Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 22, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 190

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Motions Without Notice

Acting Clerk and Acting Sergeant-at-Arms

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act (continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Reporting of Bills

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

T. Stone

A. Olsen

Reporting of Bills

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

T. Stone

J. Thornthwaite

Reporting of Bills

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 55 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

A. Olsen

T. Stone

J. Thornthwaite

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

A. Weaver

T. Redies

Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling)

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation

and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Redies

S. Thomson

B. Stewart

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

T. Wat

L. Throness

Bill 57 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: In the gallery, we have Chris Sankey. Chris Sankey was a former elected councillor for Lax Kw’alaams and is now in the private sector, developing a 1,500-metric-tonne land-based closed-containment fish farm. He’s also developing an agriculture project that is basically a 78-acre greenhouse project, which is well underway right now. He’s in Victoria looking for meetings as we speak.

Lastly, he wanted me to read into the record his own quote. He wanted me to read it on my

own behalf. I want to make it clear these are not my words; these are his words.

“Lastly, I want the general public to know how good of a basketball player he was

at the guard position, where he used to defend me like white on rice. Chris used

to give me nightmares, thinking about how good of a defender he was, where he left

me crying in my big pillow as I wallowed in my sorrows. Go Tsimshian.”

Would the House please make welcome Chris Sankey from Lax Kw’alaams.

Motions Without Notice

ACTING CLERK AND

ACTING SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to move a motion. Just for the information of members, this motion is to ensure continuity of the important roles of the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms at this time. That’s what this motion is involving. By leave, I move:

[That, further to the motion adopted on November 20, 2018, Kate Ryan­-Lloyd, Deputy

Clerk and Clerk of Committees, shall be conferred the duties and

responsibilities of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on an acting basis,

and is to be styled as Acting Clerk of the Legis­lative Assembly until

otherwise ordered by this House. Ms. Ryan­-Lloyd is authorized by the

Legislative Assembly to undertake any responsibilities prescribed to the Clerk

of the Legislative Assembly by statute, by the Standing Orders, and by any

other authority; and further

That Randall Ennis, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, shall be conferred the duties and

responsibilities of the Sergeant-at-Arms on an acting basis, and is to be

styled as Acting Sergeant-at-Arms until otherwise ordered by this House. Mr.

Ennis is authorized by the Legislative Assembly to undertake any

responsibilities prescribed to the Sergeant-at-Arms by the Standing Orders and

by any other authority.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[1:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 51, Environmental

Assessment Act. In

Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Budget

Measures Implementation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 51; L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

Sections 48 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

S. Furstenau: Just one question on

section 56: the circumstances for suspension,

cancellation and amendment of certificates and exemption orders.

Section 2(

b) says: “on the twentieth anniversary of the issuance of the certificate the

project is not operational.” I’m just wondering about 20 years, which seems

like a rather long time, and whether or not there would be reviews in the

interim in that kind of lengthy time period.

Hon. G. Heyman: There are two separate issues here. At least, I believe there are. The

first one is if a project has not been substantially begun. As we explained

earlier, if it has not substantially begun within ten years, the certificate

ceases to exist.

[1:40 p.m.]

This is a new provision that allows us, in the case where a project has

substantially begun but was never completed or ceases operation, to have the

certificate removed at a 20-year point.

Section 56 approved.

section 57.

S. Furstenau: Just a clarification. If the minister could please define “an

opportunity to be heard.” What would that mean, to be heard? By whom? What

follow-up action would that entail?

Hon. G. Heyman: Essentially, revoking a certificate is a fairly serious action, so the

purpose of this provision is simply to provide for administrative fairness and

allow the certificate holder to be heard, if the consideration is to

revoke.

Sections 57 to 76 inclusive approved.

section 77.

Hon. G. Heyman: The orders of the day contain an amendment to

section 77 that I would

like to speak to.

SECTION 77 (2) (e), by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(

e) respecting qualifications of individuals who may serve on the

technical advisory committee , and of persons who may

undertake reviews referred to in

section 19 (2) (c) (ii) and of persons

referred to in

section 19 (2) (c) (iv) or 26, including, without

limitation, qualifications respecting impartiality ;]

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, this is a matter of bringing more clarity to issues that were

raised, that we believe were covered and certainly were the intent of the act.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that we intend project

information that will be used in the assessment process to be reviewed

impartially, no matter where it comes from. This will be of assistance to the

technical committee as well as for the purposes of public

transparency.

Amendment approved.

Section 77 as amended approved.

section 78.

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, there’s a fairly simple amendment to

section 78(6) where we’ve

simply added

section 14 as well as

section 11 of the former act.

SECTION 78 (6), by adding the underlined text as

shown:

(6) Despite the repeal of the former Act and subject to

sub­sec­tion (7), if an order under

section 11 or 14

of the former Act was issued respecting a project but a decision under

section 17 of the former Act has not been made before the date this

section

comes into force, the former Act applies respecting both an assessment of the

project and a decision under

section 17 of that Act, but only if the project

proponent provides a notice to the chief executive assessment officer within 6

months of this

section coming into force that the proponent wishes to continue

the assessment under the former Act.]

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Heyman:

Section 14 covers panels. This has to do with transitional provisions,

and this just makes it clear that we’re addressing panels under

section

[1:45 p.m.]

Amendment approved.

Section 78 as amended approved.

section 79.

S. Furstenau: On

section 79, “Regulations to deal with transitional matters and

difficulties,” could the minister offer some clarification of his intention on

this section? For example, how will this relate to projects in the early phases

of their proposals already? Will they use the old environmental assessment

process or the new? What is the threshold? How far along does a project need to

be in its application to use the old process?

Hon. G. Heyman:

Section 79 and

section 78, in fact, should be read together.

Section 78

sets out the conditions that must be met for a project that has begun to

continue under the existing process or to be transitioned to a new one, if

activities meet certain thresholds.

Section 79 is a fairly standard transitional provision suggested by

legislative drafters to deal with any unforeseen circumstances in the event

they occur with respect to transition.

S. Furstenau: Okay, so 78 and 79 together. What if projects that are already, so to

speak, in the pipeline involve emissions that will max out our provincial

carbon budget? How will the impact of the new environmental assessment process

impact those types of projects?

Hon. G. Heyman: There are a couple of ways this will be addressed. First of all, if a

project has a certificate, we cannot retroactively apply the conditions of this

bill to an existing certificate. That’s the whole purpose of the transitional

procedures. However, if an existing project applies to have its conditions

amended, the amendments would be considered under the provisions of the new

act.

The new act also gives us the ability to audit projects and to ensure

that they’re meeting their conditions. For instance, if a project was audited

and wasn’t meeting the levels of greenhouse gases that were contemplated during

the project design or if that was creating impacts or impeding mitigations that

the project design and certificate conditions were intended to achieve, there

would, again, be the ability to amend conditions.

[1:50 p.m.]

Finally, as the member and others will see, in the event of….

[The bells were rung.]

Once we release the climate strategy, people will see there is a

comprehensive plan to work with industry and business at every level to remain

competitive while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing operations

through a variety of means.

Sections 79 to 82 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that we report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT ACT

Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act, reported complete with amendments,

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that now in this House we proceed to Committee of the Whole on

Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018.

[1:55 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 55; L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:57 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. Trevena: If I might, just before we get into the meat of the bill — I’m looking

forward to committee stage; it’s going to be interesting — I would like to

introduce staff who are here to give the technical assistance and

support.

On my right is Jeremy Wood, senior director for legislation and policy;

on my left, Kathy Kirby, executive director for legislation and policy; behind

me, Kristin Vanderkuip, registrar, and Deborah Bowman, assistant deputy

minister.

J. Sturdy: Yes, it is a pleasure to be here. We’re grateful to be in the House here

to debate a piece of legislation to get in place ride-sharing for British

Columbia. And while we’re glad to see it’s here, I guess it’s fair to say that

we’re a bit disappointed in what’s before us. There’s an issue around the

confidence of being able to actually accomplish the goals that have been

presented in terms of having an environment where ride-sharing will be

embraced, will be supported and will be acted on by the companies.

Unfortunately, it seems that there is, to some degree, a lack of a

consumer-driven and a market-driven type of activity or initiative. There are

certain obstacles that have been created, which we’ll look to explore as we go

through this legislation. It certainly is important that the legislation and

the playing field be level for both ride-hailing, as well as with the taxi

industry. Certainly, I think both sides of the House agree with

that.

It is also important that some of the limitations around how these

organizations or businesses and apps can be successful around artificial

boundaries, around geofencing, geographical constraints and limitations that

have caused issues around deadheading. And lack of flexibility and limiting

access to these services need to be eliminated.

[2:00 p.m.]

Certainly, I think we’ve also been clear that the issues around

licensing and driver’s licence requirements…. We’re concerned about them

creating an unnecessary barrier to entry. It will be how we’re going to be able

to explore that in this bill, as it’s not necessarily specifically addressed.

We’ll look to try and better understand how we can actually talk about some of

these things.

Certainly, the issue of municipal oversight, permitting requirements,

which can ultimately result in a patchwork of regulations that have hampered

the taxi industry and the success of the taxi industry, could make it

impossible for ride-sharing to actually be embraced in British Columbia. Things

like individual business licences in every municipality could potentially be a

significant barrier, as well as a variety of other responsibilities that are

left with the municipalities.

These are some of the things that we look to, to explore, better

understand and strive to make some changes, potentially, that can create a

better environment to have this be a successful piece of

legislation.

I guess, to begin with, in sort of a more general way…. Certainly, the

expectations of the public are high. There has been much discussion about when

we’ll see ride-sharing in British Columbia. All parties, in 2016, committed to

having it in place by 2017. Then that turned into 2018. Now we’re talking about

The Premier said it was coming soon. I think he inferred the late

summer, early fall. The minister has referenced late 2019. I wonder if the

minister has some target dates in terms of when she would expect to see

applications being received by the passenger transportation branch.

Hon. C. Trevena: With all due respect, that’s got no relativity to

section 1 of the

bill.

J. Sturdy: Typically, there’s an opportunity to discuss some of the general

concepts around this bill. Is the minister suggesting that’s not something that

there’s any latitude to understand?

The Chair: The member is correct. There has been latitude expressed in the

past.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. C. Trevena: Fair enough. As I have said many times in this House during question

period and through second reading debate, we’re anticipating that app-based

ride-hailing companies will be able to apply by September 2019.

J. Sturdy: The PTB system has been somewhat opaque in the past in terms of how to

move through that Passenger Transportation Board process. It was pointed out to

me that in 2017, an application for an app-based company called Ripe Rides was

not approved because of the issue of the sound economic conditions in the

transportation business in Metro Vancouver.

Perhaps we’ll have an opportunity to get into this a little bit earlier

in terms of how that process will, in fact, change. But does the minister have

a target date for applications to be approved, assuming they are approved? When

can we really expect to see…? Does the minister have a date that she would like

to see people actually being able to use the app?

Hon. C. Trevena: The board, as the member is well aware, is an independent tribunal. They

have expedited applications in the past. For instance, they were very

accommodating when we were dealing with the withdrawal of Greyhound

long-distance bus service, for which they’re also responsible.

[2:05 p.m.]

They know the expectation around this file and will be working

accordingly, but they are an independent tribunal, as the member well

knows.

T. Stone: I also want to say thanks to the staff. I see a few familiar faces over

there who I know worked really hard on preparing this package of legislation.

They certainly did when we prepared a very similar package about a year and a

half ago. We actually had all of this mapped out, Madame Chair, as you

know.

My question, again, relates to…. As we move through this bill, I’m

wondering if the minister could provide some comment on whether or not there

are any sections in this — this

section or any other sections — that represent

a confidence vote of this House. If she could provide that assessment on this

section and any other sections, that would be much appreciated.

Hon. C. Trevena: A couple of comments. One is on the specifics of a confidence vote. We

are actually checking for extra advice on that one. We have obviously talked to

the Third Party about this. We had the vote on second reading, which did go

through, but we are talking to the Third Party about it.

I just wanted to comment, also…. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson

comments about how this bill reflects the bill that, when he had my role, was

almost complete. Obviously, there is the whole issue of cabinet confidentiality

there, of who knows what when. But I go back to the fact that if it was so near

completion, it could have come to the floor of this House, been debated in the

early spring of 2017 and then let people decide on the actual outcome of that

bill rather than their putative…. We’ve got, potentially, a bill out

there.

T. Stone: Seeing as the minister has been willing to engage on this line, it is

worth mentioning that this bill that we’re here debating today, Bill 55…. While

it does contain some of the guts of the bill that we worked on and developed a

year and a half ago, there are some very stark differences in this bill from

what we had proposed.

The piece of legislation that we had prepared did not include a litany

of barriers to entry for ride-sharing businesses. The bill that we had prepared

did not provide restrictions on supply, did not provide restrictions on

boundaries, did not provide restrictions on fares, did not provide restrictions

insofar as continuing to allow municipal requirements that could trip up the

successful entry of ride-sharing companies in British Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

It is with that in mind that I asked my previous question about whether

or not there were any sections, this

section or any other sections, that were

deemed to be confidence votes. I ask that because there is a tremendous

opportunity in front of us, recognizing the members of the Third Party and

their interest in ensuring that ride-sharing come to British Columbia as soon

as possible.

I note that the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who I believe

has particular interest on this file and I would expect will be weighing in on

this section-by-section analysis…. He is indicating as such. There is a

tremendous opportunity, knowing their good will and their intentions to

facilitate the entry of ride-sharing, for us to all work together and perhaps

try to make this bill something that actually will work for British Columbians,

that will actually pave the way for ride-sharing. That can only be accomplished

through the moving of amendments to a number of sections.

The official opposition will be moving a broad swath of amendments to

this bill as we go through this process. We think this is a tremendous

opportunity for the Green Party members to really show that they are willing to

collaborate with the official opposition in an area where there hasn’t been a

tremendous amount of daylight between our caucus and their caucus.

That is why I wanted to understand, at the front end of this

section-by-section debate, whether or not there were any sections that would be

deemed to be motions of confidence in the government. If there are no

confidence votes here, then this really paves the way for the Green caucus and

the B.C. Liberal caucus — and maybe even members of the NDP caucus — to work

together to try to improve this bill so that there is some light at the end of

the tunnel, so to speak, insofar as ride-sharing coming to British

Columbia.

With that, I would ask the minister one more time. She indicated that

she would be seeking some additional clarification. Could the minister please

advise the House when that clarification will be coming forward? I think I

certainly would be interested in knowing what the answer to that question would

be, as I’m sure my good friend from Saanich North and the Islands and his

caucus colleagues would be as well.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m still trying to understand the member opposite. As he well knows,

confidence votes are budget votes. They are of the throne speech. We have been

talking to the Third Party, obviously, as we move forward. I am sure that my

critic on the other side has also been talking to the Third Party.

If the opposition is so eager to get their version through or some

version through, I am also anticipating that when we finally get down to the

section-by-section part of this bill, we will be able to have common agreement

and move forward so we can get app-based ride-hailing here in B.C.

[2:15 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I see, in

section 1, there are a number of changes to the

definitions,

including adding “accessible passenger directed vehicle,” which I take it was

not in the Motor Vehicle Act at this point, which is an interesting omission.

I’m glad to see it in here.

The next one was: “fleet size has the prescribed meaning.” I’m wondering

if you could clarify what that actually means.

Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, the legislation doesn’t have a definition for fleet size.

The board can set a fleet size, but there is no definition for it. So this,

through regulation, is going to allow for a fleet size for a taxi or for a

transportation network service — app-based ride-hailing — to be established by

the board.

This is going to be through regulation because one of the things needed

is flexibility. I mean, we were talking a lot about new entrants to the market,

not just the app-based ride-hailing, but autonomous vehicles or whatever else

may be coming on the market. So it gives it a bit more flexibility to set it

through regulation.

J. Sturdy: I can understand why the need for a fleet size definition is

there.

The next

section was 1(b): “repealing the definition of general

authorization vehicle identifier.” I wonder if you can explain what that is and

why it’s being repealed.

Hon. C. Trevena: Under this legislation, we are modernizing the legislation, so this will

allow for more flexible vehicle identification. There will be a repeal of the

general vehicle identification and special vehicle identification. This will be

dealt with…. You’ll see more details about this in

section 14, where you’ve got

the new vehicle identification explained.

[2:20 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: So would that be a more appropriate time to try and understand,

specifically, what that is? Is that a licence marker? We’ll talk about it then?

Okay. Fair enough.

The intercity bus definition has changed. Could the minister explain why

that is?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is housekeeping. It’s been restructured to reflect modern drafting

that is needed for legislation. There’s no change in policy here at

all.

A. Olsen: I’d just like to maybe go back to the definition of “fleet size” and ask

the question: why has the minister chosen to leave the definition of fleet size

to regulation?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member. This is because we need flexibility for the

future. We don’t know what the future is really going to look like.

As I say, at the moment, we’ve got app-based ride-hailing that’s been

here — it may seem like forever — for five, six, seven years and coming to B.C.

by next year. Then who knows what’s going to happen with autonomous vehicles or

anything else? It gives that flexibility to the board that you can, in the

future, shift if necessary. That’s why we’re doing it through

regulation.

A. Olsen: Would this prescription be through cabinet or through the Public

Transportation Board, in terms of the definition?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a regulation, so it will be through cabinet.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Another question on this. Does the amendment allow

for a different definition of “fleet” to be created for a company that offers

services of a TNS or a networked service, as opposed to companies offering

passenger-directed service?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, it’s for different types of licences under the passenger

transportation authority. That’s why we’re doing it through regulation, to give

it some flexibility. But the simple answer is: it is for both, TNS, for

passenger-directed vehicles, for taxi. It has that flexibility.

T. Stone: I know some of this is dealt with in subsequent sections as well, but I

think it would be beneficial for all members at this point — again, in the

context of how some of these

definitions are changing — if the minister could

speak to what the current state is with respect to licensing and the different

types of authorizations. There’s general authorization and special

authorization, and those authorizations at the moment serve very specific

purposes. If she could speak to that.

How do the authorizations change? What will the new state be under this

legislation, assuming it passes unamended? What would those new authorizations

actually look like, respecting the entry of this new industry that we call

ride-hailing, ride-sharing?

Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to clarify that it’s all the authorizations that change.

Clarification on

section 1(b) — is that what we’re after, or just generally

everything, all the licence changes and everything in the

legislation?

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could take us up to the balcony on this

and just speak, at a high level, to what the new world looks like from a

licensing authorization perspective as a result of the implications contained

within this bill.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Currently we’ve got two types of authorization — the general

authorization and the special authorization. Under the special authorization,

there are passenger-directed vehicles, and there are intercity buses. Under the

new world, as it were, if the legislation does pass, you’ve still got general

authorization, and you’ve got special authorization, and under the special

authorization, you’ve got passenger-directed vehicles, intercity buses and

transportation network services.

In the present legislation, it says: “‘special authorization,’ when used

in relation to a motor vehicle, means an authorization to operate the motor

vehicle as (

a) an inter-city bus, or (

b) a passenger directed

vehicle.”

The new language is: “‘special authorization’ means any of the

following: (

a) an inter-city bus authorization; (

b) a passenger directed

vehicle authorization; (

c) a transportation network services

authorization.”

T. Stone: So in that context, are there changes being made here that relate in

some way to the government’s stated intention of facilitating the entry of more

intercity bus operators or making it easier or streamlining the ability of

private operators to enter the British Columbia market to provide intercity bus

service? Are there specific changes here that make that process of entry for

those intercity bus companies easier in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the simple answer is no. The Passenger Transportation Board did

streamline and act very quickly when we had Greyhound withdrawing this summer

and made sure that new entrants could come in and be fast-tracked through the

system. When we’re talking about intercity buses in this legislation, most of

the references are housekeeping measures. They are cleaning up the language

here, but it’s not changing what the Passenger Transportation Board has been

doing, which is effectively speeding up. Because it’s an independent tribunal,

it has been speeding up applications to deal with the withdrawal of

Greyhound.

T. Stone: The process by which the government has engaged in trying to make it

easier and faster, more efficient for operators to provide intercity bus

services has been addressed more through an expedited application approval

process as opposed to the actual requirements for entry themselves. Did I get

that correctly?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

J. Sturdy: Back to

definitions here. Under (g), “‘passenger directed vehicle’

means…a commercial passenger vehicle, when the vehicle is operated to or from

locations determined by or on behalf of the passengers, but does not include

(

i) a commercial passenger vehicle that can accommodate more than the

prescribed number of persons,” what’s the intention of that limitation, and how

would that prescription be set?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

[2:35 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION

AND VACANCY TAX) ACT, 2018

Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act,

2018, reported complete with amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When will the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

[2:40 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION

AND VACANCY TAX) ACT, 2018

Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax)

Act, 2018, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 39

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 49, Professional Governance Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

BILL 49 — PROFESSIONAL

GOVERNANCE ACT

Bill 49, Professional Governance Act, read a third time and passed on

the following division:

YEAS — 43

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 39

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 55, Passenger

Transportation Amendment Act. In

section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call

committee on Bill 50, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 55; R. Chouhan in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

Hon. C. Trevena: I wonder if the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky could repeat his

question. It’s been a little while since he asked it, and I wanted to get it

again so that I could get a good answer for him.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to repeat the question. It was with regard to the definition

in (1)(

g) of “passenger-directed vehicle” and the substitution of the

definition around “commercial passenger vehicle that can accommodate more than

the prescribed number of persons” — the intention of that and how the

prescription would be identified, determined and stated.

Hon. C. Trevena: There’s not much of a change here. It is still what was in the previous

regulation, which is 11 people. What is significant is that…. It’s a minor

change, but I think it’s a significant change. It says in 1(g)(a) “when the

vehicle is operated to or from locations.” Previously, it said “to and from

locations.” This allows for that one-way drop-off. So you can go to one place

and not have to do a return.

J. Sturdy: I was interested, as well, in the accommodation and the prescription of

the number associated. It says “can accommodate more than the prescribed number

of persons.”

Is that the number, 11, that you just referred to, and where is that

referenced?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s 11 plus the driver, and it’s prescribed through regulations,

Passenger Transportation Act.

J. Sturdy: On the sub (ii), it says “a commercial passenger vehicle excluded by

regulation.” What would be the need for exclusion? What type of situation would

we see?

Hon. C. Trevena: This

section is to provide some flexibility to avoid capturing those

vehicles that really don’t need to be captured. The example is…. It’s sort of

like for health care. If you are caring for someone, and you are being paid to

care for them, and then you give them a ride to an appointment because you’re

being paid to care for them, that would be excluded under this.

[2:55 p.m.]

It gives that flexibility, so we can capture those vehicles that are

going to be used commercially and not those that are being used but not on a

commercial basis.

J. Sturdy: Is there a significant list of vehicles that are excluded by regulation?

I guess a supplementary would be: is it a comprehensive list? Is it specific in

terms of what those exemptions are? Or are there categories?

Hon. C. Trevena: That is in the current regulation.

J. Sturdy: The next sub is a prescribed commercial passenger vehicle. If the

minister could perhaps explain…. What is the meaning of that particular (

b) there?

Hon. C. Trevena: The definition on this…. I can understand the confusion. So (

a) is what

is excluded, a commercial passenger vehicle that operates to and from but does

not include. Points (

i) and (ii) were excluded, and (

b) is what is included.

Because it’s prescribed, it’s under the existing passenger transportation

branch regulations.

J. Sturdy: On to (h). This is an added definition, “passenger directed vehicle

authorization”? If the minister can help us understand why that is a required

addition to the

definitions.

Hon. C. Trevena: This is going back a little to point (b), the authorization section.

Under “special authorization” we’ve got the passenger directed vehicle

authorization, the inter-city bus authorization and the TNS authorization. This

is the passenger directed vehicle authorization. Just that one. Not inter-city

bus, not TNS. It’s the passenger directed vehicle.

T. Stone: Just going back a bit, under subsection (f)(b), we’re talking about the

definition of “mobility aids.” I’m just wondering if the minister could clarify

the nature of her consultation or what engagement looked like with the

that.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think we all share the absolute critical importance of making sure

that there continue to be viable, accessible transportation options for people

who really need it. And I just think it would bear all of us good value to

equation.

As part of that, where it says, “a prescribed device used to

facilitate,” I’m assuming a prescribed device would be a device that has been

specifically provided to an individual, whether that be by a health care

provider or someone else. Or is there some other meaning behind the way that

subsection (

b) is worded insofar as what a prescribed device actually

means?

Hon. C. Trevena: Answering the second part first, “a prescribed device used to facilitate

the transport of a person with a disability,” it is prescribed by regulations.

It’s not that the device is prescribed, but that it is prescribed under

regulation.

For consultation, it has obviously been…. This is a very serious issue.

We know that there is an essential shortage of accessible vehicles. So we have

been ensuring that we’ve been doing a lot of consultation. Obviously, we have

the select standing committee. There was consultation there and submissions

there.

Dr. Hara, who we retained to assist in the consultation and discussions

about the taxi industry and app-based ride-hailing, has also consulted with

seniors advocate has been consulted. The Disability Alliance, I think,

presented to the select standing committee and has also been in conversation.

There were letters submitted to the select standing committee. The

community.

T. Stone: I appreciate the minister advising the House on the level of engagement

appreciate those efforts.

Last question on this particular subsection. I appreciate the response

insofar as my question as to what a prescribed device actually meant, as per

regulation or otherwise. The minister has said it’s as defined in

regulation.

Could the minister explain to the House why…? Give us a few examples of

what a prescribed device could be that wouldn’t already be contemplated in

subsection (a), which reads: “a wheelchair, scooter or other device used to

facilitate the transport, in a normally-seated position, of a person with a

disability.”

What is the difference? What is the second subsection actually

contemplating that’s not captured in the first subsection?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: This goes back to some of the other prescriptions, using regulation to

give some flexibility, primarily because we don’t know what will be coming up

is some device that isn’t any that we have recognized up to this point, whether

it’s a wheelchair or anything else, this gives that flexibility for it to be

recognized and accommodated through regulation.

T. Stone: Are there prescribed devices currently provided for in regulation? If

so, can the minister point me to where I could take a look at that or, perhaps,

provide those details to me after the fact?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is a new definition. “Adding the following definition” is new, so

there is actually nothing there as yet. But obviously, as things move along,

I’ll be happy to share with the member what comes up.

T. Stone: I would appreciate that. Thank you to the minister.

Just, again, a bit more of a higher-level question about the licences.

Just wondering, again in the context of how some of these

definitions have

changed here, if any of the changes that are provided for in this legislation

impact general authorization licences insofar as sightseeing and large charter

vehicles. I think of companies like wine tours, which are proliferating in

communities — I’m not sure if in Campbell River, the member’s home community,

but in many communities around the province.

Currently a general authorization licence is sufficient for operators

offering tours with itineraries set by the licensees in any vehicle size. I

believe in the current state of this that it’s referred to as carrier-directed

tour. A GA licence is also sufficient for charter services offered in vehicles

with forward-facing seating for 13 or more, including the driver.

Again, I’m just wondering if there are any changes contemplated in here

that respond to the ask of many operators in this space requesting that the

seating capacity be changed to move larger vans — like Mercedes Sprinter vans,

as an example. They seem to be a popular van used for these kinds of operations

— moving these into the general passenger vehicle category.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very conscious of changing vehicles and changing technology, that

things have moved on, but that isn’t part of this set of changes in these

definitions or these regulations.

T. Stone: Likewise, with respect to the legislative changes contemplated in this

package, do any of these changes impact operators, which have been generally

referred to as party bus operators? Do any of their licence authorizations

change through any of the changes in this legislation?

Hon. C. Trevena: No, not at this time.

T. Stone: Okay. Thank you, Minister.

Moving on to subsection (i), it repeals the definition of “rates” and

substitutes it with a new definition. The new definition includes different

types of fares or charges: discount fares, round-trip fares, point-to-point

fares, deadhead charges, minimum and maximum charges and any other fares, fees

or charges.

Just wondering if the minister could speak to…. First, at a high level,

has a new fare

schedule been…? Well, actually, let me back up. If I understand

correctly how this will work, through order-in-council, the government will

have to set some initial rates, a rate schedule, that would then be taken up by

the Passenger Transportation Board. Perhaps the minister could correct me if

I’m wrong about that insofar as, certainly, the new operators, the TNS, the

ride-sharing companies. Related to that, has that rate

schedule yet been

determined?

Hon. C. Trevena: The Passenger Transportation Board has been responsible for establishing

taxi rates and will be responsible for establishing rates for TNSs. It is

independent. It doesn’t come through cabinet.

T. Stone: Just so we’re absolutely clear on this, there will be no direction

provided from cabinet to the Passenger Transportation Board with respect to

what the starting position will be on fares, as it relates to the new entrants

into the market?

This is an important point because there has been lots of talk about

minimum rates and maximum rates and concerns around surge pricing and so forth.

If I’m not mistaken, I think the minister and the government have made some

strong comments out there about wanting to, with the consumer in mind, make

sure that there is some sensibility wrapped around what those rates are that

can be charged for the new entrants to the market.

But if I heard the minister correctly in her last response, she said

that cabinet would not be providing any direction as a starting point for those

rates for new entrants. Could the minister take one more run at that for me and

just help me to clarify this?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I just really wanted to highlight, for the member, point (

e) under (i) —

that there will be minimum and maximum rates. Everybody is very conscious of

surge pricing. So we’re expecting the board will be following this. There’ll be

a floor to the rates and a ceiling to the rates, but it is up to the board to

be setting the rates.

T. Stone: Okay. So again, just one last time. There will be no direction from

cabinet or through order-in-council to the Passenger Transportation folks

directing a starting point for a floor or a ceiling on the rates that can be

charged for a new entrant. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, that’s correct.

T. Stone: The minister mentioned the “minimum and maximum charges” aspect of this.

I believe the word “maximum” is new. It represents a new component of the

definition here. I’m wondering if the minister could provide some background or

context as to what the thinking was that resulted in adding the word “maximum”

into the subsection (e), which now says “minimum and maximum

charges.”

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, the board is really already doing this. They set rates in a range,

but it isn’t in legislation. This actually puts it in. It clarifies it and puts

it into legislation.

T. Stone: Okay. I think there are obviously going to be a lot of question marks

wrapped around what the rates are going to be, what rates will be allowed to be

charged, both on the taxi side and on the ride-sharing side.

If we can first talk about the taxi side, I’m wondering if the minister

could shed some light for the House on the approach that will be taken with

respect to pricing insofar as street-hail and taxi-stand pickups go. At the

moment, the pricing is fixed. I’m just wondering if that will continue to be

the pricing approach — again, on the taxi side, with respect to street-hail and

taxi-stand pickups.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: This, once again, is the work of the board. They are the ones who

determine the pricing, whether it’s a street-hail or whether it is a cab rank

or whatever. They’re the ones who determine the pricing.

T. Stone: Fair enough, but I’m just asking: is the minister aware of any change

that is going to take place from what the current state is to what the new

state is? We’re talking about the pricing here. I’m hoping the minister is not

going to answer the next half dozen questions I have about rates and pricing by

simply saying that it’s going to be determined at some later date. British

Columbians, I think, have a right to know, as part of this debate, this

discussion, what they can reasonably expect — even if not in dollar terms, then

in terms of approach.

Again, with respect to the street-hail and taxi stand pickup, the

current state, as I understand it…. I’m absolutely willing to be corrected if

I’m wrong, but my understanding of the current state is that the pricing is

fixed, set by the Passenger Transportation Board. I’m simply inquiring as to

whether or not the minister anticipates any change to that pricing approach for

taxis, with respect to street-hail and taxi stand pickup.

Hon. C. Trevena: The board has, obviously, had discussions with industry. It has had

information on its website about different approaches. There has been the input

from Dr. Hara. But on the issue of pricing, it is the purview of the

board.

T. Stone: The pricing that is set is the purview of the board, but I do believe —

I was in the minister’s position at one time — that there is an aspect of this

where the minister does have a view. That is taken into account, in part,

through the individuals that are appointed to this board through

order-in-council by the government.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m simply trying, for the benefit of consumers in British Columbia, to

understand what the approach is likely going to be as we potentially usher a

new industry into British Columbia — both for that new industry and for

existing providers — the taxi industry. These are important questions. I think

that, to the extent that we can eliminate as many question marks as possible

around this entire file, this will be good for assuaging concerns that the

existing industry has, and it will answer questions that the new entrants

have.

The second part of the taxi-rate piece that I want to inquire about

today relates to telephone dispatch. We’ve tried to talk about street-hail and

taxi. I’m wondering if the minister could provide some comments around any

changes that may be contemplated or may be coming with respect to the approach,

relating to the fares that are allowed to be charged with respect to telephone

dispatch within the existing taxi industry.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member, as he has mentioned, has been in this role himself

and does know very clearly that the board is an independent

tribunal.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This

section on rates is essentially talking about the different sorts

of fares and adding the definition of “minimum and maximum charges.”

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could advise the House if — as part of the

consideration of any potential changes to the rates that can be charged for the

telephone dispatch with respect to the taxi industry — any consideration has

been given to allowing for lower rates for telephone dispatch trips, to allow

for discounts during off-peak time, to better enable the taxi industry to

generate business, if needed.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Without wanting to sound like a broken record…. We’re talking about the

independence of the board and the purview of the board. Whether we’re talking

app-based, phone call or street hail, the board has that responsibility. The

only change in the legislation from previous legislation are the words “and

maximum charges.” Point (

e) is the only change in the legislation. The rest is

the legislation as it stood when the member for Kamloops–South Thompson stood

in this position.

T. Stone: Well, I’m going to keep trying. The rates that are going to be charged

or allowed to be charged to consumers is one of the most central components of

the regulatory framework that this legislation amends, whether one looks at the

taxi side or at the ride-sharing side. How much these companies are allowed to

charge — most consumers find it pretty important and pretty interesting

information to have.

I hope that the minister, in the spirit of providing some clarity for

British Columbians around approach, around framework…. In the context of, as

she calls it herself, a very significant overhaul of the Passenger

Transportation Act and the regulatory framework…. She has Kristin Vanderkuip,

the registrar and director, sitting behind her, who knows this stuff in her

sleep, and senior staff. Certainly, when I was the minister, I had these

conversations with these people and the folks in the ministry.

To suggest that the minister is not part of those conversations or that

it’s not the purview of her office is simply not being, I think, fair and

reasonable in terms of the subject matter at hand and the importance that it

has on people’s minds. How much can these companies charge? I don’t think it’s

good enough to simply say, “It’s an independent tribunal, and it’ll all be

set,” and whatnot. There had to have been discussions that the minister was

party to, with respect to the framework around what can be charged on both the

taxi side and the ride-sharing side. It is implausible to suggest that the

minister has not been involved in discussions on rates.

So I will try again. Can the minister speak to any changes in approach

that may be coming, with respect to the taxi industry, when it comes to rates

on both the telephone dispatch side of the equation and/or the street hail or

the taxi stand pickup side of the equation? Taxi operators, taxi owners and

consumers want to understand what pricing changes are being contemplated that

will flow from these legislative changes.

Hon. C. Trevena: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson may find it implausible and may

find it confusing and may find it troubling and may find various other

adjectives and anything else he wants to find, but it is exactly the same role,

as the minister, that was the role when he was the minister, which is that the

Passenger Transportation Board has the ability and the right under the

Passenger Transportation Act to act independently.

[3:35 p.m.]

The rest of this is exactly as it was when he was minister. The only

thing that is being added is “maximum,” which, I would think, would give

comfort to any consumer, anybody who is wanting to get a cab or get an

app-based hailing car, because it does suggest that the board can now set a

maximum fee.

The rest is as it has always been under the Passenger Transportation

Act, including when the member opposite was the minister and was going through

it himself.

T. Stone: Well, that’s actually not true. We’re dealing with the definition

section here and subsection (i), which provides for a new definition for rates.

These

definitions of rates flow through the entire piece of legislation that is

used to provide that guide on what can be charged and what cannot be charged,

whether you’re a taxi operator or a new entrant.

Number two, things are changing dramatically, because the whole point of

this legislation, we’re to believe, is to welcome a new industry to our

province: ride-sharing. Fundamental to that is going to be the rates that can

be charged. This is not a steady-state scenario. There is no ride-sharing

industry yet in the province. This bill provides the government’s framework for

getting there.

I’m simply trying to understand, recognizing the significant concern

that has been expressed by existing participants in the industry — namely,

taxicabs and taxi owners and taxi drivers — if there are any substantive

changes being contemplated to what rates can be charged on the taxi side of the

equation. That’s an important element, I think, of the overall discussion if

one wants to have a balanced discussion of the welcoming of this new industry

into British Columbia.

Again, the minister is right in underscoring the fact that I once sat in

her chair. I once had the meetings and discussions and engagements and

consultations, and on and on it went, including with the passenger

transportation branch, including with the Passenger Transportation Board,

including with the chair — several of whom I had appointed, as the minister,

through order-in-council.

None of that is changing here, so I don’t understand the reticence on

the part of the minister in not being more forthcoming with respect to what the

framework is going to be, assuming these changes are implemented, what the

changes will actually look like and how the rates will actually impact the taxi

industry.

It’s a fair and legitimate question. I’ll ask the minister one more time

if she is prepared to share with British Columbians what they can expect

insofar as rates that can be charged by the taxi industry as a result of the

presumptive passing of this legislation.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I want to clarify one piece first before going down to…. As the member

for Kamloops–South Thompson has said, one last time, so answering this question

one final time.

The current legislation reads, in the

definitions section: “‘rates’

includes discount fares, deadhead charges, round trip fares, point-to-point

fares, minimum charges, and any other fees or charges.”

The new legislation reads that “‘rates’, in relation to compensation

that may be charged or collected for the transportation of passengers in

commercial passenger vehicles,” so getting a bit more clarification on what the

rates relate to, “includes the following: (

a) discount fares; (

b) round-trip

fares; (

c) point-to-point fares; (

d) deadhead charges; (

e) minimum and maximum

charges; (

f) any other fares, fees or charges.” The only difference in the

legislation is the addition of the maximum charge.

I say again that the Passenger Transportation Board, as an independent

body, will be working — as it has done in the past, and as it will continue to

do so in the future — in the best interests of the consumer, of the travelling

public, whether it is dealing with fares that are charged in taxis, whether

it’s fares that are charged in app-based ride-hailing, whether it is the

ability for buses to be going around our province — intercity buses that will

be going around our province.

Whatever its licensing is to do, it is working independently. It has the

interests of the consumer and the public when it is making its decisions, and

it will continue to do that when it is setting the fares to a minimum level or

to a maximum level.

T. Stone: The minister’s reading of this subsection is exactly the same as mine.

There’s no daylight between us on what the

section actually says. That wasn’t

my question. I’m trying to drive at what expectations should look like, in

consumers’ minds and in taxi drivers’ minds, as to what rates will be when this

legislation presumably makes its way through this House and becomes the

law.

Let’s try on the ride-sharing side of the equation. I would like to ask

the minister if she could…. Seeing as this bill, again, is entirely about

welcoming a new industry to British Columbia, one that doesn’t exist here, and

one that does exist in many places around the world…. Many of us have tried it

in other places, and we, generally, probably have an expectation, roughly

speaking, of what we might expect to pay here in British Columbia. Every

jurisdiction has managed it a little bit differently.

Can the minister provide some comment on what the pricing approach will

be for the transportation network service or the ride-sharing companies that

would be welcomed into British Columbia as part of these legislative

changes?

Hon. C. Trevena: That, too, will be a decision of the Passenger Transportation Board,

within the parameters set out here in the definition of rates, including the

minimum and maximum charges.

T. Stone: Can the minister at least provide British Columbians and ride-sharing

companies with a sense that a flexible pricing approach will be adopted and

implemented with respect to ride-sharing companies, recognizing that it’s that

flexible pricing, which balances the supply and the demand, that makes the

reliability and the availability of the ride-sharing service possible? Frankly,

the flexible pricing model is absolutely integral to the entire business model

of ride-sharing companies.

[3:45 p.m.]

If there isn’t flexibility in that model, the ability to charge more at

high-peak times and less at lower-demand times…. If there isn’t that inherent

flexibility made available to these companies, that is a massive barrier to

entry for ride-sharing companies into British Columbia.

Can the minister please advise the House and share with British

Columbians whether or not there will be pricing flexibility in terms of the

approach that will be adopted for ride-sharing companies as they operate in

British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: This definition does really allow flexibility. The board will receive

applications from app-based ride-hailing companies — the TNS, as the acronym is

— and consider the appropriate rate structure with, as the definition at (i)(

e) says, a minimum and a maximum level.

T. Stone: We’re making little bit of progress here. I appreciate the comments in

the minister’s previous response because it provided a little bit of a glimpse

into what the framework for pricing may actually look like. That’s what we’re

trying to understand here, again, with consumers first and foremost in mind, as

well as taxicab operators and drivers.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide the House with her

understanding of and concerns with and her views generally as pertain to surge

pricing, which has been often highlighted as a challenge in some jurisdictions.

It obviously varies from one jurisdiction to the next. But surely, the minister

must have a view of surge pricing, and I would appreciate if she could share

that with the House today.

Hon. C. Trevena: This piece of legislation is about modernizing the taxi system, opening

the way for app-based ride-hailing to come into the market.

I think that, yes, everyone has heard stories about surge pricing,

whether it’s raining or there’s a football game or whatever else is happening.

This legislation is designed to ensure that the Passenger Transportation Board

can have the best interests of the travelling public at heart and is setting

minimum and maximum charges.

[3:50 p.m.]

T. Stone: It is a reasonable expectation, should this legislation pass, that

forthcoming from the Passenger Transportation Board there will be a prescribed

schedule that would represent a floor and a ceiling as it pertains to the rates

that can be charged by ride-sharing companies.

Hon. C. Trevena: The board is independent. The board will be setting rates as prescribed

by this

definitions

section and will be setting a minimum charge and a maximum

charge. It’s up to the board, Member.

T. Stone: Can the minister indicate whether or not there will be special

consideration when it comes to the setting of rates with respect to the

ride-sharing side of the equation and natural disasters? Will there be any

ceilings, any specific ceiling that would be set in the event of a natural

disaster?

Hon. C. Trevena: The government is not setting the rate. The board will be setting the

rates.

T. Stone: Well, it’s the government that appoints the board members. I certainly

did that when I was the minister. Through order-in-council, we appointed

members of that board. I had regular meetings with the board chair. I had

regular discussions with board members. I had regular discussions with the

staff and the passenger transportation branch as well. I would be shocked if

the minister isn’t having those exact same discussions today and in the months

leading up to the preparation of this legislation.

Further, with the exception of one very tiny glimpse of information

there, it is highly regrettable that the minister will not engage in a

thoughtful and more detailed discussion around what expectations British

Columbians should have when it comes to rates, both on the taxi side and the

ride-sharing side. This is a fundamental component from a consumer fairness

perspective, but it is also a fundamental component with respect to the ability

of these companies, these new entrants that British Columbians want in mass

numbers, to actually be able to come, to establish themselves in this province

and to be able to operate.

It is astounding that the minister has stayed within a defined box on

this and is refusing to discuss, in thoughtful terms, what the approach will be

so that British Columbians know, so that drivers know. I will take this

opportunity, in this context of rates, to say that the piece of legislation

that we had prepared back in December of 2017, the miscellaneous statutes

(passenger transportation services) amendment act, 2017…. The work in that bill

and the work wrapped around that bill, which was substantial and was ready — it

was sitting on the minister’s desk — provided a lot of detail around rates and

what people could expect.

On the taxi side of the equation of the street-hail and taxi-stand

pickup, our approach was to provide for fixed pricing there, initially set at

the existing rates that were being charged. I’m simply asking the minister if

that was going to change with this legislation. I couldn’t get an answer there.

When it came to telephone dispatch, we were going to…. Our legislation provided

for the ability for taxicab companies, when it comes to telephone dispatch, to

actually charge a discounted rate at certain times. Again, that was about

helping strengthen taxi companies and helping them with their

businesses.

[3:55 p.m.]

On the transportation network services side and the ride-sharing side,

our legislation did provide for flexible pricing — the one major exception

being in the case of natural disasters, whereby pricing could not be set any

higher than 3½ times what it would normally be set at. We provided for…. The

minimum floor rate was tied to the regional flag rate for the taxi

industry.

These were all details that, as a minister, I was certainly well on top

of. I was not punting it all over to the Passenger Transportation Board or

suggesting that I was not involved. I was very involved. My staff were very

involved. All of the ministry staff were very involved. I refuse to believe

that all of the above individuals haven’t been involved in discussions around

rates for the taxi industry and for the ride-sharing industry, as it pertains

to this piece of legislation.

With that, I will turn it over to, I believe, my colleague from North

Van–Seymour.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a question, also to do with rates. I’m wondering what the

definition of “deadhead charges” is.

Hon. C. Trevena: Before I respond to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, I just

wanted to quickly respond to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

I’ve got to say that I respect the independence of the board. I respect

what the board has been doing, and I respect its work as an independent body

and independent tribunal. I think that these are very important to good

governance — having tribunals where government has a hands-off. I do respect

that.

The member cited the aspects of pieces of rate structure that are in

draft legislation that the previous government drew up and had, allegedly,

ready but just seemed to forget to introduce in the House. I think that we’d be

in, potentially, a different position if the government had introduced that

legislation into the House. I think that the member knows full well that it

wouldn’t have been on my desk when I took over as minister, because there is

cabinet confidentiality, and we respect cabinet confidentiality.

[4:00 p.m.]

To the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, the deadhead charge is

already in the current legislation. This just is enumerating it slightly

differently. A deadhead charge is a charge where vehicles travel back to base

empty. It gives the ability of a company to charge that, to reposition their

vehicle.

J. Thornthwaite: So does that mean that it allows the company to charge double if it’s a

deadhead charge, if they’re travelling to another municipality?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a charge that is there in legislation already. It has to be applied

for by the company, and it’s not generally applied for. So it’s not actually

used very often. It’s there as an “in case.”

The example that is given to me now is if you need, for instance, to get

a cab for a long distance, for instance, from let’s say Prince George down to

Vancouver…. You had an emergency, and the only way you could travel was by cab.

The cab company might apply to get that charge coming back, because it’s such a

long journey. It’s something which isn’t usually applied for, but it is for

that repositioning.

J. Thornthwaite: So the repositioning is…. The example that the minister used was a long

distance, obviously — to Vancouver from Prince George. What I was getting at

is: what would be a deadhead charge in a ride-sharing company, given this is

supposed to encompass ride-sharing companies?

What would be a deadhead charge? For instance, would that be considered,

say, from Vancouver to the North Shore or Vancouver to Langley or Vancouver to

Surrey or whatever?

Hon. C. Trevena: Once again, the rates are set by the independent Passenger

Transportation Board. This section, deadhead charges, does exist now. It is

rarely used, and deadhead rates can’t be charged unless they’re approved by the

Passenger Transportation Board. So whether that is a taxi or an app-based

ride-hailing company, they have to apply to the Passenger Transportation Board

for their deadhead charges to be applied.

J. Thornthwaite: How would that work, then, if there’s a ride-sharing company that is

picking me up somewhere in the North Shore and going downtown?

I guess what I’m getting at is if there was not a ride — I think, pretty

much, when you’re dealing with ride-sharing companies, there always is a ride —

would there be an opportunity, then, through this application process, to

double the price if somebody had to come back?

Hon. C. Trevena: If the new service, the TNS, the app-based ride-hail wants to apply to

the board to be able to implement those charges, it can do so. Then it’s up to

the board to look at the application.

[4:05 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I have another question about

section (f). It’s “any other fares, fees

or charges.” Perhaps the minister could expand on what those might

be.

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, this already exists. It includes things like when you see

cleaning charges, if something happens in the cab and the cab needs to be

cleaned. That’s one. Excess luggage. These are the sorts of fees. You already

see it in the cabs. I think there are often little stickers saying that you

will be charged extra if something happens or if you have extra luggage. Those

are the sorts of issues that are covered in

section (f).

J. Thornthwaite: I have seen that. I know that if a passenger makes a mess — or even an

animal, I guess, makes a mess of a car — then there is that provision.

Specifically about ride-sharing companies, though, where would that apply with

them?

Hon. C. Trevena: It would be exactly the same.

J. Thornthwaite: How does a company then apply to the Passenger Transportation Board to

get these fees?

Hon. C. Trevena: They apply to the Passenger Transportation Board under rates

application. If they’re changing whatever it is that they are doing, if they

need to add anything, it’s under an application to the Passenger Transportation

Board.

J. Thornthwaite: So it doesn’t happen on the spot, then, with passenger A messing up a

car or whatever. They have to apply? I just want to get that

straight.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we might just be missing a little bit. The company would have to

apply to the board before it is allowed to charge these extra fees or charges.

So if the company didn’t say to the board it wanted to be able to charge an

extra fee for bringing a dirty dog into the car after a long hike, or if you’ve

got extra luggage that they’re going to charge extra, it has to get that

pre-approved by the board.

T. Stone: Just moving on here, in this section, the definition of “general

authorization vehicle identifier” and the definition of “special authorization

vehicle identifier” are both repealed. It would appear that they’re replaced

with a new definition, which is just the generic “vehicle identifier.” What’s

included in this new definition of “vehicle identifier” seems to be, with a few

exceptions, very comparable to the previous definition. I’m just wondering what

the rationale was for replacing the previous

definitions, as mentioned, with

this new, more generic vehicle identifier definition.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: This change really allows for the…. We’re talking about flexibility.

We’re talking about new entrants to the market. This allows the registrar to

adapt to, basically, the appropriate identifier for the different business

models. So whether you’ve been driving a cab, whether you’re driving an

app-based for-hail, or TNS, it allows for the registrar to be flexible to get

the right identifier.

T. Stone: Okay. I do understand that and appreciate that. So it would be similar

to, if I recall correctly…. When I was the minister, we brought in a new decal

that was required to be on party buses. Is this new definition, then, truly

intended to provide maximum flexibility to the branch to be able to create

whatever type of decal or plate or other type of identifier for each of the

different respective categories of passenger transportation? Is that it in a

nutshell?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes.

J. Sturdy: If I could, with regard to the maximums and minimums…. I know you’ve

gone over and over this, and I’m not sure that I really got a handle on it.

Just to give them flexibility was the answer — the parameter, to give the PTB a

range to work in.

I’m sorry. I should have understood an answer out of all of that

interchange, but unfortunately, I didn’t.

Hon. C. Trevena: The import of this is having the word “maximum” in the legislation. So

the independent Passenger Transportation Board will set a maximum level that

fares can go to.

J. Sturdy: Speaking to maximums and minimums and the theoretical independence of

the Passenger Transportation Board, the minister has talked at length and at

various times about the issue of a minimum wage or a living wage, with regard

to transportation network services or ride-hailing drivers. How does this

relationship work, then? How can the minister’s stated desire to have a minimum

wage…? How is this connected to the maximum and minimum rate change, and how

does this relate to an independent Passenger Transportation Board?

Hon. C. Trevena: Would you like me to answer the question now? Okay. I think everybody

has a desire that everybody gets a living wage. It has nothing to do with the

independence of the non-theoretically independent Passenger Transportation

Board.

As I mentioned to your colleague the member for Kamloops–​South

Thompson, we believe in the independence of bodies such as the independent

Passenger Transportation Board because they help the work of good governance.

This is something that our government thinks is very important, to have

independent tribunals, such as the Passenger Transportation Board, working on

behalf of the public good to support good governance. So I question the

assumption that there is a theoretical independence.

As the member well knows, the Passenger Transportation Board isn’t

setting people’s wages. That comes under labour codes. This is an issue that is

dealt with under labour codes, not under the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete with

amendment.

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

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

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

Hon. D. Eby: Now, hon. Speaker.

[4:20 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, read a third time and

passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and

Proceedings .]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 55, and in

Committee A, I call committee stage on Bill 57, Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act.

[4:25 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 55; L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 4:27 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

J. Sturdy: We were on this issue of maximum and minimum rates and how they are set

by the PTB, yet at the same time, there’s a desire from government to see that

there are minimum income thresholds. Certainly, the B.C. Federation of Labour

has also been quite adamant about this.

I’m really not understanding how you could separate out the rates

charged relative to the ability for these companies to pay. If there’s a desire

on behalf of government to ensure that there is a certain level of compensation

for the drivers, how can that not be relayed on to the passenger transportation

branch and influence their decisions in terms of what minimums and maximums

could be?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member for West Vancouver–​Sea to Sky, the Passenger

Transportation Board sets the rates. The companies set the way that the drivers

are compensated and work that out with the drivers, whether it’s a cab company

or whether it’s a TNS. However it’s done, that’s up to the company. It’s the

responsibility of the independent Passenger Transportation Board to set the

rates.

[4:30 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: The minister, then, is suggesting that there isn’t a relationship. Or

does the Passenger Transportation Board consider the ability of the

organization — of the TNS or the taxi company — to pay, in terms of the setting

of rates? If they clearly see from government’s perspective that there’s a

desire to see a certain level of wage….

There’s been speculation about a living wage, whatever the definition of

that happens to be. This has got to be considered. Yet at the same time, I

think there’s some confusion about the conditions under which the Passenger

Transportation Board is making these decisions with regard to rates and how

they’re considering…. What are the criteria under which they’re making these

decisions?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think we’re getting a little beyond the rates question here. We’re

getting into another

section of the bill.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Passenger Transportation Board, an independent board, sets the

rates. It looks at various aspects, such as the consumer price index. The

companies set compensation. One of the things the board does consider — and

this is something that comes up later in the bill, that we can discuss later in

the bill, perhaps — is the three-part test: whether there’s a need for service,

whether the applicant is fit and proper to provide the service and capable of

providing the service, and whether the approval of the application would

promote sound economic conditions in passenger transportation in

B.C.

Under the present model, the board has to agree to all three of those. I

would like the member to disaggregate the wages from the rates. The Passenger

Transportation Board sets the rates. The companies set the compensation for

their drivers.

J. Sturdy: Just for clarity, there are different rate classifications for each of

the different services. So taxis would get a certain rate range. TNS would get

a certain rate range. Intercommunity buses or whatever would get a different

rate.

Hon. C. Trevena: The rates are set by the independent Passenger Transportation

Board.

J. Sturdy: Perhaps the minister could just help me, then, understand. There is no

rate schedule, I guess, for TNSs at this point, because there aren’t any TNSs.

Is that correct?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, that’s right.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

A. Olsen: Just one question on this from me, and that is: what’s the difference

between audit and investigation in this section?

Hon. C. Trevena: Auditing is monitoring for compliance to the business, and investigation

is acting on non-compliance, investigating non-compliance. So one is just

monitoring whether the company is compliant. The other is, if they are found

not to be compliant, to be able to have that investigation.

[4:35 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: So this audit and the investigation power is of the PTB?

Hon. C. Trevena: It is the registrar.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister perhaps help me understand better where the registrar

resides? What does the registrar consist of? What does it look like? What are

its powers? I’m sorry, I don’t entirely understand this.

Hon. C. Trevena: The registrar is the delegated authority. The registrar is responsible

for administrating licences and ensuring compliance and enforcement of the

Passenger Transportation Act.

J. Sturdy: Is there a limitation on the powers? Is there anything that they can’t

investigate? That’s maybe a simpler way of putting it. Or is it really just

about the technical aspects of it, whether the paperwork is filled

in?

Hon. C. Trevena: The powers are actually defined in

section 5. You can find them. They

are that an inspector may enter the premises of a licensee, agent, permit

holder or permit holder’s agent for the purpose of — I’m summarizing here —

inspecting any records and things that may be relevant to an inspection. They

must, obviously, present identification.

They may require a person who has possession of or control over records

that may be relevant to an auditor investigation to produce those records. They

may inspect records, remove records for the purpose of making copies, and so

on. It’s quite a strong power. It is the power of ensuring that the Passenger

Transportation Act is enforced and that public safety is ensured

too.

J. Sturdy: Will there be any targets in terms of the number of audits that take

place in a given year? Are there any targets?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: That isn’t actually included in the bill, the specific target of

audits.

J. Sturdy: If there were to be targets, who would be setting those targets? Would

that be government?

Hon. C. Trevena: That would be based, really, on an assessment of the industry. It would

be set by the registrar, who is the head of the passenger transportation branch

that administers the decisions of the Passenger Transportation

Board.

T. Stone: I would like to ask, in the context of this section, a few questions

that relate to the very likely additional resources that will be required in

the registrar’s office to assume a pretty significant expansion of

responsibility with the entry of a new industry into the province.

The first question would be this. Can the minister provide any details

related to what additional staffing requirements are likely needed in order to

be able to adequately and efficiently administer an entirely new business line

inside of the registrar’s office?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is aware that this legislation makes it a provincial

regime, rather than the responsibility of the municipalities, which obviously

will mean more work for the registrar’s office and for the passenger

transportation branch. There will necessarily be additions in staffing to

ensure that the act — really, the whole new system that is new; the

introduction of TNS, TNCs, app-based ride-hailing — can happen smoothly. So

there will be an increase in staff and resources for the office to make sure it

can run smoothly.

T. Stone: Can the minister provide a quantum of some sort? Are we talking about a

doubling of the staff requirements in terms of what is there today? Are we

talking about tripling? Or is it just a few additional positions?

I do recall this conversation when I was there as well. It is as a

provincial…. As the minister quite rightly points out, as a provincial mandate,

there will be a significant increase in, certainly, first-time applications. It

will likely level off over time.

But I think that it would be helpful for all to have a sense of what

kind of staffing increase we are likely to expect. And perhaps the minister

could indicate what that would look like to ramp things up, as this new

industry is ushered in, and what she may expect would be the staffing

requirements over time once the industry is up and running.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We are going to ensure that there are adequate resources to properly

enforce this legislation. We are committed to public safety, and that is a

fundamental part of this legislation. So there will be the resources,

commensurate with needs, for this legislation.

T. Stone: On this side of the House, we are certainly very supportive of taking

necessary measures to ensure the safety of the travelling public as well. But

again, I want to…. I’m coming back to trying to understand what the scope and

scale of the increase in the registrar’s office is likely going to be with what

will be a significant expansion in the responsibilities of this

office.

Could the minister provide an indication as to how many additional FTEs

will be required on the administrative side, meaning those staff that will be

tasked with having to process the likely increase in applications that will be

coming in predominantly from the new entrants represented by the ride-share

industry?

Hon. C. Trevena: We will absolutely ensure that there are the resources available to

ensure that applications are processed in a timely fashion and that we have

safety on our roads. I think that we are committed to making sure that this

legislation works, and we will ensure that there are adequate resources, both

in staffing and other resources, to make sure this works.

T. Stone: With all due respect, let’s ask the question a different way. There must

have been some analysis done inside the ministry and in the registrar’s office

as part of the broad discussion of this entire piece of legislation, which

represents a significant transformation of the Passenger Transportation Act in

this province.

Could the minister speak to what analysis was done, what business

planning was done, what projections there may be, therefore, as part of that

analysis that has informed the government’s expectations around what is a

reasonable expectation for how many additional staff will be required? To

simply say, “Well, there will be a demand, and we will meet that demand,” I

think is selling taxpayers short and selling British Columbians

short.

There will be a significant increase in volume. Surely, there has been

some analysis and business planning done to best project what that estimated

increase in volume will be and, therefore, what a related staffing complement

should be in order to manage those volumes.

Could the minister please provide any details she may have on analysis

on the aforementioned?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We have not gone into this blindly. We’ve done work, obviously, in

preparing legislation, in talking to people, in doing all the planning. We are

committed to making sure the legislation works.

As the member knows, we have the passenger transportation branch. We

have commercial vehicle safety enforcement. We will be working diligently to

make sure that this legislation works, that we can process — that the branch

can process — the applications, that we are able to ensure that the licence is

there, that we are getting new services on our roads when new services apply

next year, in 2019, as we have said. We are committed to doing that, and we’re

going to put in the resources necessary to make sure that that

works.

T. Stone: Well, I appreciate the minister indicating that she hasn’t gone into

this blindly. That would suggest that some work has been done inside the

ministry. I know that work has been done. These are diligent, hard-working

professionals in the ministry. They did the tremendous amount of work when I

was there. I know that there would have had to have been business plans and

analysis done that provide…. I have projections that were provided to me for my

consideration when I was part of government managing this file. I think it’s an

absolutely fair question and one that deserves an answer.

What analysis and business planning has been done that has enabled the

minister and her staff to be able to project what the projected volumes will

actually or potentially be? What does that range look like? How does that then

translate into the budget requirements for the registrar’s office, most

notably, for the staffing requirements?

This is a legitimate question. The minister surely has information at

her fingertips. If not, it would be at the fingertips of the professionals

sitting around her that she could share with this House and with British

Columbians.

Hon. C. Trevena: With all due respect to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, yes, we

are supported by extraordinarily hard-working professionals, who’ve ensured

that we actually have legislation on the floor of this House that we can be

debating. These professionals were prepared to come to discuss and support us

on that legislation in this committee debate. They were not prepared to be

discussing estimates debate questions.

We are committed to making sure that this legislation works. We will be

investing in the branch, in the registrar’s office, in CVSE, to ensure that

this legislation works and that we get licences processed, and the safety of

British Columbians comes first. But this is not an estimates debate. It is

committee stage on Bill 55, amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act. I

hope that you respect the staff who’ve come prepared to discuss that and not

estimates debate.

T. Stone: That is certainly the most ridiculous answer that the minister has

provided today. I mean, to suggest that the professional staff here are, as she

says, “prepared to come and discuss with us this piece of legislation,” as if

there’s some favour being bestowed upon this House, is ridiculous. It is their

job, and they do a great job.

My beef is not with the staff. My beef is with the minister, who, for

whatever reasons, reasons known to her, is not prepared to share very, very

simple information to very simple questions that relate to what will be an

expansion of the registrar’s office that will flow directly from an increased

volume of applications for this new industry that, presumably, will show up at

our doorstep as this legislation is ushered in. This is about understanding,

and British Columbians understanding, what those volumes are likely to be and

what costs are likely to be and what the staffing requirements are likely to

be.

[4:55 p.m.]

Those are absolutely legitimate and fair questions to be asking in the

context of this piece of legislation. I will ask again, knowing that there had

to have been analysis done and projections provided by the very capable staff

that work in this ministry. Could the minister please provide this House and

provide British Columbians with projections in terms of staffing requirements

for the folks that will have to process and approve or not approve the flood of

applications which the minister has suggested is likely going to happen? I

would appreciate an answer to that question.

I would appreciate knowing, as well, how many…. Is there any increase in

FTEs coming with respect to the enhanced investigation and auditing powers that

are provided for specifically in this

section that will carry additional costs?

I would like to know what that increase in FTEs is. I would like to know if

there’s any projected increase in FTEs related to additional enforcement, which

is also contemplated throughout this

section and throughout this piece of

legislation, as the ride-hailing industry is ushered into British

Columbia.

Those are fair and specific questions that are very, very relevant to

this particular

section and to this bill that the minister has answers to, and

she should provide those answers to us here today.

Hon. C. Trevena: I will ensure that the member has answers to these questions. We have

taken note of the specific questions. We will provide the member with answers

in due course.

There are, obviously, budget issues that we are dealing with. We’re

going into the budget process, and that also plays into this. However, we will

provide the member for Kamloops–South Thompson with this information in due

course. We do not have that available at the moment. We’ll provide it to

him.

T. Stone: If I understand correctly, we have to wait, presumably until after this

piece of legislation is passed, before we’re going to be provided with answers

to very basic questions which are critical to this process that we’re in right

now. We’re in Committee of the Whole on this piece of legislation. As one of 87

legislators, it’s my right to ask specific questions. For the minister to

suggest that they will be provided at some later date is simply not

acceptable.

I would like to know…. Her staff have technology. I was well served when

I was a minister. Staff would send texts or emails out and ask specific

questions, and the answers would be texted back in. I think that there is no

reason whatsoever that a very simple question like how many additional FTEs

should British Columbians expect to be on the hook for with this significant

expansion that is about to take place of the registrar’s office…. How many

additional FTEs are actually going to be part of that plan? What did the

analysis and the business planning actually look like that informed those

projections? And how do those FTE projections actually flow through to actual

costs?

Again I ask the minister: what is the anticipated increase in FTEs as

well as anticipated budget that’s going to be required to fund this expansion

of the registrar’s office?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think that the member may not actually be hearing what I’m saying,

which is that we are absolutely committed to making sure this legislation

works. We want to have the legislation in place. We are anticipating that there

will be, obviously, more work because we are looking provincially. As the

member well knows, having sat for one term on this side of the House, at this

time of the year, we are in the budget process.

There are decisions being made that each ministry is anticipating will

be positive. This government knows that this is a key piece of legislation. We

have actually delivered on a promise of bringing forward legislation on

app-based ride-hailing. We have made sure that it’s come to this House, and

we’ll make sure that when it is delivered, it is delivered appropriately and

with full oversight of a well-staffed registrar of the passenger transportation

branch as well as the CVSE.

Of course staff has done the analysis of it. Of course we know what is

needed. We are in the middle of the budget process, and the member should know

very well that you don’t start talking about what is going to be in a budget

several months ahead of the budget.

T. Stone: I’m a bit bewildered. In successive questions here, I’ve had the

minister respond by suggesting that she doesn’t know the answer to what the

staffing levels will need to be. In a subsequent question, she then said that

she would be happy to provide that information for me at some time in the

future. Now she’s suggesting that actually she does have the information. She

has done the analysis, but she can’t provide it — or won’t provide it — because

it’s part of a budget submission.

We have a piece of legislation in front of us that provides for the

establishment of an entirely new framework for passenger transportation in the

province, which she, as the sponsoring minister on behalf of government, is

asking this House to get behind and to support. Understanding is part of our

analysis of this piece of legislation.

The implications, as related to staffing levels, as related to budget

impacts, are very, very important. They’re important from the context of

respecting the taxpayer. But they’re also important so that we can get some

sense of what we can expect around service levels, which applicants will expect

when it comes to putting their application in and having it considered by the

registrar’s office.

Let’s assume that there is a ramp-up and a significant volume of

applications. There will be an expectation attached to that by those applicants

— and, I would dare say, by British Columbians, by consumers — that the

applications will be processed in a timely fashion. That will require some

additional resources.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’m simply trying to understand what analysis has been done and what

that analysis has indicated to the minister in terms of what the added FTE

complements are likely going to need to be to manage those applications in a

timely fashion. That is an absolutely fair and reasonable question.

I will ask again. Perhaps the minister could include in her

consideration of her response — again speaking to what we can expect in terms

of an increase in staff complement needed in terms of processing applications,

in terms of the enhanced audit and investigations functions that are provided

for in this

section that presumably will require more human power. Are there

any budget implications and staffing implications that relate to the CVSE as

well, a critical partner of the passenger transportation branch and the

registrar’s office, in the delivery of safe passenger transportation services

in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I feel a bit, sort of, Groundhog Dayish here. We keep going over the

same ground. I have told the member that this is part of the budget cycle. I’ve

told the member that when we can, we will share more information with him, but

we are in the budget cycle. I’ve told the member that our government is

actually committed to making sure that app-based ride-hailing works and we get

legislation through this House. Our government is determined to make sure we

get legislation through this House.

We’ve got to make sure that there is safety for drivers and for the

public. We’ve got to make sure that we have everything in place. Making sure we

have everything in place does mean giving the resources to the registrar and

giving the resources to the CVSE.

I’ve said to the member that we are at a stage where we are talking

about two things. We are talking about this bill. Yes, we can go into great

details. I’m sure we will go into great details when we get to the estimates

debate about how much has actually been set aside for it.

At this stage, we are making sure…. We are giving the member opposite

the commitment — and the opposition and the people of B.C. who are going to be

using existing services, because we’re changing the taxi service and going to a

provincial model, the existing taxi service as well as those who want to use

app-based ride-hailing — that there will be the support in place to make sure

that applications are processed, that safety is covered and that we have a

regime in place that actually works for B.C.

T. Stone: News flash. I don’t disagree with anything the minister just said. I

don’t. We all want our roads to be as safe as possible. We all want the

enforcement capabilities of the CVSE to be what they need to be. We all want

the application process to work in an efficient manner for the applicants so

that services are delivered in a timely fashion for consumers. Those are all

principles and feel-good statements which I can get behind.

What I’m trying to understand here is what the implications are for the

resources required to actually address the volume that is going to increase

here.

Perhaps I could ask the question this way. The minister has indicated

that she understands the significance of ensuring that there are resources and

that there’s a budget process underway. What has she asked for? What is the

budget request to address this ramp-up of the registrar’s office?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite did sit on this side of the House, and he was

Minister of Transportation. I think he well knows that you do not discuss

budget questions, Treasury Board submissions — anything like that — in this

House when you are debating a bill.

I mean, the member may feel happy to wave around documents that he had

from when he was in cabinet and use them for the basis of a bill, but I’ve got

to say, I have given him the answer. I can keep on giving him the same answer.

I can keep on giving him the same answer till Tuesday evening.

We are committed to making sure this legislation works. We are

committed, after five years of getting legislation on the floor of this House,

to getting it through this House, even if it takes answering this question

until Tuesday evening. We want to make sure that, yes, what the member

opposite, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, describes as motherhood

statements…. Public safety a motherhood statement? I’m sorry. It’s more than a

motherhood statement.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Trevena: No, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson was the one who described it

as a motherhood statement.

We are committed to making sure this legislation works. We’ll put the

resources into it, and we will make sure that we get a ride-sharing,

ride-hailing, app-based-riding TNS system, as well as modernizing our taxi

service, in for B.C. next year.

T. Stone: Frankly, I’m not sure where to go with that. I don’t speak the language

of ridiculous. To suggest that I or anyone in this House isn’t committed to

public safety? Give me a break. We’re not committed to safety on our roads?

Give me a break.

The reality here is that the minister is being asked very specific

questions about what this is going to cost. Will it be adequately funded? Can

consumers expect that there will be an efficient application process so that

these services will be available sooner rather than later? Can applicants

expect that they will have their applications processed in a timely

fashion?

It would appear that the minister either doesn’t know the answers to

these questions — which would indicate that perhaps this initiative, which we

are going to be asked to vote on in the coming days, doesn’t have the resources

behind it, isn’t going to be funded; that there’s no plan for ensuring that the

volumes can be managed — or she doesn’t want to tell us.

Now considering the government’s track record on developing initiatives

with no plans, they’re getting pretty good at it. I would like to know why the

minister won’t simply share with this House, with British Columbians, what the

plan is, from a staffing perspective, to make sure that the volumes are going

to be managed.

Related to this is information technology. Let me ask the minister, and

perhaps she can share some details about the systems in the registrar’s office.

Now, I know that there are several disparate systems that aren’t connected.

They can’t be integrated in terms of the application administrative entries

that the registrar’s office does and the enforcement work and entries that are

made by CVSE.

When I was the minister, there was some discussion around costs related

to a new information technology system that would bring it all together. Can

the minister advise the House if she and her officials have contemplated

implementing a new information technology system to, in part, help address the

increased volume of work that will be managed by the registrar’s

office?

Interjections.

[5:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Members.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, let’s cut it out.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member.

Members, everybody. Everybody.

S. Bond: Mr. Chair, he needs to withdraw that.

The Chair: I understand but…. Calm it down.

Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. This

section about data is

section

14 of the bill. We are still on

section 2 of the bill. I’m happy to discuss

this under

section 14.

S. Bond: I think that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast needs to

withdraw his comment about safety and behaviour on the roads. It was

unacceptable and certainly not in the spirit of the discussion in this

Legislature. He needs to withdraw and apologize.

N. Simons: I appreciate the comments. If the former minister heard me correctly,

he’ll know that I pointed out to studies that showed increased injuries and

deaths. That’s what I said. I apologize for impugning his

reputation.

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member was distracted. Sorry. Talking about distracted

driving. That’s why we need cabs and app-based ride-hailing.

If we can move on in this bill, the member was talking about data. Data

is covered in

section 14 of the bill. I’d be very happy to talk about what is

going to be done with data in

section 14 of the bill.

T. Stone: Thank you to the minister. We’ll talk about information technology as

part of the data discussion in

section 14. She’s nodding her head. I appreciate

that.

Can the minister indicate how the relationship between CVSE and the

registrar’s office may evolve or change as a result of these enhanced audit and

investigation powers that are contained in this section? There’s a really

important relationship there, and I just would be curious to know the

minister’s thoughts on how that relationship might change as a result of the

provisions in this section.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, enough. I’m talking to each and every one of you.

Interjection.

The Chair: I understand, Member. No argument with the Chair. I’m saying: behave,

all of you.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, please.

Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: As the member knows, there’s a very good relationship between the CVSE,

the PTB and the inspection system. There are no changes in that relationship in

this act. I believe it’s very successful. I think the member would recognize,

as he has recognized in the past, that they’re all very hard-working public

servants, out making sure that our roads are safe.

[5:20 p.m.]

I apologize if I have made it look like the member does not believe in

safety. I think everybody believes in safety on our highways. The member was

the minister. We do believe in safety on our highways. We just need to make

sure that we approach it right, and we’re approaching it through good

investigation work in the CVSE here.

T. Stone: I appreciate the minister’s words there. We certainly are all committed

to safety. There’s no partisanship whatsoever when it comes to the safe

movement of people and goods in this province.

Again, I want to understand how the minister envisions the relationship

between the CVSE and the registrar evolving, as the responsibilities have

significantly expanded with the registrar’s office, and the volumes of

applications will increase significantly.

Are there any expectations that the minister has that would reflect any

notable changes in that very important relationship between the CVSE and the

registrar’s office?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not sure that there’ll be changes. I think they’ll continue to work

very closely together. They do work closely together, and I think that that

will continue. I can’t say, really, much more than that. We want to make sure

that we have that safety, and they will continue to work together.

T. Stone: I appreciate that.

Moving on, on this particular topic that we’ve been spending a fair bit

of time in the last while discussing — the expected volume increase of

applications and related FTE budget increases and so forth for the registrar’s

office…. Certainly, to me and to those in the opposition, this seems to

represent a fairly significant expansion of the registrar’s office. So we’ve

covered that. I would appreciate, at a later date, as the minister has

committed, some more granular detail on that analysis in those FTE numbers and

so forth.

With respect to the board, which I know we’ll get to in more detail in

subsequent sections, there is a contemplated expansion of the board.

I wanted to ask the minister if she and her officials considered a

slightly different model than what is being proposed here, and that was a model

that we had framed up that was part of the legislation we had worked on. That

was the elimination of the board, to be replaced with what we were going to

call a passenger transportation commissioner, which was intended to be a single

individual — autonomous, independent, appointed through order-in-council — who

would carry out many of the responsibilities of the board, similar to the

container trucking commissioner.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The determination that we had made at that time was that that approach

would deliver the same kinds of responsibilities but at much less cost. I’m

just wondering if the minister could indicate if she gave any thought to that

model or other comparable models, versus retaining those responsibilities with

the existing board and, in fact, I think expanding the board

somewhat.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s question. What we are proposing, obviously, in this

legislation is working through the Passenger Transportation Board. I talked

earlier about the importance of independent boards in the working of

government. I do respect the work of the Passenger Transportation

Board.

The idea of a passenger transportation commissioner, as was the trucking

commissioner, clearly was an idea of the former government. It was not

something that…. To be honest, public servants, when they are briefing you, are

very, very cognizant, as professionals, of cabinet confidentiality. So that was

something of a previous government.

Our government is committed to the Passenger Transportation Board and

the work of the Passenger Transportation Board and is using that in this act

that we’re debating at the moment on

section 2.

T. Stone: I may have heard some hope in the minister’s voice that we might be

moving on to

section 2 soon, and she might be right about that. Or

section 3.

See, we’re much further along that even I thought we were.

I respect the minister’s comment about the advice that would be

provided. I guess I’ll just ask one more time: did the minister consider any

other models? Recognizing the ramp-up in volume, the need for more and better

auditing and investigative capacity, the need to better integrate compliance

and enforcement, did the minister assess or analyze any other potential models

beyond what has been provided for in this legislation?

Hon. C. Trevena: I believe that the Passenger Transportation Board is an appropriate

model. We’ve been working very well with the Passenger Transportation Board.

It’s an independent body dealing with, most recently, long-distance bus

transportation. I think that they have shown themselves to be reflective, right

across British Columbia, of engaged citizens who are working on the best behalf

of their fellow British Columbians.

We’re very happy with the way that the Passenger Transportation Board is

working. Likewise, as we have discussed for some time this afternoon, the

passenger transportation branch will be getting extra resources to ensure that

the legislation can really be implemented in the true spirit of that

legislation. That will be happening in the coming months, as we go through the

budget process.

J. Sturdy: Happy to go with

section 2, finally.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[5:30 p.m.]

J. Sturdy:

Section 3 deals with amending the power of the Passenger Transportation

Board. It appears that there are a few technical things here in terms of audits

and investigations, that sort of thing, replacement of some

terminology.

The piece that has jumped out at me is the issue of adding

transportation network services authorizations to the ability of the board to

set those rates, as we talked about earlier, in a whole variety of government

limitations. There’s certainly concern from this side of the House with regard

to restricting ride-hailing companies’ abilities, be it boundaries or supply

side or, specifically, the concern with price, which affects the overall

business model of these businesses.

They need flexibility in order to be able to be successful. They need an

ability to bring on drivers as a result of increased demand. That generally

comes along with the pricing model, with the surge opportunity. They need to

reflect the new kind of consumer-driven model that the electronic economy is

reliant on in many respects.

We’re concerned that the constraints and the restrictions around pricing

and the opportunity for the Passenger Transportation Board to limit pricing and

other components of the business will make it almost impossible, if not

impossible, for transportation network services to exist or, certainly, to

thrive here in British Columbia.

We are concerned, overall, with the powers that are being conferred on

the Passenger Transportation Board when we’re dealing with these kinds of

issues. As such, I have an amendment here that I’d like to propose for

section

7. It is

section 3,

section 7(1).

I’m sure it’s very clear to everybody. I move that amendment.

SECTION 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 7 (1) is amended

(

a) in paragraph (

a) by striking out “ any

investigations ” and substituting “ any audits or

investigations ”,

(

b) in paragraph (

b) by adding the following

subparagraph:

(i.1) any matter related to the provision of transportation network

services, , and

(

c) in paragraph (

f) by striking out

“ operated under the authority of the licensee’s

licence or under any temporary operating permit approved by the board under

Division 5 of

Part 4, ” and substituting “ operated

under a licence that includes a passenger directed vehicle authorization

or transportation network services authorization, or under

a temporary operating permit that includes a passenger directed vehicle

authorization, except rates to be charged by a licensee in respect of

passenger directed vehicles operated under a licence that only includes a

transportation network services

authorization, ” . ,

and

(

d) in paragraph (g) (

i) by adding

“ except rates that are or may be

charged by a licensee in respect of passenger directed vehicles operated

under a licence that only includes a transportation network services

authorization, ” after “ charged by a

licensee, ” . ]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Any discussion?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is a new amendment to us. If I can have a chance to read it before

I respond to it, I think that would be….

The Chair: I believe it’s the same standing on the order paper as well. No.

Sorry, new one. Take a moment.

J. Sturdy: Would it be appropriate to take a five-minute recess? I know we’re

running out of time. It can wait, I suppose.

The Chair: This committee will stand recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:35 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I assume that the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, in his

introduction…. Those were his remarks on the amendment. Right.

The government side is going to be, obviously, opposing this amendment

because it does limit the board’s authority to set rates. We were discussing in

the previous

section that this is important — qualify that we can have minimum

and maximum rates. We think this is very, very important. In fact, it would

preclude what the member for Kamloops–South Thompson was talking about, about

ensuring that, in an emergency, there was a fixed rate.

[5:40 p.m.]

This, I believe, would really cause instability across the whole sector.

We’ve been very careful in our legislation to really level the playing field,

to make sure that there is that opportunity for both the new entrants in the

markets as well as the existing service to work well by having the board be

able to set the pricing.

I think that this could lead to very dramatic surge pricing, which is

obviously problematic. You know, we’ve all heard the stories of people who’ve

been charged hundreds of dollars for a routine ride. So I think that this

amendment is contrary to the complete spirit of the bill as well as to the

essence of the bill. For that, we’ll be opposing the amendment.

T. Stone: I would like to speak in favour of the amendment. The intention here is

to ensure the ability for transportation network companies, ride-sharing

companies, to embrace flexible pricing.

That allows for that fluctuation between charging more when there’s

higher demand — which, by the way, also attracts more drivers out and more cars

out — and charging less in times when the demand is much lower. It’s that

ability to really manage that ebb and flow and to do so within the auspices of

the companies themselves, utilizing the data that the companies have that

really is, we believe, the best way, the surest way, to ensure that the supply

of ride-sharing companies at any given time that’s available is as relative to

the demand that exists at that time as possible.

I mean, that’s how this entire ride-sharing industry works. Their entire

business model is predicated on utilizing, with the app that is unique to each

company, the ability to fluctuate their price up and down based on the demand

that exists.

Our concern is that this

section as it currently reads, unamended,

confers too much authority in the board to mandate rates that might not be in

the best interest of ensuring maximum flexibility in pricing. That is how this

industry…. It’s a core requirement of this industry’s business model in order

to be successful.

With that, I would hope that the House would support this amendment, and

I would end on this note. This is certainly an opportunity, with members of the

Green caucus here, to perhaps strengthen this legislation and make it more

focused on ensuring that it’s successful at paving the way for ride-sharing in

the province.

We have said that…. Well, not we but the industry has been very clear

that having minimal restrictions on supply and minimal restrictions on

jurisdictions and minimal restrictions on pricing, maximum flexibility on all

of the above, is the way to best provide for a smooth and efficient entry of

these companies into the market.

That’s what British Columbians want. That’s what the industry wants.

Again, this is an opportunity for members of this House to come together and to

vote to support an opportunity to strengthen this legislation and make sure

that we’re setting the legislation up for success at bringing ride-sharing to

British Columbia, as opposed to failure.

[5:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Because the member for Kamloops–South Thompson was so inviting me, into

the debate and into the conversation, I thought that I’d take this opportunity.

I appreciate the tone and the invitation.

I think that it is important to note and to recognize that I and the

B.C. Green caucus do acknowledge the fact that this business model under which

ride-hailing and the companies that we all know operate and exist in virtually

every other jurisdiction, big and small, in North America, operates on a

disruptive model that is based on surge pricing. The surge pricing aspect of it

is the unique aspect of the business model.

It has had both positive and negative impacts on the marketplaces that

it’s been in. In fact, there are jurisdictions that embraced and threw the

doors wide open that are now looking at this and saying: “The impacts of that

are not necessarily the kinds of impacts that we are wanting.” So as has been

pointed out, because our province was not an early adopter in throwing the

doors wide open to this industry, we have the benefit of seeing the impacts in

other jurisdictions and perhaps tailoring our response to it.

We believe that there should be some regulation in this industry. Now,

do we agree that we should just throw the doors wide open and not have any

regulation, as I think this amendment is proposing? I don’t think that we agree

with that. I don’t think that we’re comfortable with it. Do we think that we

should be completely shut down, closed down, and effectively lock the industry

out simply by being too closed? No, we’re not there either.

We’re trying to find a middle-of-the-road approach here. As we’ve taken

a look at this amendment that’s been proposed by the member for — a really long

name for his riding — the member opposite, feeling that this is actually

pushing too far…. I think that the industry can still achieve what it needs to

achieve through surge pricing and through innovative mo