s just remarkable. So let’s get on with this committee work. I’m excited to do so. We do a disservice to the people who elect us if we continue to pretend that the only things that are worth talking about are the divisions between us. On this issue, the B.C. Liberals campaigned to bring in ride-sharing enabling legislation by the end of this year — as did the NDP and as did the B.C. Greens, actually, for three years. We finally have all three parties’ agreement, so let’s get on and do this.

[11:00 a.m.]

A willingness to debate and to ultimately provide a shared report that outlines a path forward is a good thing. I’m sure that every member of this House can agree that when making big changes, it’s essential that we bring the public along with us. We respond to public opinion, we listen to the public, and we move forward based on public opinion to bring in policy that actually reflects the concerns and values of the general public but also provides a safe, equitable work environment for those embracing the new technology.

Considering the level of politicization of this issue so far, and the significance of introducing this new technology to British Columbia, I sincerely hope that this multiparty committee will provide great value in assuring the public’s confidence. We’re en route to developing legislation that will enable the fair, safe and accessible introduction of ride-sharing in British Columbia so it could be passed as soon as possible.

It’s my goal that the work of this committee will help make this the last holiday season in British Columbia without ride-sharing services.

M. de Jong: Technology is a wonderful thing…

Interjections.

M. de Jong: …I say with absolute conviction. It certainly changes the way we live, most often for the better, I think. At the risk of inviting further derision from colleagues in the House, I think particularly of communications technology and how it has changed in the now nearly quarter-century since I arrived here, when it was still quite common to receive a fax. We went from fax machines to cell phones the size of a lunch bucket to the Internet, of course, and iPhones and apps.

It is exciting. It’s interesting. The role that British Columbia and Canada have played in the development of that technology is something we can all be proud of. Where it gets interesting is when evolving technology overtakes existing regulation. It’s not always the case. There are plenty of examples where evolving and developing technology emerges into a place where there is no regulation whatsoever. But frequently technology evolves and overtakes regulatory provisions that have been in place for a long time.

It strikes me that the manner in which the creators of public policy seek to accommodate that circumstance will largely determine the nature and the magnitude of the collision that often results between that evolving technology and the existing regulation. I think that is the case with the issue we are dealing with today.

Technology has evolved — happily, I would say — to the point where the manner in which a consumer can secure transportation assistance has changed fairly dramatically. What has not changed — and, at the risk of getting ahead of myself, what I don’t think will change or should change — is the fact that as a society, we choose to regulate those companies, agencies, individuals who offer passenger transportation services.

We do it for a variety of reasons. We do it for safety reasons. We do it for quality assurance reasons. We do it for fairness reasons, both to the provider of the service and the consumer of the service. Those presently engaged in providing passenger transportation services, I think understandably, seek assurance that those regulatory provisions that presently exist will also apply and cover the advent of the new technology and services that might flow from the application of the new technology.

[11:05 a.m.]

It can be a complicated exercise. Now, I’m obliged, I think, to point out that the government may not have thought so when it made its pre-election statements. I rather suspect it has come to discover the complicated nature of evolving regulation to take account of evolving technology. The result is, I think, the motion that is before the House this morning, which seeks to refer the issue, generally, to a select standing committee for consideration.

I’m obliged, when I saw the motion and learned that it was due to be discussed this week…. I had a chance to review it and discuss the matter with my colleagues. With respect to the comments that the Leader of the Third Party has just made, speaking positively about the advantages of seeking to consult with communities that might be impacted, he will receive no criticism or opposition from me on that front.

I should say, in general terms, the notion of referring a matter to a select standing committee that is populated by members of all parties — in this case, all three parties — can generally be a very positive exercise.

Where I did find it curious is the motion specifically referring to the committee reviewing “how provinces with public auto insurance companies have provided, or are looking to provide, insurance.” I think that’s a legitimate issue. I think that is something that the committee can turn its minds to with respect to evolving public policy.

“The impact transportation network companies would have on different communities across the province….” I think that, too, represents an appropriate area of exploration for the committee.

And the third bullet, “Considering the regulatory regime that may be established between the province and municipalities, including looking at the issue of public safety….” I would say, on balance, all three represent legitimate areas, in some cases very specific areas, where the committee has received instructions and is empowered to explore and consult.

I will state now that what I thought was curious, given the nature of the public discussion that has taken place, was the absence of any reference to that group of existing licensees, who, of course, are very, very interested in the outcome of this conversation and very interested in how public policy might be adjusted to take account of new technology. And recognizing, I believe, that it would be their view — it is certainly ours on this side of the House — that the fundamental notion that those engaged in the provision of passenger transportation services should be subject to regulation and that regulation should apply equitably, evenly, predictably and fairly.

With that in mind…. I don’t mean to belabour the point, but the absence of any reference to existing taxi licensees and those employed in the taxi industry is troubling to the official opposition.

The other portion of the motion that I thought curious…. I’m not sure a lot turns on this, but the reference to the committee being authorized to meet for up to three days to hear from expert witnesses…. I’m not sure what turns on three days, and were it to be four or five…. I’m not sure it’s necessary or even advisable. I’m not proposing that we change the date for the committee to report back, but should the committee choose to extend their consultations or their hearings with expert witnesses, it strikes me that it would be appropriate to give them the authority to do that and not shoehorn them into three days.

[11:10 a.m.]

So the amendment that the official opposition is proposing and that I’ll provide to members now — and I’m obliged to the members of the staff who assisted with the drafting of the amendment — would alter the motion as follows.

It would delete, in the second paragraph, the words “for up to three days,” and simply leave that to the discretion of the committee. In the third paragraph, it would actually delete the word “assessing,” and that paragraph would read, “the impact transportation network companies would have on,” add the words, “existing taxi licensees, those employed in the taxi industry and different communities across the province,” so it would include a specific reference to those who work in the taxi sector, those who hold taxi licences.

It strikes us in the official opposition that if we are to advance this in the manner that I think the government and the Third Party wish to, it would make eminent sense to include a specific reference to existing taxi licensees and those who work.

I’m going to move that amendment now, Mr. Speaker.

[That Motion 16 be amended as follows:

In the second paragraph, by deleting the words “for up to 3 days”;

In the third paragraph, second bullet, by deleting the word “Assessing”; and

In the third paragraph, second bullet, by adding the words “existing taxi licensees, those employed in the taxi industry, and” after the words “would have on”.]

On the amendment.

M. de Jong: I think the amendment has been distributed. I don’t propose to say a lot more than that, except to emphasize the official opposition’s rationale and our belief that insofar as the decision has been made by the government and the Third Party to refer the matter to a select standing committee, the opposition is prepared to support that. But our support — I should say, directly and unequivocally — for the motion is contingent upon acceptance of the proposed amendment that the taxi licensees and those engaged in the taxi industry would be specifically referred to as being engaged and available for consultation.

That’s my comment with respect to the amendment to the main motion.

A. Weaver: I’d like to speak to this amendment, if you would bear with me just a couple of seconds. I’ve only seen it for the first time moments ago.

I would start by saying we did send a letter to the member opposite, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, asking him for clarity and providing guidance on how we would hope that, in the spirit of cooperation, amendments would be brought forward and that they wouldn’t be tabled on the floor — if there was an idea to bring an amendment forward — without the opportunity for thoughtful reflection. Upon what was being brought forward in the amendment…. We don’t have that benefit right now because I literally have just been given it, and I’m literally struggling to find on the order papers the motion that we’re debating.

Here’s the motion here: “That the Committee be authorized to meet for up to 3 days to hear from expert witnesses.” So the concern here is to remove the words “3 days.” Now, I understand that the point here is that you don’t want to hamstring the committee. My worry about this, even though I do like the idea, is that we do have a parallel process with respect to the taxi industry. The purpose for having this particular review, this particular motion, this particular review of ride-hailing is that it was not included in the terms of reference of the review of the taxi industry.

I understand the importance of hearing from existing taxi licence holders as well. Clearly, they’re the ones who were most resistant to the introduction of the new technologies. The reason, of course, is that some of these have very, very substantive value.

I’ll tell a quick story here. As I was on CFAX here in Victoria discussing ride-hailing, an owner of a taxi licence phoned in. He told me that he’s very opposed to ride-hailing, and he suggested I didn’t know what I was talking about. Then he went on to provide some information. He had acquired the taxi licence for $200. Well, as soon as one acquires a taxi licence for the tune of $200, you now are the owner.

[11:15 a.m.]

We have a very odd system in British Columbia, whereby licence recipients own those licences forever. A separate debate that we could have at some point is that I think it’s important that we move away from the owner having licences for life and recognize that the licences are the property of the Crown. They can be leased out instead of being offered forever, because the artificial value that’s created in the marketplace — for something that really shouldn’t be there — is done in the process.

The $200 licence here in Victoria is now worth I don’t know how many tens of thousands of dollars because of the fact that these have a value. And you can buy and sell them. I get that the taxi licence holders are concerned — the taxi drivers less so; the licence holders are.

It’s important that we hear this perspective. The question I have is: to what extent is this the appropriate avenue in which to actually have the taxi licence holders make their case when we know that the other parallel committee stage is exactly 100 percent dedicated to taxis? Ride-hailing companies are not able to participate in the engagement of that because it’s not included in the terms and references.

I continue to struggle here. What I struggle most about is I like to reflect upon good ideas. The amount of time I’ve had to reflect upon this is literally seconds. Had the members opposite really wanted, in good faith, to get this forward, why didn’t they give it to us in advance? Why didn’t we see this last week? Why didn’t we see it yesterday? The opposition had the opportunity to do that. They had the opportunity to actually come and talk to us. It’s particularly in light of the fact that we sent the member for Abbotsford West a letter specifically requesting that he consider providing…. If you want to actually get amendments forward, give us the information in advance so we can reflect upon it.

I struggle with this because I don’t know what the unintended consequences are — “for up to 3 days.” That was agreed upon. If we just remove it, how do we know now that this process is not self-limiting to go on forever? Let’s suppose suddenly every taxi licence holder decides that they want a right to come and speak before the committee. We could have thousands of speakers taking this process through to eternity. That’s not the intent.

I recognize and I support the idea that we don’t want to limit…. I hope I get a chance to hear some words from the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, who is on the committee with us. Again, I’m troubled with this, not because I don’t agree with the intent of providing flexibility to the committee and not because I don’t disagree that we want to ensure that we listen to everyone. But I’m not sure…. Again, let me see if I can go specifically to the wording.

I shouldn’t be doing this in the debate. In good faith, I shouldn’t be having to look at the same time as I’m speaking to this amendment trying to figure out and think whether I support it on the fly. Is that how we do legislation here in B.C.? Is this the way we really want to do legislation?

On the one hand, I’m holding the motion; on the other, I’m holding the amendment. I’m trying to figure out whether this is good or not. As I’m thinking this through, I’m filling the space with words because half my brain is trying to figure whether it’s a good idea and the other half is trying to fill this with words so you don’t call me on time.

This isn’t how we do policy in this province. The more I think about it, the more I’m thinking that the member opposite had a lot of time. He had the time to actually show this to us so we could have thought about it instead of on the floor.

I can’t support this because of that, because I haven’t had the time to let my left brain catch up with my right brain as I’m trying to embed these two and think about the consequences with no advance notice.

Deputy Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on the amendment.

J. Sturdy: That was an interesting conversation with the member and himself, talking himself out of supporting this particular amendment. Well done. It was an interesting debate.

I’d remind the member that there is no proposal to change the reporting-out date of this committee, so it is limiting. It is self-limiting.

[11:20 a.m.]

What was the date? It is February 15 of 2018. I think that should provide some comfort that this would not be a committee that would stand and go on forever and, in effect, be a way of deferring any kind of decisions.

This is also, I’d remind the member, really the only venue that is in place that would have members from all parties in the House receiving delegations, investigating and better understanding the implications for all parties and all interested parties in this important discussion.

The report commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation and the Minister of Transportation has a very specific focus. I think it’s important that members who are considering this, who populate this committee and are considering the implications, should not be really spending all of their time on, to the exclusion of all the interested parties….

In this case, obviously ride-sourcing impact to rural and urban communities, impacts to the overall transportation system and network — the feeding in and support of transit — and all the other various parts of what ride-sourcing is and can be should be thought about and considered in conjunction with the implications to existing technologies and existing industries.

In fact, the industries that have been around for decades and decades, probably well over 100 years…. It was interesting. In thinking back on this, I realized and recognized that my grandfather actually operated a taxi company in Vancouver in the 1930s. That was my only connection with this industry — remains my only connection. But it’s been around for a long time.

There’s a need, I think, to have the committee consider not just inputs from ride-sourcing companies and communities, but also from an existing technology, an existing industry that has invested and provided services to the public of British Columbia for many, many, many years. To not have the committee think or understand that perspective, when deliberating and reporting out, is a major gap in the discussion and the debate and, I think, would not serve the committee members particularly well.

Overall, I think that these are all good suggestions — the idea of not limiting the amount of time that this committee gets to sit and deliberate and to allow it to expand to the time that they feel they need in order to well understand this issue, and to specifically include some of the stakeholders that clearly have much to contribute and, I would imagine, much to say on this issue, all with the idea of better informing the members of this committee and their deliberations in order to provide the best information back to this House.

With that, I would very much support this amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader.

[11:25 a.m.]

It had not been my intention to speak, because we do have an agreed-upon number of speakers. But as House Leader, in dealing with the amendment, I do think it’s important to signal to the opposition that the government will not be supporting this particular amendment.

There is a parallel process that is currently underway dealing with issues raised by members opposite around the taxi industry, in particular. The motion has been on the order paper, and we have accommodated the opposition in the calling of this motion.

At this particular point in time, hon. Speaker, I am informing you and the members opposite that we will be voting against the amendment.

[11:30 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment to Motion 16.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nanaimo. [Applause.]

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I’m satisfied the level of applause is commensurate with how short they expect my remarks to be, and I intend to be the soul of brevity this morning.

It’s a lovely occasion when you can rise in this House and there is general agreement amongst all three parties that this motion should pass, notwithstanding the attempts of the House Leader in the opposition to provide an amendment to it.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Leader of the Third Party, has pointed out that Uber is here, the world is changing, and technology is changing. So what this motion does is provide a wonderful opportunity for elected representatives, on behalf of their constituents, to hear views and to make recommendations to government.

When you combine that with the work of Dan Hara that’s already underway, by February, hopefully, this government will have received appropriate recommendations to help answer the questions that the committee is charged with making recommendations about.

Those are: how provinces with public auto insurance companies are providing or are looking to provide insurance to both transportation network companies and the taxi industry; assessing the impact transportation network companies would have on different communities across the province; and considering the regulatory regime that may be established between the province and municipalities, including looking at the issue of public safety.

[11:35 a.m.]

This is good stuff. This is what should be done. In contrast to the previous government, which didn’t seem to have any interest whatsoever in consultation around this important introduction of ride-sharing in British Columbia and how it would be regulated and managed, this government is actually not only relying on the expertise of Mr. Hara and what recommendations he’ll be making to cabinet but also on the work of an all-party committee.

Hon. Speaker, who could be opposed to that? An all-party committee that will make the kinds of recommendations that are important, that will allow us to move forward with this motion and consider all of those things that are important.

Notwithstanding where you are in British Columbia, public safety is important. Right now you hail a taxi. You know you’re getting a driver who is arriving, who has passed medical certification, who has experience, who has training, who is driving a vehicle that is safe. Those things are important.

As we move forward with this motion, I’m delighted to rise. I trust I’ll be the last speaker, given the amount of applause I received when I announced I was going to be short.

I’m delighted to stand and support this motion and look forward, like all British Columbians, to receiving and seeing the work of the committee, understanding what it’s doing and then finally having the decisions made by government as to how we’re going to proceed to deal with this matter.

With that, I close my remarks and look forward to the vote.

[11:40 a.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is on Motion 16.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know, looking at the time, that someone could be lucky enough to get, like, two minutes. Normally, I’d go that they should speak, but you know what? I’m feeling in a good mood today, so how about I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned till 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:45 a.m.