Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF
FINANCE COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move motions that have been distributed to both the Opposition House Leader and the Third Party House Leader.

[That further to the motion adopted on February 26, 2018, that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered to consider and make recommendations on the budget of the following statutory officer: Human Rights Commissioner.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
APPOINT A HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Human Rights Commissioner, pursuant to the Human Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210).

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is 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 such personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, 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.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of the following Members: Raj Chouhan (Convener), Mitzi Dean, Stephanie Cadieux, Greg Kyllo, and Andrew Weaver.]

[2:45 p.m.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. In Section A, I call committee on Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 55; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

On section 3 (continued).

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add that we have staff with me here again today, many of the same staff who were here on Thursday. We’re also now joined by Nina Bindra from the Ministry of Attorney General.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Division 4, “Reports of the Board,” is being added to the Passenger Transportation Act. Doesn’t, in fact, the board already deal with this through the annual report of the Passenger Transportation Board, and if so, why would we be adding it?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board has sometimes published an annual report, but not every year. So this really formalizes that, with the expansion of its functions, with the growth with the TNSs. This and the growing work that it will be doing — this really just formalizes the need to have an annual report.

J. Sturdy: Is the board receptive to any directions received from the minister to review, recommend and report on any particular aspect? It just appears as if there’s a certain redundancy here. Is the board receptive to direction from the minister? Just to reiterate, this is a formalization of a requirement to generate an annual report by the Passenger Transportation Board?

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, there is no requirement, so this sets down the fact that there will now be a requirement to produce an annual report. Previously, it’s been up to the will of the board. Now, it’s saying: “Please, every year produce an annual report.”

J. Sturdy: Could the minister tell us how many times there has been an annual report? Do we know? Recently? In the last five years? Why has this come up?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board produced one in 2016-17. They haven’t produced one yet for ’17-18. We can check how many years the board has produced one, if the member really wants to do that. We can provide that to him in writing afterwards.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering if there’s any requirement under this section where these reports would be made public.

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, when they are doing reports, they do post them to the website. So the assumption is it again will carry on being public.

A. Olsen: Would the recommendations to the minister contemplated under the newly added section 22.2(a) constitute any advice to cabinet?

Hon. C. Trevena: It would be regarded as advice to the minister, not advice to cabinet.

T. Stone: In relation to this new section 22.1, “Annual reports,” where it references: “(c) other information the minister may require.” I’m wondering if the minister could elaborate on what other types of information she and her ministry would be contemplating that would be driven by the need to have this section (c), which is rather nebulous, as it’s currently written.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Sections 22.1(a) and 22.1(b) are very specific on what would be included in the annual report. So (c) allows for more broad information, whether it is any change that may have happened within the industry, anything that is information on decision-making, on issuing licences, some information that is sort of assessment of data — anything that isn’t actually in the quite, sort of, defined sections (a) and (b). So it gives that scope for more information than section (a) and section (b) provide.

T. Stone: With respect to section 22.2, which provides for a requirement for the board to make recommendations to the minister when directed to do so…. Then it does provide subsections (a) and (b), which provide some sense of how those recommendations would be fed back to the minister.

I’m just wondering if the minister could indicate whether or not…. Again, much like the question that was asked moments ago from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, would any request of the minister of the board to provide recommendations on a matter be made public so that the public would know that the board has been asked to do this? And would there be any timelines associated with the timeliness of response that the board would be expected to provide these recommendations back to the minister?

Seeing as, from an annual report perspective, there are some timelines provided for here, I’m wondering if timelines have been contemplated with respect to this request for recommendations from the board.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Well, I think it’s — we’ve just been discussing this — interesting. It really is going to be on a case-by-case basis. It depends what it is. If it’s an issue of security or safety or if there’s an investigation, it wouldn’t be public.

It could be public for the sake of transparency for requesting something more generic — for instance, something about the long-distance bus service. So it’s going to be on a case-by-case basis, and because it’s on a case-by-case basis, the timing and the time for the response required would likewise be on a case-by-case basis.

I don’t think we can put into legislation something quite as specific as exact timing on direction and requests that we don’t know what they’re going to be but are likely to be coming forward.

J. Sturdy: Back to item 22.1(a). In the reporting, the board is required to set out briefly “all applications made for a licence that include special authorization.”

I wonder if the expectation of the minister is that not just the list of the applications but the decisions on those applications would also be included, and whether there would be reasons for a decision in there?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

J. Sturdy: So that would be similar to…. For example, in the Ministry of Environment on an environmental assessment, there’s an assessment, there’s a list of conditions, and there’s a reason for a ministerial yea or nay. So there would be a rationale either way for the affirmative or the negative on an application.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

A. Olsen: I just want to canvass the minister here for a few minutes on the use of the potential use of various driver’s licences, if I may. This is to the driver of the car, not to the licence of the operator. But this is the driver’s licence.

It’s been a point of contention, I think — the suggestion that’s made that an operator needs a class 4 licence. I just want to ask some questions around this.

I’ll start with the broadest question and just the minister’s rationale behind using, as has been stated publicly, a class 4 licence — that all ride-hailing drivers should have a class 4 licence.

Hon. C. Trevena: I know the member is very concerned about the licence designation here. It is obviously something that some people have been picking up on. I know the member is also aware that under this section, we’re not talking about the driver’s licences. It is the licence for the vehicles, but not the driver’s licence.

That being said, I have talked a lot about the class 4 licence, because it’s commercial licence, and we’re going to have people who are going to be earning money by driving people around. Somebody is going to be making profit from it, and they’re going to run a commercial operation or be working for a commercial operation. As such, I believe that there is the requirement and the expectation from the public that those people who are driving for profit are licensed to the highest designation they can be.

[3:05 p.m.]

In this case, it is a class 4 licence. I think everybody is aware, it’s a tougher licence. You’ve also got a medical exam, and you’ve got to also be able to inspect your vehicle.

There are certain sorts of strictures there to have that licence, to be qualified for that licence. People don’t get it on the first time. I mean, if you do a quick search on the Internet, you see people who do driver’s classes, driver’s training on how to get through to the class 4, how you’re going to make sure. So there is that extra due diligence and extra strictures on it. So for the matter of public safety, I’ve been very committed to the class 4 licence.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the response. Just further to that, are there regulations in this bill that would allow the minister to require additional training, safety certificates, criminal record checks and other forms of an enhanced safety regime for any operator under this act?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, there is. Under section 30, it talks about the criminal record checks that we’re looking at. A large part of this bill is to make a provincial regulation. I know that in certain jurisdictions, some drivers have to have, when it comes to cabs at the moment, a criminal records check, whereas in other jurisdictions, they don’t. This will make sure that provincewide there will be criminal record checks. And that’s in section 30.

A. Olsen: The reason why I’m asking is because…. Could we not use class 5 as a base and then through regulation require — sort of like a class 5 plus — commercial operators who are operating a ride-hailing vehicle commercially to have additional requirements, such as additional training, safety certificates, criminal record checks and other forms of an enhanced safety regime?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s question. The class 5 plus, or a new form of licence, wouldn’t come under the Ministry of Transportation. It would come under the Ministry of Solicitor General. PSSG is responsible for the driver licensing. So as my ministry, working with what is available, we are working on the class 4, which is the commercial driver’s licence. As I say, this section, as the member is aware, is about vehicle licences, not drivers’ licences.

A. Olsen: I do acknowledge that. I’m kind of looking…. I recognize that there’s a narrative that’s out there and a line of questions or concerns that have been raised, certainly, around the licensing. So with the blessing of the minister, I just wanted to canvass this area so that at least this area of questioning has been asked and responded to. Let’s put it that way.

My understanding is that the provisions that apply, the national safety code, to the taxi industry are separate from the broad requirements of the class 4 licence. Is that true?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Most commercial vehicles are under the national safety code, but it isn’t linked to the driver’s licence. So while the vehicles are under the national safety code, driver’s licensing is separate. Most commercial drivers in B.C. have a class 4 or higher licence.

A. Olsen: How many other provinces apply the national safety code to the taxi industry?

Hon. C. Trevena: B.C. is really at the forefront. We are the only province that does this.

A. Olsen: Can the minister outline exactly what the NSC, the national safety code, adds to motor vehicle safety, and why it’s important that it apply to the passenger transportation sector, specifically ride-hailing and taxis?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned to the member, this is the highest level of safety. We’re the only province to actually have taxis under the national safety code. We are literally the leaders in this.

What it entails is that the carrier has to take responsibility for the safety of the fleet — got to have a safety plan. A carrier has to monitor hours that people are working — so make sure that people aren’t tired, aren’t fatigued, are driving safely — and that they have records of being inspected. If the vehicle is out of service, that has to be reported.

This is all monitored by the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch. The carrier is responsible, also, for reporting to CVSE — for instance, when vehicles are out of service. But it is something we should be very proud of — that taxis and commercial vehicles are in here and that they are…. This is, as I say, the highest level in the country.

A. Olsen: Okay, thank you for that.

Some of the most significant components that the NSC requires are concerned with vehicle inspection and upkeep. Why does it make sense to require a ride-hailing operator who, based on the data from other jurisdictions, only uses their vehicle for ten to 20 hours a week for passenger transportation to meet the same requirements of a vehicle that is exclusively, 24-7, used as a commercial vehicle?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The reason is that the vehicles are operating for hire. A taxi is inspected every six months, and we honestly don’t know how often or how regularly the app-based ride-hailing vehicles will be used. Some may only be doing a few hours a week, but some may be operating full time. You do see in certain jurisdictions where people are trying to make a living from doing app-based ride-hailing.

I don’t think we can really pick and choose. If we are making sure, as responsible policy-makers in a government, that we have designations for vehicles that are driven for hire — that there are certain vehicle safety and driver expectations — I don’t think we can pick and choose which one should win and which shouldn’t have certain requirements.

A. Olsen: Dan Hara, the consultant that was hired by the government to review the modernization of the taxi industry and produce a final report, recommended that a class 5 licence be permitted for the entire taxi sector, with additional requirements put in place for safety and training.

Why has the government opted not to follow this recommendation from Mr. Hara?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned to the member previously, and I’ve been very public about this, passenger safety, public safety has to come first. A class 4 licence is a licence for people who are driving commercially. Whether it is a taxi or other service, you need a commercial licence because you are earning money from transporting people from A to B.

We want to make sure that people on our roads are as safe as possible, both the drivers and those who get in vehicles that are for hire. That is why, when we are looking at the regulations in the Motor Vehicle Act, we are not making any changes. We are keeping with a class 4 licence.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I guess, from our perspective, the class 5 as a base is something that we feel is….

It’s not that we disagree that safety is an issue. We certainly don’t want to be messing around with that. That is certainly not something that we want to be quibbling with. Passenger safety is of the utmost importance, as is the safety of the driver.

But in his report, Hara explicitly states that: “A class 5 driver’s licence with a TaxiHost Pro certificate is arguably at least equally qualified as a class 4 driver is to drive a taxi.”

Again, I just want to make sure that I understand. What is so unique about a class 4 licence that the government feels it is uniquely able to address safety in this sector, especially despite numerous other actors suggesting alternatives?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member.

We’re not unique in demanding a higher standard for people who are driving commercially. We’ve got the same equivalent to class 4 in Alberta, Quebec and Nova Scotia. They all demand that drivers, whether they are for app-based ride-hailing or for cabs, have a class 4 licence.

I know that the tourism association of B.C. is happy that we are looking at keeping the class 4 licence. They think that there should be a minimum of class 4 licence. They’re looking at it as a matter of safety, a matter of reputation.

It’s not something that we’re doing blindly. We’re not ignoring Dr. Hara. He’s been very helpful in formulating this. But on this piece of policy, which…. Again, I beg the member’s awareness. He is aware that this section doesn’t deal with drivers’ licences. It is a Motor Vehicle Act regulation, and I’m sure we’ll have lots of opportunity after this legislation is passed to continue this conversation.

We’re not unique in having that higher standard for people who are driving commercially.

A. Olsen: Again, I thank the minister, and I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to canvass what I think is an important aspect of this. I think it’s important for us in this House to canvass this aspect, but as well, it’s important for the public and for the potential operators — people who would like to operate — to understand why government’s making a decision. So I appreciate the opportunity.

Again, I’d like to reiterate that I and my caucus colleagues are not in any way suggesting that safety is not a concern for us. It is paramount, and we appreciate the fact that the minister has safety as a primary concern. But I think that it is also important to point out that safety, from a driver’s perspective, is only one aspect of what it is that we need to be looking at.

MADD, for example, comes out strongly in favour of a market, and ride-hailing in the marketplace, based on public safety, that we need to be providing people options to get home at night after having a few drinks — currently, in some centres around the province, finding, in fact, that the lack of ability to catch a cab or the lack of ability to use an app-based ride-hailing service is pushing people to more dangerous options, including getting in their car and driving.

What we’re concerned about is that obtaining a class 4 licence in this province can be a time-consuming, costly process. It can dissuade people from doing it, from engaging in the business. It can be one obstacle and a significant barrier to ride-hailing operating in the province. I’m thinking of some communities, like the ones that I represent, where it would take like a full day or multiple days in order to go and obtain your licence.

Just one final question on this. Is the minister willing to consider a class 5 plus or a class 5 plus the TaxiHost Pro regime for ride-hailing, where we use the basic class 5 as the base and apply, through regulation, the necessary restrictions — like age, driving record, criminal record checks — while requiring and creating an enhanced safety regime, which could include some additional on-line training tools like others use?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m also very cognizant…. I think nobody wants to take the ground that they are the only people concerned about safety. I know that there are many, many people concerned about safety — your colleagues, the opposition. Everyone says that they’re concerned about safety. We’re translating that as the class 4.

I know that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is concerned about this, but the Vancouver police department has recommended to the select standing committee that we had back earlier this year that ride-hailing drivers be required to obtain a class 4 commercial licence, part of which is because it requires disclosure of certain medical conditions that could potentially jeopardize the safety of passengers. So we have that.

[3:25 p.m.]

The member is very well aware that we are going to be having a committee to be looking at the regulations. We have a great opportunity then, I think, to be able to have a look at the driver’s licence part of that — at the committee that we’re going to be having, if this bill passes through this Legislature.

T. Stone: I, too, would like to weigh in with a few questions on this particular section.

First, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I think, was quite right in asking what is really different from the national safety certificate requirements and the requirements that could be prescribed through a class 5 plus type of driver’s licence.

For the purposes of some background, in the legislation that we developed a couple years ago and introduced today, we provide for the elimination of a class 4 requirement, not just on the ride-sharing side — so not just for new entrants — but also on the taxi side — so for existing participants. We came to that conclusion only after seriously and thoughtfully reviewing all of the related safety considerations, which we feel, and I’m certain that every member of this House feels, need to be there, both to protect drivers and, certainly, also to protect passengers.

So we had provided for all of the same safety requirements that are currently a requirement of the national safety certificate. Those safety requirements…. Our plan was to still require them but to do so outside of the national safety certificate requirement and to attach it to, let’s call it, the class 5, 5A or 5 plus. Which, by the way…. There are numerous examples of these kinds of riders existing for other uses, be it air brakes or towing large trailers and vehicles, and those kinds of things. There are other types of licence riders that can be attached onto a class 5 licence.

When we look at the national safety code…. I have the requirements in front of me. It says that the requirements of the national safety certificate are that operators must be in compliance with applicable regulations, including ensuring all drivers are appropriately licensed and including review of driver abstracts. All drivers operate in compliance with hours of service regulations. All drivers conduct pre-trip inspections. All vehicles operating under their safety certificate are appropriately maintained. All vehicles have a valid inspection every six months. Vehicles are registered and insured with ICBC.

Again, these are all requirements that would seem to be, practically, provided for in other ways, without requiring a national safety certificate — which seems to just represent an onerous restriction or a barrier to entry for new entrants to the market. Again, I’m wondering if the minister could highlight for us: what are those additional safety requirements that are attached to the national safety code provision that could not be provided in other ways to ensure the safe operation of all TNS vehicles, whether they be taxis or ride-sharing?

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member references what was in the private member’s bill tabled today and legislation that, when the member was the minister, he seemed to forget to table in this House. We wouldn’t be having this debate today, I think, if the member had actually, as minister, tabled that legislation and not waited until 16 months into opposition.

The national safety code. To take the requirements out of the code means…. As I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, there is fleet monitoring. So there would be no monitoring of fleets of vehicles. There would be no tracking of who was responsible. Under the national safety code, we have the carrier who is responsible. We have it regulated by CVSE. We have being able to track through safety plans, through hours of service, and ensure that, hopefully, we don’t see the serious accidents that we see if they have the level of deregulation that the member so clearly wants to have.

Our government wants to have regulations because it wants to make sure that everyone is safe. We believe that by deregulating on the national safety code, we would really be opening up some serious problems.

T. Stone: Well, the legislation, the private member’s bill which we introduced today, does provide a broad range of specified requirements on licensees, vehicles, drivers. With respect to the licensees, the responsibilities include ensuring the appropriate insurance, requirements around the vehicle types, so ensuring that there are vehicles to meet the needs of those with accessibility challenges. There are responsibilities around ensuring that drivers and vehicles meet requirements like minimum age, record checks, driver abstracts, vehicle inspections. Likewise, there are driver responsibilities, which include obtaining record checks and abstracts, pre-trip and vehicle inspections, informing licensees if they’re charged or convicted of particular offences, and so forth.

The minister should just say that they’ve made the decision to keep the national safety code requirement there, even though it could be easily provided for in a more streamlined and efficient manner — all of the safety requirements contained therein — as is the case with our private member’s bill.

[3:35 p.m.]

The other reality is that what we’re really talking about here is a whole bunch of part-time drivers who will largely be driving for companies, on the ride-sharing side, as new entrants to the industry, but also a number of part-time drivers on the taxi side of the equation, as well, who will have a much more difficult time entering the market because of the maintenance of this unnecessary national safety code requirement. This, as the minister rightfully pointed out, doesn’t exist in any other jurisdictions that we’re aware of in Canada — certainly not in North America — when it comes to the ride-sharing business.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide some details as to what makes British Columbia so incredibly unique, so different from Alberta or any state in the United States that has had ride-sharing in different forms for months and, in many cases, years. In these hundreds of other jurisdictions, there’s no equivalent to a national safety code requirement — this requirement for a national safety code certificate.

All the while these jurisdictions have found other ways, in a more streamlined and efficient manner, to ensure that these important safety considerations, which we all support, as has been detailed in my previous question. The member for Saanich North and the Islands has as well. We all support maintaining strong safety requirements.

Why do we want to be the lone jurisdiction in North America that continues to insist on this onerous national safety certificate requirement?

Hon. C. Trevena: Unlike the member of the opposition, we don’t see it as onerous. We see it as a basic foundation for safety. We are very proud to be leading the way here in safety in this and having the highest standards countrywide. If it’s the case that they’re not seeing it in other jurisdictions, then maybe they’re the highest standard in North America. That’s something we should be proud of. We shouldn’t be trying to deregulate it and saying: “It’s far too complex. It’s far too onerous.”

By having the national safety code there, it does create that level playing field. It is there for the taxi industry, and it will be there for the app-based ride-hailing companies.

It’s for the companies, not the individual drivers, because we’re talking about fleets. It’s the company. If the member reads the legislation all the way through, he’ll see that we are talking about the app-based ride-hailing companies, through the term “TNS.” We’re not talking about individual drivers; we’re talking about having companies dealing with it.

J. Sturdy: Just for clarity, with regard to 5(2)(b), motor vehicle being operated under a “valid safety certificate.” That’s a national safety code certificate? Is it synonymous?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

J. Sturdy: With regard to the class 4 versus class 5. I thank the minister for indulging in this particular conversation. I recognize that it’s not necessarily identified in this section, but as the member for Saanich North and the Islands was able to begin to canvass this, I’d like to take this opportunity as well.

If the minister can explain to us the difference between a class 4 and a class 5 licence in terms of the driver’s exam, for example. What is the difference? What do you have to do for a class 4 licence that you don’t have to do for a class 5 licence?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m glad that the member also recognized that this isn’t actually covered in this section. This is about vehicle licences and not drivers’ licences. Drivers’ licences, as the member is well aware, are covered under Motor Vehicle Act regulations, which are the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[3:40 p.m.]

However, I will inform the member that a class 4 is a commercial class of driver’s licence. They do have a higher level of prescreening criteria: you have to be at least 19 years old and hold a valid 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 licence or an equivalent licence with at least two years’ non-learner driving experience.

The prescreening for a class 4 is that driving records must have fewer than four offences that resulted in penalty points in the past two years; have no motor vehicle–related criminal code convictions — or equivalent, if you’re not from B.C. — in the past three years.

There is also the medical monitoring, the medical exam, which is every five years until you’re 45 and then every three years from 45 until 65. The exam itself — there is both a written exam as well as a driver’s exam. There is also the proof that you know what you’re looking for when you’re checking your vehicle.

As I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, if the member goes on line, he will find a number of companies and individuals who have failed their class 4 licence and talk about how surprised they were, because they thought it was going to be quite easy, and have either gone to have further training — there are training schools that work specifically on commercial vehicle driving instruction — or are working with such training organizations, have started themselves. I think the member would find it very interesting to have a look at that.

But as I mentioned before, and as I mentioned to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, this isn’t in this section. It is Motor Vehicle Act regulation.

J. Sturdy: What I hear the minister say is that there are issues around age, the driver’s abstract, criminal code and medical with regard to a 4 versus a 5 but that otherwise, the difference is really just in a pre-trip inspection versus not doing a pre-trip inspection on the examination.

Hon. C. Trevena: I know there’s a huge amount of interest in this. That’s why I’m very glad that when this legislation is passed — hopefully in the next 24 hours or so — we’re going to be having this discussion at the committee, where we’re going to be looking at regulations, because we want to be transparent on regulations and moving along there.

No, the member is incorrect. There is a harder test. Well, I understand it’s harder, having read about it and having talked with people. It’s a harder test, a harder written test. There is a driver’s test, and there is the vehicle inspection. So you do have another test. You’re not just learning how to inspect your car. You do, do another test.

J. Sturdy: Well, just in the interest of full disclosure, I do hold an unrestricted class 4 and have been through the test and know it to be exactly the same test bank — at least that was my experience — and the same requirements. You either know how to pull in and out of traffic, or you don’t. Whether you have a class 4 or a class 5, the criteria is exactly the same.

I would suggest to the minister that it’s not about driving skills. It is about the items that you identified earlier around abstracts, age, criminal code violations and medical. Then, of course, there’s the pre-trip inspection. At least that certainly is my experience.

Is the minister telling us, then, that there’s a different test bank and a different skill set required to pass that driving test when you take that test through ICBC?

Hon. C. Trevena: With all due respect to the member, I know that there’s a huge amount of interest in this. It isn’t part of this section. We do have the committee that is going to be struck, when this legislation is passed, to talk about regulations, where this will be one of the items that can be discussed in the committee. I know there’s a lot of interest in the difference between a class 4 and class 5 licence. We’re happy to have that discussion at that committee.

[3:45 p.m.]

I say that with all due respect, we have spent nearly an hour on the discussion between a class 4 and class 5 licence in a section of the legislation where it doesn’t reside. It doesn’t reside at all in this legislation. It’s in the MVA regulations. It is a regulation. It doesn’t appear in this legislation. There is no discussion in this legislation about a class 4 or class 5 licence.

With all due respect, Member, let’s have a really healthy debate, a good policy debate, at the committee. We have a number of sections still to deal with, and I’d be very happy to talk about the other sections.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. I guess I’m somewhat responsible for us spending the last hour on this. This issue around licensing — I’m comfortable, if this discussion is going to be going to the committee, to have it there. I recognize the challenges that it poses to this specific piece of legislation, but it’s not currently in the terms of reference of that. Will the government be making the required changes to ensure that it’s part of the terms of reference and that we can have that discussion there? Following that, I’d be happy to move on.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, yes, those terms of reference will be updated. Thank you for the opportunity.

T. Shypitka: I’m just going to piggyback off the member from Vancouver–Sea to Sky a little bit here. On the recommendation of a class 4, instead of going through the onerous process of getting a class 4, where the skill set may not be a lot different…. Did the minister consider the resources that are needed to hire additional testers? I know that in my community of Kootenay East, we have a long lineup of people just getting a class 5.

The resources that will be required to hire additional testers to encourage the backlog on class 4 licences will be long and lengthy. This will slow down the process even more. So has the minister considered the resources that are required to bring additional testers in place?

Hon. C. Trevena: There have been more examiners hired. We’re anticipating that yes, there will be whatever licence is finally decided upon. I want to see class 4 there, but whatever licence is decided upon, there will be the resources there to ensure that people can apply for their tests and take their tests. As I do say, this is a matter that…. The licensing is ICBC, the Solicitor General, not amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act that we’re discussing at the moment.

T. Shypitka: It’s great to hear that there are more testers being provided. I know that in my region, that is not the case right now, and we are looking for more testers. But the question isn’t so much if new testers are being provided now. It’s what will it look like once this comes into play, when we’re needing more class 4 people? What kind of additional resources, other than what we’ve got right now, will be part of the program going forward? And what will that budget item look like? Do we know how much that’s going to cost and how many resources we’re going to need?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, the driver’s licensing is not part of this legislation. It is not part of this section. It’s not part of the legislation. It’s the Motor Vehicle Act regulation. There will be discussion about it separately. We are looking at, through ICBC — not my ministry — ensuring that there are testers in place to deal with whatever new numbers come through of people looking for licences.

J. Sturdy: Similarly to my colleague, I hear that the wait in my riding is literally months to get a driver’s test, so I can see that there would be concerns.

I think I’ll take this opportunity to also recognize that the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations also recommended a class 5 licence, so there is consistency there with the Hara report.

It is interesting to note that Operation Red Nose does not require a commercial licence. A class 5 licence and a clean abstract is something that is accepted by Red Nose. Hopefully, there won’t be a consideration around changing that.

[3:50 p.m.]

Then I’ll also point out that only 10 percent of all of the licences issued in British Columbia currently are commercial in nature. The rest, 90 percent, would be standard personal drivers’ licences. So this seems like a very significant potential barrier. There is, as I said, a wait, and there’s a cost. I recognize that it’s not the minister’s ministry, with regard to ICBC and the cost of taking these tests, but it is, again, a barrier to participation.

Of the 10 percent of the drivers’ licences in this province that are commercial, an interesting statistic there is that only 15 percent of that 10 percent are actually held by women — just an interesting observation of fact. Certainly, it doesn’t create an opportunity for more people to easily participate in this activity of providing transportation options for British Columbians.

I see that the minister has expressed some unwillingness to carry on farther with this conversation, although they were pleased to provide ample opportunity to her colleague in the confidence and supply agreement. I will move on.

This section, section 5, didn’t particularly have an impact on taxis from operating in the past. Yet there is a proposed change to section 23(1) so that a person must not operate a motor vehicle as a commercial vehicle without charging a prescribed rate. I wonder if the minister could explain about the need for this change.

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, the legislation reads in (c)(ii): “any rates approved or set by the board under section 7(1)(f) and any rules made in relation to those rates under section 7(1)(g).” This new section says: “…motor vehicle are charged rates in compliance with, as applicable, (i) rates approved or set by the board under section 7(1)(f) [rates for passenger directed vehicles], and (ii) rules made under section 7(1)(g) [rules respecting rates charged by licensees].” So there is, basically, almost no change.

With that, Madame Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[3:55 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 57 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: In this House, I call continued committee stage on Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018. In the little House, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 47, Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 55; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:58 p.m.

On section 5 (continued).

J. Sturdy: There clearly has been a series of concerns raised with regard to the issuance or the requirement around a valid safety certificate and other pieces of this section. So I’d like to, at this time, move an amendment to the proposed amendment to Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018.

I move that the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, be amended.

[4:00 p.m.]

[SECTION 5, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

5 Section 23 (1) is repealed and the following substituted:

(1) A person must not operate a motor vehicle as a type of commercial passenger vehicle unless the following requirements are met:

(a) the motor vehicle is being operated under a valid licence that authorizes the motor vehicle to be operated as that type of commercial passenger vehicle;

(b) the motor vehicle is being operated under a valid safety certificate;

(c) the person meets prescribed requirements and is otherwise operating the motor vehicle in compliance with the licence, this Act, the regulations and other applicable laws;

(d) passengers transported in the motor vehicle are charged rates in compliance with, as applicable,

(i) rates approved or set by the board under section 7 (1) (f) [rates for passenger directed vehicles], and

(ii) rules made under section 7 (1) (g) [rules respecting rates charged by licensees];

(e) the motor vehicle meets prescribed requirements.

(1.1) Notwithstanding anything in the Motor Vehicle Act or the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations or any other Act or regulation, the holder of a Class 5 or superior driver’s licence, as that term is used in the Motor Vehicle Act or the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations, is permitted to operate a vehicle in their business of operating a passenger directed vehicle.]

Point of Order

Hon. C. Trevena: I rise on a point of order. This amendment deals, in the second part, with matters that are dealt with in regulations that are not dealt with in this bill at all.

The section deals with matters that are in the motor vehicle, MVA, regulations section. They are not being dealt with here, so they are literally foreign to this bill. It has nothing that is relevant with this bill. There is no issue…. There is no discussion in this bill about driver’s licence classes. It’s not in any legislation anywhere, so I believe that this amendment will be out of order.

The Chair: Does West Vancouver–Sea to Sky or Kamloops–​South Thompson wish to respond?

T. Stone: Chair, obviously we’ll wait for and respect the advice that you provide us on this matter.

What we’re trying to do here is provide a thoughtful amendment, which we believe gets to the policy aspect of this section, which we believe fails British Columbians and fails participants in the existing and the new industry. I’m not aware of any rules that preclude members of this House from moving amendments to legislation that is being debated in this House.

The general theme and nature of this section is safety and safety provisions. The amendment that’s being proposed, thematically, also relates to safety. So we would hope, Madame Chair, that you would provide us some guidance on this and that you would see that we’re just trying to be thoughtful and cooperative here, in spirit of what this section actually entails, to offer an amendment that we very much believe is in order.

The Chair: The Law Clerk is pondering, so does anyone else wish to make a comment?

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, agree that we should be looking at this amendment proposal and agree that it is thoughtful and, if accepted, will help to bring ride-sharing to British Columbia much, much sooner than it would without the amendment. So I think that there’ll be lots of support from consumers — i.e., potential customers of ride-sharing.

I’d also like to reiterate what my colleague said with regards to the potential drivers of ride-sharing. Many of them might be part-time drivers, moms just dropping their kids off at school and then trying to get a few extra bucks during the day in between drop-off and pickup of their children from school.

[4:05 p.m.]

I have talked numerous times with taxicab drivers over the past little while who have said that they actually support ride-sharing and would really like to be a ride-sharing driver. They made it really clear that they were looking forward to having ride-sharing come into British Columbia to augment the work that they do for their respective taxicab drivers. Plus the fact that one driver told me that he was sick and tired of having to have long, long hours driving for this taxicab driver, so it would give him more options driving for a ride-sharing company.

If this amendment is possible to go through, I will be supporting it.

The Chair: Minister, is there anything you would wish to add?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you. Well, our concern here is that driving licensing is not given a class within the statute. It is in the Motor Vehicle Act. It is not in any legislation anywhere, because if you start hard-wiring licences into legislation, it is difficult to change it. So it is, therefore, in regulation. It is part of a detailed and balanced code. It includes offences, conditions, restrictions, definitions, and so on. I think everybody is aware of that.

But in addition, adding a driver’s licence class into a different statute that’s not in this statute at all — it’s not in the Passenger Transportation Act; it’s regulations to the Motor Vehicle Act — may lead to unintended consequences, not just in this act, but right through many pieces of legislation. It may not legally operate as intended. So as I say, this should be under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Further, there are concerns with the language in the amendment, including the idea of a superior licence to a class 5. It’s uncertain what that means and just what this would be related to. Is it both TNSs and the taxis, as well as the TNS system?

As I say, none of the amendments in the bill preclude a change to the Motor Vehicle Act regulations, which will be discussed in the committee of the Legislature, which will be struck when this legislation gets passed. That will allow fulsome discussion about the pros and cons of whether it creates enough safety there.

But this, as I say, would have…. One, it’s not a relevant area to be discussing this; and secondly, it could have huge unintended consequences. It is part of the Motor Vehicle Act regulations, not amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act.

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: According to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, on page 218, an amendment that goes beyond the scope of a bill or alters the principle of a bill as agreed to at second reading is not admissible.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Sturdy: I’m wondering if the minister could let us know why the change of wording from “convey” to “transport.” The definition includes the meaning, or is it simply a term change?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. It is plain-language drafting. People don’t say “convey” very much anymore.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

J. Sturdy: Is it the case that this section would prohibit people from advertising services such as Uber or other ride-sharing companies that don’t operate within the province?

Hon. C. Trevena: What this section does — it clarifies that you can’t advertise unless you have a licence that you can provide the service. So if you have the licence, you can advertise. If you haven’t got the licence, you can’t advertise.

J. Sturdy: What’s the intention behind the purpose of this amendment?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: all it is, really, is that you cannot say that you can provide a service unless you hold a licence that authorizes you to do so. Basically, you can’t say that you can do something unless you’ve got that licence which allows you to conduct that business. It’s pretty straightforward.

J. Sturdy: In other words, at this particular time, Uber could not advertise because they don’t hold a licence.

Hon. C. Trevena: Until they get a licence, they cannot advertise. Their fleets don’t have a licence, so they cannot advertise at the moment.

J. Sturdy: For clarity, then, if this legislation passes, Uber would not be able to advertise at all with their name, or Lyft could not advertise, or any other ride-hailing industry could not advertise regardless of what the intention is behind it in terms of marketing their business or, you know, promoting product in other jurisdictions. But essentially, if you don’t have a licence, then you’d not be able to promote your name. Is that the literal interpretation of this legislation or this piece?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: No company can advertise that they are providing a service for app-based ride-hailing until they get the licence that is required, that’s set out through this legislation, to work.

J. Sturdy: The ride-hailing companies or TNSs will be able to advertise themselves, just not advertise that they are providing a service. As long as they’re marketing their business, that’s fine — but not that they’re providing a service?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

J. Sturdy: Similar to section 5, there is certainly concern in this section — the requirement for a class 4 licence, which is too onerous and restrictive. I think we all agree that public safety is paramount, but with appropriate safety rules, the issue of the public’s well-being while travelling in a ride-hailed vehicle can be dealt with effectively without having to implement such onerous conditions.

Similar to our section 3 amendment regarding overly restrictive conditions on rate-setting by a ride-hail company, as this section deals specifically with transportation network services, we are going to propose a further amendment that would eliminate class 4 restrictions for ride-hail companies and drivers and restrictions on rates charged by ride-hail companies. As such, I’d like to move an amendment.

[SECTION 9, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

9 The following section is added:

Licence required to provide transportation network services

23.1 (1) A person must not provide transportation network services unless the following requirements are met:

(a) the person is authorized under a valid licence to provide the transportation network services;

(b) the person holds a valid safety certificate;

(c) the person meets prescribed requirements and is otherwise in compliance with the licence, this Act, the regulations and other applicable laws;

(d) passengers transported in passenger directed vehicles operated under the licence are charged rates in compliance with, as applicable,

(i) rates approved or set by the board under section 7 (1) (f) [rates for passenger directed vehicles] , and

(ii) rules made under section 7 (1) (g) [rules respecting rates charged by licensees].

(2) Without limiting section 23 (1), a person who drives a motor vehicle as a commercial passenger vehicle must not transport in the motor vehicle, as passengers, persons who hail the motor vehicle through the use of transportation network services unless the licence under which the person is driving the motor vehicle includes a transportation network services authorization that expressly authorizes the motor vehicle to be hailed through the use of those services.

(3) A person must not provide, or advertise or hold out that the person is able to provide, transportation network services unless the person is a licensee whose licence includes the transportation network services authorization necessary to provide those services.

(4) For certainty, a person does not provide transportation network services by driving a passenger directed vehicle under a transportation network services authorization.]

On the amendment.

J. Sturdy: Really, this is about the fundamental way that this service works internationally and, certainly, nationally and North America–wide, in that the rates are flexible.

[4:20 p.m.]

The rates change, based on demand. More drivers come into the market when there’s more demand and they can be attracted into the market. There can be discounted opportunities when the market conditions dictate that.

Ultimately, it is a consumer-driven market and a consumer-driven demand that dictates the price that will be paid. Certainly, we see that in virtually every other aspect of our economy. I wish I could determine and dictate the price my farm’s going to get paid for potatoes, but the market dictates that. I believe that it’s in the best interest of the consumer and a functioning market to limit the opportunity for the board to set pricing.

Hon. C. Trevena: We started touching on this last week, talking about pricing and the rates being set. The government thinks it’s very important to really have the lower and the upper limits. The member talks about this being consumer-driven, that we have, basically, what would be a free-for-all. We’re looking at it as a sense of consumer protection. We want to be able to protect consumers from that free-for-all.

I think the member must be very well aware — having done a lot of work, clearly, on app-based ride-hailing — that people do get hit by surge pricing; the stories about whether it’s raining and suddenly you’re being charged a lot. But just for example….

We have a number of jurisdictions now ensuring that there is not going to be surge pricing, including New York City, where they are actually looking at many of the provisions that we have in our legislation, having had that free-for-all and now sort of ratcheting back.

In Edmonton, we had, almost two years ago now, a New Year’s Eve customer charged more than $1,100 for a ride. He did then get offered a refund of $500. We don’t want to see that here in B.C.

In Toronto, somebody was charged, just last year, $18,518 for a 20-minute ride. It was a mistake. It was rectified. Still, those mistakes do happen, and they’re not always rectified.

There have been studies done in New York, which is changing its regulations to match pretty well what we’re looking at, where they found that Uber drivers have been tricking the app into thinking there was a shortage of cars, which raised the price.

We see, again, throughout many U.S. jurisdictions, a surge in pricing on New Year’s Eve. We get one where, in Honolulu — people going to Hawaii for Christmas, watch out for this one — sailors getting off the ship were quoted as much as $221 to get to Waikiki. A cab ride was $44.

What we’re doing, through this and through this section, and why we think it’s so important to keep this section is to have that consumer protection, to ensure that we have the base level, as we do with the taxi industry, so drivers and companies know that there will be a bottom level. It won’t go to the complete bottom, and there will also be that top level.

Rather than having it, as the member would like to see, be consumer-driven, we think that consumer protection and making sure that consumers are not unfairly gouged is the right approach. So we’ll be opposing this amendment.

[4:25 p.m.]

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

T. Stone: I appreciate that this amendment is in order.

Again, the essence of what we are proposing here is to reflect what is an important, consumer-driven need. That is to have transportation options. I would suggest that seeing an increase in price — and the minister can throw all kinds of, you know, real outlier situations at us, a couple of hundred dollars here or $50 there, in contrast to what a much lower fare would look like…. I would suggest a couple of things.

One, consumers will make that decision as to whether or not they want to actually go through with the transaction. That’s the whole point of the ride-sharing model. The discrete transaction is made ahead of time. It’s made through an app. It’s done through a secure financial transaction. And passengers don’t need to agree to it. That’s one.

Two, I would submit that paying a little bit more at peak times, and in some cases maybe paying a fair bit more at peak times, whatever that is — if it’s New Year’s Eve or if there’s some major surge of passengers that come off a cruise ship — is better than standing in the rain, trying to find transportation. It’s better than, you know, in the middle of the night, trying to arrange transportation that might not ever come. It’s better than finding yourself in an unsafe situation, whereby you can’t get a ride when you absolutely need it.

We’ve heard from many members of this House, and in fact, reflected from all parties and all regions of the province, situations from our constituents and consumers who have faced those kinds of situations.

What we’re saying here through this amendment is, fundamentally, the price regime needs to be driven by the consumer, not driven by government. Not driven by a big bureaucracy, but driven by the consumer, whereby the prices will inevitably be lower when there is less demand, and prices will be higher when there is higher demand.

Importantly, we’re not suggesting that this flexibility in pricing only be available to ride-sharing companies. We’re saying it should be available to TNS operators, whether they are taxi or ride-share. That was part of the fundamental change that we incorporated in our private member’s bill that was introduced today — again, to remove or ensure that there is no obstacle to the entry into British Columbia of ride-sharing companies. The tight, tight controls on supply and on pricing represent those kinds of significant obstacles.

We’re not confident that ride-sharing will ever see the light of day in British Columbia if we don’t address ensuring that these kinds of obstacles, as represented through price controls, are actually removed and not there as barriers to entry.

On that basis, I wholeheartedly support this particular amendment.

A. Olsen: To this amendment…. I just want to say clearly that the B.C. Green caucus is not going to be supporting this amendment.

There are a few reasons why. I think that it’s important to point out that, if the official opposition wanted to completely deregulate this environment, they had the opportunity to do that and decided, for whatever reason…. As the former minister has stated, and I absolutely take him at his word, he was ready to do it, but for whatever reason, the party decided not to move forward — and could have created the entirely deregulated environment that we’re in.

I’ve also been clear that some of the aspects of this current legislation, I find to be too restrictive. What I’ve been trying to strike here is a balance, a middle-of-the-road approach, recognizing the fact that jurisdictions around North America and around the world are indeed learning from….

[4:30 p.m.]

This is one of the benefits, as I mentioned at the end of last week, the last time that we had the opportunity to debate this. Whether or not I necessarily agree with the minister’s examples that were used, I would say that I agree with the principle that was being used — that we have an opportunity to learn from the early adopters, from those that were first entrants into the market.

So we do not support the completely deregulated environment that’s been put forward by the official opposition. That said, I think some aspects that have been pointed out around surge pricing and some of the aspects of the ride-hailing industry that make it unique from the taxi industry should be explored. They’re the disruptive parts of the market. That’s how this works.

I and my colleagues are not interested in just protecting the old markets from disruption. That’s part of the innovation. That’s part of what we should be embracing, the fact that old markets will be challenged by new markets. It’s what happened in every kind of revolution.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We are supportive of that, and that’s the reason why we’re quite supportive of having this discussion at a much higher level with respect to pricing and rates being part of the committee which has been struck. That is part of the terms of reference. So at this stage, the B.C. Green caucus will not be supporting this amendment on those bases.

Hon. L. Beare: As the Minister of Tourism, there were a couple of comments that were made by the member from Kamloops that greatly concerned me. He suggested that it was okay for passengers getting off a cruise ship to be significantly impacted and pay more for rides through this amendment.

Now, it is very important for the tourism industry that we have a fair process and a reasonable process to go through, which is what the minister has put forward here in her bill. This amendment will not protect tourists, will not protect consumers from price gouging. I think it’s very important for B.C.’s reputation and B.C.’s brand that we ensure that our visitors aren’t taken advantage of and that it’s not okay for them to pay significantly more, as the member mentioned.

You know, this is not being dealt with by government. It will be dealt with, with the Passenger Transportation Board. So the member suggesting that this shouldn’t be handled by government…. It’s very clear it’s being handled by the Passenger Transportation Board. But I want to ensure that our residents are protected from gouging, that our tourists are protected from gouging.

We’re taking lessons from world-class tourism cities all over North America who have already been dealing with these significant problems, and I will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Thornthwaite: I will be supporting this amendment, and one of the reasons is for tourism reasons. I’ve spoken in this House numerous times that we’ve got people…. Even the Leader of the Third Party has tweeted out that it was unacceptable that there were hundreds of people in a lineup at the airport, at YVR, that were waiting for a cab. I know that there are people that are coming off of a cruise ship and are expecting, with their Uber app or their Lyft app when they land, that they’re going to get a response, not: “This service is not available.”

It’s certainly better to have a market-driven pricing scheme that is dependent on supply and demand versus not having a cab pick you up at all. The point being that if we want British Columbia to get with the program and be like every other jurisdiction in North America as well as America and all of these cities that have ride-sharing, then we need to be able to offer this service like it is in those cities.

[4:35 p.m.]

I’ve taken Uber — I’m not familiar with Lyft, but certainly I’ll be looking forward to doing that — in many different jurisdictions. It’s easy. You plug in where you are, and you plug in where you want to go, and boom, you get a price. If I don’t like the price, I don’t get in. That’s as simple as it is.

People can make the decision about whether or not they want to get in the cab or the ride-sharing company, and they know ahead of time what the price is, and at least the good news is they get a ride.

Whereas the major disadvantage of the system that we have right now is that people wait forever for a cab, and in the case of many of the young people coming home from a night out in Vancouver and trying to get home to the North Shore, they won’t even take them home. From a safety perspective, a public safety perspective, those young people having to walk across the Lions Gate Bridge at two o’clock in the morning is not safe.

I’m sure you could ask every single one of those young people that are walking across the Lions Gate Bridge at two o’clock in the morning: “What would you prefer? Would you prefer to walk, like you’re doing, or would you prefer a ride at a reasonable price?” That’s what we’re asking.

Let’s get British Columbia up with the program like every single other jurisdiction in Canada, North America and across the world. I will be supporting this amendment.

[4:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, this is an amendment to section 9.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 42
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Clovechok
Shypitka	Hunt	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Reid	Letnick
Thomson	Larson	Foster
NAYS — 42
Kahlon	Begg	Brar
Heyman	Donaldson	Mungall
Bains	Beare	Chen
Popham	Trevena	Sims
Chow	Kang	Simons
D’Eith	Routley	Ma
Elmore	Dean	Routledge
Singh	Leonard	Darcy
Simpson	Robinson	Farnworth
Horgan	James	Eby
Dix	Ralston	Mark
Fleming	Conroy	Fraser
Chandra Herbert	Rice	Furstenau
Weaver	Olsen	Glumac

The Chair: Members, in keeping with the established practice, the Chair must cast a vote in this circumstance. Accordingly, I vote against the amendment in order to keep the bill in its original form. The amendment fails, so are we back to section 9.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — HEALTH SECTOR
STATUTES REPEAL ACT

Bill 47, Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 51.

[4:50 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act.

Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 43
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Furstenau	Weaver	Olsen
	Glumac
NAYS — 42
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Clovechok
Shypitka	Hunt	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Reid	Letnick
Thomson	Larson	Foster

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 55, and in Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 54, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018.

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 55; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:05 p.m.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. Sturdy: The application for licence suggests a person. Can the minister clarify? Is it a person? Is it a person acting as a company? Who can apply for a licence?

Hon. C. Trevena: A person could be either an individual or a company.

J. Sturdy: In section 24(3), it states: “If an applicant is seeking a passenger directed vehicle authorization or transportation network services authorization, the application must set out the rates, and any rules, practices or tariffs relating to those rates.” Can the minister clarify? Are there any limitations to that, or are there any constraints to that? Can it be a range of rates?

Hon. C. Trevena: Any applicant can put in what they’d like for the rates, but it’s up to the Passenger Transportation Board to be setting the rates. We have let the rate-setting be with the Passenger Transportation Board.

J. Sturdy: So this is just a set of proposed rates, I take it, or what the TNS would consider or would like to charge and then the PTB would determine. Can the minister give us some examples of what they might consider under “rules, practices or tariffs”?

Hon. C. Trevena: Just looking at some of the potential flexibility…. It’s like if you’re going to be charging for parts of an hour or the full hour, or if you’re charging while you’re on standby, or if you’re charging when you’re waiting for somebody. These sorts of things would be considered under that section.

J. Sturdy: Okay, so if the customer isn’t directly there — a standby rate, that sort of thing — would this affect the cost or provision of accessible services, potentially?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board doesn’t allow a different rate to be charged for accessibility. So the board will set the rates, and that’s it for whomever is taking the passenger-directed vehicle, whatever type of passenger-directed vehicle it is.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

[5:10 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Can the minister clarify why these changes were needed to this section?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is really part of our opportunity to modernize the act. What it is, is it’s updating the authority over general authorization. So it doesn’t actually have anything to do with app-based ride-hailing, TNSs or taxi. It’s to do with the wine tour scenario. It really is just updating the authority that the registrar has when it’s dealing with wine tours, sightseeing tours, and so on.

J. Sturdy: So this section is specific to these bus tours. It doesn’t affect transportation network service needs.

Hon. C. Trevena: As general authorization, it is sort of the bus tour type of thing, whether it’s the wine tour or the sightseeing tour. The TNSs and PDVs come under the special authorization. They aren’t in this section.

J. Sturdy: Under section (e), “the applicant has paid the prescribed fee” for the licence, how will those fees be set?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is set by regulation. Every licensee pays a fee, and it’s a company fee.

J. Sturdy: Has there been a practice of people receiving a licence without payment in the past? Is that why it’s necessary to add this to the regulation?

Hon. C. Trevena: No.

[5:15 p.m.]

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

A. Olsen: With respect to section 14, this part of the bill amends section 28 of the Passenger Transportation Act. This to us is a central part of the question of whether or not the bill is capable of regulating ride-hailing services.

I just have some questions with respect to the three-part test that’s laid out in section 28 of the Passenger Transportation Act. Can the minister please outline her interpretation of this test?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for the question. Yes, this is obviously a significant part of the legislation.

The three-part test, which I think I’ve described as that three-legged stool. Really, to make it work, we need all the parts to be stable there. Is there a public need for the service? Is the applicant a fit and proper person — bearing in mind “person” can be individual or company — to provide the service, and are they capable of providing the service? Finally, would approval of the application promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia?

What’s the public need? Well, what is the population in a certain area? I mean, the Passenger Transportation Board has on their own website an explanation of what public need is, what fit and proper is and what sound economic conditions are. So population trends and community plans for public need. Do we need that service? “Fit and proper” is looking at whether the person or company is working within the law, what the business plans are and, if there has been any unlawful activity, to examine that.

And sound economic conditions. I think what’s also important is sound economic conditions in passenger transportation in British Columbia. Can the market absorb or adjust to a new entrant? I mean, it’s the classic thing: is the market going to be flooded by new entrants? Is there really the potential for new entrants? And try and make decisions on that.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. I referred to Mr. Hara earlier, and I think he gave us a pretty good summation of what it was. He called it the public convenience and necessity regime, and that’s what I’ll refer to as we go forward here.

[5:20 p.m.]

I just want to read into the record a section of the report, and then I have a question.

“Although on the surface it appears to be a regime ruled by reason and based on public need for a new service, it places a significant barrier to new entrants as they must battle competitors in a quasi-judicial forum. In contrast, opening a restaurant requires one to meet many health and zoning requirements, but does not require battling other restaurants in the application process. The burden of proof is on the taxi applicant to establish that they are needed in advance. With a restaurant, you simply open it and discover later if it is a success.”

From later on in the report:

“The net result of the present system is that supply is being constrained from expanding to meet the potential demand that has been shown to be present. This does preserve the status quo value of taxi licences, but leaves the public underserved and loses the economic and environmental benefits that a much more available vehicle-for-hire service could achieve.”

My question: can the minister explain why the decision was made to retain this test, even though Hara himself recommended that we abandon this regime even for the taxi industry?

Hon. C. Trevena: One of the things about this section is…. We’re talking about the data here and the importance of ensuring that there is enough data, which is really part of our foundation of how we’re moving forward. Instead of just having a subjective approach, everything will be evidence-based and data-driven. So consumer demand — it would be, literally, demand-driven of where there is need.

We are really looking at: if the public is underserved in a certain area, it would be able to find out because they will be getting data. We’ll not be looking at this subjectively. We’re really going to be looking at what the need is in specific areas because we actually will have that data. I’ve been describing it as data-driven, demand-led.

So consumer demand, yes, but based on the sound information that the Passenger Transportation Board will have, which it hasn’t had up until now.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. I think one of the challenges with…. Well, certainly, I’ll never argue against having data. I think that that’s something that…. Certainly, all of government functions much better when it’s being driven by knowledge and by information and data. I think that that is an important part of this amendment, and one that we certainly support.

[5:25 p.m.]

In our reading of section 28, that would…. We have to make sure that the Passenger Transportation Board has the ability to respond to data. As we read it, and as Hara has reported, some of the challenges around this…. Even if it was a data-driven environment, an argument could be made and could bind the process by one of the competitors.

We have this new situation that’s occurring within the passenger transportation industry. It’s no longer just a question of whether or not we’re capable of adding new supply of traditional taxi operators, but we have this new, disruptive technology. It’s disrupting the very basis of the marketplace, with the new technology. Most other jurisdictions have dealt with this. It’s enabled this new business model to enter into the passenger transportation sector.

If the previous regime was demonstrating difficulties in approving new taxi supply — which has been the primary argument for people standing on the side of the street — why is this government proposing that we maintain the same rules and put the TNS operators under rules that we know aren’t working? Wouldn’t this be the opportunity to make the changes that are necessary?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: This goes back to having the data. Instead of being reliant on the companies to provide data when they felt available to give the data, this is going to be much more. There will be a constant stream of data coming to the Passenger Transportation Board. It will show, very clearly, where there is a need.

We know that there is, obviously…. We all know that there is this need in downtown Vancouver on a Saturday night. You hear all these stories of people being left behind and so on.

The Passenger Transportation Board will have, literally, if not real-time, close to real-time data of where there are problems and what is needed. Potentially, they’d then decide what the solution is. If there’s an application for more cabs, do they approve it? If there’s an application for a TNS to come into a certain area, will they do it?

That’s why we also — it’s not in this section; it’s in a later section — talk about the boundaries and so on. It’s very important that they have that flexibility to use the data that they will be getting.

A. Olsen: Section 6(5) of the Passenger Transportation Act gives the government the ability to provide broad policy direction. Does the government intend to provide any new direction concerning the interpretation of the Passenger Transportation Board’s current application of the public convenience and necessity regime?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m comfortable with, as I’ve described before, the idea of this three-legged stool, the three-part test. The fact that it will promote sound economic conditions, and it’s not going to undermine…. Basically, the market will absorb it, the applicant is fit and proper, and there is a public need.

The Passenger Transportation Board, as an independent organization, does two things. One, it does apply this test thoughtfully. It’s not rushing into things. It is looking at it thoughtfully. It is going to be much more aware, with the data, of where that need is.

It also can work expeditiously. We’ve seen that recently, with the withdrawal of Greyhound, the Passenger Transportation Board moved very swiftly to approve the long-distance bus services to replace Greyhound. On this, they know that this is, really, a public concern — the availability of cars for hire on our streets. They have already moved to get more taxis on the street in the interim.

I’m sure that bearing in mind those three criteria…. I think one of the things you’ve got to remember is that there have to be criteria. You can’t just say, “We need more cars,” or: “We hear we need more cars. That’s fine, we’re going to get more cars.” There’s got to be something to measure that judgment by. When you’re looking at how best to measure it, I think these three criteria really are very solid. The board has a good judgment on them, has been using them for a while. It’s very mindful of the public urgency around this issue and, therefore, will be interpreting those three points with that backdrop in mind.

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for the response. The response does kind of open up some of the concern, and I completely recognize and acknowledge that there have to be criteria. How the criteria are being applied, how they’re being used to make a decision, I think, and the language that provides the criteria, the direction…. I think it’s really important that it’s clear, and it’s really important that the kinds of results can be achieved that need to be achieved. I think you’ve pointed out a good example in the Greyhound Bus scenario.

On the other hand, I think that there have been examples of where we could’ve had a much different result that would’ve provided better service, expansion of service in areas where it was needed.

With that, hon. Chair, I’m going to move an amendment to section 14 of Bill 55. I will give a copy of it to you. This amendment does address that issue, and both the members of government and the opposition have seen this.

[5:35 p.m.]

Would you like me to read the amendment in?

The Chair: It’s your call. You may if you wish.

A. Olsen: It’s my first amendment ever, I think.

The Chair: Please proceed.

A. Olsen: I’m amending section 14.

[SECTION 14 (a), as it amends section 28 (1) (a) by adding the underlined text as shown:

(a) in subsection (1) by striking out “may approve an application forwarded to it under section 26 (1) if the board considers that” and substituting “may approve, in whole or in part, an application forwarded to it under section 26 (1) after considering whether” ,]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: I’ll speak to the amendment. I think that it’s an important point of policy difference between the different parties that are in the House, but I’m hopeful the compromise we’re offering with this amendment is something that this whole House can support.

We have concerns that the government’s retention of the existing public convenience and necessity regime may in fact be too restrictive to enable ride-hailing to operate in British Columbia. There is already an example of a company trying to apply for a licence and getting rejected. It protects the existing licences and gives them the tools to resist any expansion. This does not provide the flexibility that we need.

On the other hand, the Liberals have shown that they want a much more deregulated environment, and we don’t support throwing the doors wide open to a completely unregulated expansion of the passenger-directed transportation sector. This is what the first jurisdictions that enabled ride-sharing did, and many, if not all, have slowly increased regulation as a response. We did not wait all this time to simply ignore the best practices arising in other jurisdictions.

What we’re proposing in our amendment is a slight change in the language that the board draws upon in applying this test. Instead of a test where all three components must be true, our amendment gives flexibility to apply the test in new ways. This ensures that a new direction is given to the Passenger Transportation Board about the overall policy objectives, and the legislation is flexible enough to support new applications of the test.

[5:40 p.m.]

I hope government would consider supporting this amendment, given their own views that the Passenger Transportation Board must modernize its approach. I hope the official opposition will support this amendment, as they share a similar concern about the ability of the Passenger Transportation Board to do the job in its existing form. They have suggested in their opening statements that they are looking to improve this legislation. Without a doubt, this accomplishes that.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands for the amendment. Just a very quick point — I’m surrounded by legal people here — on the location of the amendment. We’ve been advised it should amend section 28(1), losing the (a), so it just comes in at 28 — so “if the board considers that” and then you throw in the sentence “may approve, in whole or in part.” Really, it’s a question of location. That being said, I leave that up to the Clerks to work out just where it should be. But from the advice here, we’re getting a bit confused. It would be odd under where it is.

That being said, I hear what the member is saying. We’ve been very clear that we don’t want to have a deregulated industry. We don’t want deregulation. We believe that the Passenger Transportation Board does a very good job.

We have the benefit…. People have been complaining about how long it has taken to get app-based ride-hailing to B.C. I think we have benefited from that. Experts have said — from Toronto and others — that we’ve got the right approach. We are now on Ride-Share 2.0, rather than 1.0. We’ve learned from other jurisdictions.

I really believe that this three-part test is valid. That we have all the pieces together I think is the best. As I’ve described, with the three-legged stool, you knock one of the supports out, and you might have a wobbly stool.

That being said, I also understand the member’s discussion that it could add some flexibility to decision-making and doesn’t necessarily rule out that the board will be looking at all three parts if it so chooses. What concerns me is if it suddenly decides that one of those sections is not appropriate and is just deciding on the need and the economic conditions and forgets the fit and proper applicant. That would undermine the safety and stability of the process.

It would also have implications for the sector. So I do appreciate the member’s submission and the member’s amendment, and I do recognize the flexibility that it will provide. I think that when we’ve decided whereabouts it should be in the legislation — whether we’ve got to do that — I will listen to the submissions from the opposition. Thank you to the member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the member opposite, although he did indicate that they weren’t going to put forward any amendments. So something has clearly changed in the last 20 minutes. I think it certainly does reflect some of our earlier discussions and our indication of amendments that we’d like to see happen on this particular section.

It’s interesting. I think it entirely duplicates the amendment that we were going to propose — at the beginning of the amendment we were going to propose. Part of our concern is around the issue of the three-part test and whether it’s required to have all of those three-part tests in place. We would certainly agree with the idea that the opportunity to look, in whole or in part, at the decision-making process would be something that we would support.

[5:45 p.m.]

However, there are concerns around the issue of the third leg of the stool, as the member refers to it, in that there are questions about what a sound economic condition in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia looks like. I think this is really open to interpretation. Certainly, history shows, over the course of the last number of years, that, really, the interpretation of that particular component of the consideration has essentially stopped any additions to the taxi industry in Vancouver in the last 40 years.

I think there’s ample proof or ample evidence that that third leg of the three-part test is something that has essentially blocked new entrants into the market, and there is no reason at all to think that it won’t just continue to block new entrants in the market, unless, of course, there’s some other direction from the minister to the Passenger Transportation Board, although the Passenger Transportation Board is independent so shouldn’t be affected by this.

We have some significant concerns about not including or just dealing with, in whole or in part — and giving the latitude to the transportation board to determine whether something promotes sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business. I’m certainly interested in what the minister understands that to mean and who that is in favour of. It’s interesting to note, as well, that there is not a consideration for the consumer in any of those three legs of the stool, and I think that, frankly, should be the driver in all of this.

In addition, there are other components to this section that do demonstrate…. We have great concern around the viability of the transportation network companies going forward or the opportunities for them to enter into the market. Notably, those would be issues around fleet size and how fleet size would be interpreted or how fleet size would be allowed to be amended or what it would incorporate. Your fleet size, I could see, at any given time, could be double the size in a matter of minutes, depending on what surge pricing is in place and how much demand there is there to get additional vehicles on the road.

The other piece is the one of geographical area in which the motor vehicles may be authorized, or operated under authorization. This, to me, means that we are going to continue on with the status quo, essentially. We will be operating within particular boundaries, will be creating deadheading and will not allow a flexible, mobile, changeable and adaptable fleet to be serving the customers and the consumers as they need to be serviced.

So while I congratulate the member for beginning to get to where we need to go and taking that little first step in adding, in whole or in part, which we do support, I would like to propose that there would be…. I look to the guidance of the Chair for how I would offer an amendment to the amendment.

The Chair: Please proceed.

J. Sturdy: I think I covered much of what I’m proposing, but I would propose to amend division 4, section 28, as per the Third Party’s recommendation around (a) in subsection (1) by striking out “may approve” and substituting “may approve in whole or in part” by striking out (1), or….

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: I think I have it here, but I appreciate the suggestion. Actually, maybe I will. Can I call for a two-minute recess here, just to review this?

The Chair: This House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:50 p.m. to 6 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re considering the amendment put forward by the member for Saanich North and the Islands, and we will do that separately than the amendment put forward by West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

J. Sturdy: If I could speak to that. In looking at this — and with advice from the Chair in terms of how we can structurally do this and technically do this with regard to doing it within the rules of the House — it appears that what we are looking to try and achieve is more substantive than what the member for Saanich North and the Islands has proposed. While we actually have exactly the same wording in our recommendation, our amendment, it really just doesn’t change the bill, the section, enough to reflect what we think is a priority, and that is the ability for ride-hailing to be successful in British Columbia through a more limited test by the passenger transportation branch, which historically has not interpreted the legislation in a way that has been supportive of expanding the industry.

We just don’t feel that there is enough there for us to support this particular amendment. We will be putting forward another amendment that will reflect all of the changes that we would like to see in this section, including the elimination of barriers on fleet size and geographic constraints as well as the test around the sound economic conditions for passenger transportation in British Columbia.

The existing body has not demonstrated that they’re willing to look at new entrants into the market, certainly not over course of the last 40 years. We will not be in a position to support this amendment, but we hope that the members opposite will support our more comprehensive approach to this Passenger Transportation Amendment Act.

T. Stone: Really briefly, just building on the comments from the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, I, too, acknowledge the good faith attempt on the part of the member for Saanich North and the Islands to offer an amendment to this section, which I do take at face value — his view that his amendment would provide some additional flexibility for the Passenger Transportation Board to assess applications that come in. We support that concept, and as the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky has indicated quite clearly, we actually incorporate virtually the exact same amendment language in a separate amendment that we will move, subsequently, to this same section.

I do support, again, what the member for West Vancouver–​Sea to Sky has indicated. That is, we believe that it’s not good enough to just build a little bit of added flexibility into this section, insofar as encouraging flexibility on the part of the Passenger Transportation Board. So long as there remains a third test in addition to the tests of public need for service, which we support; the test of the applicant being fit and proper, which we support….

[6:05 p.m.]

In having that third test — which is that the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia — that still remains a barrier to entry. There have not been very many new taxicab companies established in British Columbia in recent memory, certainly in Metro Vancouver — or in Vancouver, if you want to put a finer point on it. The main reason that is always cited by industry analysts is the third component of this test, this need to meet the test of the promotion of sound economic conditions.

That test cannot remain in this legislation. If it does, it will continue to represent a barrier to entry for the ride-sharing industry and we won’t see ride-sharing on our streets. That is in addition to a couple of other items that we will be speaking to in our subsequent amendment with respect to fleet-size restrictions and geographic boundary restrictions — two additional obstacles to entry.

For the reasons that I’ve stated, I concur with my colleague from West Van–Sea to Sky and, with regret, am not able to support the amendment as proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

[6:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment to section 14 of Bill 55 put forward by the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Furstenau	Weaver	Olsen
	Glumac
NAYS — 41
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Clovechok
Shypitka	Hunt	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Letnick	Thomson
Larson		Foster

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

On section 14 as amended.

J. Sturdy: What I would like to do is introduce another amendment to division 14, section 28.

As the previous amendment by the Third Party is now incorporated into the legislation, I’m going to go through this and just explain to the Chair and the government side what we’re intending to do. Then, if necessary, it can be redrafted according to what the Clerk told me, just as long as the intention is clear here.

[6:25 p.m.]

I believe the minister has a copy and the Third Party has a copy, if you can follow along here.

Division 14, section 28 is amended, and the (a) would be struck out and (a)(1) would be struck out, because those are already covered in the previous amendment.

So where we would move forward with an amendment would be starting at (ii), repealing subsection (1)(c). What this does is this reflects the issues that were identified in the three-part test in the original legislation, in the existing legislation, which is under “Determination by board.” Subsection (28)(1)(c) would be the section that we would look to strike out. That is in subsection (28)(1), repealing subsection (1)(c), stating that “the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia.”

I think we’ve spoken at some length over the course of the last hour or two about the concern around interpretation of that particular part of the three-part test, in that it certainly hasn’t demonstrated historically that it has had any effect other than to preserve the status quo. We haven’t seen any new entrants into the market over the last number of years with regard to this particular application of the three-part test.

We would like to repeal subsection (1)(c) and repeal subsections (2) and (3) and substitute the following: “(2) If the board approves an application for a licence, the board must specify the special authorizations that should be included in the licence, if issued. (3) The board may establish terms and conditions that apply only to a special authorization included in a licence, if issued, including, without limitation, terms and conditions respecting any of the following.” The issue of (a) equipment and technology, (b) if the licence is to include intercity bus authorization, (c) if the licence is to include passenger directed vehicle authorization and the various subsections subsequent to that.

The Chair: Hon. Member, noting the hour, if you’d be so kind as to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

J. Sturdy: I’ll take your advisement on that, Madame Chair. Noting the hour, I’d like to reserve my place and rise to speak again. I move…

The Chair: …the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

J. Sturdy: There we go.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 54, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the House do now recess until seven o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands recessed for the next half-hour, until 7 p.m. this evening.

The House recessed from 6:30 p.m. to 7:11 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: In this House, I call continued reading of Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 52, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 55; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 7:12 p.m.

On section 14 as amended (continued).

J. Sturdy: Back to where we were, which was putting forward an amendment of, I believe, division 14, section 28, and not dealing with the issue of “approve” or “may approve in whole or in part,” which was just dealt with in the earlier amendment.

What we would propose is a new component that we had that essentially says: “Repealing subsection (1)(c) of the original and existing legislation.” And (1)(c), for clarity, is: “the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia.” So we’re proposing to strike that from consideration.

Moving on into the rest of the…. We’re moving back, now, into the amended legislation, or Bill 55, and what we propose to amend there is section 28(b)(3)(iii) and (iv). For clarity, that is “(iii) fleet size, and (iv) the geographic area in which motor vehicles may be operated under the authorization.” Our proposition is to strike that in section (c) as well as in section (d), because these are replicated.

I don’t think there’s any need to actually read into the record the whole amended piece of legislation, because I don’t think it would provide any other clarity. I would be happy to provide additional clarity if the Chair doesn’t feel that I have explained myself particularly well.

[SECTION 14, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

14 Section 28 is amended

(b) by repealing subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

(2) If the board approves an application for a licence, the board must specify the special authorizations that should be included in the licence, if issued.

(3) The board may establish terms and conditions that apply to a special authorization included in a licence, if issued, including, without limitation, terms and conditions respecting any of the following:

(a) equipment or technology that must be installed, used or carried on or in motor vehicles operated under the authorization and the inspection, testing, adjustment, display and use of that equipment or technology;

(b) if the licence is to include an inter-city bus authorization, routes and minimum route frequencies;

(c) if the licence is to include a passenger directed vehicle authorization,

(i) the methods by which motor vehicles may be hailed under the authorization, which methods may include

(A) booking the motor vehicle in advance,

(B) hailing the motor vehicle from the street,

(C) hailing the motor vehicle through a dispatcher, or

(D) any other hailing method, other than hailing through the use of transportation network services,

(ii) information that must be displayed or carried on or in the motor vehicles, including information the board considers necessary to promote passenger safety and consumer protection,

(iii) fleet size, and

(iv) the geographic area in which motor vehicles may be operated under the authorization;

(d) if the licence is to include a transportation network services authorization,

(i) information that must be displayed or carried on or in the motor vehicles or made available to passengers through the use of the licensee’s online platform, or both, including information referred to in paragraph (c) (ii),.

(ii) fleet size, and

(iii) the geographic area in which motor vehicles may be operated under the authorization. , and

(c) by adding the following subsections:

(4) The board must establish as a term or condition of a special authorization that each motor vehicle operated under the authorization must display, at the times and in the form and manner required by the registrar, a vehicle identifier that is

(a) issued to the licensee by the registrar, or

(b) authorized by the registrar to be issued by the licensee.

(5) The board must establish as a term or condition of a passenger directed vehicle authorization or transportation network services authorization that the licensee must provide to the registrar any information, including personal information, and data that the registrar or the board may require, including, without limitation, information and data respecting

(a) the motor vehicles, and the drivers of those motor vehicles, operated under the authorization,

(b) the availability of the motor vehicles, at given points in time, for hailing by methods permitted under the authorization, and

(c) trips taken by passengers transported in accessible passenger directed vehicles or trips taken by passengers transported in non-accessible passenger directed vehicles, or both, including

(i) trip rates,

(ii) wait times,

(iii) pick-up times and locations, and

(iv) drop-off times and locations.

(6) The board must establish as a term or condition of a transportation network services authorization that motor vehicles may be hailed under the authorization only through the use of the transportation network services approved under that authorization.

(7) The board must notify the registrar and the applicant of

(a) a decision under subsection (1) approving or refusing to approve an application for a licence, and

(b) if the application is approved, the terms and conditions established in respect of each authorization to be included in the licence, if issued.]

On the amendment.

[7:15 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I think everybody understands what I’m trying to accomplish here, what we’re trying to accomplish. I hope so, anyway.

I don’t know how much we need to reiterate this, but the issue of the interpretation by the Passenger Transportation Board of the sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia is not something that has been interpreted in a way that would support ride-hailing in British Columbia. Certainly, historically, it has not been interpreted that way or interpreted to allow for additional entrants into the market.

I think that at this time, I’d also look for some thoughts from the minister in terms of her mention of data associated with the application and interpretation of item 3. She mentioned that it would be data-driven and demand-led, but at this point, we don’t have any data, so it’s hard to imagine how, if this clause is not successfully removed, it would be interpreted to allow for a new interpretation that really is consumer-supporting and really supports the way the industry works in every other jurisdiction, virtually, in the world.

With that, I’d like to take my place and listen to further debate.

T. Stone: I rise to support this amendment. I won’t reiterate word-for-word what I said before dinner when we were talking about the amendment which was subsequently endorsed by this House. But again, I will say this: we believe that this amendment, as it’s proposed, in eliminating the third required condition — that being that sound economic conditions must be prevalent — as well as striking references to fleet size and geographic areas, cuts back to the core theme that we have been really driving at through the entire discussion that we’ve been having in this House with respect to Bill 55.

That is, this legislation will only work if there are no dramatic, significant, huge barriers to entry, which we believe are embedded in this section, as I’ve described and, as well, additional sections throughout the bill. If members are truly, truly focused on ensuring that we’re doing what we can to pave the way for ride-sharing as soon as possible in this province, we would encourage all members to support this amendment to this particular section.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, am supporting the amendment. We appreciate the efforts from the Third Party, but I feel that it doesn’t go far enough.

As was mentioned before, what our side of the House wants to do is remove barriers that will prevent ride-sharing companies from wanting to set up shop here in British Columbia. The other point is, of course, that we want to maintain a system that is the same as what all the other jurisdictions have, jurisdiction-wise, in Canada — the larger cities — as well as North America and many other places in the world.

[7:20 p.m.]

The most important thing with regards to the amendment is for the Passenger Transportation Board…. If they have control over these issues that the ride-sharing companies have expressed as a barrier for them to survive as a business model, then obviously, we would not be supporting that. They include the number of cars, or the fleet size. If that’s controlled, then we’re just going to have the same problems as we’ve been having all along.

People feel that there are not enough taxis. They have to wait a long time — and also the barriers from the geographic areas if they can’t go from one municipality to another. These are, obviously, problems that consumers are asking us, in government, to fix. We feel that the amendments that my colleague has brought forward will be a very good step on removing the barriers for those ride-sharing companies to set up shop here in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m going to be speaking against the amendment. While I understood from the Third Party’s initial amendment that it provided some more flexibility about the three-legged stool, and I think that it is very important to have all three legs of the stool, I accept that there is that provision for a little bit more flexibility.

However, I’m very concerned about this amendment. When the opposition talks about no barriers, they’re effectively talking about no rules. They are very much in favour of deregulation. We have looked at other jurisdictions where it was an unregulated marketplace. They have been dealing with the consequences. They’ve been dealing with the consequences in terms of congestion, in terms of safety, in terms of loss of income for drivers — whether they are in existing taxi companies or the new app-based ride-hailing companies.

There’s been a cycle down, really a spiral down to the lowest common denominator when you take away the barriers that the opposition talks about, the rules and the jurisdictions that we talk about and the ability for the Passenger Transportation Board to lay the ground rules. I think this is really very important — that we don’t have just, effectively, the open free-for-all.

The members talk about the need to have the discussion about supply, about fleet size, about boundaries. I remind the members — I’m sure they’re very well aware — that there is, on the order paper, a motion that’s going to be brought tomorrow about having a committee which is going to be discussing regulations. That will be looking at boundaries and the supply of service, which is effectively the fleet size, as well as, obviously, pricing, and now we’re talking also about drivers licensing.

I think that it’s very worrying to lift both the economic part of the three-part test as well as talk about the deregulation and opening the market for the free-for-all that the opposition is suggesting. Therefore, we will be voting strongly against this.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this amendment put forward by the members of the official opposition. I think that it is important to point out that we are debating a bill today that is substantially different from the bill that was proposed, but never voted on, from what was then the government but now the members of the official opposition.

It is a substantially different framework that this government and that this bill is proposing. While we may not entirely agree on all aspects of it, it provides some difficulty to attempt to apply what could’ve been to what is. I think that what could’ve been, should’ve been. But it wasn’t, and it isn’t, so it’s not.

The aspect of it that I’m going to raise here is that there is a substantive opportunity for the members of the official opposition and for the opposition and for the government to have the discussion on all the aspects that have been highlighted here without completely removing them from the bill.

I think that I have an issue with section (ii), repealing subsection (1)(c). That’s a substantive challenge for me, so our caucus will not be supporting this amendment.

[7:25 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, it’s is a proposed amendment to section 14 of Bill 55.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 42
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Clovechok
Shypitka	Hunt	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Reid	Letnick
Thomson	Larson	Foster
NAYS — 42
Kahlon	Begg	Brar
Heyman	Donaldson	Mungall
Bains	Beare	Chen
Popham	Trevena	Sims
Chow	Kang	Simons
D’Eith	Routley	Ma
Elmore	Dean	Routledge
Singh	Leonard	Darcy
Simpson	Robinson	Farnworth
Horgan	James	Eby
Dix	Ralston	Mark
Fleming	Conroy	Fraser
Chandra Herbert	Rice	Furstenau
Weaver	Olsen	Glumac

The Chair: Here we go again. Members, in keeping with established practice, the Chair must cast a vote in this circumstance. Accordingly, I vote against the amendment in order to keep the bill in its original form. Therefore, the amendment fails.

Members, I would like to advise the House that although a name was missed when the votes on the division on an amendment to section 9 of Bill 55 intituled Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, were announced, I would like to assure members that the numbers were correct. And an omitted name, which is clearly shown in the division record kept by the Clerks at the table, will be included on the official record of votes.

[7:35 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Before we move beyond section 14, I would like to ask the minister if she could explain to us how the Passenger Transportation Board will make a data-driven, demand-led decision on the provision of a ride-sharing opportunity, given that there isn’t really, essentially, any data collected to this point to make those decisions on or, if there is, how it hasn’t been interpreted that way in the past and how that would change as the result of a potential for new entrants into the market.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, data-driven is very important. We’re talking about modernizing the system. We’re talking about app-based ride-hailing. The Passenger Transportation Board will be gathering data through both existing models at the moment.

Taxis will report to the Passenger Transportation Board, but essentially a lot will be coming through the technology itself, through apps linked to the system. We’re going to be ensuring that there is going to be a new system built which will collect the information to, really, assist the board. It will be coming, as I say, not in the ad hoc way that it does at the moment but will be much more methodical.

We’re anticipating that as we start working with the companies, both the app-based ride-hailing companies and the taxi companies, we’ll start collecting the data and start using it to make decisions. Obviously, we haven’t started collecting data because we don’t have the legislation in place to get to the next stage.

This is setting the ground, whether it’s setting the ground for…. You know, we talked about ICBC getting its project together or getting the ground ready for the Passenger Transportation Board to take over the jurisdictional authority. It’s also setting the groundwork for new data systems and data collection systems to be built and start gathering data. We’re anticipating that will be in next spring.

T. Stone: Just following up on the minister’s comments. We did touch on this very briefly last week. It was in the context of how…. When the minister talks about the decisions being, really, data-driven, I completely understand that. There’s going to be a heck of a lot more data flowing into the passenger transportation branch.

[7:40 p.m.]

When we were formerly in government and we were preparing the package of legislation which we introduced earlier today, there was a plan that we were working on at the time, as well, in support of the new passenger transportation regime in anticipation of the increase in the volume of applications that was anticipated.

We had done a fair bit of work on developing a plan for a new information management or IT solution that would bring disparate systems together and would allow users, including licensees, passenger transportation branch staff, CVSE staff to work from a single IT system. The system was to be focused on supporting the ministry’s strategic objective to modernize and streamline legacy applications, and this would be focused on enhanced customer service, reducing processing time and reducing operating, technical and administrative costs.

My question to the minister is this. Is there still, in her view, a need within the context of the new regime that will result — assuming that this legislation in front of us passes…? Is there still a need, in her mind, for the development of an IMIT solution to pull these disparate systems together? If so, has work begun on mapping out what that investment would look like? And can she speak to some of the details as to what British Columbians could expect in terms of timelines and costs associated with the development and implementation of this new single point of entry to manage this increased volume of applications?

Hon. C. Trevena: I know that the member is obviously interested in data. As the former minister, he is also aware, as he said, that the current systems are outdated, and they do require long-overdue investment — to make them back into the 21st century, really — to integrate and make sure that there is that modern data exchange that we need.

The passenger transportation modernization project is going to be developing an information management framework capable of supporting a modernized commercial vehicle sector, which is both taxi and app-based ride-hailing; enhancing and improving interactions between numerous existing systems; modernizing processes and systems to support the commercial vehicle regulatory framework; and then creating more opportunities to share and leverage data for monitoring of service, providing compliance and enforcement to inform decision-making.

[7:45 p.m.]

We’re going to be working in four areas — licensing and governance, safety, the provincial regulator and data collection. Integrating systems across all areas will streamline the current process and ensure effective regulation and monitoring.

The transformation and modernization of three existing systems and the establishment of a data warehouse will create a new technology solution that should allow for effective integration of data between agencies and industries, and it’s going to work across the entire commercial carrier sector. So it’s not just for taxi and not just for app-based ride-hailing. It’s going to be modernizing legacy systems.

I’m not sure if the member is aware, but the passenger transportation system was recently transformed to support licensing for all commercial vehicles engaged in providing passenger transportation services. Further enhancements will be required to support app-based ride-hailing, such as external-facing web applications that verify and accept electronic documents, on-line payments and modern data exchanges between regulating government bodies and the commercial transportation sector, should we pass this legislation.

There’s also going to be a new data repository, sort of a data warehouse — not a cloud, a warehouse — which will be required to house data from the integration of the three systems. So I’m happy to take more questions there.

T. Stone: Thank you for that, Minister. I do appreciate that. It would sound that work is continuing, to pull these systems together. I completely understand it’s not just about one side of the industry or the other. It’s about the taxi folks existing with the folks in the limo business, folks in the party bus business — folks, you know, that are in the industry today — as well as new entrants.

I do understand that the system will be focused on, in part, the registration or the application process but will also be tied into the enforcement side of the equation, a complex number of business functions that, presuming it all works, when it’s done and up and running — and that’s the goal — will provide better customer service and efficiencies that are much needed in this sector.

My last question on this piece would be this two-part question. One, can the minister give us just a sense of timelines in terms of when this system…? Have they begun the work, and is there an end date in mind that we can expect, when applications pursuant to the provisions in this legislation…? When the applications from new entrants are being made next year and are being considered, will this new system all be up and running by then, or will it come at some point thereafter?

Secondly, we did talk last week a fair bit about budget requirements insofar as what the expansion of the passenger transportation branch’s office was really going to drive in terms of resources needed to manage this increase in applications and the enforcement related to it vis-à-vis enhanced audit functions that come with this legislation but also the investments needed in this new information management/information technology system.

We had estimates back…. When I was minister, there were some projected numbers provided, estimates. I’m just wondering if the minister can share roughly what she thinks this is going to cost to upgrade these systems. And has that request been put forward? Presumably she knows if it’s been approved or not. Again, does she have a sense of the timing of when this new system will be up and running to the benefit of licensees and everyone in the CVSE and the passenger transportation branch?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Well, I think the member knows this, having been on this side of the House dealing with much the same issues: the need for the upgrades to the legacy systems, the NSC system and the VIP system. That is the national safety code and the vehicle inspection program systems. Both were very much in need of being upgraded. That work is going to be phased in. Obviously, we need to get those legacy programs ready to be able to work with the new data warehouse system.

The passenger transportation system upgrades are largely complete, but we are expecting that everything…. It’s going to be a process over a number of years. We are working with the taxi app-based ride-hailing as the first priority. We’re looking for fall 2019.

I’m sure the member is aware that there was an RFP posted on B.C. Bid, I think at the end of last week. Because of that, we can’t talk about costs, because it’s confidential. There is the RFP process underway.

J. Sturdy: To just wind up the issue on data, if there is a TNS application…. The minister is suggesting fall. There’ll be an opportunity for applications to be submitted to the Passenger Transportation Board. At that point, next fall — whenever that is; somewhere between September and November, I guess — will there be an adequate amount of data available for the Passenger Transportation Board to adjudicate that and determine whether it satisfies the criteria under which these applications are adjudicated?

Hon. C. Trevena: The short answer is yes. We are anticipating that they will have enough information. They’re already gathering data. It’s not through this streamlined approach yet but getting information from municipalities, getting information from providers. They are not going to be starting cold in September. They have been and will be continuing to gather as much information as possible. Then, as this comes into effect, it’ll be easier to get the data. But they’re already getting data and by fall should have a really good head start on it.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

[7:55 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Could the minister please let us know what the fee that a taxi currently pays for a licence is, what the fee a taxi currently pays for a vehicle identifier is, whether there are any expectations that these fees will change, how much a TNS applicant will pay for a licence and how much a TNS applicant will pay for a vehicle identifier?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s $100 for each vehicle for which a vehicle identifier is needed, in both sections that the member asked about. The TNS charge is going to be set by regulation. That’s one of the things that the committee…. We’re going to be looking at regulations, going to be set up to look at regulations. We’ll be looking at the fees for the TNSs.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Sturdy: Sorry, I’m not sure that I understood that. A taxi currently pays $100 for a licence and $100 for a vehicle identifier? I thought there was a different fee for a licence fee.

Hon. C. Trevena: The cost is $100 per vehicle per year.

J. Sturdy: So the inflated value that people are paying for taxis now that was, I thought, at one point in the hundreds of thousands of dollars was for that $100 paid to government for the licence? Or is it a different licence that we’re talking about for the hundreds of thousands of dollars?

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Just to let the member know, the $100 per vehicle, per year is for the licence for vehicle identification. That has not changed since 1997.

The idea of the inflated value of the licence is, effectively, a share value. So if a company has 500 cars, they each pay $100 per year, per car to have the licence. Then the company can actually sell shares in that, and that’s how it becomes a valuable commodity. It’s shares in the number of licences that the company sells, if they so choose.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

J. Sturdy: So similar to previous attempts at introducing a more free-market approach to the transportation network systems, I’d like to introduce an amendment to division 18, section 32.

[SECTION 18, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

18 Section 32 is repealed and the following substituted:

Addition of motor vehicles or transportation network services

32 (1) A licensee whose licence includes a general authorization or inter-city bus authorization may, unless the licensee is subject to an order under section 46 (1) (a) [suspension of licence], (c) (i) or (ii) [order to stop operating or providing services] or (d) [cancellation of licence], operate one or more additional motor vehicles as general passenger vehicles or inter-city buses under the licence without obtaining an amendment to the licence under section 31 [amendment of licences].

(2) A licensee whose licence includes a passenger directed vehicle authorization may not increase the fleet size authorized under the licence unless the licensee obtains an amendment to the licence under section 31.

(3) A licensee whose licence includes a transportation network services authorization may not, unless the licensee obtains an amendment to the licence under section 31, provide transportation network services that are different from the transportation network services authorized under the licence.

(a) increase the fleet size authorized under the licence, or

(b) provide transportation network services that are different from the transportation network services authorized under the licence.]

On the amendment.

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: If the member doesn’t want to speak to the amendment, I will speak against it. It’s quite interesting sitting with the lawyers on this side.

As the amendment has been written…. I’m obviously going to be opposing it, because I believe that we do need to be able to make sure that we get the right supply of vehicles where they’re needed. The advice that I’ve been given is that, if passed, the way this amendment has been drafted, app-based ride-hailing services, TNSs, wouldn’t be able to increase their fleet size, but taxis would be able to increase their fleet size.

I think the member, also, might be surprised about whether that’s the direction he’s wanting to go if he is very much concerned about a potential cap on the supply of transportation network services. That’s the lawyers’ advice.

For me, I want…. Our government is looking at having the Passenger Transportation Board use the approach of the three-part test to see where there are vehicles needed, what’s going to be good for communities. It’s going to be working from data.

Once again, we think that having fleet size in the legislation in this way is important, and it’s something that will be discussed again at the committee that will be established once this legislation is passed.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 18 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

J. Sturdy: Does this amendment only apply in the event that a licensee is deemed unfit and therefore needs additional training, and if so, does it apply regardless of a licensee’s fitness?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, this addition, amending this section and adding that subsection, is giving new authority to the board and the registrar to require education or training. It’s the sorts of things like if there’s an issue of accessibility or TaxiHost or language training or map training. So it does allow for that training and, basically, for the registrar or the board to intervene before there are any penalties imposed.

J. Sturdy: For clarity then, the registrar could require any licensee to do a specified education or training program — of anything they want, essentially — to anybody, whether they have been subject to a penalty or not. It could be a requirement from the registrar or the board to impose or arrange training for everybody?

Hon. C. Trevena: The licensee has to ensure that the people working for them, whether it is taxi or app-based ride-hailing, have completed some training. It’s quite broad here, so it’s allowing a certain amount of flexibility. But it does give that authority for the board and registrar to really incentivize, encourage the training, to make sure that everybody — whether it’s TaxiHost or accessibility, issues like that — can be covered by this training.

Sections 27 and 28 approved.

On section 29.

T. Stone: On section 29, this involves the establishment of a special committee that would be appointed on or before January 1, 2022, to presumably conduct “a review of passenger directed vehicle services and transportation network services administered under this Act.”

I’m just wondering if — sort of a two-part question — the minister could respond. First, what is the rationale for establishing this requirement in legislation? How is the work that would be done by this special committee, in terms of providing recommendations back to the minister, any different than the provisions that we dealt with in the previous section 4 amendments, which speak to a requirement for the board to report back to the minister with recommendations on a set schedule?

Maybe the minister could just delineate what she’s intending to achieve with this requirement of a special committee, and how that’s different from what is now required of the board as per section 4, which was discussed and passed earlier.

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The reason for this committee is that if this legislation is passed, it’s going to bring around a significant change to passenger transportation in British Columbia. It’s going to be, really, a whole new way of doing business.

Certain pieces of legislation do have the ability to have a legislative committee review all or part of it later on. We saw the same under some of the cannabis legislation. It has been used in other legislation. Using this is not new.

The special committee is not going to be looking at…. Well, I’m not going to prescribe what the special committee’s going to be looking at, but it may be looking at all the impacts, or it may decide to just look at: “Okay, what has the impact been on transit around the province or transit in a community where there has been a big uptick in app-based ride-hailing?” It may look at whether app-based ride-hailing has helped, has been working in rural communities.

It may take a specific area. It’s not going to be necessary…. It’s not doing the broad overview that the Passenger Transportation Board is doing in its annual review. It will have the ability to look at just one area, if it so chooses.

This is a significant change, as I say, to the way that passengers, people have been able to travel in B.C. We think that it’s worthy of having that second look a few years out to see how it has been working and if there are any specific concerns or specific tweaks that need to be made, and likewise, we’ve seen this in other legislation.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

J. Sturdy: I’ll just bundle together a couple of questions here on this particular piece around the prescribed record checks. Does the minister have a sense of what a minimum prescribed matter would be that would prevent a driver from receiving a record check certificate, and over what period of time was that record check going to consist of? Is it a year; is it five years? How is the licensee expected to enforce this? How are they going to maintain that database, and at what point are they going to review in order to ensure that somebody would not be in contravention of the prescribed minimum?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’ll be working on regulations to actually prescribe the details here. But if I might just use the example for Alberta, what Alberta has as its prescription is:

“A transportation network company shall not authorize any person as a transportation network driver” — this is their legislation — “if during the ten years immediately preceding the application to be authorized … the person was convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of Canada that is related to the functions, duties or business of a transportation network company or transportation network driver, including offences of a violent nature, including firearms and weapons offences; any offence involving sexual assault, sexual exploitation, sexual interference, procuring or invitation to sexual touching; trafficking; any offence involving fraud or fraudulent transactions, conspiracy to defraud, use of false pretences, bribery, extortion or theft; or any offence relating to the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle.”

[8:20 p.m.]

Those are the sorts of areas that we might be looking at, and as I say, it’s going to be under regulation.

Sections 30 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

T. Stone: With respect to section 35, which deals with administrative fines, I’m just wondering, again, if the minister could indicate how many administrative fines were actually issued in the last fiscal year. What is the department on pace for issuing in this fiscal year?

Specific to this proposed amendment, what was the motivation to increase the fine from the current maximum of $1,500 to $50,000? And perhaps the minister could also just briefly touch on which other jurisdictions in Canada — and elsewhere, perhaps — were taken into consideration in setting this much higher maximum administrative fine level.

Hon. C. Trevena: It may be in a bit of an odd order. There were 22 administrative penalties in the last fiscal. The $50,000 administrative penalty is the same as it is in Alberta, and we looked at that. So it’s equivalent to our neighbours. The basic reason is…. I guess it’s the carrot or the stick. Having a very large administrative penalty really increases the incentive to comply with the act and the legislation. There hasn’t been an increase in it — from the $1,500 it currently is — for 14 years, since the Passenger Transportation Act came into being. We thought it was time to get in line with our neighbours in Alberta.

Sections 35 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

[8:25 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: This is a….

Hon. C. Trevena: Sorry. It’s a different ministry we’re dealing with now. One moment. We’ll just be switching out.

The Chair: West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, will you just wait a moment.

J. Sturdy: My understanding of this section is that it essentially does put some restrictions on the ability of local government to have jurisdiction over ride-sharing licensing. But it doesn’t really, in our view, go far enough in terms of limiting the ability of local government to do things like business licences in every community.

Our concern with something like this would be that in order to operate in Metro Vancouver, one could essentially be required to, in fact, have 28-some-odd business licences in Metro Vancouver. We think this is a barrier to the ability of a TNS to actually operate effectively and efficiently within a complex local government environment. And I think there are a number of other pieces that the local government would have an ability to impose on TNSs that really work counter to the whole philosophy behind the way a TNS operation works.

At this time, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 55 with regard to “Transition — restrictions on local government jurisdiction,” on section 50.

[SECTION 50, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

Transition – restrictions on local government jurisdiction

50 (1) A bylaw made, before this section comes into force, under any of the provisions set out in subsection (2) has no effect, despite those provisions, to the extent that the bylaw does any of the following:

(a) regulates in relation to the number of passenger directed vehicles that may be operated under passenger directed vehicle authorizations or transportation network services authorizations;

(b) prohibits vehicles referred to in paragraph (a) from operating in the municipality, including, without limitation, by prohibiting the issuance of a licence to a person to operate a vehicle referred to in that paragraph for the sole reason that the person holds a licence, issued by another municipality, to operate the vehicle.

(2) The following provisions are set out for the purposes of subsection (1):

(a) sections 8 (6) [fundamental powers], 15 [licensing and standards authority] and 281 [regulations providing additional powers and exceptions] of the Community Charter;

(b) section 296 [additional powers and exceptions provided by regulation] and Divisions 2 [Licensing of Commercial Vehicles] and 3 [Regulation of Carriers] of Part 16 [Municipal Provisions] of the Local Government Act;

(c) section 272 (1) (a) and (e) [by-laws respecting business regulation and licensing] of the Vancouver Charter.

(3) A bylaw made before this section comes into force under section 317 (1) (j), (l) or (m) [by-laws respecting streets, traffic, carriers, parking and other matters] of the Vancouver Charter has no effect, despite that section, to the extent that the bylaw,

(a) in the case of a bylaw under section 317 (1) (j), fixes charges to be made by passenger directed vehicles operated under passenger directed vehicle authorizations or transportation network services authorizations,

(b) in the case of a bylaw under section 317 (1) (l), regulates in relation to chauffeurs or drivers who operate motor vehicles under passenger directed vehicle authorizations or transportation network services authorizations, or

(c) in the case of a bylaw under section 317 (1) (m), regulates in relation to the number of passenger directed vehicles that may be operated under passenger directed vehicle authorizations or transportation network services authorizations.

(4) A bylaw made, before this section comes into force, under section 36 (11) [municipal chauffeur permits] of the Motor Vehicle Act has no effect, despite that section, to the extent that the bylaw regulates in relation to chauffeurs who operate motor vehicles under passenger directed vehicle authorizations or transportation network services authorizations.]

On the amendment.

J. Sturdy: We feel that this would provide an opportunity to have — especially in complex municipal jurisdictions — an ability for these services to be provided effectively and these vehicles to be able to move from one jurisdiction to another and pick up in other jurisdictions and return without being limited by things like business licences.

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thanks for the question. This is transitional, so it’s what is going to be happening to existing government bylaws at the moment. This is just how we move into the next stage. It’s not making the amendments. It’s just how we get to that stage: the roles of local governments and centralization of the operation through the Passenger Transportation Board, rather than each local government having responsibility.

While I’m up, I’d just like to introduce…. We do have new staff with me: Kevin Volk, assistant deputy minister for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Lynn Tang, director of legislation, likewise the same ministry; and Erin Faulkner, who is with the Ministry of Attorney General.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 50 to 53 inclusive approved.

On section 54.

J. Sturdy: Maybe I’ll get this one right. I think, essentially, this is not the transitional piece. This is with regard to the Community Charter. This is section 54, 46.2. What I’d like to propose is essentially the same amendments, but on this section. I’ll read it out.

[SECTION 54, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

46.2 A council must not, under section 8 (6) [fundamental powers] or 15 [licensing and standards authority],

(a) regulate in relation to the number of passenger directed vehicles that may be operated under passenger directed vehicle authorizations or transportation network services authorizations, or

(b) prohibit vehicles referred to in paragraph (a) from operating in the municipality, including, without limitation, by prohibiting the issuance of a licence to a person to operate a vehicle referred to in that paragraph for the sole reason that the person holds a licence, issued by another municipality, to operate the vehicle.]

Hopefully, that is the appropriate section to be amending with regard to limiting the local government ability to restrict ride-sharing.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, we’re going to be opposing the amendment. Under the legislation, we want to really give local governments, who will still keep…. Much of the role will be handed to the Passenger Transportation Board, but there is still a role for local government.

[8:35 p.m.]

That’s anywhere from where the taxi stand is in the community through to the age of the fleet, the standard of the fleet — those sorts of things that local government will still want to maintain control of and will be able to maintain control of.

By the deletions that are suggested in this amendment, they would not be able to have that control. That would be detrimental for local government.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 54 to 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re now on to ICBC. It’s quite a complex act. We’re just going to get a couple more people in. Thank you very much. It will be one second.

J. Sturdy: This section deals with the allowance for a blanket certificate of insurance. The minister has suggested it will take some period of time to develop that type of insurance, hopefully based on a kilometre usage. That remains to be seen, I suppose. It doesn’t allow for anybody but ICBC to be providing that insurance, from how I read the amendment act.

What I believe is important is that there be competition in the market and that this type of insurance is readily available in the private sector currently. We believe that there’s an opportunity to allow for the usage of this type of insurance in transportation network services business, and we won’t need to wait a year in order for this type of insurance coverage to be made available.

What I am proposing is:

[SECTION 57, by repealing Section 57 and substituting the following:

57 Section 1 (1) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231, is amended by adding the following definition:

“blanket certificate” means

(a) a class of certificate issued under the plan to a person referred to in section 35.1 (2), or

(b) a class of certificate approved by the Superintendent under section 72 (c) and issued by an insurer to a person referred to in section 35.1 (2); .]

On the amendment.

J. Sturdy: I think this is something that would provide a new approach, a new addition, a new type of competition to the market and will be something that could be of benefit to both ride-hail as well as the existing taxi fleet.

T. Stone: I understand the minister is conferring with her officials, so in the interest of time here, I would just like to very briefly speak in support of this amendment.

[8:40 p.m.]

The intention of the amendment here is to address, again, one of the obstacles that we keep hearing over and over from the government insofar as why it will take, at minimum, another year for ride-sharing to be available in British Columbia.

That obstacle that we hear over and over is that ICBC has a lot of work to do in developing the necessary insurance products for the provision of insurance to this new entrant into the market, particularly the ride-share companies. I have noted in this House and publicly that as the former minister responsible for ICBC, a tremendous amount of work was done in 2016 by the Crown corporation. The insurance products were substantially developed back then.

Now, that was to meet the expectations of the government of the day. There’s a different government today, so I guess there has been a need determined, either within ICBC or in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation, to start from scratch. We had developed a product that would be available for the facilitation of ride-sharing in British Columbia in December of 2017, and a new part-time insurance product was well developed for the taxi industry that was going to provide potentially significant savings to most taxi operators.

This amendment here is intended to say, “ICBC, if it’s going to take another year, then why not create the legislative space for private operators to be permitted to provide these insurance products?” recognizing that private operators have indicated they believe that they could have the necessary insurance products to facilitate the entry of ride-sharing, in particular, in very, very short order. Certainly not a year from now, but likely months from now.

With that in mind, I wholeheartedly support this amendment, which is reflective, again, of our attempts, as the opposition here, to try and remove obstacles that we believe are still in the path of welcoming ride-sharing here in British Columbia, this one relating to the provision of the necessary insurance products that would make ride-sharing possible.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, will rise to support this amendment, recognizing that over the last couple of weeks, when we’ve been introduced to the NDP bill, it has been quite evident from our side — and evidence has been provided — that the work on the ICBC insurance scheme that our government had worked on for a year or so before the last election was, in fact, evident.

If the current government has said that ICBC doesn’t have time to do this insurance to bring forward ride-sharing quickly, then the only other recourse is to allow private operators to pick up the slack. Of note, this would be of benefit not just to ride-sharing companies but also to taxi companies as well. So I think that it’s a good amendment to support to, again, reduce barriers that this government is putting up against ride-sharing companies coming to B.C.

Hon. C. Trevena: Once again, I think it’s not surprising that we’re going to be opposing this amendment for a number of reasons. One, the member talks about how the private sector is the only way to deal with this. I think the former minister responsible for ICBC knows that this would be hugely controversial. It would not be done lightly. No matter what a mess he left ICBC in, we still have huge respect for the public insurance company.

[8:45 p.m.]

The public insurance corporation is important for everyone in B.C., and if we started down the road of even considering having one private insurance company working for one sector, it would be effectively dismantling the whole of ICBC, which is much more than just helping app-based ride-hailing companies get to market. It would be hugely controversial. It would be a regulatory challenge. It would be a massive policy debate, and it’s worth more than one amendment.

But I do find it interesting. The opposition and the former minister, who left ICBC in dire straits, in their own private member’s bill, are looking at an insurance model which is very similar to the model that we are proposing, and there’s no reference to having the private sector come in to work on app-based ride-hailing in their own private member’s legislation, and there is no way that we’ll be supporting that for our legislation.

[8:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, please take your seats to assist with the division. We are considering the amendment to section 57 of Bill 55, standing in the name of the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Clovechok
Shypitka	Hunt	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Letnick	Thomson
Larson		Foster
NAYS — 43
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Furstenau	Weaver	Olsen
	Glumac

Sections 57 to 80 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Trevena: I move the committee rise to report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 8:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. C. Trevena: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. Trevena: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

[8:55 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, read a third time and passed.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 8:56 p.m.