Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 40, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee on Bill 34, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2022

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’re going to begin now with Bill 40, second reading, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, if you’re able to take your conversations elsewhere. It’s important that we take the time that we need for the debate that’s about to take place.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, can you please take your conversations outside. We’d like to get going with the day.

Minister, please.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 40, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. These proposed amendments continue our commitment to modernize the passenger transportation industry.

Members will recall that four years ago, we enabled ride-hail to operate next to taxis. We had a parliamentary committee process to make best practices and recommendations and to conduct hearings in that regard, which would provide a parallel ride-hail industry alongside taxis to provide services for the people of British Columbia.

This new bill will both enhance passenger safety as well as increase accessibility in the taxi industry. Specifically, the proposed changes will allow the registrar of passenger transportation to operate an accessibility program that will support the increased availability of accessible vehicles and services. We have heard a great deal from people who rely on accessible vehicles to attend appointments, to connect with family and friends, to get to and from work. We have heard very loud and clear that in recent times, coming through the pandemic, they’ve been experiencing increased wait times and, in some cases, no service at all in certain communities.

We’ve also heard from drivers trying their best to provide services to the accessibility community but who are struggling with the higher costs of repairing and replacing accessible vehicles. This accessibility program enabled by Bill 40 will increase the availability of wheelchair-accessible vehicles by offsetting some of the additional costs of purchasing, converting, operating and maintaining these vehicles. The program will support learning opportunities for wheelchair-accessible-vehicle drivers so they can provide the very highest in customer service to the people who rely on them.

The accessibility program will support the province’s requirement that the taxi industry increase the number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles on the road. That is something that’s critically important. It will also advance the province’s commitment made under the Accessible British Columbia Act to improve accessibility standards in transportation.

[2:40 p.m.]

The first funding stream will be launched this fiscal year, and it will reduce maintenance costs for owner-operators of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. In subsequent years, there will be further funding streams, which will accomplish a number of things, including reducing the earning disparity between drivers of conventional vehicles and drivers of wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

This will make a real difference for people who rely on these services, people who depend on wheelchair-accessible passenger transportation. In developing this program, the ministry has extensively consulted with a number of organizations and individuals, first and foremost the province’s transit authorities, who have an incredible role in the provision of handyDART systems that are complementary to wheelchair-accessible taxis in getting these customers around their communities.

We also consulted with representatives from the transit authorities’ accessibility user groups, and we consulted with a number of other organizations who advocate for and, in some cases, provide services for the community with disabilities. The B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society is one. The B.C. seniors advocate was also part of our engagement, the Richmond Centre for Disability, the B.C. Coalition of People Who Use Guide Dogs and the B.C. Office of the Human Rights Commissioner.

This bill will also prevent ineligible people from driving commercial vehicles, which is vital to ensure that we keep passengers safe in our communities. These provisions in the bill include clarifying the evidence drivers must produce at roadside and keep on their person or in their glove box in their vehicles to confirm that they are in fact eligible to drive passenger-directed vehicles. This work was completed in consultation with the transportation board and law enforcement partners and treaty First Nations.

As taxi and ride-hail operators continue to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, our government remains committed to supporting a fair and competitive passenger-directed vehicle industry that provides high-quality services.

We worked with this industry through the toughest days of lockdown during the pandemic. We worked with this sector when they were designated an essential service to keep supporting British Columbians who needed to get to medical appointments and go about their daily business. We helped them survive financially through specific grant programs by working alongside them and addressing gaps that were appearing around federally regulated wage subsidy programs, as well as our own small and medium-sized business grants.

I believe that by working closely and collaboratively with this industry, we have come out the other side of the pandemic in a much stronger way. It is wonderful now to see the return of some of the activities that people enjoyed before the pandemic that are supported by the ride-hail and taxi industry re-emerge in a strong way — seeing sporting events, concerts, conventions, business association meetings and people returning to work in large numbers in both the public and private sectors. Those are activities that are all supported by the taxi and ride-hail industries.

Seeing that recovery informs us that now is the time to continue our modernization efforts which, as I said, began four years ago when we worked across parties with an all-party committee to come up with regulations that made sense, that we introduced, and then we were disrupted by a global pandemic.

In closing, I would just further highlight a minor proposed House amendment to the commencement schedule of the bill that I have provided advance notice of and will move when we get to that clause in committee. This came up in briefings with some of our stakeholders and colleagues. We have tabled that. They are on the orders of the day now and I believe published this afternoon for members to look at here during second reading debate. And of course, as I said, we intend to address that when we get to committee stage.

With that, I look forward to the comments of other members.

[2:45 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Thanks very much for allowing me to speak about Bill 40. I think that this particular legislation is certainly long overdue in terms of trying to make certain that accessible transportation is available to everybody that struggles with disabilities and being able to get to where they need to get to in a timely manner.

I just wanted to thank the minister, first of all, for the briefing that his staff provided last week when the bill was introduced, on Thursday. I know that it’s relatively straightforward and simple in terms of what it brings forward. But, as I mentioned, it’s extremely vital and important that these changes do take place, because one of the things that anybody with disabilities would know is that both the handyDARTs as well as the accessible vehicles that we’re talking about here are in short supply. People are, frankly, frustrated by the fact that they don’t exist — and how we can make that happen.

Certainly, this bill brings forward some vital and long-awaited changes that are important to highlight, as well as several questions about the structure of this legislation and the potential impacts that I’m sure we will discuss in greater detail in the committee stage, especially as we’re talking about funding and people that actually own vehicles for accessible rides being able to get to their appointments, etc.

The legislation finally makes the changes to the Passenger Transportation Act that will authorize government to utilize the fees that have been…. It has been collected since ride-hailing was first introduced, and I think what’s really important is that the ride-hailing industry is the source of revenue. It’s the sole source of revenue that the government is talking about in Bill 40, to being able to help support, subsidize the increased cost of what it does take to run an accessible cab, whether it’s rear or side entry, etc. — more expensive in many different ways.

On July 8 of 2019, ride-hailing was first announced in British Columbia, and ride-hail vehicles that are not wheelchair-accessible have been charged an extra 30-cent-per-trip fee with the money going to the province for a passenger accessibility fund. However, up to this point, nothing substantial has been done to use the money to improve accessibility.

Now, this fee will increase by 200 percent starting on January 1 to where it will be 90 cents per trip. I guess one of the things that we’d like to know — and I think that the taxi industry would certainly like to know, because they have these fleets of vehicles that they’re looking for — is: how much has been collected to date? What is this 30 cent per trip and the new 90 cent per trip, effective January 1, going to actually amount to? What is the revenue stream that is going to be generated?

How much of that is actually going to be distributed, and how much will be used for other functions that maybe the Passenger Transportation Board may want to use or subsidize other programs that they see that are important? Because with ride-hailing legislation came the three-way test and also the other conditions that the minister just spoke of that are important to making certain that taxis, transportation network services and accessible cabs are something that have safety as primary — both in vehicles and the drivers that are operating it — and that they carry the right amount of insurance.

It’s important that we identify and are able to articulate so that I think that the public knows how much is being invested. Is 90 cents enough? I don’t know. How many trips per year are in ride-hailing? I guess one of the questions that many of us are asking is: when is ride-hailing going to be expanded to other regions?

It has been over three years since the initial rules came out, and I know that there are other communities that it’s not available in, or there may be licences, but there’s certainly not something that most people would have any relationship with or know that the transportation network service exists in their community.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think it works both ways. This bill is about getting money from the ride-hail industry transportation network services into the hands of the taxi companies that operate this fleet of vehicles or somebody that chooses to do that. Maybe there’s an opportunity for expansion of that, as I said, as there are shortages in that.

It’s absolutely critical that people with disabilities have the right to the same transportation options as people without disabilities. And it’s frustrating that for multiple years now, the government has been collecting the money that I just mentioned and hasn’t yet used that to increase the accessible options, as it was announced and intended, for those that need them. Now, after two terms and over five years in government, it is nice to see that the NDP government takes the concerns on accessibility seriously. And I say that meaning that I think that that’s important.

I know that the member that has questions, etc., will want to hear more about what remarks I have on this — about times when it was taken very seriously. I know we spent a good portion of question period talking about a bid for the Olympics in Vancouver, and I know that in 2010, accessibility was one of the hallmarks of what we tried to do in that Olympics. Although we’ve made some progress, I think that there’s always a lot more to do.

So I think that starting to implement this program…. The details aren’t in the bill. That’s still left to discussions to be worked out with the PTB, the Passenger Transportation Board, in how that money is going to flow and how we’re going to get that money into the hands of people that either own or operate these accessible vehicles. We need to make certain that we do that sooner than later, because collecting the fee is one thing; getting the hands into the hands of the people that are trying to provide a service is important.

We want to see the system improve and become more equitable for all those looking to access additional transportation options. While it is an important and encouraging step, there are a certain number of questions to be asked about the legislation and why it has taken government so long to finally develop a program to enhance accessibility in ride-hailing.

As we have these conversations, it’s also important to consider the fact that accessible vehicles are more expensive to buy, insure, maintain, fuel — the cost of fuel. And I think, more importantly, it does limit the operator’s revenue that he may share with the taxi company or the taxi owner of that vehicle. I think that it’s only fair that they be treated equitably.

As we know, drivers of such vehicles spend far more time in assisting passengers of these vehicles. I’m glad to see that in my briefing, it was talked about that there would be increased training for making certain that people that do operate are doing the right thing in terms of being not only respectful but understanding of how difficult it is to be in a situation where you have to depend on an accessible transportation option. I think that that is a good thing.

We must ensure that the changes that are made make sense for the system as a whole and provide the best results for all involved, particularly those who require greater accessibility and have had their transportation options limited by a lack of accessible vehicles in the current ride-hailing fleet.

One of the things that we haven’t talked about — and I hope the minister can answer when we do get to committee stage on this — is what the wait times are for somebody that’s waiting for accessible transportation options. Are we doing enough? Are we going to make certain that we’re going to help those people so that if they are waiting, they do have reasonable options and turnarounds?

I understand a lot of them are dependent on this for appointments, getting the supplies that they need. It’s mission-critical, because in a lot of cases, those people are not able to operate a vehicle on their own.

When we move to the committee stage on this bill, we look forward to examining these changes and exploring how this amendment bill will help achieve the select standing committee’s recommendations on whether ride-hail company drivers of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will receive a trip bonus — and how a certain percentage of ride-hail vehicles on the road will be accessible.

[2:55 p.m.]

We also look forward to exploring how this amendment bill will encourage owners of existing accessible vehicles that often sit idle during the day could be used to earn extra income for the owners or be leased to other drivers who work for ride-hail companies. Additionally, we look forward to examining how this bill will support the taxi industry, which is mandated to have a certain number of accessible taxis on the road through their licences, a requirement that does not currently exist for ride-hail companies or transportation network service companies.

Aside from the core of this bill, which concerns accessibility, we also note that this legislation makes several changes to the Passenger Transportation Board, expanding its authority and powers. I think we do want to understand what that exactly means. They, obviously, have great and important powers in terms of the taxi business. But unless the government is prepared to step up and direct them to allowing transportation network services, ride-hail companies, the taxi industry, we are still going to be plagued with the same challenges that we have, in the sense of not only higher costs but during peak periods there is a limited number of vehicles and sometimes people are finding that….

Take a hockey game in Vancouver in your riding, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure that there are many times that you look around and you probably wonder how all these people are going to get home, being that they can’t depend on the SkyTrain system, buses or any of the other options. And, especially important if they’ve been out imbibing, we want to make certain that they’re in a vehicle that they’re not operating.

Its authority and powers need to be understood, and I think that everybody understands that they are the regulator, but it’s most important that we understand that the regulator can make constructive decisions and move things ahead in a swift manner. It will be important to explore these changes in the committee and explore what difference they will make to the daily operation on the board.

Now, I do want to speak a little bit about the record on ride-hailing. When the current government, the NDP, originally committed to matching the previous B.C. Liberal government’s promise to introduce ride-hailing by Christmas of December 2017, they broke that promise within months of taking power. The NDP also broke their own promise of ride-hailing by the end of 2018, and they have made the path to ride-hailing as complicated as possible, creating obstacles and uncertainties for the ride-hailing industry in a way that no other jurisdiction has ever had.

I only say that, meaning that…. Recently, because of the pandemic, I was out of the country in an area where ride-hailing was utilized, and I couldn’t rent a vehicle for the week or ten days that I was there. I ended up using a ride-hailing service. To be honest, I had not used it before, and I have to say it was a pleasure to know when a vehicle was arriving, how much I was going to have to pay and the fact that after the trip, I could tip the driver and rate his service or cleanliness of vehicle. I find it’s very common sense, in terms of what it is today.

I think that there’s nothing restricting the taxi industry, and I think that they’ve been given ample opportunity and even, in some cases, have tried to enter into the business of being in the ride-hailing business on that. And I realize that it’s a software-driven approach, but they understand the drivers, the training and all of those things. And I don’t think that this is meant to be an exclusive for the brand-name ones.

I think that what’s important is that we make it so that there are competitive forces in British Columbia and that it’s not taxi companies against transportation network services. What it is, is that we’re looking towards the idea that we can make certain that there is healthy competition and not forgetting about the fact that we need accessible transit services for the people that have disabilities.

The official opposition has twice introduced a bill that would bring certainty for real ride-hailing and opportunity for the public to benefit and on a much quicker timeline. But both were dismissed by the NDP at both times, extending and delaying the process. Even once the ride-hailing companies were finally given the ability to operate in B.C., they have remained limited to a small list of regions, which has been expanded very little since.

I think that what you have to ask is what the plan was from 2017 when they were going to have ride-hailing in the province to where we are today, where there’s virtually just the few companies that were licensed three years ago that are now still in operation.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think it was kind of a wait-and-see approach, etc., especially since they’re the vehicle to fund the accessibility transportation that we’re talking about here in Bill 40.

While the NDP began collecting a fee for an accessibility fund, it’s taken them years to do anything with that money or take any real steps to improve accessibility in ride-hailing. Maybe the member from Chilliwack has a comment on that. Anyways, ride-hailing is available in every other part of the world, but the NDP has always made it as difficult as possible for British Columbians to have the same service as everyone else.

It’s also impacting affordability. The fact that people…. I mean, we’ve got them pigeonholed into whether they should be driving a taxi or whether their only job is driving an accessible vehicle, which limits their income, or whatever. Maybe they would like to be in the ride-hailing business. The bottom line is…. Clearly, there’s a need for this service, and the fact is that it does help increase people’s ability for affordability.

I just want to talk a little bit about the B.C. Liberals’ record on accessibility. I did mention that in the 2010 Olympics, it was a key priority to make certain that the games were as accessible as possible.

Expanding accessibility is incredibly vital. We are encouraged to see that it’s still being considered and, hopefully, successfully implemented in this bill. We’ve always believed that everyone has a role to play to ensure that people with disabilities have every opportunity to fully participate in society. It was something that members on this side of the House worked hard to advance when we were in government. In fact, it was under the B.C. Liberals that the accessibility secretariat was created and the first Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility was appointed.

We all take great pride in the former member for Surrey South in her new role as Canada’s Chief Accessibility Officer. I know that she has her work cut out for her. We have a lot of work to do, not just in Canada but in British Columbia, where she spent a lot of time advocating for that, as did the member for Courtenay-Comox.

We took substantial action to help support employment opportunities and financial security for people with disabilities, including being the first province to annualize earnings expectations for people with disabilities as well as the first province to fully exempt child support payments for families on income or disability assistance. Additionally, we increased asset limits for people on disability assistance from $5,000 to $100,000 for a single person and from $10,000 to $200,000 for a family where two people are on disability assistance.

It’s important…. We try and make improvements on a continual basis as we try to…. I know that this bill, Bill 40, goes towards making accessibility something…. Hopefully, it’s a thing of the past, in the sense that it’s just as easy to get an accessible ride as it is to find ride-hailing or a taxi.

People on disability assistance can now receive cash cards or inheritances with no impact on their assistance.

The simplified disability assistance application process for some people with disabilities, if they’d already qualified for comparable disability assistance programs….

Simplifying the process. I think one of the things that we can all agree on as MLAs is that it’s most challenging when we have to try and help people navigate through processes where they’ve already accomplished and applied and been recognized. On the other hand, we have a new agency, a new program or a new ministry, and the situation is that we don’t share that information and make it more easy for them to try to get through the process.

As of October 1, 2016, employment insurance maternity and paternal benefits and EI benefits for parents of critically ill children were now fully exempt for the people on income or disability assistance. B.C. was the second province, second only to Quebec, to implement these exemptions.

[3:05 p.m.]

We also released the How to Start and Manage a Registered Disability Savings Plan in B.C. guide. Also, technology at work has provided assistive technologies to more than 316 people.

The illustrated Building Access Handbook 2014, on access requirements in the 2012 B.C. building code, is now available online. I think that that is something that we all probably need to learn more about. I say that, having, years ago, been a member of the Kinsmen Club of British Columbia. I can tell you that G.F. Strong, which many of you still know today, and what we called the K.R.F. foundation worked together hand in hand to increase abilities for people that were working with disabilities.

I was amazed, some 35, 40 years ago, seeing people operating things through blow-straws and things like that, being able to change their lives. I think that this is important, when it comes to an accessible part of British Columbia, that Bill 40 addresses that and that we’re making certain that we are doing everything possible.

Again, I come back to the fact that this is three years in the making. We have the bill in front of us. We have the fees being collected. We have the fees going up, but we still don’t have a plan as to how we’re going to roll that out.

Back to some of the changes that we did. We put in the home renovation tax credit for up to $1,000 a year.

Deputy Speaker: Is it possible for the member to help the Chair understand the connection between what you’re talking about now and the current bill, just to try and make sure that we’re connecting on the transportation amendment act?

B. Stewart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that when it comes to Bill 40, it talks about accessibility. It is trying to deal with people that are disadvantaged through disabilities and being able to get accessible rides in the province. These other things are programs that, perhaps, maybe, need to still be looked at. We have a program, as I just said to you, that’s three years in the making. We now have Bill 40 in front of us, and we still don’t have the details as to how that’s going to impact their lives. I think that it directly impacts the issues around accessibility.

What I am just trying to say is that the bottom line is that there’s no reason that people that have those challenges are not getting a priority. I realize it takes time to work these things out. I mean, I’ve met with the taxi industry on many occasions. They have raised the question about the increased cost, the lack of equality in terms of what an accessible cab can earn in terms of the fact that — whether it carries as many people, costs more to operate, as I mentioned earlier, the insurance, the maintenance and just the capital cost. There’s a quantum difference between the two. Somebody buying an entry-point taxi in the business or even in the ride-hailing business….

I think that the relevancy of these things is that these are small, incremental improvements for people that struggle with disabilities, and we need to get better there. What I’m looking for in Bill 40…. I know that the minister and I will be talking about this in committee, but I’m hopeful that we’re going to get not only the fact that we’ve got the tools to being able to implement it, but what’s the timeline? When are we going to actually be able to help these people? We know that on January 1 the fees are going up, but we really don’t know when the fees are going to flow to the people that should be receiving them.

Other things, just in terms of accessibility, besides the fact that I mentioned that this is important to this side of the House. I think that there’s no question that we support the objectives of what is in Bill 40. We want to make certain that we get the money out the door to help the people that are operating the accessible cabs in the province. If we can do something like that, that’s what we want to make certain that we ensure that we do.

I think that I mentioned about the home renovation tax credit. We also proclaimed the third annual Disability Employment Month in September of 2016, and the third annual Registered Disability Savings Plan Awareness Month in October of 2016. Those are just in one year. We also proclaimed the second annual Aboriginal Disability Awareness Month in November of 2016. We partnered with the Rick Hansen Foundation to assess and provide accessibility ratings to more than 300 businesses and public spaces in the Lower Mainland for the PlanatTM website.

[3:10 p.m.]

Rick Hansen is another person that has shown what the abilities are of somebody that has struggled. I was fortunate, again, being with the Kinsmen. We were one of his sponsors as he toured across Canada. We know that he’s a household name, but he’s an incredible, iconic person that’s moving ahead. I know that in terms of what’s happened here, I’m sure the Rick Hansen Foundation, maybe even Rick Hansen, has been consulted to try to make certain that this works and how we can improve it. That’s the objective of Bill 40. Are we doing everything possible to make it so that we can make accessibility in terms of transportation to the level that it could be at? Are we willing to listen? Are we consulting?

I know the minister mentioned some of the people that have been consulted. But I think that a more fulsome list of other organizations that are out there that are trying to make certain that the world is more accessible for everybody. There’s an emergency planning guide that was done in consultation with the Disability Alliance of B.C. through emergency management B.C.

There’s no end to the number of issues for accessibility. The taxi industry. That’s just one. The ride-hailing or the handyDART is the second part of it. The reality is that we just need to do better. I would hope that this bill brings forward the opportunity for not only the Ministry of Transportation but other ministries to improve things so that the accessibility is improved through their actions.

The last thing I just want to mention is that the amendment…. I think that the minister mentioned that there is an amendment that’s coming forward. I’m glad that that came up during discussions. I did want to just make certain that we can work collectively on that. I look forward to reading that amendment sometime later this afternoon, as he mentioned that it was going to be on the order paper so that we could have a look at it and just make certain. It appears that there was….

It’s more of a timing issue about making certain when these funds can be released, so that there is an overlap between the OICs and when the Passenger Transportation Board takes over.

With that, I will look forward to other people that are interested in speaking in favor of accessibility in British Columbia and supporting Bill 40. I know that some of our members that are very active with their own taxi industries and their communities all across the province will want to have a chance to speak to that. Thanks very much and look forward to committee stage on Bill 40.

D. Coulter: I probably won’t take too long, but I just want to express what this bill means for me and people like me, but I’m having a little bit of trouble reading today. I’ve had eye surgery, so I won’t take that long.

I’m very proud of our government’s record. I’m very thankful to the minister and his staff for bringing this bill before the House, and I’m very proud of our government’s record on accessibility. We introduced the Accessible B.C. Act, which the minister referenced in his remarks as being part of the impetus to this bill. We’ve come a long way on accessibility.

Our government continues to work on accessibility every day. We have accessible roadside washrooms now for folks with mobility issues. We have accessible charging stations for folks who have electric cars. There are some accessible cabins I often talk about in the House, near where I live, at Cultus Lake, which are just wonderful.

I will say though, we don’t have the market cornered on accessibility. I will agree that the B.C. Liberals did have the first Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility. He was the former member from Abby South and then became Speaker. He was Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility for about five minutes. If someone were being cynical…. I’m sure none of us will be cynical, but if some of us were being cynical….

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m just putting that out there.

I wanted to give a few of my own experiences. Whistler was named a number of times in the previous speaker’s remarks, and we recently had a reason to be in Whistler, the UBCM AGM. Whistler is not a very accessible place. It has cobblestone streets. Most businesses, because they’re going for a certain look in Whistler, have entrances and exits that are on the side or rear of buildings, which are difficult to get to.

I myself stayed in an inaccessible hotel room. I won’t name the hotel, but they felt guilty, so they gave me a larger, inaccessible hotel room. I’ll tell you right now, I tried to call a cab one day, and the cab was going to be two hours to come and get me. So I’m just putting it out there. The 2010 Olympics did not make Whistler an accessible place.

You know, this type of bill means a lot for folks like me for the reason I just presented. A two-hour wait for a taxi is unacceptable. No one else would wait that long for a taxi, and it happens all the time to folks with disabilities where they have to wait a very long time for a taxi.

I referenced my eye surgery. I had a consult with the eye surgeon here in Victoria last Tuesday, and it was going to take an hour and a half for a cab to come pick me up from that consult. I was very lucky to be there with a friend who was able to push me back to the hotel beside the Legislature here. It was still probably a 35-minute haul just to get here.

So a bill like this would really mean a lot to folks like me who need this type of service. But it’s very difficult to also give this service. The vehicles are so expensive. For instance, you would buy a regular van. I’m going to say Toyota, because those usually make really good cabs, the Toyota vans. Then you have to take it to a place that has to modify it, and they have to cut the whole floor out of it and put a new pan into it, put heavier springs onto the vehicle and a ramp on the back. Sometimes they lift the roofs a little bit.

This is all very, very expensive work and isn’t done in a factory in an assembly-line-type situation where there’s some kind of economy of scale. This is done in smaller shops, and it tends to cost a lot of money. These vans are $100,000 or more for a wheelchair van, and this bill is going to help folks provide this service by helping them pay for that exorbitant cost of these vehicles.

Also, someone who is operating one of these vans obviously would only be able to do less trips in a day because of the loading and unloading of folks that use mobility devices into these vans. So this is a critical bill because it will subsidize folks’ wages who are doing this very important work in our community, and it’ll make that work more desirable for people to do it.

It’ll also make folks safer. I’ve taken a number of cabs in my time using a wheelchair. I’ve taken a number of cabs, and they’re rushing. They’re trying to really rush to get you in and out of the cab and to get the ride over so that they can go on to their next fare. It can be unsafe. Sometimes they forget to give you the seatbelts. Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they only rig three corners instead of four corners of your chair. Then I’m not going to…. Sometimes cab drivers drive a little fast, and it’s kind of bouncy in the back there, so that can be a danger too.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s not just Whistler and Victoria. Victoria is the capital of the province, and the cab service is not very good. I recently went to Gatineau for an Accessibility Standards Canada event. I saw the former member for Surrey South there, Canada’s new Chief Accessibility Officer. For her colleagues, she was looking quite well. I went there, and the cab service was awful, and I was there for an accessibility conference.

One evening the head of Accessibility Standards Canada took all the participants out for dinner. We ordered cabs. I was lucky to get into one of the early ones, so I made it for dinner. This woman from Ontario, who used a power chair, waited for a cab for three hours. Dinner was over by the time she got a cab, so she just went straight back to her hotel. That’s excluding people from full and equal participation in life, which is what our Accessible B.C. Act is about. It’s about identifying, removing and preventing barriers such as that.

Now, we got to our place for dinner, and we ate. My assistant, being on the ball, ordered the cab about an hour and a half before — basically ordering the cab as soon as we sat down for dinner — and they told us it would take an hour and a half to get there. At the hour-and-a-half mark, we made a call, and then they said, “It’s another hour,” and then maybe another hour after that. So we made the decision to use an Uber.

The cab service was a little bit better in Gatineau, but the Gatineau folks couldn’t drive to Ottawa to pick us up — an interprovincial, intercity kind of thing going on there. So we chose to use an Uber, and we were, thankfully, lucky enough to find a driver that had no problem sticking my wheelchair in his trunk. I think some Uber drivers wouldn’t do that. My assistant helped me into the cab, which is actually kind of dangerous for me and for him. There’s the potential that he could wrench his back or something. For me, there are also issues with that.

I was in Vancouver one time, and I ordered a wheelchair cab with my friend. They told me it would take an hour and a half to come. It was Vancouver on a Friday night. A lot of people go out in groups. They order the vans, and vans are kind of used up. So my friend and I made the decision to use a regular cab.

Well, we did the same thing we did with the Uber — went to get in. My foot went under the front seat a little bit, and as I was being lifted in, I guess my leg was wrenched in a certain way. About three days later my knee was about this size and beet red. I’d broken my leg, actually broken my leg getting into a cab. Then I had such a bad infection in it that I had to go to the hospital for IV antibiotics twice a day for a week.

Now, this bill is going to make life safer for British Columbians that require an accessible vehicle for transport. This is going to make it so that people can get to their medical appointments, go out with their friends, do a lot of other things. Often I drive my own car — I’m lucky enough to have my own accessible car — but I will tell you that if I had to use a cab exclusively, or some kind of mix of handyDART and cab, it would be very difficult to get to where I need to go on time.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think this bill is very important, and I hope that over time, this makes British Columbia a more accessible place. I think it will. I’m very, very proud of our government’s record on accessibility and the fact that we are moving forward with accessibility. We’ve passed the Accessible B.C. Act. We’ve worked on part 3 of that act this year, so we have the AccessibleBC plan. We have a provincial accessibility committee. We have a feedback mechanism, which we just launched.

I actually did an interview on Access Radio this morning about the accessibility feedback mechanism. You can find that on our government website if you would like to give the government feedback about the services it supplies, or even if you’re a public servant and would like to give feedback on the accessibility of your employer.

We also have the Accessible B.C. Regulation. That prescribes over 750 organizations to do what government is doing — to have an accessibility committee, have an accessibility plan and have an accessibility feedback mechanism. I think these types of actions are going to start to change the culture of accessibility, and I’m very, very proud of our record on accessibility.

We aren’t the only government that has put a premium on accessibility, but I’ll just say to the members not so opposite — I guess adjacent — to myself that we are working on this. I don’t know. I don’t want to be cynical, but they had two cabinet ministers that used wheelchairs and another one that was their caucus chair, and they didn’t do as much on accessibility as our government is doing. I’m proud of our record, and I will end it there.

R. Merrifield: I was listening to the last speeches and to the member for Chilliwack, who was talking about having, over the last 5½ years, done some committees and some plans. I heard the member for Kelowna West talk about our time in government as a lot of actions, and I’m not going to go through the full list of actions and all that we did to support accessibility. Suffice it to say the list that was read out by the member for Kelowna West was absolutely monstrous, and anything that the member for Chilliwack just said would pale in comparison to what was done under our time for government.

I am excited about the opportunity to rise today and continue debate on this Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, because I think we can all agree we need more transportation, and it needs to be accessible. One of the concerns that I have is that we want to ensure that this isn’t just about fees but about action and implementation. As you can see from the B.C. Liberal record that was read out, we are all about action. We’re all about implementation. We’re all about outcomes.

There are some vital and long-awaited changes in this bill that are really important and that are exciting, but we’ve also got some questions that we’re going to be tackling throughout committee stage to make sure that the details line up with the intention of this bill. This is about safety. We need more transportation, and we need more transit options.

It was less than a year ago that I received a very frantic phone call at about two o’clock in the morning. Now, my phone is off when I go to sleep, and there are only five phone numbers that can actually get through. Those are the phone numbers of my kids. But I got a frantic phone call from my daughter, who was out with a group of friends, and she said: “Ma, we’ve been waiting for almost two hours for a cab. We can’t seem to get one, and we’re scared. We’re being sort of followed.”

[3:30 p.m.]

I gave her directions to the police station, and I told her to wait there for me, as I could get there and give her a ride home.

We don’t have enough in Kelowna. In our riding, and alongside the members for both Kelowna–Lake Country and Kelowna West, we have been asking the Minister of Transportation for more ride-hailing options within our ridings, for more transit options within our ridings.

This legislation actually finally makes the changes to the Passenger Transportation Act that will authorize government not only to get more transit but, hopefully, utilize the fees that are being collected for more accessible transit. They’ve been collected, actually, since ride-hailing was very first introduced. But in the years that ride-hailing has operated, the ride-hail vehicles that are not wheelchair-accessible have been able to charge a 30-cent-per-trip fee, and that money has gone to the province for a passenger accessibility fund.

I’m asking the question: where’s the money? Where are the substantial actions — the actions that would mirror the monumental list of actions that the B.C. Liberals took — rather than just a fee that’s collected and put into a pot of money somewhere but that really hasn’t done anything to improve accessibility?

During an affordability crisis like we have on our hands today, being able to actually invest wisely and efficiently with money collected from consumers is really at top of mind for us as we examine this bill further.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We need to make sure that consumers pay for efficient delivery and action, not just money going into a pot, because according to this bill, this fee is going to increase by 200 percent, starting on January 1 of 2023, to 90 cents per trip.

Don’t get me wrong. It is critical, absolutely critical that people with disabilities have the right to the same transportation options as people without disabilities. And it’s really frustrating that for multiple years right now, the government has been collecting money that has not been used to actually distribute this. It has not been used for more accessible options. It has not been used to increase transit options for those that need accessibility.

In my former work as an employer and as a business owner in my community, we had several employees that required accessible transit to get to work. We ended up, as an employer, to arrange those rides because the transit system was so defunct in being able to provide the rides that were required.

After two terms and five years in government, well, it’s nice to see that this government is starting to take some actions. To quote the member for Chilliwack, they’ve got some committees and some plans, but we want to see action. We want to see implementation. We want to know what this program is going to look like that they’re using the fees for — these fees that have been collected over the course of the last three years.

I want to see tangible improvement. I want to know what the improvement is. What are the outcomes that are going to be measured? How are we actually going to make the transit system more equitable? Pat ourselves on the back because we collected a fee? I would hope not, because that’s just decreasing affordability without actually increasing anything by way of accessibility.

[3:35 p.m.]

While I celebrate this as an important and encouraging step, there are a lot of questions still out there, and there’s a lot of information that’s still going to be required about this legislation. I would say one of those questions is: why has it taken so long? Why has it taken this government two terms, almost six years, to actually create, again in the words of the member for Chilliwack, committees, plans and now a program?

Delays are too frequent with this government — great ideas but slow rollout and no measured outcomes on any of these programs. I’m concerned, because accessible transportation takes so much more money and so much more time.

I do appreciate the education that the member for Chilliwack gave us on how we actually have to modify a vehicle for accessible transport. It’s significant. It’s costly, and there does need to be some form of remuneration for this to take place. But then there’s also the time of the loading and off-loading. Again, we need our taxi system and our ride-hailing system to be adequately compensated.

I would urge us, through committee stage, to make sure that the changes make sense, that it will do what we want it to do, that we will do what we’re celebrating today, in terms of increasing accessibility. I hope that we will see this bill, this fee, these moneys actually increase accessibility and provide great results.

When we move into committee stage on this bill, we’re going to examine these changes. We’re going to look at how this amendment bill is going to help achieve the Select Standing Committee’s recommendations on whether ride-hailing company drivers of wheelchair accessible vehicles will receive a trip bonus or how a certain percentage of ride-hailing vehicles on the road will be accessible.

Yes, in Kelowna, you have to wait for a taxi. We have very, very few options in terms of ride-hailing and have not been allowed to have Uber come to our city. But it’s even longer for those that have special requirements for accessibility. The member talks about two hours and three hours — that could be four hours or never in Kelowna.

So will this actually help us get more accessible vehicles on the road? How will we measure that number, and will we be able to change trajectory if that number isn’t sufficient, if it doesn’t achieve the outcome that we desired? We need to make sure that this fee is used for the outcome of increased accessibility.

We also look forward to examining how this bill is going to support our taxi industry, because, yes, ride-hailing is one thing, but we also need to support the taxi industry, which is mandated to have a certain number of accessible taxis on the road through their licence, a requirement that doesn’t exist for ride-hail companies. How are we going to remunerate the taxi companies? Wow. While we want to see more ride-hailing available for British Columbians, supporting our taxi industry and making sure that they are up to date on services is critical.

The population of Kelowna over the course of this last couple of years has increased by almost 10 percent. It’s a massive population increase, and there simply are not enough taxis or ride-hailing cars on the road right now. Yes, many take transit, but transit is limited in the routes and the time frames.

Aside from the core of this bill, which really concerns accessibility, we also note that this legislation makes several changes to the Passenger Transportation Board. Why? Why is it being changed? Why is it expanding its authority and its powers? How will it be used? Will it be used to expedite change? Will it be used to be a bureaucratic hinderance?

[3:40 p.m.]

We need to explore this. We need to understand this. My hope is that this expansion of authority and powers will actually be used positively to enhance the speed and the time at which things can be expedited. It’s going to be important to explore these changes in committee stage and to understand what kind of differences these are going to make in the daily operation of the board.

We’ve seen some boards fail over the course of this last year, so it’s okay if we’re not completely trusting. We don’t want a board wholeheartedly fired like B.C. Housing. We want to make sure that this board is given the best chance for success. Through committee stage, we’ll explore this and make sure that this is the intention and the outcome. We need to make sure that British Columbians are always at the centre and focus of what we do.

Accessibility within the taxi and ride-hailing industry is absolutely vital, because we want to connect with each other, we want to be with each other, but we also need to live and work. Transportation needs to be a top priority. Transportation infrastructure needs to be a top priority, especially for those that have disabilities.

This is a long time coming. The NDP originally committed to the previous B.C. Liberals’ promise to introduce ride-hailing by Christmas of 2017. Well, it is 2022 — almost the end of the year of 2022 — and this is nothing more than a broken promise in Kelowna. The NDP then broke their next promise of ride-hailing by the end of 2018.

This is a huge issue for Kelownaites. I get asked regularly about when we are going to see the larger ride-hailing companies actually arrive. It is desperately needed, but this NDP government has made the path to ride-hailing as complicated as possible and has done nothing but create obstacles and uncertainties for the entire industry in a way that no other jurisdiction ever had.

This takes me back to the passenger transportation board and the expansion of their authority and powers. If these are going to be used to create more complexity and bog the system down even further, well, that simply would not be a good use of power.

Getting taxis are incredibly difficult. I hope you never have to get a taxi in Vancouver in the rain. It’s almost impossible. Coming back, before becoming an MLA, from a speaking engagement…. Well, I can tell you that hiking that hour-and-20-minute walk, ruining a great pair of shoes…. It’s dangerous walking alone in the dark and in the rain.

We understand this. It’s why we, as the official opposition, have twice introduced a bill that would bring certainty for ride-hailing companies and opportunity for the public to benefit on a much quicker timeline. You would think that if this is the goal of this House, it would be widely accepted. But the NDP have dismissed it both times and have done nothing but extend and delay the process.

Even once ride-hailing companies were finally given the ability to operate in B.C., well, they remained limited to a small list of regions, which have been expanded very little since, which is why Kelowna is still without any of the larger players.

[3:45 p.m.]

While the NDP has been collecting a fee for this accessibility fund, we have yet to see where it is. How much is in there? Why has it taken them years to do anything with this money? I believe that we all acknowledge that accessibility, and accessibility and transit, is a huge issue. So what gives us faith or trust now that raising this fee by 200 percent will actually result in anything different than what we currently see, which is nothing? I want to know what those outcomes…. What are the tangible measured outcomes for this money?

Ride-hailing. It’s available everywhere else in the world. In 2018, a year after the NDP had promised ride-hailing, I had the privilege to visit my spouse’s family in Portugal. Uber was everywhere. One of our Uber drivers we got into a great conversation with…. Turns out he was a brand-new lawyer, just graduated from law school, and he was using his Uber licence to actually practise English and pay off his student loans. Why is this so possible in every other area of the world, yet we seem to just have our feet in quicksand here in B.C.?

I could go through and list off how important accessibility is to this side of the House and the B.C. Liberals. It’s one of the things that’s given me such confidence in who we are, in me and my ability to actually stand up for and voice those that have accessibility needs, because we have had a record of supporting initiatives, plans, actions that have really impacted people’s lives. We do believe that expanding accessibility is vital, so we’re encouraged to see that this is being considered, that this is something that we’re talking about in the House.

But we don’t want just talk. We want action. We want change. We want an increase in accessibility in both taxis and ride-hailing. It is something that members on this side of the House — maybe not me, because I’ve only been here for a couple of years, but many of our members who have been here much longer than I in government — have had the privilege to change the trajectory and, yes, be educated by those members that have had accessibility challenges.

It was under the B.C. Liberals that the accessibility secretariat was first created and the first Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility was appointed. But I’d also like to acknowledge that it was from this side of the House that the first-ever Chief Accessibility Officer for Canada was chosen. So I have to commend the B.C. Liberals for the calibre of our advocacy, for the calibre of our actions, for the calibre of our change, because it has been noticed not only in B.C. but in Canada, on a world stage.

While my friend and colleague from Kelowna West has gone through a comprehensive list…. I won’t take us through the full list, but I will say that this bill directly affects accessibility if it is written correctly and if it is detailed in a way that makes those outcomes possible. But if not, it will simply become one more of the plans or committees or conversations that the member for Chilliwack mentioned.

Hopefully, it will actually become part of the action or activity that has been a part of the B.C. Liberal government. Things like supporting employment opportunities and financial security for people with disabilities. Things like simplifying the disability assistance application process. Action, significant action, that actually changes the life of someone with accessibility challenges.

[3:50 p.m.]

Also, technology at work has already provided assistive technologies to more than 316 people — tangible action changing someone’s life. I can assure you that if Bill 40 does that, it will be tangible action that will absolutely affect someone that needs accessibility in life and transportation.

My hope is that as we get into the details, as we get into committee stage and as we get into the questions and answers, we’ll see what outcomes we can count on, what outcomes will be measured and what outcomes will actually be part of this bill’s promotion, because if it’s not, then all we have is a fee being collected into a pot that has not yet done anything, which is exactly where we are today.

Hon. N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to stand in support of this legislation because of the effects it will have on our transportation system and the benefits that will be derived by those who require vehicles that are accessible to deal with various mobility challenges. I think it speaks to our ongoing efforts as a government to further our work to make British Columbia a more accessible province, work that started as soon as we were elected with changes to income support programs and changes to legislation.

In fact, the introduction and the passing of the Accessible B.C. Act, something that had been called for by members of the public for a considerable amount of time before we finally got elected…. We accomplished that in 2020, with the great support of the accessibility secretariat, which I think is extremely pleased with the work that we’re continuing to do to make British Columbia a more accessible place for everyone.

This is important — that in the area of transportation, people who require transportation, in terms of ride-hailing or taxis, have the ability to access those vehicles that are modified. They’re expensive to maintain.

With the new platforms for ride-hailing, we’ve seen a reduction in the proportion of vehicles that are accessible, and this is an important step towards addressing that lack. Drivers who have vehicles that are modified spend more on the upkeep and maintenance required. We’re trying to ensure that there’s an incentive and that there are supports to those drivers to continue offering essential transportation services to individuals in British Columbia.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that despite what the previous member was saying about the accomplishments of the B.C. Liberals, we have to remember that it was the B.C. Liberals that did a review of everyone who was in receipt of disability. Over 4,000 people had to resubmit all their forms in order to prove that they continued to have a disability.

That caused great stress and anxiety and grief among British Columbians. It was a mean-spirited act that was then followed by ten years of absolutely no increase to the B.C. disability assistance rates. When they finally did go up $62, they implemented a bus pass fee that clawed 80 percent of that back.

I think that the record of the B. C. Liberals on this file was not something to be proud of. I’m glad that we’ve passed the Accessible B.C. Act, which has the support of members of the community from all across British Columbia. It signifies our commitment to ensure that British Columbia has a straightforward and careful and comprehensive approach to addressing accessibility issues in British Columbia.

[3:55 p.m.]

The legislation is being implemented with the assistance of members of the community and various disability rights organizations.

I would also point out that in terms of disability supports, we’ve extended the period of time that people live together before being considered a couple. The B.C. Liberals said it was three months. We’ve extended that to a year. We’ve expanded the earning exemptions for people with disabilities.

I would be the first to agree that more work needs to be done. There is never any doubt about that. That work is being done by this government, and I think the legislation before us today is evidence of that. We are confident that this will accomplish the goal of increasing the number of vehicles that are available to people who require mobility vehicles that are accessible.

I think that the questions that members opposite have are obviously going to be asked during committee stage. I’m sure the Minister of Transportation will be able to provide reassuring answers, and we will see continued support for this legislation. I expect it to be in effect as soon as practicable and that we will increase the amount of transportation options available to people wherever they live in British Columbia.

With that, I’m happy to support this legislation, and I’m glad to see that members on the other side have been indicating support. Misrepresenting, perhaps, their record in government, but that’s part of the job of opposition: to try to let people in the province forget about their previous actions. But it’s part of our responsibility to ensure that people don’t forget and that they can see actions being taken now, and those actions are ones that will help the community.

T. Halford: I want to thank the previous speakers before me and especially the member for Chilliwack. I’ll speak on his words in a second.

I will point out this, because I think it’s important. The previous speaker, the Minister of Social Development, made some remarks, and I will point out very clearly that it is this NDP government that is taking away funds from children with autism and clawing that back — money that families need, families deserve and families have fought for. When I have to stand in the rain with parents day in and day out, and this minister, this cabinet, this Premier will not meet with them…. I think it’s absolutely shameful for this minister to get up and tout their record. This minister should speak….

Interjection.

T. Halford: This minister can ramble on all he wants, but at the end of the day, he just sawed off his political attack. And I will say one thing. If this minister has the courage to stand in front of parents of children with autism and listen to their concerns, then maybe that would be a good start.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member that we are speaking to Bill 40.

Thank you to the other members who gave input, but the Chair is quite aware of what we’re discussing.

T. Halford: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll speak to the bill.

I think it’s important that we stand up for individuals with disabilities, individuals with accessibility challenges. I did listen to the remarks from the member for Chilliwack, and it was an important conversation that he was having in this House. The fact that he suffered an injury like he did trying to get access to transportation, I think, is a damning indictment on where we are with accessibility. That was the first time I heard that story, and it was obviously a very traumatic experience that that he endured. That is truly, truly unfortunate.

I will say that my friend and my former colleague the member for Surrey South, Stephanie Cadieux, was transformational in what she fought for, for accessibility. And I don’t think that the member for Chilliwack was attempting to dissuade people of that notion.

[4:00 p.m.]

Knowing that former member as well as I do and watching her enter this House in 2009 and the changes that happened within this House because of her presence…. Then we had other members on both sides of the House that came in with accessibility challenges. I think that this building is better because of it.

I think those are important steps. I don’t think…. You know, titles are important, but Stephanie did not need a title behind her name to make that change. That’s a change that she’s going to fight for every single day. She’s, obviously, got a massive platform where she is right now to make those changes. I think members on both sides of the House will do everything possible to support her on that.

The member from Chilliwack spoke about Whistler. I think the previous UBCM, in 2022, was in Whistler.

A UBCM before that, a couple of years ago…. I was there in my previous life. I was attending a reception that the former member for Surrey South couldn’t attend. She couldn’t get her chair in. I think a number of her colleagues and, I think, my colleague to my immediate right made the decision that they were going to support her and also not attend that reception. I don’t think that there was any ill towards the organizers. I just think that it wasn’t properly thought out.

I can tell you the amount of times that the former member had issues with hotels when she was travelling for Public Accounts or the Finance Committee, being in very remote areas of this province and having to wait hours for transportation, if that transportation even existed. In many cases, she would wait a couple of hours and then find out it did not exist. She was then forced to, with assistance, try and find other means.

As we’ve heard before from the previous speaker from Chilliwack, those other means can be quite dangerous, whether you’re having to, all of a sudden, then modify…. I know in Stephanie’s case, she was trying to assist herself into a car that wasn’t manufactured or altered for accessibility. That is not something, in this day and age, no matter where you are in the province, that an individual with those challenges should be facing.

If we look at all of our communities…. In every community, there are challenges with accessibility.

In my riding — I’ll focus on White Rock for a second — we have a lot of seniors that have mobility issues. One of the challenges that they had, when it was time for them to get their vaccinations at the South Surrey recreational centre, was…. There was not adequate public transportation to that facility, and they were using ride-hailing.

When you’re dealing with seniors that are going to get vaccinations…. It was, obviously, a very apprehensive time for them to go, given the current circumstances. This is another added layer of stress. It’s another added layer of cost.

I think something we all have to consider when dealing with our constituents is the challenges that they face, day in and day out, in terms of how they are going to access British Columbia. I think that this legislation…. This Bill 40 is, hopefully, an attempt to get to a better place.

When we have communities…. We talk about the importance of inclusivity. We really have to take a step back and think about what that means. It means that there’s a place for all.

When you think about the stress and having to not be able to be as spontaneous as one would like…. I know, from having friends that have accessibility issues, and I include my former colleague Stephanie in that, that you can’t all of a sudden make a decision that you want to go out in downtown Vancouver and hail a taxi. That’s a challenge.

[4:05 p.m.]

That’s one where you almost have to have that planned out a day in advance or hours in advance. How are you going to access…? How are you going to get to different things, whether it’s a concert, a football game, a Canucks game or your child’s play at school?

It’s not only the individual that has to take this on; it’s also the family. I remember four years ago. It was my son Ben’s birthday. At that time, both my grandparents were able to live at home, but they were in wheelchairs. We were able to, the day before, make sure that we had ordered a wheelchair-assisted vehicle and for a specific time. They also lived in South Surrey, but that vehicle was 45 minutes late. Then you have to have a specific time when they’re going to get picked up. Again, it actually was worse, as the vehicle didn’t show up. We were then in a position where we had to get my grandparents and safely get them into another car.

It’s a very, very unfortunate event that I think British Columbians deal with day in and day out that we don’t fully realize. It’s something, I think, that’s vitally important when we’re talking about transportation. People need to be able to access all areas of this province. There should not be any barriers, whether it’s a car, whether it’s a hotel or whether it’s a plane. I know the member from Chilliwack has spoken on this and others have in the past, and I will say that we need to make sure that we are doing everything possible to make this province more accessible.

When you look at the fact that 30 cents from every trip was going into this fund…. My colleague spoke about some questions on not knowing the amounts and what was generated in the fund. I think those are important questions, and I’m sure the minister will be very capable of answering those in committee. And moving this up, on January 1of 2023, to…. I think it’s a 200-percent increase to 90 cents.

That’s important for the fact that we have to be able to plan for what’s coming up. We have a very aging society. I know I spoke about White Rock and South Surrey. Not all public transportation is accessible transportation, right? It hasn’t been for a while.

We need to do everything we can to ensure that people that choose ride-hailing have that option, just like myself or other colleagues in this House would, and that they can depend on that. It’s not a luxury. It’s something that is there. It’s something that they can actually depend on, and when they call, they know that somebody is going to be there. They’re not going to be standing or sitting or in any position for two hours waiting for assistance. They know that they’re going to be in a place where they can actually get help.

Even from Peace Arch Hospital, where somebody has been on crutches and they need the assistance to get from one place to another, and they’re dependent on a vehicle to get them from the emergency to their home, there is not always somebody there to pick them up.

I think that this is a conversation we need to have. I think all members have talked about the cost that is associated with these vehicles, and I think the cost is something that is vitally important. I think to structure a vehicle like this…. I’m not educated enough on the exact cost, but I would defer to what the member from Chilliwack laid out. It’s not simple. I know that there are a number of families that have obviously had to make those changes to their vehicles as well.

I would hope that this change here would give us adequate reason to believe that we’re going in a direction where we’re going to have more choice on the roads for people with accessibility issues.

[4:10 p.m.]

When we move into committee stage, I think it’s important that we talk about the structure and what this legislation would do. I know that we did talk about the fact…. It does take, obviously, considerable more effort, on these vehicles, for the person that’s operating these vehicles to do the pickup and drop-off. I fully acknowledge that we would not want that to be a disincentive.

When people get into a cab or ride-hailing service, they are dependent on the person operating that. We need to ensure that there are structures put in place to make sure that they’re also supported. That is, fundamentally, how we move forward. I think that we need to make sure that the people accessing these vehicles are supported. We also need to make sure that the people operating these vehicles are very supported. I think that’s important as well.

We talk about, and we’ll examine this in committee stage, the mandate to have a certain number of accessible taxis on the road, through a licence, a requirement that currently does not exist for all ride-hail companies. Obviously, I spoke about my former colleague. When she was up…. I forget the town, but I think it was a rural community. When she was on either Finance or Public Accounts, there wasn’t a ride-hailing service available for her that was accessible.

Will there be different standards in different towns based on population, based on time? I think those are all things that need to be examined and talked about in committee.

We also have to look at more equitable ways for those that are looking to access additional transportation options. I think that’s vitally important. I talked about the seniors in my riding that were using these services to get their vaccinations. There wasn’t the public transportation that they could depend on, at the certain time that they were going through, in order to get their COVID vaccinations. I imagine the same thing will be coming at us when they’re getting their flu shots.

We talk about looking forward to exploring how this amendment bill will encourage owners of existing accessible vehicles, which often sit idle during the day…. They could be used to earn income for the owners or leased to other drivers who work for ride-hailing companies.

This underscores my previous point. We need more. I think that this has, obviously, been a shortfall for a number of years. This isn’t something new. I think this is something that, obviously, the government has been looking at and examining, well, since they brought in the changes.

I think it’s important for people to see a path to a system that will have more choice. When we talk about…. The fact is…. Because you suffer from a disability or you have accessibility challenges, you should not be limited on what you do in this province, whether it’s going to vote, whether it’s going to get your vaccination or, as my colleague just spoke about, whether it’s going to work and the impacts that that would have and the challenges that come with that.

Maybe you’re not able to modify your own personal vehicle and you are dependent. Maybe, where you work, you do not have public transportation or accessible public transportation. So does that mean that that individual should not be able to go to their place of employment or university or school or programs? Or maybe it’s going to the recreational facility. We have to look at it from the costs that bear on them.

I am hoping that this is a step in the right direction. It certainly does look that way. But we need to make sure that we are always looking at ways that we can do more.

[4:15 p.m.]

When we talk about…. The fact is that we have so many people that are aging in this province and we have so many buildings that still need to be deemed accessible. We’re nowhere near where we need to be. That, obviously, does include the transportation sector as well. We need to make sure that we are evolving with that, and it needs to be done in a competitive way.

I can tell you. When you do rely on this mode of transportation, oftentimes it can be met with uncertainty when you do call. They’ll say: “Well, you know what? We don’t have one available.” They’re allowed to say that, right? If they do give you one that’s available, you have no certainty that it is going to show up and it is going to be there.

What does that mean for the other person on the end? They may miss that birthday party. They may be late or unable to get to work that day. They may miss their vaccination appointment, their flu shot. Or maybe they miss their chance, when they were actually going to go and vote. These are all important things that people are entitled to do. I’ve said it again. People should be able to access British Columbia any way they deem.

Like I said, I think this is a step in the right direction. I will say…. I understand that this is uncomfortable for members on the other side of the House. To be honest, it should be. It’s almost embarrassing. There are people with autism that are in wheelchairs. I know them. They’re in my community. Oftentimes they need to depend on ride-sharing to get from A to B. The parents don’t have a vehicle that can equip that, or maybe that parent is working. Individualized funding can often help with those things, especially if there is another transportation, whether it’s ride-hailing….

I know it’s uncomfortable to link the two. But if you’re going to stand up and be righteous about all the things that this government has, reportedly, done for people with disabilities…. Well, sometimes the truth hurts. When you turn your back on an entire community like autism, like they have done….

I think, when you’re looking at things like Bill 40, you have to think about how that encompasses that. Do people that are using ride-hailing services…? Some of them that are using accessibility ride-hailing services have autism. Some of them use their individualized funding for those fares. That’s a fact, an uncomfortable fact.

I’d be embarrassed, if I was the minister responsible, for taking away individualized funding from kids, but that is a fact. I’d also be embarrassed if I couldn’t even take a meeting with parents, but that is also a fact.

Interjection.

T. Halford: You can “wow” all you want, but it’s true. It’s sad, but that’s the way that this government — in particular, this minister — operates.

With that, I will conclude my remarks on Bill 40.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Sorry, Madam Chair. I thought maybe the minister was getting up to speak.

I rise to speak to Bill 40, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act.

This is a bill that takes care of a few changes needed as it relates to ride-sharing, ride-hailing, TNCs, whatever we want to call them. I think it’s safe to say most people in B.C. have been happy with the rollout in the cities that it’s been allowed in and disappointed that it hasn’t been allowed in other areas of the province.

I was on the all-party committee that looked at this situation. In fact, the former member for Surrey South, who we’ve heard a lot about here today, and rightfully so, was on that committee as well.

[4:20 p.m.]

There was very much an awareness around the issues around accessibility, as it relates to ride-hailing and what steps could be recommended, or not, when the committee did their work and brought forward the recommendations to government to try to find a way forward to get rules in place.

There was a lot of discussion around whether or not to have a fee, whether or not to have a prescribed number that each ride-hailing company would have to have for accessible units.

My recollection of those discussions, though, was that given that it’s a very fluid nature — the numbers of vehicles that are in operation at any given time with something like a ride-hailing company — it would make it very tough to try to have a finite number, a prescribed number, of accessible vehicles on the road at any given time, unlike a traditional taxi licence that’s attached to a very firm number of taxis.

The thought was — and that’s what gets us to Bill 40 here today — to have that fee for the rides so that it would go into a fund. That was intended to try to help taxi operators or ride-hail operators that have accessible vehicles to have a pot of money to be able to draw from for those expensive modifications and repair and maintenance things that need to happen on a regular basis on accessible cabs.

I know in Kamloops’s case, there are a lot of times where the accessible cab, although it’s part of the licence, is out of service for repairs. It makes it very tough.

When I travelled with the member for Surrey South not just for the ride-hailing committee but also on the Finance Committee with her for a couple of years, we would literally…. The Clerk’s office would organize transportation for us as we flew into a small northern town, usually. I would be waiting with the member for the accessible vehicle that was supposed to come, only to find out there is no accessible vehicle in that town, and a lot of times the vehicle that was arranged for transportation simply was not suitable.

There were many times where I would sit with the member from Surrey, and we’d wait and wait and wait for something like a Toyota Matrix–type size of vehicle to arrive so that I could help her get in and out and help her with her chair.

A lot of times the airports were closed by the time we got in late at night. It was winter, it was cold, and we were just sitting there. Now, imagine, without the backing of the Clerks and the Hansard people that were travelling at the time with us, phoning and trying to help that situation…. Imagine a person just travelling on their own — and they should have a right to be able to travel on their own in this province — trying to find themselves an accessible vehicle.

That really did lead into the conversations around the ride-hail committee looking into the rules that should be needed for the fee. It was seen as a way to try to advance accessibility for transportation options, not just in major metro areas but across the province, because there are a lot of small towns where they do have a taxi — a taxi — but that doesn’t make it an accessible taxi.

The thought is that they should be able to tap into these funds to change that taxi to an accessible taxi to broaden the ability for the public, even in those smaller towns, to have access to equal and fair transportation options to get themselves around. A lot of times it is for medical appointments and things of that nature. They’re literally going from, say, Barriere into Kamloops, 65 or 70 kilometres for a medical appointment, but they need that accessible vehicle.

So when I look at this bill and I think of the timeline that got us here — almost six years later from when this was first being discussed as a ride-hailing option — it’s disappointing, I guess, to see that it has taken this long to get forward these latest amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act.

[4:25 p.m.]

One thing is very clear. As I said at the beginning, ride-hailing seems to be working and well received in the few cities that it has been allowed to take place in. But it has been turned down in more cities than it has been approved in, and it’s creating weird end runs, with ride-hail companies trying to now acquire other ride-hail companies that were too small to operate but got a licence. The bigger company didn’t get a licence, so they weren’t able to operate.

So when I read through Bill 40…. I’ll touch on more about the fee for accessible, but there are also a lot of clauses in this that are dealing more specifically with the transportation board and their handling of applications for licences. I just don’t want that to get lost in all the conversation. It’s absolutely critical that we have thorough and thoughtful conversations around the accessibility issues and the challenges people have and how they are going to be able to access the fund. We’ll certainly canvass that when we get to committee stage in terms of the overall funding source.

It’s also important that we actually have a properly functioning transportation system of a mix of taxis and ride-hailing companies, because without that…. That’s the missing piece that we need to have. That’s what connects a lot of people, even in urban areas, to the major transportation options that they have and to the bus networks and to the SkyTrain networks. If this was a telecom discussion, we’d be talking about that last mile of connectivity. That’s what a lot of these services provide to people. Then when you get into more remote rural areas, when transportation options like buses aren’t even an option, it’s the only way people have to get around.

As we see an aging population, as we see more technology come on that’s easily acquired by people that have mobility challenges, it’s important that our transportation network be adapted to accommodate things like the medical scooters and the wheelchairs and the assists that people have. And that’s why the fund…. We don’t take a great issue with it going to 90 cents a ride at this point from 30 cents a ride. The bigger question is: what the heck is taking so long to roll the dollars out?

Now, to be fair, we had COVID hit just as things were getting underway. We’ve really only had about a year or year and a half of actually what you would consider heavier use of ride-hailing because of the initial delay to get ride-hailing implemented in the first place. And I say that it’s a delay because if you think of it, back in March of 2017, when we were still in government, we had announced our plans around bringing in ride-hailing, our plans for supports to help modernize the taxi industry to make sure that they can stay competitive, to make sure that the full transportation options were available to the travelling public while trying to minimize the impact to existing operators as best as possible.

Then in May of that year, the NDP made a similar commitment in their election platform of 2017, but it wasn’t until July of 2019 that we actually got the regulations in front of us. Here we are, almost three years later, finally making some amendments to a piece of legislation that obviously hasn’t resulted in the uptake and the supply of vehicles on the road that were first envisioned. That’s disappointing, because that could be the piece. That could be another critical piece, especially on the accessible access point, that can be a game-changer for people.

It serves no purpose to be charging 30 cents or 90 cents per ride if there are so few licences out there actually charging it that we have $32.95 sitting in a bank account somewhere. That’s not going to help the industry be able to modernize and create accessible, well-maintained transportation options, either in taxis or in ride-hailing cars and vans.

[4:30 p.m.]

The NDP government hired a consultant for $190,000 to do a report on ride-hailing, but they haven’t put that much money into this fund, even. Consultants seem to always get paid very well when it comes to the NDP, but the actual deliverable of what the committee talked about, what the public talked about….

I will say it wasn’t just the committee talking about the need for accessibility. It was presentation after presentation. My friend from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky was on the committee with me as well, when we got those presentations. It wasn’t an afterthought. In fact, one of the main discussion points of that committee was on how to deal with the accessibility challenges needed to be met in this province — with an aging demographic, especially.

It’s a little disappointing that we’re here three years later, finally dealing with this and having to make amendments to the bill. You know, there’s clause 5: “…amends the test the board must apply in determining whether to approve an application for a licence by requiring the board to consider, as the first part of the test, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to provide the service and is capable to provide the service, and to consider the other parts of the test only if the first part is met.”

There are actual amendments to the act in this on what the Passenger Transportation Board is needing to do as they adjudicate potential licenses coming forward, as they adjudicate renewals or not and whether or not they will allow that renewal to happen or not.

When we get to committee stage on this bill, it’ll be important to understand why this was missed in the first place, what types of problems have been created by not having these amendments in place over the last three years, and whether or not that’s why we’re seeing an inability for these companies to get licensed and actually operate in the vast majority of cities in this province.

It’s good to update and modernize legislation when it’s needed, but it does make one question, when it’s only a three-year-old piece of legislation, why it was missed three years ago, when it was brought forward; why it was missed, despite having an all-party committee issue a 43-page report full of recommendations and guidance to the government to create the structure; why it was missed, with that report provided by the all-party committee, layered with the $190,000 Hara Associates report; why these amendments were missed then; and the impact they have had by being missed for three years.

We consulted heavily with the taxi industry back then. How could this all be missed — based on what they were seeing and their impacts: their concerns around licensing and the process around the Passenger Transportation Board being the adjudicator? We heard greatly from the ride-hailing companies then, too. Again, why were these amendments missed three years ago, when the first piece of legislation was brought forward to enable ride-hailing in the province?

If it corrects the error and we start to see more capacity in the system around the province, that’ll be a good thing, but only if those funds that are supposed to be going into this accessibility fund are generating enough dollars that the existing taxi industry — which does have to provide accessible cabs, as part of their licensing structure — has the ability to tap into a fund that has enough money in it to actually be helpful.

[4:35 p.m.]

With only ride-hailing companies paying in, their customers paying in the 30 cents right now, soon to be 90 cents a ride, I’m not sure if the government’s intention is to just simply triple the amount of money coming in by tripling the fee without adding any more capacity to the system.

Now, if they tripled the fee and added some more licensing and some more operators into the system, you would probably start to have enough funds to have a meaningful difference on accessibility for people and access to the vehicles they need to be able to get around. Again, we’ll have to wait until committee stage for that side of it.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Now, as I say, this bill, although light with sections, is certainly not the shortest bill we’ve had but is far from being the longest, when you consider Bill 36, at 645 clauses. It certainly has enough to it that it will require a little bit of thought and care by the minister as we get to committee stage, as we probe those clauses, the consequence that these clauses will have, either intended or unintended, because a lot of times that’s what we find.

I say that because, frankly, even as opposition, I haven’t gone back through the transcripts to read the debate when we first brought in the ride-hailing legislation, whether we were raising alarms around some of these clauses back then. If we missed it, that’s unfortunate. Sometimes we miss it because we get things like time allocation put on bills. The government tells us: “We’re done debating it. Move on.” This could have been in one of those packages — the original bill that has led us to Bill 40, with all of these amendments now. That’s the risk you run when you rush through legislation in this place.

We only have a clause or two dealing with the actual fee and the redistribution of the fee. The rest of the clauses and the five or six pages’ worth of the bill are actually changing how the Passenger Transportation Board is to deal with applications, licences and decision-making as to whether things get approved or not.

Again, clause 5: “Section 28 (1) is repealed and the following substituted: (1) The board may approve, in whole or in part, an application forwarded to the board under section 26 (1) [other licence applications] after considering the following: “(a) whether the applicant (i) is a fit and proper person to provide the service the applicant proposes to provide under the special authorization, and (ii) is capable of providing the service.”

Then: “(b) if the board considers that the applicant is a fit and proper person to provide the service and is capable of providing the service, (i) whether there is a public need for the service, and (ii) whether the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation industry in British Columbia.” Now, that sounds like a pretty fundamentally big piece of what constitutes an approvable licence application or not, and has been missed for the last three years.

When you read that section, when you read section 4 ahead of it — which is simplifying a provision, based on the description of the clause — and then clause 6, which clarifies the board’s authority and simplifies a provision, it’s no wonder that we haven’t seen very many licences approved in British Columbia and that have actually operated, because there’s a big difference. I know that in the case of Kamloops, we’ve had licences approved. They never really operated, so no real benefit to the community.

[4:40 p.m.]

You have a taxi industry that’s nervous, wondering what’s going on with these ride-hailing licences that have been approved but are not fully operational. They’re hesitant to try to apply to get more licences. Yet they’re the ones that have to actually provide the accessible transportation options as a condition of their licence, but there’s no fund for them from the province to tap into, because it’s funded by ride-hailing passengers that don’t have a vehicle to call.

The premise of going from 30 cents to 90 cents is understandable. The problem, as with most things with this NDP government, is that it’s the execution that seems to be sorely lacking. The accountability and the tracking, in any type of metric to judge whether things are working well or not, is missing. We’ve not heard any clear understanding of how many dollars are even in this accessibility fund. It doesn’t appear that there’s a thorough or well-thought-out way to distribute and apply for said funds.

Here we are, three years after the fact, with a bill that’s supposed to be updating things in an industry that has floundered for three years. Only in B.C. could the NDP meddle with something as open-source as ride-hailing, to the degree that they have, that we don’t really have it, except in a couple of cities. It has put negative pressure on the taxi industry at the same time. That’s the problem: a taxi industry that, by law, has to provide accessible transportation options, but there’s no fund for them currently to meaningfully tap into.

As I say, the government had no problem finding $191,000 to pay a consultant to do a report. The $191,000 would have been a good start to an accessibility fund — to get more accessible cabs on the road, to encourage ride-hailing companies to have their own accessible cars. In this day and age, vans are very expensive — let alone modified; let alone the regular certification you need to do. Most cities have an age limit on vehicles that can be in service. It gets to be very expensive, and they’re very expensive to repair and maintain.

That’s why a lot of them aren’t on the road: they break down a lot. When it’s the middle of winter, it’s 25 below out, and you’re waiting for your accessible taxi…. We heard the member for Chilliwack talk about ordering one for an hour and a half ahead of time and then finding out at the 1½-hour point that it was still at least an hour away. Imagine trying to do that on a New Year’s Eve when it’s 30 below and the establishment you’re in says they’re closed. You’ve got to wait outside.

For the members that think that that doesn’t happen, it happens fairly regularly on weekends. Be it in rain, or be it in snow and cold, people should have the right — and they expect the right — to be able to reasonably order a transportation option, regardless of what accessibility provisions they need in that vehicle to be able to get themselves around.

Bill 40 is a good step, I guess, in trying to amend some of the problems that we’ve seen over the last three years. We’ll reserve judgment on whether or not it’s going to actually create any meaningful uplift in accessibility options for people.

[4:45 p.m.]

It’ll certainly be interesting, as we get into committee stage, finding out just exactly why there needs to be so much revision to a three-year-old piece of legislation and whether or not that has actually resulted in the inability for these companies to operate properly and the inability for the taxi industry to access the accessible funds that it was always intended, by the committee, to create in the first place.

I thank you for the time on Bill 40, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to hearing other people’s comments.

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today, from an opposition perspective, on this Bill 40, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2). This side of the House, anyway, seems interested in the debate. It is important that we do revisit this bill or this legislation because there has been a sort of tepid adoption or limited opportunity for TNCs to be expanded around this province and to provide other transportation options and opportunities for many, many people in British Columbia.

I think some of these changes are certainly welcome. There’s been much talk today about accessibility, how accessible vehicles are funded and the training that supports those vehicles. But it’s certainly not well…. I think it was referenced earlier by one of the other members that there is lots of work to do in this regard to provide those options to people around the province, especially people with disabilities.

We’ll talk, I think, at length and in detail at committee stage, because this is, in many ways…. Like many pieces of legislation in this House, some degree of it is enabling and isn’t spelled out. So I think the opposition will well want to understand what those details are.

As mentioned by my colleague from Kamloops–​North Thompson, this has been rather slow-moving — another slow boat, I guess, to get to a wide adoption of TNCs or ride-hail in British Columbia. And this was a promise — an election promise, I think — from all parties in the 2017 election, and fundamentally, it’s taken, really, until 2020 before we really saw any adoption of TNCs or what we call ride-hail.

I think that’s a bit of a misnomer. People need to better understand the difference between ride-hail and ride-sharing. Certainly, those two terms are not interchangeable, although oftentimes considered as much. In fact, as the member from North Thompson mentioned, I did serve on the standing committee, which was…. It always was a bit of a mystery to me why that committee got the job, but it was the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations that got the job to look at ride-hail.

I just wanted to review some of that work that we did as a background to this. It was interesting to note that the…. So this is the beginning of the executive summary: “On November 28, 2017, the Legislative Assembly approved a motion instructing the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the committee, to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on ride-sharing in British Columbia.” So, right off….

[4:50 p.m.]

They do go in to clarify, but I think it’s important to understand, for constituents, that ride-sharing is where you share a ride and may or may not compensate for that ride. But ride-hail or TNCs, transportation network companies, are a different approach that involves a more structured and fee-based service that many of us would also better understand as companies like Uber or Lyft, which are available and accessible all over the world — not so much here.

The minister did actually mention the select standing committee in his opening remarks to this bill. What he didn’t mention is that many of the recommendations of the committee the government chose to ignore, which has again created some challenges for these companies to expand and to take advantage of the opportunity here in British Columbia because, frankly, there isn’t a lot of opportunity.

I think we have, here in B.C., ride-hail beyond cabs in the way of Uber or Lyft in West Vancouver to Abbotsford and south to White Rock, but that excludes parts of Metro Vancouver, certainly, not the least of which are Bowen Island and Lions Bay and up the Sea to Sky or on the Sunshine Coast. These are areas, I think, that could certainly use some access to ride-hail.

Interestingly, it’s been approved in Nanaimo-Parksville, so there’s ride-hail there. I’m not quite sure why the Passenger Transportation Board has deemed that to be an appropriate area.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson mentioned Kamloops, Merritt. When I looked, interestingly, on the coverage map, that is quite the area. It’s Kamloops south to Merritt and north of Blue River. That is quite a catchment. But it was interesting to hear the member mention that the supply of the appropriate number of vehicles has not been…. It’s been disruptive to the taxi industry and not well adopted by the TNCs.

Then, around Prince George–Mackenzie, and again, quite a big area down to Valemount…. So I guess, theoretically, you could catch a ride-hail in Merritt and get to PG. So that is a fairly big chunk of B.C. But I don’t know…. That would be the route that…. You wouldn’t be going up 97, though. You’d be going up the Yellowhead. It might not be the most direct way to PG.

I’ll have to speak to some of my other colleagues to see how well adopted it is in the central part of British Columbia. But there are many other parts of British Columbia, not the least of which is where we stand right now, that don’t have access to TNC vehicles.

So after the committee made its report and submitted it to the House, government chose to commission another report — that was the Hara report, another $200,000 report — I guess because they didn’t trust the committee’s recommendations and felt that they’d better authorize the development of a report by a friendly to push back on innovation.

But one of the areas of the committee work that was certainly supported, and unanimously supported, interestingly….

[4:55 p.m.]

There were five key areas that the committee reported on: accessibility, some of which we’re dealing with today; employment; public transportation; traffic congestion; environment; small rural-remote communities; and the taxi industry.

One of the other pieces that the committee also recommended was that there be data, provision of data, to support demand monitoring, to support forecasting and to support planning. Frankly, that’s one of the things that I haven’t seen referenced in this legislation, the data on which some of these recommendations are built.

One of the other recommendations was: “As vehicle and public safety are paramount, the committee makes several recommendations in this area. TNC drivers should have a class 5 driver’s licence and medical exam and, if appropriate, submit a driver’s abstract, national criminal record check and vulnerable sector check on an annual basis.” I think all of that was supported, except the class 5 piece. The class 5 piece is certainly one of the more important pieces and one of the pieces that has created real challenges for supplying enough drivers.

When I think about that, I really do think about certain areas that I represent. I think about Bowen Island, in particular. Now, there’s a very limited transit service. There are no cabs. It’s a really hilly island with narrow roads that don’t lend themselves to alternative forms of transportation. In fact, I was just having a conversation with a previous council on Bowen Island, and they’re moving towards development of a huge new regional park, on Cape Roger Curtis on Bowen Island, which is really, really exciting. But the road to get there from Snug Cove is…. I don’t know how long it is, probably six kilometers, eight kilometers, something like that. It’s in pretty bony terrain, and there’s just no easy way. There are no shoulders on the road, and there’s no easy way to get there.

I think they estimated. Hopefully the Minister is listening, because I think they’re looking at about $8 million to $10 million to complete a trail, an accessible trail, to get to Roger Curtis. That’s not the kind of money that Bowen has accessible to them.

Back to this, to the transportation issues. There are very limited transportation issues on Bowen Island, yet there is a demographic, a group of people who would be well-suited to be an Uber driver or a Lyft driver, a TNC driver. But there’s no opportunity for them to be that driver, because there are no ride-hail services on Bowen Island outside of the catchment. So far, the Passenger Transportation Board has chosen to not allow for Bowen Island to be part of that service.

There are retirees. There’s a bunch of people that could add a lot of value to that transportation network on Bowen Island, but they’re not eligible. Even if they were, trying to get a class 4 driver’s license is not a simple task. There’s no evidence that it’s necessary. There’s no data that supports additional safety. There’s no real reason that…. Certainly, the committee or the industry seems to think that it’s necessary. Anyway, all to say that a place like Bowen Island doesn’t have access to ride-hailing and does need it.

[5:00 p.m.]

The government chose not to support the recommendations of the committee — certainly not all of them; some of them, certainly, yes — and didn’t really do it based on any evidence, unfortunately. We’d hoped to see in Bill 40 that there were some amendments, some consideration of some of these recommendations of the committee and some knowledge and building on the experience that we’ve seen over the last several years.

Albeit I think it’s recognized that the data that would have been collected over the last several years is imperfect because we had, as everybody knows, pretty much a shutdown for quite some period of time and a long recovery before people felt comfortable moving around and had a need for some of these services.

I’ll touch on some of that data in a second. It is kind of interesting how things have changed.

No evidence has been put forward to support some of these recommendations. No data has been provided. There’s no data in this bill or supporting this bill. It just seems like there are additional limits to how to expand the ride-hail business.

Clearly, the PTB has had a very severe impact on the ability of this industry to expand. Overall, the strategy to keep the TNCs small, or a small footprint, here in British Columbia has been successful.

This legislation does make changes to the Passenger Transportation Act that will…. One of the things it will do is it will authorize government to utilize fees that have been collected since ride-hailing was first introduced, around accessibility. This is one of the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations — that money should be collected to provide opportunities or to provide expanded accessible options, mostly for taxis, seemingly.

The question was: will we have ride-hail vehicles, TNC vehicles, that will be accessible? I suppose it’s clear that some would be. What’s not clear in this bill is where the moneys that have been collected….

A good question, which was raised earlier, is: how much money has been collected? I’m sure the minister will be able to help us with that in committee stage. How much has been collected, recognizing that we went through COVID, not that we’re finished COVID…? There was a huge impact on the use of these TNC vehicles and taxis, so what would the forecast look like? If we hadn’t had to experience that, how much money would we have collected? What does that forecast look like? Then, going forward, how much money are we anticipating to collect, and where will that money go?

I think that’s a very reasonable question because there are a lot of areas…. I think it was discussed earlier that these vehicles are expensive to build or modify. There’s training associated with the use of these vehicles as well. So who will be eligible for these funds?

Maybe it’s in one of the many press releases that has gone out. I’m told that the fee will increase from 30 cents to 90 cents. As much as I went through the bill, I didn’t see any reference to that.

[5:05 p.m.]

I take it that’s an OIC initiative or a regulatory initiative that will be generated. It’s not something that is in the regulations.

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: We certainly…. There’s no reference to it, anyway. So I take it this is a promise as opposed to a commitment in legislation. So promises, promises, promises, but let’s assume that that’s going to go ahead.

It is a good question as to why it’s taken so long to create a plan to distribute…. Who will be eligible? It sounds likely that the taxi industry will be the main beneficiary, but will ride-hail or TNCs be eligible? Will handyDART be eligible or…?

I know that there is certainly a shortage of handyDART vehicles in my part of the world, in the Sea to Sky. In fact, we don’t even have handyDART, I don’t believe, in Whistler or Pemberton, just in Squamish. I’m sure there are many parts of the province of British Columbia that don’t have handyDART, which is a pretty important transportation component.

So who is going to be eligible for these funds, and how will this affect training opportunities? And training opportunities for who? Training opportunities for just the taxi industry or beyond that?

The member for Chilliwack gave us a reflection on his experience with some of these services and how difficult it was, how uncomfortable and how unprepared some were to actually support and carry people with disabilities. And he did mention…. He disparaged the opposition for when we were in government, which was unfortunate and, I don’t think, necessarily fair. He did mention that we did have two cabinet ministers and a private member that were….

I don’t know. What’s the….? I was going to say wheelchair….

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: What is it?

D. Coulter: They use a wheelchair.

J. Sturdy: Okay. That’s probably the simple way to do it. Thank you very much. They use a wheelchair.

I know that as we travelled the province, in many cases, it was with these members. It was certainly a learning experience for me to recognize and to understand the range of challenges that these people face. When we looked at Michelle Stilwell,, her ability to get around was pretty phenomenal. That was one end of the spectrum. Then we looked at Sam Sullivan, who was limited to an electric wheelchair and how hard it was for us to get around — for him to get around — and what we had to do just personally to support him.

I remember going to one of the towns in the Interior, and it was very difficult for Sam and Sam’s support. We all had to, essentially, pitch in. So I certainly do appreciate what it…. Not with a great deal of experience, but certainly, I understand that we need to provide as many options as possible, and we need to help people, also, who are operating these TNC vehicles or ride-hail vehicles to understand what it takes.

Also, how do we factor in the compensation for these operators? Clearly, it’s not like a taxi, where you run out on the street and wave them down and hop in and away you go. For the operator, it takes significantly more time. It’s a much bigger commitment.

[5:10 p.m.]

You have to, oftentimes, help people, assist people from their building or from wherever they’re originating, through some obstacles on the street to the vehicle. Reconfigure the vehicle as well — oftentimes, there’s a ramp or whatever — and then load, reconfigure again, bring the ramp in, make it safe, travel and then do the reverse. It’s clearly going to take more time. If we want to support these operators and we want to make them more available around the province, then we need to make sure that they can be compensated adequately and appropriately.

It is critical that people with disabilities have the right to the same transportation options as people without disabilities, and it’s frustrating that it’s taken as long as it has to increase accessible option opportunities. After a couple of years and two terms — five years and two terms; six years almost — it’s nice see government take the concerns of the accessibility community seriously and finally start implementing a program that will put to use the fees they’ve been collecting. As I said, I’m curious how much they’ve actually collected.

This is an important and encouraging step, and there are questions around the legislation as to why it’s taken so long to get to where we need to go. But it’s good to see that we’re finally developing a program to enhance accessibility, although, as I said many, many questions about what that is, what that looks like.

I do want to…. Recognizing that I am the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, and I do represent Whistler and was a long-term employee in that community, I do think it was notable that the member for Chilliwack condemns Whistler and condemns his Whistler experience. I think that was most unfortunate. He’ll probably want to review the Blues tonight and see if what he says was accurate.

I think he said he had a terrible experience, and it somehow justified the cancelling of the 2030 bid based on his accessibility experience. It was a bit of a bit of a leap, it seemed to me. And then talked about how it took two hours to get a cab. That may be reflected in the fact that there are no TNCs in Whistler. There’s no Uber or Lyft in Whistler. There was an application that, as recently as ten months ago, was rejected by the Passenger Transportation Board for expansion to Whistler.

This was from a Canadian Press report on December 17 of last year, “Ride-hailing company Uber’s application to expand service…to Whistler has been denied,” because it’s better to wait two hours for a cab than have additional opportunities or options. The board says granting Uber’s application at this time would unduly harm existing companies.

I guess a two-hour wait is okay. That okay. There’s no harm to people there. It did find Uber to be fit and proper to deliver transportation services, but it’s not convinced there’s a need for Uber services in the rest of the province.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think there’s much more to be discussed. We will be in committee stage shortly. As I’ve said time and time again, with enabling legislation, the devil is in the details, and I think, in this case, there are many details lacking.

I will also pass on the member for Chilliwack’s perspective to the mayor of Whistler. I’m sure he’ll be happy to hear it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. We have a committee looking to report, so is the member able to move adjournment of the debate for now, before we…? We will come back. Don’t worry.

J. Sturdy: We reserve our right, but we….

Deputy Speaker: I think you’re finished.

J. Sturdy: I’m finished, yes. I’ve run out of time, but I move adjournment of the debate for the time being.

J. Sturdy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: I believe the Speaker wants to do this part.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND
HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 34, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Rankin: I believe in the other place, the committee will be reading Bill 36 in committee stage.

In this House, second reading on Bill 40.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2022

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: All right, Bill 40.

Member for Abbotsford South.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to see you.

It is indeed a pleasure to get up and speak with regards to Bill 40, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022.

I think we should start on I think what everyone in the House can agree on, more so than in the House, what the general public can agree on and support as well. That’s that it’s important to note, and support, that people with disabilities have the right to the same transportation options as people without disabilities. I can’t think of anyone that would disagree with that, who is a reasonable human being at least.

I guess it’s particularly important to me, because I saw patients all the time that…. Even though Abbotsford is part of the Lower Mainland, they had difficulty getting to my office for an appointment, and I would not be alone in that. People with disabilities…. And why this is important is because it’s about independence.

[5:20 p.m.]

What this bill — the amendment to the bill, rather — provides is a sense of independence that allows people who, other than the fact that they are, as the member for Chilliwack put, in a wheelchair — thank you for that — have difficulty getting to shopping, have difficulty getting to a dentist, a doctor, something as simple as a haircut, something as simple as going out for dinner with friends or being able to go to an event. It allows them that independence and freedom that most of the population takes for granted.

And if I may, for a minute, it becomes even more than that. I remember being here in Victoria, and the fire alarms went off in the hotel I was in. I happened to share that hotel with the member from Chilliwack, and he expressed his frustration with the fact that he could not get off of the floor that he was on. I shared that frustration with him — that there was an inability for him to be able to get down to the lower floor.

Now, what’s that got to do with transportation? Well, in a way, it’s transporting from a top floor to a bottom floor, and the member had the right to be able to get there. Now, it’s not going to be ride-hailing, but it sort of puts into emphasis that if, for instance, you are a father and you need to get to the hospital because a loved one has had a severe accident…. What most of us take for granted — hopping in a car and getting there — many people cannot do.

And there are different levels. Even though there are those that use a wheelchair, there are different levels of disability even within that. We have seen that in this House. We have seen it with former members, some who had very sophisticated electric wheelchairs, those that were incredible athletes.

I also remember when I was in Chilliwack, when Rick Hansen came to speak. I remember the platform that staff had built that was in no way, shape or form at the correct angle. He made it up there, and I remember him saying: “That was a test, wasn’t it?” Where I’m going with this is that there are different levels of ability for even those that are in a wheelchair. They’re not all the same, but they still have the need and the right to be able to, as I said, get to that doctor or get to the hospital or go to a birthday party, whatever it may be that the rest of us take for granted.

This bill addresses some of that. I would say, if you have heard, it has been long overdue. I would also say that one of the complaints that I have had directed to me was that when Uber and Lyft came to be, it put the taxi industry upside down. Taxi licences which were selling for in excess of $200,000 became almost worthless overnight.

So what they expected from this House was for us to take a look at this particular amendment and come to it a little bit faster than we did. What you’ve heard from this side of the House is a frustration with how long it has taken for this amendment to get to the floor.

[5:25 p.m.]

I think it’s important…. Sometimes the opposition likes to paint this side of the House as being heartless, that we don’t care. Oh yes, we do. Come on. You could admit it. But it’s important to note that the B.C. Liberal government — that’s right, the B.C. Liberals — announced plans to introduce a series of important improvements to help the taxi industry modernize and remain competitive in anticipation of ride-hail services by the holiday season in 2017. And then in May of 2017, the NDP election platform committed to introduce ride-sharing to B.C.

The B.C. government hired Hara Associates to consult with the industry stakeholders to complete a close to $200,000 report in October of 2017. In February of 2018, there was, which is normal standard…. An all-party standing committee delivered a report on ride-sharing to the Legislature. In 2018, the NDP government announced it was adopting the recommendations in the Hara report and the all-party legislative committee on modernizing the taxi industry and improving marketplace conditions for ride-hail companies to enter the market.

Then in November of 2018, the NDP government introduced legislation to allow ride-hailing in B.C. by the fall of 2019. Then in March of 2019, an all-party standing committee delivered yet another report on ride-hailing — basically boundaries, supplies and fares — and they discussed things such as driver’s licences. That was important because taxicab drivers required a different driver’s licence than just a class 5, and one of their bones of contention was that it was not really a level playing field. That’s why the driver’s licence on that was important.

In July of 2019, the NDP government announces regulations on insurance policies. That was one of the hangups, as I was understanding, to bring in things such as Uber and Lyft. How do we make sure we have the appropriate insurance? Again, the taxicab companies would say: “Look, our insurance is through the roof, and it’s not fair that someone on regular ICBC insurance should be able to do this. It’s bad enough they don’t have the same driver’s licence. It’s bad enough they don’t have the same qualifications.”

This is related to this amendment in that the qualifications in training are important. For instance, how do you ensure that someone is secure in a vehicle if they happen to be in a wheelchair — for instance, if they’re not able to exit that wheelchair? How do you ensure that they are able to get safely on and off and are secured for the ride, for instance?

The regulation insurance probably allowed for ride-hailing. The companies would be able to start applying in September of 2019, with the vehicles on the road later that year. And then in January of 2020, the minister’s statement on ride-hailing was to coincide with approval of Uber and Lyft application by the Passenger Transportation Board.

Now, what this bill does is it allows for the registrar to make accessibility-related payments to licensees, be that ride-hail, taxi, limo drivers or other prescribed persons and/or organizations. The other thing that the bill does is it makes several changes to the Passenger Transportation Board that expand their authority and powers. Those would be in clause…. There are a number of clauses in that. I’ll get to those later. What the bill finally does is it makes the long-awaited changes to the Passenger Transportation Act that allow authorities and government to utilize the fees that government has been collecting since 2019.

[5:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

With regards to those fees, there is a 30 cent per trip fee that’s currently charged only on ride-hail trips. It will increase by 200 percent, I’ve been told, by January 1, 2023, to 90 cents per trip. Now, that makes sense, because we know that accessible vehicles are more expensive to buy. The modification that is required can be extremely expen­sive.

I have had patients that have had some of these, which they’ve done for themselves personally, to allow a motorized wheelchair in. That was just for a dependent that they had that was unable to drive. The modifications that were done to the vehicle were substantial.

Where you can go buy these vehicles is limited, and what vehicles you can use are also limited. We know that they’re more expensive to buy. They’re more expensive to insure. They’re certainly more expensive to maintain, and because they are generally modified and heavier and larger, they generally require more fuel.

I would imagine, in the very near future, if not already, someone has figured out how to apply that to electric vehicles. With the world coming to hydrogen or all sorts of different imaginations that we have yet to see, I am sure that some of those issues with regards to higher fuel costs will be overcome.

We also know that the drivers of these vehicles actually spend more time providing assistance. What’s meant by that is…. Unlike ride-hailing, where if I hail someone, I can just simply jump in, in many cases, the driver has to ensure, as I was saying before, that the passenger is secure and that the lift system works or the ramping system that may be in that vehicle works. All of that takes more excessive time than what would be for a simple taxi or Uber ride.

It’s worth noting — we go back to 2017 — that this government has been in power now for two terms. As was mentioned by one of my colleagues, almost six years. They’ve been six years in government. I’ve got to applaud the government and say….

While it’s been a long time coming, I’m happy to see this amendment finally on the floor. It’s nice to see this government take the concerns of the accessibility community seriously and, albeit longer than many people wanted, to finally start implementing a program that will put to use the fees that they have been collecting for a considerably long time.

I look forward, in committee, to seeing what’s happened to those fees, how much of those fees have been collected, what the totality of the fees is and, more importantly, especially when we’re going to increase the rate of the fee from 30 cents to 90 cents, who it is that will be able to apply for and receive those fees and under what conditions. As was mentioned by, again, one of my colleagues, the devil is always in those details. I would hope that there is an accurate accounting of where those fees are and what those fees and what the rules will be to apply for them.

It’s badly needed. As we heard, in the Lower Mainland, parts of the Okanagan, I would think, and parts of British Columbia, the ability to have accessibility in a ride-hail is perhaps not ideal, but it’s there.

[5:35 p.m.]

As the one member mentioned, it was up to two hours for a wait. I would say that in a lot of communities that rely on simply a taxi business, depending on when you call…. You call on a Saturday night at six o’clock to go out for dinner, you…. If you can’t reserve one ahead of time or, worse, if you don’t know exactly when you’re going to end an evening…. Two hours is not out of the realm for anybody trying to get a taxi in some communities.

We look forward, during the committee stage, to how this particular bill will help achieve the select standing committee’s recommendations on whether or not the drivers that have invested in these highly specialized vehicles, as we mentioned — the ones that generally, probably, consume more fuel — will receive any kind of a trip bonus; whether they will receive a yearly allowance, for instance; what percentage of ride-hail vehicles on the road will be accessible; and how that pie is going to be divvied up to provide that simple thing that we started off with in the beginning.

The overreaching goal is to ensure that people with disabilities have the right to the same transportation as those who are able-bodied. How will these fees that are being collected be put to the best use? Will it ensure that the overreaching goal is going to be achieved? I am sure that there will be plenty of questions during the committee stage, where we will burrow down into this particular piece of legislation.

The other thing that I think is important is…. One of the things you want to do is, also, encourage people to invest in these vehicles. If you don’t have the vehicle, you don’t have the ability. How will this particular amendment encourage people to actually invest in said vehicles and get into the business of providing the ability for people with disabilities to have that right to get anywhere that the rest of us can?

A lot of these vehicles sometimes sit idle. Will we change the legislation to allow the sharing of vehicles, the co-owning of these vehicles? Will we be allowed to lease them to other drivers who work for other ride-hail companies, for instance?

What are we going to do to ensure that those particular vehicles are used to their highest and best use? If it costs more money to buy these vehicles, one would assume that we would want to do everything to ensure that these vehicles are on the road 24 hours a day. The need is there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year, unless it’s a leap year. Then you can toss in one extra day.

The other thing we want to look at is how this bill is going to support the taxi industry. As I mentioned earlier, the taxi industry…. The public demanded Uber and Lyft, and the public is never wrong. The damage that it did to some of the taxi companies was severe.

[5:40 p.m.]

I’ve mentioned that the taxicab drivers don’t feel as if they’re on a level playing field, that their licensure is different than class 5. I know in Abbotsford, for instance, if they have two minor accidents, their licence goes under review, and they have to go through a criminal check.

That’s important, because you want to ensure…. You know, I have a granddaughter. Although she’s pretty respon­sible, I imagine: what if she was out late one night and did the sensible thing and did the ride-hail and caught a ride home?

Anyone who transports anyone is in a position of trust. There is a moral contract that they will come home and come home safely, that they will come home without risk of being subject to harassment or abuse and that they won’t be overcharged and that the correct change will be given and that that particular driver will ensure that they actually make it into their building, rather than just drop them off. It depends on where you live, what time of night, but the most precious cargo we have…. We often wonder: why do we put all this emphasis on taxicab drivers? That’s why, because very precious cargo is inside those machines, those vehicles.

People with disabilities should be treated no differently. We want to know how it’s going to support the taxi industry, because the other thing that’s worth noting, in addition to having all of those requirements that a taxicab driver has, including their chauffeur’s licence, is that they’re also mandated to have a certain number of these vehicles on the road. In doing so, again, the bone of contention with taxicab drivers and companies is that that is not currently a requirement of Uber or Lyft.

I look forward, in the committee stage, to finding out whether or not there will be any changes to the requirements of Uber and Lyft, whether they, too, will be required to put some of these badly needed vehicles on the road.

Now, I mentioned earlier that there were some key clauses of the bill, and I’d like to go over those if I may. The first clause, clause 1, makes the registrar responsible for sorting accessibility and allows it to make payments related to this initiative. That’s where I was talking earlier about: how is that pie going to be divvied up, and who’s going to get it? As we were saying, we look forward in committee stage to going over this clause and getting some of those answers. I am sure that the minister is just chomping at the bit to tell us. I am positive that the minister wants to share that he has all those answers all ready to go.

Clause 2 clarifies the definition for a board proceeding to include reconsiderations.

Clause 3 clarifies that a board proceeding may include or can include “records, information and reports obtained or produced by or for the board.”

Clause 4 — and I’m sure this is riveting stuff for the people at home, but it is these types of detail in committee meeting that will come out, that we’ll understand what the ramifications of each of these clauses are — eliminates the option for the board to review and make a determination on an application for a special authorized licence. Now, in that particular one, if the goal is to get more of these vehicles on the road, I am sure there will be some questions with regards to that as to exactly how this clause will play up and what it means.

Clause 5 amends the test the board must apply in determining whether to approve an application for a licence, by requiring the board to first consider that an “applicant is a fit and proper person to provide the service and is capable” to provide the service.

[5:45 p.m.]

If this is met, then the board can consider if there is a public need for the service and whether the application would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation industry. Now, in the Lower Mainland, I can see why that would be important, but there would be parts, and in very small areas, in British Columbia, where perhaps that is not required.

Clause 15 allows for the LG to make regulations regarding clause 1.

So I think it’s important that we take a look at the NDP’s record on ride-hailing. When they came to power, the NDP originally committed to the previous B.C. Liberal government’s promise to introduce ride-hailing by that Christmas of 2017. Sadly, it is yet one more in a long list of broken promises, and this one was done, actually, within months of the NDP taking power.

I wonder what a person with disabilities who’s been eagerly awaiting the ability to have that right that we all agree on, the same ability to get around as the rest of us…. I wonder what they think about the NDP breaking that promise so quickly after being elected.

Okay, the NDP then, on the same initiative, broke another promise of ride-hailing by the end of 2018. They couldn’t seem to get it together, for whatever reason. They made the path to ride-hailing as complicated as possible, creating obstacles. They created uncertainty for the ride-hailing industry in a way that no other jurisdiction ever had.

Now, we often get accused of not being helpful, on this side of the House, but the official opposition even twice introduced a bill that would bring certainty for ride-hailing and opportunity for the public to benefit on a much quicker timeline. What did my members of the opposite side of the House do? They quickly dismissed it, not once but both times, and that extended and delayed the process, and it need not have been.

Every now and again, this side of the House comes up with an idea that can speed things along, but I guess when you outnumber this — the other — side of the House, you feel as if you don’t have to listen. I don’t know. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Even once the ride-hailing companies were finally given the opportunity to operate in B.C., they remained limited to a small, tiny list of regions, which have expanded very little since. Explain that one to me like I’m a six-year-old and it makes sense. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

The NDP have broken promise after promise, and while they began collecting the fee for an accessibility fund, it has taken them years to do anything with the money or take any real steps to improve the accessibility and ride-hailing. Ride-hailing is available in every other part of the world, but the NDP has always made it as difficult as possible for British Columbians and those with disabilities to have the same rights as everyone else.

E. Sturko: I’m certainly glad to have the opportunity to rise today to continue this debate on the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. It’s true that there are some vital and long-awaited changes in the bill that are important to highlight as well as some questions about the structure of the legislation and the impacts that I’m sure that we will discuss in greater detail in the committee stage.

This legislation finally does make the changes to the Passenger Transportation Act that are going to authorize the government to use the fees that they have been collecting since ride-hailing was first introduced, with the first vehicles actually receiving their approval and licensing in 2019. That’s more than three years ago.

They’ve been operating, in B.C., ride-hailing vehicles that are not wheelchair-accessible, and those that were not wheelchair-accessible or accessible to people with disabilities have been charging an extra 30-cents-per-trip fee, with that money going to the province for a passenger accessibility fund.

[5:50 p.m.]

However, up to this point, nothing substantial has been done to use that money, to improve accessibility, and it’s unclear at this time, even with the proposed increase of 200 percent, which will bring it up to 90 cents per trip, if that will make a substantial difference in providing the number of accessible vehicles that we’re going to need.

People might remember that ride-hailing was a particular interest and something that was very contentious in my riding, particularly in 2018, when we had our Surrey municipal election previous to the one that we just had this October. It actually was an election issue, with our former mayor, Doug McCallum, vowing that he wouldn’t actually allow ride-hailing in the city of Surrey. The reason for that was because we have a substantial number of individuals working and living in Surrey who are part of the taxi industry. At that time, it was very, very concerning to members of the taxi industry just how this ride-hailing would actually impact that industry.

We have people who have multigenerational interests in taxi companies, people who have been doing this as a means to support their family and even families back home in other countries. One of the things that they brought up…. A big concern for them at the time, which actually led, I would say, to hundreds and hundreds of people filling our banquet halls, putting together rallies, making sure that their voice was heard…. I know that people here at the provincial level did hear those voices.

One of their concerns at that time was the availability of accessible transportation. They felt that it was a very unlevel playing field with respect to the fact…. Taxi companies were mandated. They had to have a certain number of accessible vehicles in their fleets, to make sure that those vehicles were maintained and to make sure that those vehicles were distributed evenly across their licensing areas. Yet when ride-hailing was brought into effect in our province, they didn’t have those same types of constrictions on them.

We’re really looking forward to seeing, obviously, how this bill is going to support the taxi industry. Like I said, it is mandated to have a certain number of accessible vehicles on the road through their licensing. It is a bit perplexing that there wouldn’t be a similar type of licensing requirement for ride-hailing companies.

One of the reasons why I find that a little bit concerning is…. Even with the 200 percent increase to the fee that’s being charged for vehicles that are not accessible, so from 30 cents up to 90 cents…. We know that these types of vehicles are very expensive to acquire. If it’s a vehicle that’s being purchased and then after-market alterations are being made to the vehicle, they need to have secondary inspections. They are often not as fuel-efficient. So that adds to the cost of operating vehicles like those. And they can be hard to come by. We have a supply chain issue globally.

One of those concerns for me, too, is the length of time that it’s taken for this legislation to be tabled. We know that although a portion of this money has been collected, our ability to make sure that we’re keeping up the infrastructure that’s going to provide people living with disabilities in our province the ability to access transportation certainly has been impacted during that time.

It leads me to wonder — and I hope that we get into this during Bill 40’s committee stage — how we are going to be incentivizing drivers to actually do upgrades to their vehicles or to purchase vehicles that are going to be accessible. It’s one thing to collect the money and have the ability to pay for individuals to make these purchases. It’s quite another thing to try to rely, especially with the structure of, for example, an Uber or a Lyft, where people are using primarily their own personal vehicles to do the ride-sharing….

How do we incentivize people like that to make these significant commitments, particularly if it does become their primary vehicle? It’s actually adding expenses to their own life in terms of fuel economy and other considerations like safe storage of the vehicle.

[5:55 p.m.]

After two terms and five years in government, it is nice to see the government has taken the concerns of accessibility in the community seriously and has finally started to implement a program that will put these fees that they are collecting to use.

But it is the length of time that is quite concerning for me. Any delay that I see, going forward, would, of course, set us back in terms of the ability to ensure equal access for people who have disabilities. We even know that right now our ability on the provincial level to provide people with accessible transportation is even being impacted within our school districts.

I’m the Education critic, and I’ve heard many stories this year in particular about the lack of drivers available to drive school buses and other accessible vehicles. This driver shortage has actually led to kids in my school district 36, in Surrey, of actually not being able to get to school, because there’s no school bus. Then, sadly, as a result of a lack of the numbers of accessible vehicles we need on the road — both in the taxi industry and then again, because it’s not mandated through ride-sharing — these poor kids, these youths, were not able to get to school.

Many people reading stories like that in the news may even have said to themselves: “Well, yeah, the school bus couldn’t come, so take a cab.” But the reality in our prov­ince at this time is that although they’ve been collecting this 30 cents for every single ride for Uber and Lyft and all these ride-hailing, we haven’t built the capacity in our communities that we need. If it’s this bad in a city as large and as quickly growing as Surrey, I mean, heaven help us in smaller communities that don’t have the same type of ride-sharing and ride-hailing and taxi and even school bus services that we have in the Lower Mainland.

To have accessible transportation and the freedom to go where you want is vitally important. It’s not just because we want to support people’s equality, which is, of course, fundamental. People have the right to be treated equal and not discriminated against in our province or country on the basis of their disability. But you know, it’s not only important to be supporting people in terms of equality. We have to make sure that the system is also equitable.

That means that we have to make sure that while we go ahead with this program to ensure that we have more accessible transportation, it isn’t only focused on areas of the province with the densest of populations, because, as my colleagues have said, we do have a large need for accessible transportation regardless of where you live in this province.

It also brings me to another point about the importance of accessible transportation and accessibility in our province. It’s not only about people’s rights, and it’s not only about making sure that we’re respecting and not discriminating against people. We also saw how isolation affected so many people during COVID.

When you think about it…. You know, I feel very blessed in my life. I’ve been able-bodied, and I’ve been able to go anywhere I pleased whenever I wanted. I’ve often taken that fact for granted.

I think this discussion that we’ve had today, certainly with other members on both sides, talking about the importance of giving everybody that opportunity…. When someone, regardless of living with a disability or not…. If they have an appointment, or a friend just invites them for coffee — that they have that ability to leave their home, to have transportation and not have to wonder whether it will show up or have to book it a week in advance, for goodness sake, to just go to a friend’s house.

And we know even during the holidays that are coming up very quickly that there’ll be an even greater demand for all types of transportation. And we know how often accessible transportation has been overlooked, so we have to keep that in mind as well. It’s important for us to make sure that we have this equality, because it’s not only to support people’s physical well-being — ensuring that all British Columbians have an opportunity to get to their appointments, to get to their health services, to get to their education — but their mental health as well.

I really do think that it’s a positive initiative to make sure that we are moving forward with ways in which we can pay to have upgrades for vehicles that are accessible and to increase the fleet size of accessible vehicles in our province.

[6:00 p.m.]

I really do hope that through our committee stage, we’ll be able to dig into that a little bit deeper to ensure that there is going to be a timeliness to this legislation and to ensure that there are ways of incentivizing individuals who would be able to access it.

I do want to make sure that we do continue to explore how this will impact the taxi industry. I think ride-hailing services and the ability to use apps online to access rides has been a game-changer for a lot of people. I just want to make sure that with the way that the game has changed for people that live in my city, it’s equitable on both sides.

Whether you are working for a ride-hailing company or whether you’re in the taxi industry, I think we want to make sure that people can continue to support themselves and their families here and abroad. We want to make sure that the people have the right kinds of incentives to do this work as well.

I hope that it can be a game-changer for people who have disabilities so that we can see even more participation and more freedom for individuals to do the things that they love and to be a greater part of the community without any kind of discrimination or delays or obstacles that they have to overcome.

It’s important that we continue to consider the fact that accessible vehicles are way more expensive to buy, to insure, to maintain — and of course, the fuel costs. That’s why it’s disappointing for me, too, that we haven’t had more traction on seeing a greater ability to help British Columbians in a time when the cost of living is so high.

I know that, in terms of speaking about the incentives to get investments, particularly in the ride-sharing industry, to buy accessible vehicles, to buy things with wheelchair lifts, to buy these bigger vehicles, certainly fuel prices are going to be a major consideration for anyone who is considering making this type of personal investment. I think it would have gone a heck of a long way if we would have seen the gas taxes suspended, even temporarily, to give British Columbians, including people who operate ride-sharing vehicles, a break.

We saw in Alberta that they temporarily suspended their gas taxes, and of course, it had a positive impact. I think that it’s one of the other steps that could be taken by this government in addition to having the ability to pay these accessibility fees, showing drivers of ride-sharing that it’s not going to cost you more in gas because, in fact, we’re going to make gas more affordable by removing that gas tax and then, of course, by having the fees being able to help pay for those enhancements.

One of my fears is that it’s not going to be enough money. Although I don’t like to see taxpayers burdened with ever-increasing costs…. And it seems like every time we turn around, there is another tax burden. Since 2017, we’ve seen billions of dollars of increased tax revenues, 30 separate tax increases and today another tax piece of legislation tabled that would see people who are attending major events have to pay an increase in taxes. That’s disappointing.

So when we’re thinking about fees, everywhere we turn, there is something more to be paid. I’m really interested also in digging down how this 200 percent increase in fees gets passed on to consumers. Everywhere you look, yes, it’s just 60 more cents, but every time we turn around, it’s another 60 cents being added onto the cost of everything.

This along with the increased gas prices and increases in just about everything right now in this province is just getting to the point where it’s absolutely stifling. People, regardless of whether they need an accessible vehicle or not, are going to have a hard time even going out for a trip and using a taxi or ride-hailing service because they simply can’t afford it.

So when we do move on to the committee stage of this bill, we look forward to examining the changes. We want to explore how this amendment bill will help achieve the select standing committee’s recommendations on whether ride-hailing companies and drivers of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will receive a trip bonus or how certain percentages of ride-hail vehicles on the road will be accessible.

[6:05 p.m.]

If we are looking at a structure where we have a trip bonus…. Again, this is something that we’ll have to dig into in the committee stage. But I have some concerns, and I hope that we can really sort this out and dig through it, because I think British Columbians will need to know where the trip bonus will be coming from. Are we talking about increasing fees again, overall, and adding even more burden of cost onto ride users?

Primarily, people are looking for a way of making life more affordable, not less affordable, so every little bit counts. What may seem in this House to be a very minimal increase, like a 60 cent increase, in the long run, for a family, can make the difference between putting your kid into gymnastics or another event or having to stay home because things have just spiralled out of control.

We also look forward to exploring how this amendment will encourage owners of existing accessible vehicles that often sit idle during the day — how they could be used to earn income or be leased to other drivers. One of the considerations here is just insurance and the increase in liability when we have other vehicles or other drivers using our vehicles, so this is something that we’re going to have to look at.

It is interesting because there is a global supply chain issue not just with accessible vehicles. In my own riding, I’ve heard from lots of people who are heavy-equipment operators. They are talking about how, usually, they would add on a couple of new cement trucks to their fleet, for example. But they said that they will call up to put in an order for a vehicle at this time, and they pretty much get laughed right off the phone, because they’re just not available. Whether it’s microchips or just the products that go into making vehicles, we’re having a heck of a time overall finding these kinds of vehicles.

It’s concerning that we’ve waited this long to see this initiative, this piece of legislation come forward. My fear is that now that this government is finally taking action, there will be nary a vehicle to find and that we in fact will be the ones getting laughed off the phone when we are trying to find accessible vehicles.

Perhaps the suggestion that we look to the owners of accessible vehicles now to see if they might be able to join into ride-sharing or perhaps market it more to them so that they would be able to have their vehicles leased or borrowed or lent or used in a program to create more accessible vehicles. That will be something that we’ll have to look at, for sure.

Additionally, we’re looking forward to examining how the bill is going to look at the disparity between the mandated number of taxis that have to have accessible vehicles and whether or not, going forward, there will be any appetite for ensuring that these multinational companies who are operating here in our province will themselves have to have any type of mandated numbers of accessible vehicles.

It continues to be an uneven playing field, because the licences for ride-sharing certainly don’t have the same requirement for them to provide accessible vehicles. In the meantime, the person that is actually suffering…. The ones that are suffering, the ones that are waiting are the people who need accessible vehicles to come and pick them up.

We’ve heard time and again…. My colleagues here have given numerous examples of even people who have…. Well, actually the woman who occupied my seat here, former MLA for Surrey South Stephanie Cadieux, herself often, although doing government business, had to wait to receive transportation. It’s just simply a matter of equality. Certainly, we see the way that the distribution of accessible vehicles and accessibility in our province certainly isn’t equitable.

I just want to remind the NDP of their own record here on ride-hailing, They had made promises to actually get it done by Christmas of 2017. It would have been a big stocking stuffer, but of course that promise was broken within months of taking power, which is unfortunate. Then they broke their next promise of ride-hailing by the end of 2018. I think I said earlier that, actually, we didn’t see the transportation board approve licences for ride-hailing until 2019.

[6:10 p.m.]

You know, it was actually a year after it had become such a hot-button issue in my own riding and in my city that we actually even saw the first ride-hailing licences being granted.

I guess the reason I bring that up is because I feel it needs to be said that British Columbians expect action, and they expect things to happen in a timely manner. I’m not sure that three years of collecting 30 cents for every non-accessible vehicle and then waiting all this time is taking action.

That’s a huge delay, especially when we were dealing with, as I mentioned earlier, a pandemic. People have been extremely isolated. I can’t imagine how isolating it would feel to not even be able to just quickly call a cab or call for a ride-hailing service to come and get you — but unfortunately, they can’t take you to a friend’s, take you for support, or take you to the coffee shop, because they don’t even have the ability to accommodate a person who may be in a wheelchair or who may have other mobility issues.

We need things to happen a little bit faster. I hope that it doesn’t take another three years for this government to take some action and to get things rolling, so that we actually have more accessible transportation for people who so desperately need it.

In my riding, we have a number of seniors and, of course, new families, and Surrey South is not overly transit-accessible. We have some good corridors, but particularly in the Douglas community of Surrey South, there are no buses, unless you walk 30 minutes. You know, Trevor Halford, the Surrey–White Rock MLA, lives in my riding. From his house, it’s more than a 30-minute walk all the way to the first bus stop.

Imagine if you’re a person with a mobility issue. You’re going to be reliant on things like taxis. You’re going to be reliant on things, in that circumstance, like ride-hailing. It would be a desperate situation, particularly if you have something come up on an emergent basis. We’re hearing stories of people that are waiting — having to book days or even a week in advance for a doctor’s appointment — and of kids not being able to get to school. It’s simply not acceptable. We really need to make sure that, of course, we get the ball rolling on increasing the amount of accessible transit.

The NDP broke their promise, as I said, and then they made the path to ride-hailing very complicated. I think you’ve heard my colleagues talking about that as well. They created obstacles and uncertainties for the ride-hailing industry. They did that in a way that no other jurisdiction had. It was extremely complicated. I’ve never seen such confusion.

I really do think that a lot of the misinformation, confusion and lack of clarity was one of the things that lead to such outrage in my community, with people filling banquet halls and really upset about what was happening with the uneven playing field for the taxi industry. That’s as a result of a lack of information and a lack of clarity. People deserve to have that kind of clarity, particularly when we’re talking about an industry that has supported so many people in my city and in my riding. They deserve better; they deserve more.

It has been disappointing, particularly with so many failed benchmarks, like Christmas of 2017, and then ride-hailing by the end of 2018. The official opposition even twice introduced a bill that would have brought some certainty for ride-hailing and opportunity for the public to benefit on a much quicker timeline, but it was dismissed both times. That was one of the things that led to the extending and delaying of the process. Then, even once ride-hailing companies were given the ability to operate in B.C., it was limited to a small number of regions, and it has really only been extended very little since then.

I think we have to take a close look, and I’m happy that we’re having this opportunity to speak to this bill today. One of the things that we’ve been able to, I guess, voice on behalf of our constituents and the people of British Columbia is that there is such a disparity between what people have and have not in this province. Certainly, when it comes to people living in our province with disabilities, they’re at a terrible disadvantage with their ability to access transportation.

[6:15 p.m.]

I feel positive and a lot of hope. I have to say that I don’t mean to seem, maybe, not supportive of Bill 40 — I think that it’s great — but I am being cautious because I do think that after seeing the delay, certainly, of three years in order for us to finally see some changes, it’s a cautionary tale that we have to make sure we continue to press, to keep the best interests of all British Columbians in mind.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Ride-hailing is available in every part of the world, but it has always been a little bit more difficult for people here in British Columbia. I’m not sure why we would want it to be that way. Certainly in my riding, we don’t. We want to make it as easy as possible. I’m really looking forward — welcome, Mr. Speaker — to us being able to dig down on some of these issues.

I hope that some of the conversations that have emerged today…. Thinking on a lot of the challenges — not only in providing accessible transportation, accessible ride sharing, accessible taxis and in sorting that out but in really, really putting our minds together to make sure that it’s done in a timely way, that this is enough money and that we roll it out quickly — as I said earlier, there is a substantial supply chain issue. My worry is that even with the amount of money that we’re able to have this government give to operators, we won’t be able to find enough vehicles ready to meet our needs.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to Bill 40. Thank you, Transportation Minister, for your work and thank you to all my colleagues in the House for having this conversation.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close?

Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the members for participating in the debate this afternoon, raising a number of points and talking about the pathway we’ve been on to modernize the taxi and ride-hail industry, really, since 2018, when it began in earnest, and with some recognition, I think, in the debate that we’re here at this late month in 2022, having just been through a global pandemic.

The reality is that we launched ride-hailing in this province formally in January 2020, and in March 2020, B.C. and the world were in lockdown. Here in British Columbia, we were in an official state of emergency. For the next 2½ years-plus life changed, not only for eight billion people on the planet, but five million British Columbians. The trajectory that that put us on as a province, adapting to health restrictions and all of the uncharted territory we were in, for the first pandemic in 100 years, seriously impacted the ground transportation sector in B.C. and, indeed, around the world.

In B.C., the taxi industry suffered something like a 70 percent drop in passenger trips. The taxi industry needs to be thanked for continuing to work as an essential service to serve British Columbians. Those who have no other transportation options, in particular, depended upon the taxi industry adapting to the new situation and showing up for work each and every day. The ride-hail industry, which had made a number of business plans and business assumptions, was also knocked off course from its original growth plans.

I do want to correct some of the comments. I know they were probably made in a friendly way, but there was a suggestion that this government has delayed in introducing ride-hail, as well as in modernizing the taxi industry. I want to remind those members opposite who made that point that Uber began service in North America in the year 2011. They began in something like ten to 20 cities in the year 2012.

[6:20 p.m.]

Between 2011 and 2017, the B.C. Liberals, when they were in government, introduced no legislation, introduced no real steps to introduce ride-hail service at all, when city after city and province after province in Canada did so. There was no initiative in 2011, there was no initiative in 2012, and there was no initiative for ride-hail in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017.

Then, when the government transitioned in 2017, the new government found that the previous government had done almost no, or very little, work to introduce ride-hail. I know they were politically sensitive to it — and the member who just spoke, from Surrey–White Rock, explained that — with banquet halls full of people who were living in economic uncertainty.

That is exactly why the provincial government, this government, introduced a parliamentary committee to examine the best ways — and the worst ways, quite frankly — of introducing ride-hail that we had experience with. In 2018, that parliamentary committee held extensive hearings, produced a report that led to an expert report that was based on the economic introduction and the implications of it in 2019, and we passed legislation in 2019.

In January 2020, just shy of three years ago, ride-hail landed in Metro Vancouver and in other regions. So in actual fact, our government acted in just a couple of short years, having inherited no work from our predecessors, to finally introduce ride-hail in a way that was sensitive to the small business owners who compose the majority of the taxi industry throughout British Columbia.

We had some discussions about how this is complementary legislation to handyDART. Members talked about what — or what not, in their imaginations — this government has done via our public transit agencies, namely B.C. Transit and TransLink. Well, let me remind the House of some of the significant achievements that we have done, including the introduction of the Compass payment and the elimination of FareSaver paper tickets.

We have introduced monthly pass discounts for handyDART users, reducing it from $100.25 a month, a fare that we inherited from the previous government, to today, where it costs $57.30, almost in half. We modernized handyDART service in every way. including bringing in technology for text-based service alerts. We brought in a handyDART food service delivery vehicle, important in the midst of the pandemic, partnering with Neighbourhood Houses. We’ve introduced wellness calls to clients before we do pickups in the handyDART system.

More broadly, in terms of public transit, the budget that passed this House ten months ago introduced an 11 percent increase into public transit for the B.C. Transit service. It is also a budget that supported a 27 percent increase in the total track capacity of the SkyTrain system. I’m speaking specifically of Broadway and the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain system, a $6.7 billion investment into accessible public transit.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: Now, the one concern…. And I thank the member for Peace River South, who has graciously yielded some time to me.

This bill does not grant excessive or centralized new powers to the Passenger Transportation Board. What it does — we’ll get into this in committee stage, I’m certain — is provide clarity about how they do their work. It is very important work that they do. These are tribunals. They base their decisions on evidence and due process for licensees. The amendments we seek here are based on well-established legal principles of administrative fairness.

There are some gaps in ride-hail, and we’ve heard about that from members, but in most cases, including markets like Kelowna and Kamloops, it’s because licences have been granted to the ride-hail industry but not taken up — understandably so, given the uncertain market conditions that the pandemic produced.

I look forward to further debate and to the questions that the critic for Transportation and Infrastructure will undoubtedly have. I think what this bill signals is that this is about government doing continuous improvement, continuing to modernize the taxi and ride-hail industry, making sure that accessibility and living up to the principles of the accessibility act that this government passed are adhered to in the transportation sector.

[6:25 p.m.]

That’s exactly what this bill is about, and I look forward to passage of Bill 40.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 40.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.