The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023
Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be read a second time now.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
I’m honoured to rise today to support this important step in our commitment to protect workers in British Columbia. In recent years, we have all become aware and accustomed to increased goods and services available….
Deputy Speaker: Government House Leader.
Hon. L. Beare: Yes. My apologies, and my apologies to the minister.
I did forget to call in Section A, Douglas Fir Room, continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.
Hon. H. Bains: We are on a second reading of Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023. I really am honoured and privileged to stand here in support of this bill.
As I was saying, in recent years, we have all become aware of the increase in goods and services available online through an app-based approach. It has been described as the 21st century’s new economy and has led to dramatic changes around the world.
Now, at the click of a button, we can order just about anything we can imagine. We can have it delivered right to our door. A craving for butter chicken? Another favourite dish? With the touch of your telephone app, it arrives at your doorstep. Going to a party? Want a safe ride home? Again, by using your app on your phone, a car will come and pick you up and take you wherever you want to go. It has become so much a part of our lives now that we wonder how we ever got along without all these services before.
I don’t know about you. I can go back to…. When I first came to Canada, these were only dreams that people had: that they could be able to use this type of technology to have those kinds of services that are available today at our fingertips.
But with a huge growth of a new economy has also come extraordinary shifts in both work and workforce. This includes a rapid growth of precarious work, which can include part-time, casual, temporary and seasonal work. While these kind of jobs can provide flexibility for workers, they are often marked by low pay, little security and few, if any, benefits. Many precarious workers have to take on multiple jobs in order to support themselves and their families.
In particular, app-based gig work is a type of precarious work in which a digital platform company uses technology to manage certain aspects of work, such as using real-time order matching to dispatch workers to the customers, process payments and allow customers to rate the workers. Within this digital platform sector, ride-hail and food-delivery services are among the most popular, both with workers and with customers. That’s why, at this time, we’re focusing specifically on those two services for legislative and regulatory amendments.
In B.C., there are currently about 11,000 ride-hail workers, with roughly 20 companies licensed under the Passenger Transportation Board, including multinational companies like Uber and Lyft. The Ministry of Labour roughly estimates that there are about 27,000 food-delivery workers with companies such as SkipTheDishes, DoorDash and Uber Eats. Those numbers will only continue to grow, we know, if you only look at how they grew in the past five, six, ten years in B.C., in Canada and in countries around the world.
Growth is not a bad thing. I want to make it clear. Growth is not a bad thing, as long as it does not come at the expense of or through the exploitation of workers. In 2023, in British Columbia, Canada, these workers, regardless of the sector that they work in…. All workers, regardless of what their immigration status is, if they are working in British Columbia, enjoy basic protection and rights as all workers. That’s the value that this government is driven by.
Many ride-hail and food-delivery workers are newcomers to Canada and B.C. who may face language barriers and other challenges that make it more difficult to find employment. Ride-hail and food delivery can be a good opportunity for them to earn a living as they adjust to their new lives. But workers, as I said before — regardless of where they are from, what they do and how they do it — deserve appropriate employment standards and protections like minimum wage, tip protection, wage transparency, health and safety standards and access to workers compensation coverage if injured or become sick on the job.
They can exercise their constitutional right to association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so they could join a union and collectively bargain for better benefits and wages. Those are standards that workers should be entitled to. Those are the minimum standards that any company should provide to workers, who are the key to their success.
We say to these companies: “We welcome you. We appreciate that you are here, investing in British Columbia, creating those jobs, providing the services. But at the same time, we expect you to abide by labour laws.” That is not too much to ask, and, to their credit, they worked with us. Through engagement, they all agreed, in general, that certain standards are needed in British Columbia through government actions.
But as the new economy has developed, it has created challenges that, frankly, could not have been foreseen when the Employment Standards Act and Workers Compensation Act were introduced. They were created to deal with our traditional even-to-3:30 jobs — the same employer they go to, day in and day after, and sometimes they retire from the same employer. Up until recently, that’s what many workers went through. So the laws were designed to protect their rights under those circ*mstances, as their employer-employee relationship existed.
A key challenge is that most platform companies consider their ride-hail and food delivery workers to be independent contractors and not employees. They take the position that these workers are not subject to the Employment Standards Act’s minimum standards, so they have no obligation to provide these standards to their workers.
There can be many disadvantages for companies to not have actual employee status. They don’t have to pay minimum wage or workers compensation premiums. They don’t have to provide equipment or workspace or benefits or health and safety protections. This can be beneficial for a company but not so much for the workers. Those are the people who actually do all the work.
Ride-hail and food delivery platforms offer services that are entirely provided by people, not machines, not drones, not automation — real people. People who have bills to pay, families to support. They deserve to be paid at least a minimum wage. People who should be able to figure out exactly what they are getting paid so they can budget accordingly. People who should have safe working conditions. People who should have access to supports they need if they are injured on the job.
Platform companies rely entirely on a workforce of real people. Regardless of whether they call them employees or independent contractors, those people work for them and should be treated fairly.
Last fall, we started a public engagement process that included an online survey as well as meetings and round-table sessions with workers, platform companies, labour and business organizations, academics and researchers. Workers consulted included those who rely on ride-hail or food delivery jobs as their primary source of income, as well as those who use it to supplement their income.
A number of themes emerged during the engagement. Overall, workers value the flexibility of this work and want to continue to choose when they work, for how long and on which apps. But they have concerns about low and unpredictable earnings, the cost of fuel and other vehicle expenses that they must bring to do their job, the transparency of pay for assignments and unfair deactivation from platforms.
We heard stories. I sat at one of those sessions with those workers, and it was quite moving to hear that they take an assignment and they don’t even know how much they will get paid. They told me the customers don’t know how much of their fare is going to the driver, and the driver did not know what the customer actually paid and how much tip was left behind. We also heard that they are really concerned about their safety while working, and they were worried what would happen if they were injured on the job.
Let’s take a look at each of these points.
On the positive side, we heard that, no doubt, one of the biggest attractions to the jobs is flexibility. App-based work provides a way to earn income that can be picked up or dropped at any time. It can work around unpredictable family obligations or academic schedules. Some people have specifically chosen this work to maintain greater freedom from the requirement of a more traditional employer-employee relationship, and they value having the latitude that these platforms provide.
They choose when and for how long to work, decide which specific orders to accept or decline, and work across multiple platforms to maximize their earnings.
But that earning potential can be very hard to predict, and a number of factors contribute to that unpredictability. App-based workers currently pay their own fuel and other vehicle costs. Workers told us that significant increases in gas prices can have a real impact on how much money they end up making at the end of the day, after they subtract their vehicle costs to operate.
In some cases, workers told us that the payment offered for an assignment is less than the cost of gas but that they feel pressure to maintain their acceptance rates and are reluctant to decline the trip. These acceptance rates can be critical to their earnings since some platform companies will guarantee a minimum payment per delivery but only to those workers who maintain a high acceptance rate.
Meanwhile, workers are not paid for the time they spend waiting for assignments, and those wait times can be significant. When they do get an assignment, they can face long delays due to traffic, late passengers or slow restaurants, all of which can significantly impact on their earnings.
Another concern we heard during our engagement was about unfair deactivations. We heard of numerous instances where drivers’ accounts were suspended for days or they were terminated based on a negative report by a customer. They would have no recourse to appeal the deactivation nor any compensation and would certainly face being cut off from what was sometimes their only source of income.
Finally, app-based workers are worried about safety on the job. What would happen to them if they were injured on the job or become ill at work?
We all remember the terrible incident last year when a DoorDash worker, a newcomer to Canada, was viciously stabbed while delivering an order in Vancouver. He suffered life-threatening injuries, but thankfully he survived. Because he worked for a company that does not contribute to the B.C. workers compensation system, he was not eligible for financial or medical support and had to rely on a GoFundMe campaign to get him through until he could work again. This should not be allowed in British Columbia this day and age. That’s not the kind of society and economy we want to have.
What about the Uber driver who was attacked by a passenger last April in Abbotsford? Again, his workers compensation claim was denied. In B.C., in Canada, as I said, that is just not right. It’s not acceptable.
Those are just two examples of risk that these platform workers face, risks that they have very little control over. Some apps withhold the final destination when offering an assignment. Through our engagement, we learned there can be serious vulnerability for some app-based ride-hail and food delivery workers. But gig workers, like everyone who works in our province, deserve to be treated fairly. This is a foundation in our effort to make work less precarious.
We also heard extensively from companies themselves, and most of them acknowledge that there is room for improvement to the model. There were a number of themes of importance to the platform companies. They emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility for workers, specifically that workers be able to choose the hours they work, be able to accept or decline specific assignments, and be able to work on multiple apps simultaneously.
On the question of classification, many of the platform companies indicated, not surprisingly, that the workers should be recognized as independent contractors, not employees. But overall, they indicated their support for establishing minimum standards for workers, including guaranteed minimum earnings, as long as flexibility for workers is maintained.
I want to recognize and express my appreciation to the companies for participating in this process and for being open to minimum standards and protections for this sector.
Our next stage of consultation began this past August, where we sought feedback on possible solutions that could address specific concerns raised by app-based workers. We released a discussion paper that spoke to potential employment standards and other protections, including fair compensation standards, pay and destination transparency, a fair process for suspensions and terminations or deactivation and workers compensation coverage.
The discussion paper outlined these priority concerns that were heard during the engagement, including views from workers, platform companies and others, and it provided the policy context for examining appropriate employment standards and other protections for this sector. It also posed discussion questions for workers and companies for consideration and asked for their input.
We received valuable feedback as a result of the discussion paper, which assisted in the development of the proposed employment standards and other protections for ride-hail and food delivery workers.
A few days before this bill was introduced, my minister released a policy backgrounder describing how those solutions will be implemented through regulations after this bill is passed. The policy backgrounder lays out a set of priority employment standards and other protections that are aimed at improving working conditions for app-based ride-hail and food delivery workers in B.C. while supporting the continued operation of these services in this province, protecting the jobs.
Let me go through those proposed changes quickly. First, they will set a minimum wage of 120 percent of B.C.’s general minimum wage for engaged times. That means from when a ride-hail driver or a food delivery worker has accepted an assignment to when the passenger or food is delivered to the final destination.
The worker will receive at least 120 percent of standard minimum wage. At the current general minimum wage rate, this means that the worker would earn $20.10 per hour of engaged time. This will be calculated over a pay period. If the worker’s earnings are less than 120 percent during that period, the platform company will be required to top up to make the difference.
Next, there will be additional compensation standards to recognize that the workers incur costs to use personal vehicles to perform this work. The minimum standard for this compensation will be determined following further study and consultation during the development of regulations.
There will also be a provision to prohibit companies from withholding tips from workers, consistent with tip protection already applicable to British Columbia employees, as well as requiring companies to provide workers with a wage statement every pay period to ensure full pay transparency.
I see some students up in the gallery.
On behalf of this House, I want to say welcome to you. What we are doing here is debating a bill that will provide basic protection to gig workers like ride-hail, like food delivery service workers. Right now they do not enjoy the basic minimum standards, like minimum wage, like workers compensation protection.
Those are the areas of this bill that we are proposing, and the debates are being held right now here so that you know that you are witnessing something that is new to this province and that those workers will appreciate once this bill is passed and implemented to provide them those protections. So thank you for coming here, and enjoy, while you’re here in this House.
There will also be provisions…. I just talked about the tip protection — there will be tip protection, where the employer will not be able to withhold the tips they received — as well as requiring companies to provide workers with a wage statement, as all workers do in this province, every pay period, to ensure full pay transparency, indicating and outlining their earnings and deductions. We’re focusing on pay and destination transparency so that workers know where they will be going and how much they will be paid before they accept the assignment.
Another of the concerns we heard from workers was that they could be deactivated from the app without warning, explanations, reasons or recourse. We will be requiring companies to have a written notice or compensation if they want to terminate a worker’s account unless there is a just cause for the termination. As well, companies will be required to provide written reasons for an account suspension or termination and establish a timely review process for the workers to present their side and their evidence.
Finally, companies will be required to comply with employer responsibilities under the Workers Compensation Act and the occupational health and safety regulations. That means they will need to register for coverage and pay premiums to the workers compensation, WorkSafeBC, on their workers’ behalf.
They will also be responsible for providing a safe workplace and be required to report injuries and diseases and investigate significant incidences because, like all workers, every worker, when they go to work, deserves to come home to their families, their children in the same shape that they went in with. Health and safety are of utmost importance to all workers in British Columbia, and these drivers and these workers deserve nothing less.
Some say that these standards go too far, and others say they do not do enough. I say that those are very strong points on both sides. Developing appropriate standards and protection for this sector is complex. It is new territory for government. For that reason, we are taking a phased approach. The standards we are proposing in this phase are based on top priorities we heard from workers. The ministry intends to engage on other potential standards and proposals in later stages.
What I can say now is that the standards and protections we are proposing today will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of workers across B.C. and will result in this province being a leader in all jurisdictions in Canada — in fact, across North America.
All jurisdictions are struggling to find ways to provide protection for these workers — California, New York and EU countries. But I’m confident that because of the consultation we have, engagement we have, to the extent that we have with companies and with workers and their advocates, we will be the first jurisdiction to succeed in having these basic minimum standards provided to these workers. I feel so proud and look forward to having these changes implemented.
As I mentioned, these solutions will implement through regulations, which will be developed. But first, we need legislative changes that would enable those regulations to be developed. That’s what this bill will do. This brings me to the specifics of this bill. Yes, I realize that was a very long preamble to get to the details of this actual bill. The context of how we got here and what we are trying to accomplish is critical to this discussion, to this conversation.
The legislation before us is quite short and straightforward. It is primarily enabling legislation. Amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act will provide the legislative framework for applying employment standards and other protections to online platform workers. The amendments will add definitions of online platform worker to both the Employment Standards Act and Workers Compensation Act, specifying that online platform workers who provide certain prescribed services are considered to be employees for the purposes of these acts.
The amendments then go on to provide regulation-making authorities to both acts, which will enable the regulations to implement the solutions I outlined earlier for the online platform workers who provide ride-hail or food delivery services.
We know that there are gig workers providing services beyond ride-hail and food delivery. We know precarious work is expanding. We know that the gig worker and gig economy is expanding. But here and now we are dealing with these two workers who are employed through app-based platform companies to deliver food to our doorsteps and to provide ride-hailing services.
Others we will look at as we go forward. We will monitor how these changes will impact the lives of those workers, their health and safety. We will determine, actually, whether these changes had the intended impact on the workers, their wages, their health and safety. We’ll monitor. Then we will sit down with the platform companies and with the workers and their advocates and determine if there are some gaps and whether these changes have hit the mark.
Many workers and their advocates have said that perhaps we haven’t done enough. They probably are right. But this is a start, and we would be the first jurisdiction in Canada, if not in North America, to provide these basic minimum standards to these workers, because we have relied on these services so much. I see my doorstep deliveries coming every day because my son, their family and their children live with us. They use the service quite a bit.
So those workers…. We enjoy the services, but those workers who provide their service to us through app-based platform companies deserve nothing less than any other worker when it comes to the wages and health and safety protection. We know that, as I said, improving working conditions in the app-based, ride-hail and food delivery sector is our first step in ensuring that the vulnerable gig workers have the minimum employment standards and other protections that they need.
It is important to understand that these amendments do not establish or require an existing employment relationship between online platform workers and platform companies. Rather, they provide that online platform workers are entitled to specific standards and protections of the Employment Standards Act and Workers Compensation Act, even if they are declared contracted within some other means and other laws or declared contracted by someone else.
I want to make one thing clear. The authority to determine whether the worker is an employee or a contractor or independent contractor…. The employment standards branch has the only authority to determine that — no one else, not employer, not workers, not anybody else. The employment standards branch, through tribunal, can make and have the authority to make that determination.
Lastly, we have taken the opportunity to include a couple of minor amendments to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act and the Employment Standards Act. These amendments have to do with recordkeeping, paying interest on money that may be owed to a worker, and improving the timeliness of the employment standard branch’s dispute resolution process. I’m happy to get into details of all of these amendments during the committee stage of this bill.
The amendments proposed in this bill and the regulations that will follow are the culmination of extensive engagement, meetings, consultations, discussions and research. I’m absolutely thrilled that we have reached this point. We chose to focus on the sector where we have seen significant issues come up, but those are just the first steps, as I said before.
In the future, we will look at other sectors impacted by the new economy to support other online platform workers with appropriate employment standards and protections, while also supporting the continued operation of these new industries and services in British Columbia, but also monitoring these two particular areas that we are dealing with through this bill in regulations. We will monitor in the next six months to a year. Then we will determine if there are still some gaps and improvements needed, working with the platform companies and with the workers and their advocates.
This bill is very, very important to me, to my colleagues and, I’m sure, to everyone in this House, especially to those tens of thousands of workers who — many of them — are relying on the income that they draw from app-based work. Their health and safety is paramount. The minimum wage is important. Peer transparency is important. If they are injured at the workplace, they will know that there will be protection for them through the workers compensation system.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to further debates.
P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 48.
You know, there was a lot to unpack there from the minister’s comments. I think the last time I was in this chamber and heard a piece of enabling legislation that is going to be left to regulation — yet the minister seemed to have a ton of regulation that is going to be, with no actual written detail for anyone in this chamber to actually scrutinize and ask questions about — might have been when we had FOI legislation in here.
We were told that nothing had been worked out, yet lo and behold, the orders-in-council were signed, barely, by everyone leaving this chamber. Only after the bill debate was over did we find out what the fees for FOI were going to be, which had apparently developed over that debate.
Unfortunately, Bill 48, introduced as we’re into our final few days of the legislative sitting, does not really have any detail. And the minister, in his comments, was combining all the things the bill is going to do with what regulations are going to do, while still saying they’re consulting on the regulation.
I think the drivers, I think the companies, and I think the public deserve to know what the actual regulations are, because based on the minister’s comments, it definitely sounded like the government has already decided, down to the detail of 120 percent of minimum wage. That might come as a surprise to people. It might not. It might come as a surprise to the companies.
On a ten-clause bill, there are only four clauses that will actually take effect at royal assent. Of those clauses, the one “clarifies the circ*mstances in which the director may take specified steps respecting investigations, and adds a new circ*mstance in which the director may take those steps.” That’s clause 3. Clause 4 “provides that the appeal period under this section ends 30 days after the date a determination was served.”
Clause 6 “expands the requirement to maintain records to all employers.” This is in regards to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. Clause 7 “amends dates that apply in relation to the obligation to pay interest on amounts owing under a determination or order” — again, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.
But you know what doesn’t take effect on royal assent? The Employment Standards Act, section 3.1, which is clause 2, which provides that online platform workers are to be considered employees. So as much as the minister’s opening comments went at length about how this bill creates the avenue for the drivers to be considered employees and the companies to be considered the employer…. Something as basic as that won’t take effect until regulation comes into effect.
Now, at the rushed briefing we had today…. I do thank the staff for it. They’re always professional and were willing to answer the few questions we had.
On a ten-clause bill with no other background, it’s kind of difficult to have any depth of questions at that stage. We’ll certainly have a lot of questions at committee stage on this bill, but the staff made it clear that the regulation will take several more months.
That’s after 18 months of apparently developing Bill 48 — 18 months to come up with clause 2, which says: “For the purposes of this Act, (a) an online platform worker is to be considered an employee, whether or not the online platform worker is an employee under any law, and (b) the operator of the online platform through which an online platform worker accepts prescribed work is to be considered the employer of the online platform worker.”
That took the government 18 months to come up with, and it doesn’t take effect until regulation — regulation which will take several more months to develop. On top of that, the government made it clear in the briefing that there will have to be a phase-in period in the regulation so that the companies can adjust.
I can understand that, but I think it’s incumbent on the government to be open and straightforward with the drivers — the very people this piece of legislation is purporting to bring instant help and protections to.
This has been 18 months in the making, at minimum, is going to take the better part of a year and, like lots of other legislation we’ve seen in this House to do with housing, magically, won’t take effect until after the next provincial election. My goodness. The Premier’s lucky streak of things not taking effect till after the next provincial election seems to be growing by the day with the legislation in this chamber.
This government talks a good game. I give them that. This is the same minister that talked about rushing in the asbestos protections, except for the fact that it took them almost six years to action that while telling me how critical it was to protect workers. I agree it was critical to protect workers. Why did it take six years?
We’ve been talking about the gig economy in this chamber since it really started to take root back in 2017. Pre-2017, it was still in its infancy. That’s when the whole discussion around Uber really kicked off in earnest, I know. I was on the Uber committee, as it was dubbed, the ride-hail, ride-share committee. There were reports. There was the Hara report, which was created to help consult with industry back in 2017.
From 2017 moving forward, this government has talked about these types of changes that need to happen for gig workers, like those in Uber Eats, Uber drivers and SkipTheDishes. In fact, they reconvened the Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles not that long ago. Terms of reference: “On May 11, 2023, the Legislative Assembly agreed that a Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles be appointed pursuant to section 42.1 of the Passenger Transportation Act to review passenger-directed vehicle services and transportation network companies administered under the act. This includes, but is not limited to. a review of the following….”
One of the points is: “(c) whether the act promotes employment in the passenger-directed vehicle services and transportation network services industries.” Why that’s important is according to the government’s press release on September 11, 2023, that committee is still accepting feedback till November 30. Yet as this government does all the time, they rush in legislation that’s enabling legislation, which really won’t take meaningful effect until we’re back here in the spring again. They could have worked out this regulation, presented it with the bill to provide proper context, and not have delayed any of the implementation.
By their own direction at the briefing, once this passes, all the major parts of this bill will still require months’ more consultation and regulation development and a phase-in period, for industry, of several months. I believe the term was six months plus for that phase — again, magically, after the next provincial election. Talk about a government that doesn’t want to be judged on an actual result of any of their legislation that they’ve brought forward.
Be it the delays in housing legislation, which the Premier talked about in January of 2022 and was supposed to be in front of this House in October 2022, which is finally in front of this chamber now but won’t take effect, most of it, until after the next provincial election, conveniently, or this legislation — where the cornerstone of the legislation should be creating these online platform workers as actual employees and the company as the employer — even something that basic won’t take effect until the regulation is brought into place and then phased in.
We just heard the minister rattle off what the regulations would be. In his opening speech, he was emphatic. “It will have….” “It will be….” Yet no one in this chamber has had to see that. We didn’t have a copy of his speech in advance.
How can we reasonably debate a bill and reasonably ask questions on the ten clauses around what the regulation may or may not be, when the minister — just as the Minister of Citizens’ Services did on FOI — will continually say: “Well, that’s being left for regulation. I can’t answer that”? It doesn’t matter that you point out that in their opening speech, they actually laid out what they think the regulation will be.
Now, the minister covered off quite a few things, in his opening comments, of what it will be or won’t be — making drivers, perhaps, think that there’s more to this bill than there may be. One such thing he referenced is that customers don’t even know how much of the fare goes to the driver. This legislation does nothing to address that.
He didn’t indicate that it’s going to be in regulation, yet there it is in the opening comments, in a 38-minute opening by the minister. I do appreciate that the minister provided a lot of detail. There are, unfortunately, government ministers that provide 35 or 40 seconds of second reading comments on a piece of legislation they purport to be proud of.
I do give this minister full marks. When he does introduce a bill, he generally speaks very proudly about it, at length, providing detail. The problem is that this time he has provided all the detail about the regulations that, we’re being told, are going to take months to develop. But it sounds like he has already developed them.
I forgot to mention at the beginning that I will be our designated speaker. I apologize for that. Oh, I know they like you to say it right at the very beginning, and certain ministers always smile because they always seem to wind up on House duty when I wind up being designated speaker. Now that I’ve got a little time, I can wander, I guess.
Back to the bill at hand. It was interesting to me that the minister, in his opening comments, also talked about the price of fuel and how high prices of fuel are really impacting drivers. Well, those drivers, after waiting 18 months at a minimum, really, back to 2017, for this government to get their act together and bring forward something like this, are now going to have to wait for the regulation, which is going to be several months in the future.
Then they’re going to have to wait for several more months’ worth of implementation to see whether or not there are going to be some rules around fuel, so that they could actually save money. I raise that because we’ve been asking, for well over a year now, for the government to remove the provincial fuel tax.
If this government was actually worried about these delivery drivers’ fuel costs, they could take immediate action, as we’ve been calling for, as we’ve committed to do. B.C. United has been very clear. We’d remove the provincial fuel tax.
The government may, and always likes to, say: “Oh, the oil and gas companies just put it right back on the price.” Well, they don’t. Fuel is like anything else. There are input costs, and there are taxes. It’s like saying if they remove a tax on something else, the price of that product goes up instantly. It doesn’t.
They’ll point to Alberta and say that when Alberta removed it, within ten or 12 days, the price of fuel went up in Alberta. They’re absolutely right. It did. What they fail to also mention is that in that same period of time, the price of fuel in B.C. went up by twice as much per litre, because the market ebbs and flows with fuel. What they also fail to mention is that, in fact, Alberta has maintained the price differential with B.C. with the fuel tax removed.
We’re not saying that by removing fuel tax per litre, it makes gas where it’s basically free, or the good old days, where it was under $1 a litre. We understand the price will still fluctuate. There are going to be very expensive periods of time. But it’s 100 percent in the realm of the provincial government to remove that tax.
If the government was really sincere about its goal to get everyone into an electric vehicle, there should be no fuel tax revenues to collect in short order anyway. So why not let people save a few dollars right now, in the midst of the highest unaffordability we’ve ever seen? Why not let these drivers that Bill 48 purports to support have real and immediate savings on their fuel bills?
It was in the minister’s own speech. One of the higher cost factors for the drivers is the cost of fuel. Yet this government sits on their hands when they could provide real relief, not just to these drivers, but to the whole taxi industry. Every driver for hire — be it delivering food, be it taking people from an airport, be it working for Uber, be it working for a taxi company — would see savings on their operations immediately if this government did the right thing and removed provincial fuel tax. But they stubbornly refuse to.
Then they stand in this chamber bringing forward a piece of enabling legislation that has been talked about since 2017 and turn around and say: “You’ll have to wait the better part of another year to actually know what the regulation is, even though as a minister, in my opening speech, I’ve laid out pretty much what I want the regulations to be.”
It’s piece of legislation after piece of legislation in this chamber that keeps getting presented like this by this government. They simply don’t want the public to know what their real agenda is. Not only has, under their watch, B.C. been deemed the most unaffordable province in Canada; they’ve also been cited as the most secretive government in Canada. Quite the record. I wonder whether they’re going for the trifecta of acknowledgments.
If you look at their history of failing on pieces of legislation that don’t actually deliver what they’ve been promised, you have to look no further than housing. For seven years, they had all the answers. For seven years, they had their 30-point plan. For seven years, they were going to deliver 114,000 units in ten years. After seven years, they’re not even at 16,000 units. Suddenly, the plan gets renamed, and suddenly, it’s someone else’s fault.
Bill 48 is much the same. They’ve been government this whole time. The whole time this was brought into effect, where the gig economy really ramped up, where Uber Eats and SkipTheDishes and Uber have been in effect, they’ve been government.
I guess it was refreshing that for once, we didn’t have a minister try to blame COVID for the delays — they seem to have lost that in their speaking notes — but we actually saw an explosion of these services through COVID. The government’s response has been to slow walk changes to the legislation, and now slow walk the regulation after this gets passed. It will pass. They outvote us 2 to 1. I’m under no great illusions there.
It won’t help drivers. It’s been no help for the drivers for the last few years. It will be no help for the drivers for the next year, despite all of the minister’s well wishes and good thoughts of what this bill will accomplish. It all gets accomplished by regulation that he hasn’t provided to us.
When you ask their staff, they say: “Well, that has to be worked out.” On the one hand, the same staff that helped the minister with his speech, undoubtedly…. We’re okay with the minister providing a heck of a lot of detail about regulation. But on the scrambled-together, cobbled-together briefing that we had at 11 o’clock today, they couldn’t provide that. So which was it? Was the regulation developed from…? Let’s see. That briefing ended at about 11:45. Was that regulation by the minister that he referenced in his speech developed from 11:45 to 1:30 today? Why wasn’t it presented?
Why wasn’t it given to the opposition party so that we could actually properly question and scrutinize the legislation on behalf of the drivers and on behalf of the companies? The companies need certainty as well. They need to know what’s going to happen with the rules. They need to know how to adjust their operations. Then they can look at things, and they can make a business decision whether or not their business is still viable in British Columbia.
That’s what all businesses do with any type of government regulation and legislation. They look at it, and they decide if they can operate or not.
In fact, there is pretty much…. It doesn’t matter where you go in the world. There are rules of one form or another around just about every type of business, and those businesses figure out if they want to exist in that area or not. Hotels, bars, liquor stores, corner stores. Sometimes there are official rules by government. In more corrupt countries, it’s the rules of the gang that controls that street or that industry in a tourist area. Obviously, and thankfully, B.C. is a province of law. Rule of law. That’s a good thing.
But it would be nice if the government actually let us know what those laws actually are, if they actually let us know what regulation they were going to have as part of those laws — not play a guessing game. Not provide false hope for drivers in the midst of the most expensive province in Canada, grappling with inflation and the highest rents for apartments in the country and the highest gas prices with the highest gas taxes in North America.
It borders on cruel to dangle out to these drivers that they’re somehow going to have a fuel savings with this legislation through regulation, without actually providing any of that detail on what the government’s thinking and writing. Then to make it sound like as soon as we get royal assent on this bill, those fuel savings will be immediate…. They won’t be, if they even will exist in regulation.
You know what could be immediate? The government, tomorrow, could say that they’re rescinding the provincial fuel tax. That would actually provide real cost savings to those same drivers that this government purports to be concerned about.
I highly doubt the companies would object to it. It’s, again, as the minister says, the driver’s responsibility to buy the gas, but this government doesn’t seem to know how to, by way of regulation or rules, put money back into somebody’s pocket that is a small business person. They just know to take it out. If they think that they’re done with one pocket, they just find another pocket and keep digging and digging and digging.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
And just when you think they’re done digging through all of your pockets for every last cent of tax revenue, they decide to check your socks, just to see if you hit anything, like a tourist might do on holidays.
That’s this government’s approach, and that’s their approach on Bill 48. Dangle out hope while still figuring out a way to reach into all of these people’s pockets for more money in the midst of an affordability crisis.
Again, this bill provides the definition for what an online platform worker is, but not on royal assent. No, no. That will be in regulation, because apparently that’s too confusing to people. Or is it because they actually haven’t figured out the other implications of turning this in — people designated as workers, which is more likely the reason.
Instead, we’re going to rush this forward. And I say “rush” because we’re back here in February. We’re back here mid-February. By the minister’s own staff’s admission in the briefing, the regulations won’t be ready for several months.
They could have presented this bill as an exposure bill. Yes, it would have got pulled once the throne speech happened, but they could reintroduce it right away again but actually introduce it with the regulation so that there could be a proper and transparent, which is a word this government struggles with, discussion around how Bill 48 will actually impact drivers and companies and the public.
The drivers and the companies are going to have business decisions to make around what this does to their cost structure. At a certain point, that decision will actually ripple down to the customer, because if it results in higher delivery fees and charges, which it likely will, then the customers, like the minister’s kids that he referenced in his speech…. My kids use these services a lot too. Those customers are going to have the decision to make as well.
But we’re not going to have that as an open discussion dealing with Bill 48. Those are going to be some behind-the-scenes conversations the minister is going to have, and then the regulation will just get dropped out for people, and suddenly that’s how it’s going to operate, all the while having their committee to review passenger-directed vehicles still trying to do their work.
Sounds an awful lot, again, like the FOI bill. There was a committee actually reviewing FOI when the government crammed through the FOI legislation while saying it was being left to regulation that we saw ten minutes after the bill passed.
When the minister spoke on Bill 48, he had some pretty clear definitive statements about what would be in regulation, just as the Minister of Citizens’ Services had on FOI. Yet we’re being led to believe, just as the Minister of Citizens’ Services told this chamber, that that regulation actually hasn’t been worked out yet and that, in fact, we won’t know what the regulation for Bill 48 is until months after it has passed.
I don’t know what was left on the list from the minister’s opening statements that could still be covered off by regulation. The fact that the minister had very definitive amounts on pieces of that policy, especially as it relates to pay, would indicate that he has made up his mind. So I don’t know what the point of consulting with industry is.
Now, granted, he didn’t reconcile how if you’re operating on three or four different platforms at the same time your time is going to work. But not looking out for the workers seems to be what this government is good at doing. Again, they come up with great marketing. They really do.
Interjection.
P. Milobar: Yeah. We can see…. Maybe instead of the SkipTheDishes commercials on the Canucks, we can replace the CleanBC commercials with the minister’s nondescript commercials on how they’ve made ride-hailing services much better in B.C. Apparently the going rate is $700 a second. I can only imagine what it costs when they have them on the 6 o’clock news, the most expensive time spots in the province.
Again, the details on how this is going to affect those workers simply don’t exist. They only existed in the minister’s opening speech — not even the courtesy of providing them to us as the official opposition in the brief.
Interjection.
P. Milobar: The minister says they’ve been waiting since yesterday to provide us with the brief. Well, how magnanimous of the government. With seven days of debate to go, they introduce a bill and then scramble to find the time to get us an 11 a.m. brief. They were actually going to move ahead with this bill before lunch, before we even had a brief. And the minister seems to think that’s what constitutes consultation.
It’s interesting, because they had a year and a half to work on this piece of legislation, according to the minister’s staff, a year and a half to define what a worker is. That still won’t actually take effect until regulation several months from now.
The minister wants the drivers to think that they’re well protected on this and that it will be immediate. It’s shameful. Drivers under this Bill 48 will have zero new protections. Let’s make that very clear to the public. The drivers and the companies will not need to change how they operate, how they get paid, how their expenses are covered off or not until the regulation takes effect. And according to the government, that will take several months to finish up, and then there will be several months of implementation.
I think it’s important to be clear about that, because here’s what the drivers have been saying, even back in 2022. DoorDash drivers said: “Delivery workers on one food delivery platform, for example, earned an average of $27 an hour while delivering, including 100 percent of the tips. B.C. drivers overwhelmingly value their flexibility and mostly use our platform for supplemental income. Ninety-seven percent of B.C. drivers agree that being able to choose when, where and how they should work should be protected if laws were to change.” But we don’t know what the regulations on that are going to be, despite 97 percent of the drivers wanting that.
Fifty-six percent of drivers would stop dashing if they had less ability to choose the days or time they worked. No detail on the regulation from the government on that point, either. Fifty-four percent of B.C. drivers have other delivery or ride-sharing apps open while driving, but no certainty from the government, from the minister, on how its regulation is going to cover that and square that with being considered on-call time or not-on-call time, with the clock ticking if your app is open.
In 2022, the average Canadian driver spent fewer than three hours per week on the delivery app. Again, that’s in 2022. This is all post-COVID.
In addition to driving, 63 percent of B.C. drivers have a full- or part-time job, run their own businesses or do other gig and freelance work. No certainty from this government on how the regulations will address these people and these drivers. Only 13 percent rely on it as their main work.
Some 76 percent of B.C. drivers say it would be hard to make ends meet if they couldn’t get income from ride-share and delivery services, but we don’t know how the government intends for that to stay a viable option for them under regulation, and 35 percent of B.C. drivers have Dash to make up for lost income or reduced hours at another job.
Now, why is that important — reduced hours at another job? I wonder why hours would be reduced at another job. Could it be because the economy is slowing in British Columbia, and people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, despite the promise of Bill 48 solidifying their income? We won’t know that for another year. We won’t know that until, magically, after the next provincial election. Government will campaign on the promise.
They also campaigned that we would have a cancer centre in Kamloops built by 2024. We don’t even have a business plan for that yet. If they’re willing to walk away from something as critical as cancer care and come up with a way to deliver them down to Bellingham for cancer treatment, not with an Uber at least, just imagine how easy it’ll be for this government to try to go back on their promise, through regulation, as this gets slow-walked again. It has been slow-walked already. It has been slow-walked since 2017.
A delivery service and a ride-hail service are very different. We don’t know if the government is going to take a one-size-fits-all approach, how they’re going to regulate the pay between those two. In the minister’s speech, he was interchanging a Skip driver with an Uber driver, a food delivery with a personal delivery.
Ride-hail comes with higher capital costs. There are higher cleaning costs, maintenance costs. There’s a different level the companies expect. Delivery drivers can use any vehicle they want. Companies aren’t as worried about that, for obvious reasons.
It’d be pretty tough to hail an Uber bicycle. Yes, I know what some members on the other side are thinking. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one pedalling me sitting on the back carriage seat. But you can deliver food with that bike pretty easily, especially in the urbanized and densified cores.
How do the regulations in this bill address any of these concerns and differences? Well, we don’t know. We’ll be long gone from this chamber when the minister magically rolls out regulations that will mysteriously look very similar to the ones in his speech. Yet at committee stage, he’ll be unable to answer questions.
Now, the critic will be dealing with the bill at committee stage. I’m pretty confident, and I’m sure the minister is pretty confident in his ability to, probably, pull up the transcript of the minister’s speech. I sure hope the minister has a lot of detail about the regulation he announced in his speech. We’ve been through this song and dance once before, with the Citizens’ Services Minister, when it came to FOI.
A whole lot of detail about regulation in the speech on Bill 48 by the Labour Minister. It’s reasonable to expect that you’re going to get a whole lot of detail with those questions at committee stage, then, on Bill 48. I don’t think that’s asking too much. It shouldn’t be, except this is a government that’s always routinely deemed to be the most secretive government in Canada.
The biggest problem with a piece of enabling legislation that’s as light as this — with the backdrop of a committee still doing work on one major portion of this type of service, that being ride-hailing and ride-sharing services — is that we’re not sure how the government is going to meaningfully take the input from that committee.
The member for Vancouver-Kensington is the Chair; Prince George–Valemount is the Deputy Chair; Richmond-Steveston, Burnaby North, Nanaimo–North Cowichan, and West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Frankly, it’s a little disrespectful to that group of MLAs that are doing hard work, across party lines, trying to get feedback from the industry and taking their work seriously, but as we saw with FOI, that work, apparently, doesn’t really matter.
Remember, we had a committee working on the FOI modernization as well, but the bill came in before the committee finished doing their work. In fact, I believe the committee was still taking public feedback — almost like the Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles, which is still taking public feedback, except for the fact that we’re standing here debating Bill 48.
Perhaps the government members don’t feel that it’s disrespectful, because ultimately, they were going to do what they’ve been told, by the Premier’s office, for a recommendation. Then why did the government bother with a sham of a process in the first place?
It tied up a bunch of the Clerk’s office’s time. It tied up a lot of time for people that were willing to make presentations and submit, with an expectation that their voices would be heard, that their voices might carry a little bit of weight, that their own personal experiences could be taken into account as the government develops regulation. That’s not what we see happening.
Again, I was on the original ride-hailing committee. It was chaired by a member from North Vancouver, the Minister of Emergency Management. I’ll get her riding wrong. Congratulations to her on her new child.
Interjection.
P. Milobar: North Vancouver–Lonsdale. She chaired it.
The former Leader of the Green Party was on that committee. That’s how long ago this committee actually did work from 2017 till the fall of 2023. Now, by my count, that’s — what? — six years. We finally see Bill 48 in front of us, with no detail. Frankly, what’s in this bill that wouldn’t have been accomplished by the press release in the first place? There will be no regulation before we sit again in February. The minister’s staff has made that very clear. I’ll take the minister’s staff at their word.
If the minister has other designs on the timeline for the regulation, then he should be open to actually answering those questions at committee stage. By the time we get to committee stage, Hansard will have published his speech, word for word. We certainly didn’t see any of that ahead of time. We didn’t get any of that information in the briefing.
I said that there were only ten clauses in this bill. Only four take effect at royal assent, which will happen, I’m assuming, next Thursday.
Clause 1, which still needs to sit and wait for regulation, adds the definition of “online platform worker.”
Clause 2 provides that online platform workers are to be considered employees for the purposes of the act and that the operators of online platforms are to be considered employers for the purposes of the act. That needs to wait for regulation as well.
Clause 5 adds regulation-making authorities, but that waits until the regulation gets done in a few months.
Clause 8 adds the definition of “online platform worker” to the Workers Compensation Act. They won’t actually have any workers compensation protection until the regulation is made — despite the minister, in his speech, making it sound like once Bill 48 gets enacted, drivers will have protections from injury. They won’t.
Clause 9, Workers Compensation Act, provides that online platform workers are to be considered workers for the purposes of the act and that the operators of online platforms are to be considered employers for the purposes of the act, same as for the Employment Standards Act — both of which don’t take effect until regulation.
No workers compensation protection for the drivers with Bill 48. That waits for regulation. After a year and a half of pondering, a one-sentence clause to provide workers compensation protection needs to wait for further consultation and regulation. That’s this government’s idea of fast-tracking protection for workers.
And clause 10, again to the Workers Compensation Act, adds regulation-making authorities. Ironically enough, adding regulation-making authorities needs to wait for regulation before it is law. They couldn’t even make adding regulation-making authorities effective with royal assent. No, if you want to make regulations, you have to wait for the regulations to tell you how to make a regulation, and then you can have the ability to make regulations.
That’s the problem with this bill. It’s the false hope that’s being offered for the drivers. It’s the uncertainty that’s being created for industry. Yes, they are happy that they’ve been consulted to this point. I understand that, but they still have concerns on where the regulation is going to land. The drivers have concerns on how the regulation is going to be framed up — still, after a year and a half.
The minister offers up hope around fuel savings, when his government could literally just change the provincial fuel tax rate to zero and not just deal with the gig economy workers. It would actually help the taxi industry, help the small-truck-delivery industry, help all the cartage companies out there that are having a hard time, help all the service vehicles out there that are providing air conditioning services, heating repair services, electrical services, plumbers.
All of those fleets would benefit by the provincial fuel tax being removed, not just the gig worker. This government doesn’t seem to really worry about the cost pressures for all those workers, but they’re real. There’s no getting around them. It’s pretty tough for you to go make a service call or to go deliver the order you want from your restaurant to this person’s house without having fuel.
As much as this government would hope that everyone had an electric vehicle, they simply don’t, let alone on the service-vehicle side of the equation. While this government will dither around for several more months working on regulation to enact regulation-making authorities, drivers’ work will stay the same. Their payment model will stay the same. Companies will operate the same. Then either right before or right after the next election, magically, all these regulations will start to take effect.
In the meantime, as all those drivers see no difference in their pay, they’ll wonder just what the heck the minister was talking about with Bill 48, because they haven’t seen any change for the driver.
The minister’s staff used the driver that had the horrific incident where they were attacked and beaten by a passenger, sustained injuries and weren’t entitled to workers compensation. Bill 48 doesn’t provide that — not until regulation is made, months from now. After waiting a year and a half, trying to decide if the government thought providing workers compensation protection for gig employees was a good idea or not, they’re going to take several more months to decide what the regulation actually is for the regulation-making authorities. That’s how absurd rushing this in is.
Now, based on the timing of this being rushed in — remember, we were told by the Government House Leader that all legislation would be in front of this chamber by November 8 — the cynic in me would say: “Huh, it’s pretty convenient to float a piece of legislation like this, to make sure it’s out just before the NDP convention, and to make sure it’s on the floor as they have 70-plus labour delegates in the building.” What a convenient timing that is.
It does nothing for the actual worker this bill purports to help, though, because by the government’s own admission, they’re not ready with the regulation. They’re simply prepared to try to say they would like to make changes. They think you should be protected by workers compensation. They think your pay should change.
Since 2017, in the last 18 months specifically, they still haven’t figured out how to actually put that into a piece of law and regulation at the same time, so that this assembly, the workers, the companies and the customers could all have a clear understanding not only of when all these changes will take effect but of what the changes actually are.
When the minister talks about the transparency of how much a fare is, how it’s built and what the driver gets paid out of that fare, that does not exist in Bill 48. It only existed in this minister’s speech. When the minister talks about saving money on fuel or the impacts of fuel prices to drivers, that does not exist in Bill 48. It might exist in regulation, but it doesn’t exist in Bill 48. It only existed in the minister’s speech.
Though there’ll undoubtedly be some government members finally speaking to a bill, sadly, they’re going to have probably very similar speaking points to the minister, but the opposition doesn’t have any of that detail. The public doesn’t have any of that detail.
When you’re a government that’s going to win a vote, 2 to 1, anyway, why hide that detail from proper scrutiny? Why hide the ability for the company, the driver, the public and the opposition to get a true sense of what the government is planning on doing? The government will win the vote. Wouldn’t it be a shock if they found out that their plans maybe weren’t so warmly received by the drivers, the companies and the public, by actually having an open and transparent conversation as the legislation moves through this chamber?
Instead, we will get a few government members standing up and speaking, parroting exactly what the minister’s office — well, actually the Premier’s office — has approved for them to speak to, adding in some detail that no one else has access to. “Just trust us” will be the theme, but then they will not actually be able to provide any of that detail at committee stage.
I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for this minister to stand up at committee stage and actually just put it all out on the table, get it all on the public record, provide great detail on how exactly they consulted and came up with 120 percent of minimum wage.
I’m sure other minimum-wage earners might be interested to find out that this government feels that gig workers should get paid 120 percent of minimum wage and other minimum-wage workers should just get paid minimum wage. That’s an interesting concept. It’s one I’m sure we’re going to want to explore at committee stage.
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, after five minutes of the minister consulting with his staff, it will probably be: “Well, I can’t talk about that. It will be left up to regulation.” One would hope, just to speed things along, if that’s going to be the answer all the way through committee stage, the minister would just stop consulting with staff and just keep standing up and saying: “That’s left for regulation. I can’t talk about it, even though I talked about it in my opening speech.”
That does raise a very interesting question point for this government, for a whole lot of minimum wage workers in the province of B.C., at a time when Vancouver’s living wage is $25 an hour. In Kamloops, it’s just a little under $21. In Kelowna, I think it’s very close to Vancouver, which is telling about how expensive this whole province has become under this government.
At a time when a living wage is $25 an hour in Vancouver, this government is saying: “If you’re a gig worker, we’ll make sure you have 120 percent of minimum wage protected. But if you’re the minimum-wage worker in the 7-Eleven where that driver is showing up to get the to-go order, that worker is only entitled to minimum wage.”
Doesn’t that seem a little strange for the party that purports to be the party of the working person — that they are now, by regulation, in Bill 48, going to be setting out a different category? Wasn’t this the government that complained about the server wage all those years? And now the driver for SkipTheDishes that drives to the 7-Eleven….
Let’s face it. I’ll use 7-Eleven, but any type of convenience store…. I know 7-Eleven does the delivery of their food and beverages and Slurpees and everything else. Lots of those employees are likely minimum wage. Stereotypical, I know, but typically, that’s what happens with entry-level jobs. I know a great many that work there aren’t, especially in management and things of that nature.
But just as a for instance, the young person that just started their first job at a 7-Eleven or some sort of takeout place like that, getting paid minimum wage, assembles the order. The minister’s kids, as he says, use these apps all the time. So the minister’s kids get their order all sent off to their favourite takeout place. The worker at the takeout place, getting paid minimum wage, gets everything assembled, spends a lot of time cooking and packaging and getting it all ready to go quickly so they have a happy customer at the other end.
The Skip driver shows up. That might also be an Uber Eats driver picking up for two different orders, as often happens, with two different bags getting paid by two different companies. They’re entitled, at a minimum, according to this minister, to 120 percent of minimum wage, compared to the person that assembled the order and cooked the order and got it all ready to go. Plus they get their tips, which most of those takeout places don’t.
That’s the logic that this minister just provided in his opening speech about where he sees the regulation landing on this bill, and that is why it’s reprehensible, frankly, that the government hasn’t provided that detail to the opposition and to the broader public to understand the ramifications of this bill. I can get why the driver would think this is great: 120 percent of minimum wage. Why wouldn’t you think that a $20-an-hour minimum, $20.15 I think the minister said, would be a good thing? Of course you’d think that.
You know who might want to actually start to have a conversation about that part of the bill, though? The rest of the labour movement that always goes to bat about minimum wage, and understandably so. They might have a few things to say about that. And the minimum-wage employee might have a few things to say about that. Instead, it’ll just get rolled out as an order-in-council and be done.
But there are real implications. There are valid conversations around the implication of a policy like that, a regulation like that, on the ripple effect it would do to the pressure for other employers in other sectors and their wage structure. I’m not saying it’s a good or a bad thing, but it would be a legitimate conversation that they would need to have in the business community around cost pressures on how they’re going to operate. But we won’t know what that is.
The bottom line is this on Bill 48: it’s a very thin bill. The minister has spoken at length…. Again, I do appreciate it. I sincerely appreciate the length he spoke because at least it gave us some insight into what the minister was thinking. That may not have been his intention, to let the opposition know that much, but he did.
There should be no defensible reason now, by this government, to not be able to answer questions at committee stage about what the regulations will look like.
About the timelines to finish off those regulations. About how quickly the phase-in will happen after the regulation is set. About what it means, how the regulation will work, for people that drive for more than one company at the same time, have multiple apps running, as most do, as even the minister has acknowledged. About how the regulation is going to deal with fuel, since they’re unwilling to deal with the provincial fuel tax, as B.C. United has repeatedly called for, for over a year. How quickly people will actually have the regulation that they can be covered by workers compensation if they have an unruly customer that beats them up.
And again, that just speaks to the differences of the two delivery models. I’m not trying to be flippant here, but I don’t think it’s the cheeseburger hopping out of the Uber Eats bag that’s beating up the driver. It’s the drunk customer, or the not drunk customer, in the Uber that is a threat to the driver. But Bill 48 doesn’t actually protect that driver right now. They’re going to have to wait longer.
Based on the detail of the minister’s opening speech, I think it’s safe to say that he ought to be able to — and should, and for clear, transparent, democratic reasons — actually answer with great depth of detail the questions we’re going to have as an opposition on how this functionally will work in the timelines. Anything less is just dangling false hope out to drivers that there will be an immediate change when this bill is passed next Thursday by the Lieutenant-Governor.
Except next Thursday the only clauses that will be taking effect are clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7. None of those deal with what the minister was talking about in his opening comments in terms of regulation and actual, true change to both the industry as well as the drivers.
I thank you for the time, and I do look forward to committee stage where undoubtedly, and sadly, we will likely be told: “We can’t talk about that. We’re still working on regulation.” Just once I would like to see this government actually be open and transparent and provide answers to the public that are valid and legitimate and need to be answered.
S. Furstenau: I’m happy to stand up and speak to Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act.
While I was waiting, I did a few quick searches to get an understanding of the context of the world that we’re talking about. There was a study done by Simon Fraser University and the Centre for Policy Alternatives on precarious work recently. Of the people surveyed in B.C., half of the workers between the ages of 25 and 65 have permanent full-time employers, which means half do not. So we’re talking about a very significant portion of people in B.C. who are impacted by the reality of the gig economy.
At the same time — well, a few more things — 40 percent of those precarious workers have more than one job; 59 percent had dental coverage; 54 percent, medical; and 53 percent, vision — of the workers that were surveyed in this. But the workers in precarious work reported having poorer mental and physical health than the people who have permanent, stable work. That’s not surprising.
We know that these working conditions can be very hard on people. It’s not reliable. You can get called in, in an unexpected way, or you can lose shifts in an unexpected way. Overall, these working conditions don’t tend to be particularly beneficial.
On the other side of the equation, we have the companies that employ these precarious workers, these gig workers. I quickly looked up the income that these companies are reporting. Uber’s September 30th third-quarter income statement posts $1.054 billion, with a “b,” net income. DoorDash revenue for third quarter is up 27 percent to $2.2 billion. Lyft third-quarter reportings 2023, revenue, $1.158 billion. SkipTheDishes had some interesting data. Estimated annual revenue is currently $649.4 million, but they also have the estimated revenue per employee. They indicate that the estimated revenue per employee is $203,000.
That’s the landscape we’re talking about here, and it’s a wider landscape. Yesterday’s report that came out from Oxfam: the top 1 percent is responsible for as many global emissions of CO2 as the bottom 66 percent of the world’s population. One percent of the population emitting as much as 66 percent of the world’s population. The people who are driving climate change have names and faces, most of them white and male.
So it’s really important to consider our conversation about Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, in this wider context of the fact that companies look at their employees as revenue generators. One of them, SkipTheDishes, tells us for each employee, each precarious worker, they expect to make $203,000 off of that person’s labour. We can be absolutely certain that person is not making anywhere near $203,000.
Yet this is the world we’re in right now, where governments — even, supposedly, governments that are on the side of workers — take a long time and do the bare minimum to actually protect those workers. Governments aren’t saying to these massive global companies that are extracting billions of dollars from the labour of people…. Governments aren’t saying to those companies: “Hey, if you want to work in our region, here are the conditions.”
We’re going to protect the people who live and work here. We’re going to protect our citizens. That’s our job as a government. That’s the contract that we have between the people we represent and this institution. Our job is to protect the people who live here, yet more and more we seem to be in an exercise of protecting the profit margins of multinational companies, not just precarious workers, not just the gig economy companies, the resource extraction companies. We’re certainly protecting the profits of the LNG Canada consortium.
I think about this a lot, how this so-called globalized economy that we live in has brought us to a place where governments seem to have been put into this situation where our job is to make the conditions as favourable as we can for the multinational companies while forsaking the well-being of the people that live here.
We’re talking about an affordability crisis in this province over and over again. Part of that affordability crisis is that people don’t make enough money. We have a growing inequality gap. We have a growing income gap, and while the shareholders can be assured of that $203,000-per-employee return from SkipTheDishes, the people doing that delivery might have to go to the food bank because they’re not making enough money to afford groceries.
We talk about all this affordability stuff, and we hear all the rhetoric. We very, very rarely in here hear about the companies that are profiting from this affordability crisis — very rarely. It’s always: “Well, you guys should cut taxes.” That’s the kind of standard response we get.
Nobody is talking about the billions upon billions of dollars that are going upward in this economy, because the higher that ceiling goes, the lower the floor goes. And that’s what we’re talking about today. We’re talking about the floor being about as low as it can possibly be. What are we going to do to just lift it slightly? We talk about that a lot. How are we going to just lift the floor slightly?
But we don’t talk about lowering the ceiling. We need to start talking about lowering the ceiling. We need to start talking about the role that government has in lowering the ceiling on the profits of multinational companies that are operating in B.C. and extracting their profits out of the labour of people who live here.
Setting minimum employment standards for drivers working for ride-hailing or app-based food delivery services is overdue, to say the least. We have to. We have a responsibility to ensure that workers are treated fairly and that platforms do their fair share when it comes to protecting workers’ safety.
“Véronique Sioufi, researcher for racial and socioeconomic equity with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the B.C. office, praised this government’s decision to recognize gig workers as employees.” Low bar. “Platform companies have long used the misclassification of these workers to underpay them while burdening them with additional costs and risks,” she said.
The proposed changes are a step in the right direction, but they don’t go nearly far enough.
Many gig workers are new Canadians waiting for approval for foreign credentials, and I think all of us can agree that new Canadians who are working, contributing to the economy, contributing to our communities should also be eligible for sick leave, and they should be paid for all of the time that they work.
With Bill 48, the minister appears to essentially be deciding that these workers don’t deserve the same treatment as all other employees in B.C. That’s going to continue to exacerbate the racial inequality in the B.C. labour market.
Véronique Sioufi stated: “So if they deserve to be treated fairly, why are they getting fewer protections than everyone else? They, the government, say they are offering up basic employment standards here, but the Employment Standards Act is already our basic. So if this is less than the Employment Standards Act, this is less than the basic.”
Sioufi believes that some aspects of the proposed changes will have a contrary effect on workers. While they will be paid 120 percent minimum wage while working, that extra amount will not cover their costs while waiting to accept assignments, says Sioufi. What this does, she says, is it lets platform companies kind of flood the market with as many workers as they want, because they’re not responsible for being efficient.
They’re not responsible for all the time that those workers are going to be out there waiting for the next assignment. So there are going to be lots more competition for those assignments, even though those assignments might be paid at a slightly higher rate now. Translation: people might end up, for a lot of that time, waiting for an assignment while they’re not being paid — working, essentially, while they’re not being paid.
More workers fighting over fewer assignments likely means less money in their pockets. “Their hourly wage,” says Sioufi, “is most likely to go down. This is something that the government was aware of ahead of time. Economists warned them, and government put this out in their discussion paper. They knew that this would be a risk if they did not pay workers for all of their work time,” including waiting to accept assignments.
My question is: why did government put this forward? Sioufi thinks it’s a reflection of the strength of lobbying from the platform companies. With the profits in the hundreds of millions or billions, they can certainly afford to pay for lobbyists to come in here and talk with decision-makers and policy-makers and convince them that, really, it’s in the best interest of everybody to protect their interests.
Sioufi says: “I think there was a lot of thought and effort put into this, and I think we shouldn’t minimize the fact that it’s really important in recognizing that these workers are employees…. It’s still a good first move.” But it’s only a first move. We’re years into a government that claims to be on the side of workers.
Sussanne Skidmore, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said that the proposed measures represent some progress for ride-hail and food delivery workers but still leave them without the same set of protections provided to every other worker in B.C. Skidmore said: “We’re especially relieved that they heard us on the need for workers’ compensation coverage…. But we are deeply concerned over where this plan falls short, especially because it denies workers key protections under the law, like paid sick leave.”
How far we’ve come from just a few years ago when we were all acknowledging and recognizing how essential it is that people have paid sick leave, all people, and that they’re not going to work sick, that they’re not potentially infecting other people with illnesses. Yet here we are, and we can’t meet this basic measure for people who are working in B.C.
J. Routledge: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act. It’s been almost a year since the Premier invited me to serve as the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour in his government — not the parliamentary secretary of labour, not the parliamentary secretary about labour. I’m the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour.
A few months ago I was at an event. The emcee…. It was emceed by someone whose…. English was not his first language, probably not his second or maybe even his third language. He introduced me as the parliamentary secretary for working people. I was touched by that. It since then reminds me of my values, and it has served as a frame of reference within which I do my job.
My mandate letter specifically relates to this bill. It states that I am to continue work to develop a precarious work strategy that reflects the diverse needs and unique situations of today’s workers and workplaces; to propose employment standards and other protections relevant to app-based, ride-hail and food delivery drivers; to review labour policy innovations in other jurisdictions related to the emerging economy and precarious work to identify trends that may inform the development of labour policy in British Columbia.
This proposed bill is an important benchmark in the fulfilment of my mandate as Parliamentary Secretary for Labour.
Earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Third Party speculated that we were probably heavily lobbied by app-based companies. I want to tell you that I have met with and heard from countless ride-hail and food delivery drivers, including more than 1,000 emails that I’ve received from them. They told me shocking and heartbreaking stories about their working conditions.
I discovered, contrary to popular public opinion, that this is not a side hustle for most app-based drivers. This is how they are trying to make a living, feed their families, pay the rent or mortgage, put food on the table and make life better for themselves and their families here in Canada. They are struggling, as are so many working families right now.
The high cost of housing and food inflation is taking its toll on most people, but it’s particularly hard for app-based drivers to make ends meet and maintain a quality of life. They told me that they regularly work six or seven days a week, 12 hours a day — now, that can’t be safe — and in the end are paid less than minimum wage.
Some have even been sending me screenshots of their final pay. One screenshot was $4.05 for a 29-minute assignment, and that included the tip. They told me about mysterious fees being deducted from their pay. They told me about tips being kept by the app company. One driver told me that he is now driving taxi because his wife told him, “It’s me or Uber,” and he chose his wife.
I heard a lot about being fired for no reason and no explanation. It’s called discontinuation. The app discontinues them. One of the top drivers for one of the ride-hail companies told me about being discontinued. He couldn’t get an explanation. He phoned. He kept phoning the call centre. The call centre was in another country. They didn’t know why he’d been discontinued. He kept calling, and he was told to basically stop pestering them.
Two weeks later, he was reinstated because it was a case of mistaken identity. They meant to fire somebody else. But that didn’t mean that he got his two weeks’ compensation back. He was out that income that he lost for two weeks.
Another driver told me he was discontinued because he refused to take an unaccompanied baby, and the mother gave him a bad review, and therefore, he was discontinued.
I just want to point out that the bill is informed by the experiences of the drivers themselves. I’d like to share, in their own words, a few of the things that they’ve told me.
In the words of one ride-hail driver: “I’ve been working as a ride-hail driver since I came to Vancouver, and I have done more than 15,000 trips.” That’s a big number. “At the beginning, I thought they were taking a 25 percent cut out of the whole amount paid by the customer. It surprised me when I spoke with the customer and she told me she was being charged $105 for a trip. I only received $54. Since then, I started calculating, and it shocked me. This seemed like a scam.”
They cut more than 50 percent out of every trip, if you calculate it and get all the information. I’ve got lots of emails to that effect. This driver also talked about the problem of being fired for no reason. He concludes his email by saying: “Please help. Your people need you, because they have families to feed.”
Another driver told me that he has been driving for the last three or four years, but the standards are very low, the pay is very low, and the company keeps more than 50 percent itself — sometimes less than basic pay in B.C. “So I request that you do something to make it a real job so people can survive on it.”
I’ll just read one little piece from quite a lengthy description of what their working conditions are like. “In summary, the current state of working for app delivery in Canada has become increasingly challenging, with drivers facing disrespect from various parties, inadequate compensation and unfavourable working conditions. I strongly believe it is in the best interests of all stakeholders to address these issues promptly.”
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Another driver told me in an email: “I believe that drivers who work for a whole week deserve the option of benefits, even if the employers have to split the costs. This should be decided by the employer, if they want to benefit or not.”
“Drivers deserve a quarterly report on where the money goes. Twenty-five percent per trip is a huge chunk of money. Since the drivers have earned it, they deserve a report on where it goes.” Another point that this driver made is that drivers only get reimbursed for cleaning fees if it provides bodily fluids, which equals $150. Finally, they only pay what was quoted. “If a trip was quoted 15 minutes but then takes 45 minutes during rush hour, we’re not compensated for that difference,” meaning a driver takes about $9 to $10 for that trip that now took 45 minutes.
Those are some of the examples. There are a lot of examples. Like I say, I got more than 1,000 emails about it. But there are other examples, from some of these emails I got, that provide the complication of what we’re dealing with. For example, this one driver said: “As a B.C. resident, I would like to have the flexibility to work as a driver at any time and on the trips that I would like to do. I’d also like the government to interfere and set fixed costs per each trip, pickup, drop-off, parking charges, distance travelled. The company is not paying enough fare for the trips to the drivers.”
This is a driver, like many drivers, who made a point of saying that they want to keep the flexibility. This driver has said: “Please keep the delivery job flexible for when, whether or how. If the B.C. government makes changes, keep the flexibility. Any change should not put any cap on flexibility regarding when, where or how much time one can do the job. There should be a minimum wage too.”
They’re looking for both. I get that, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
This driver has said: “I’ve been driving for about three years now. I love the flexibility it gives me, and I would hate any government intervention that would remove this flexibility. While I’m all for improving the wages and protecting gig workers through employment standards, removing the flexibility from that would bring more negative than positive changes. The only thing the government should review, perhaps, is whether the company is paying the drivers and whether it’s fair or not and whether or not the expenses are accounted for.”
Some drivers talked about why they need the flexibility. One driver said: “The ability to have flexibility of income and working hours at my discretion is the only way my wife and I are able to remain out of the grasp of bankruptcy in this province. We are forced to live where we are so our rent does not increase. We cannot afford child care, nor do we qualify for benefits. We need to be able to work the flexibility to make up the difference and care for our children.”
Another driver said: “I love the work as a ride-hail driver, and the main reason is flexibility. I have a small baby. I am doing babysitting, and as well, whenever I get the time, I drive and earn money, because there are no limitations.”
Another driver said: “I’m a retired Vancouver firefighter, and I choose to work as a driver after retiring because I want to work when, where and if I want. I have three children in high school. My family is important, and I want to spend time with them.”
Another ride-hail driver has said: “Dear madam, I am a full-time ride-hail driver. I started driving since the very beginning when the company started here in B.C. I enjoy the flexibility, and it’s very important to all drivers so we can choose to drive whenever we want to and accept or decline the trips we wish.”
Another driver told me about having an autistic child and having to be available, which means the flexibility offered by this kind of work is important. Another driver said that to make ends meet, she has two other jobs, and she needs to be able to fit this in around those jobs. It goes on and on.
Now, perhaps there’s some confusion about where I’m coming from here. The point is that the digital technology that makes it possible for a working relationship such as this was inconceivable and unimaginable when employment standards or, for that matter, collective agreements were first contemplated.
These kinds of jobs — ride-hail jobs, food delivery jobs, app-based jobs — are unique and new in our economy. Some of the standards, like minimum pay, the right to keep tips, workers compensation, pay transparency and a fair disciplinary process, are easily transferable from the economy and the work relations we know to the new app-based economy and new work relations.
Contrary to some of the worry and speculation that’s been expressed so far, our plan is to provide those protections as soon as possible. We know that by going out and engaging with the workers, we have raised expectations. We have identified…. We have invited them to tell us what their concerns are. We’ve raised expectations, and we want to fix those problems as soon as possible.
But there are other standards — like leave, like benefits — that are more complicated because they work for more than one employer at the same time. They’re logged on to more than one app at the same time. It will take a bit of study, and it will take more information for us to figure out how to apply those rightful benefits in a work context that does not have defined hours of work. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson himself pointed out in his engagement in this debate what many of those complexities are.
I believe that we will get there, but I believe that those workers are suffering now, and it’s really important that we don’t wait to figure out how we apply the traditional work relations to app-based work relations. We cannot wait to get it all perfect. We have to do what we can now, which is what is contemplated in the regulations that the minister talked about. Then we will work on the ones that are more complex.
Ontario passed legislation. They passed their law more than a year ago, and it is still not enforced, because they’re still trying to work it out. We don’t want to do that. We want to move faster. We believe that perfection is the enemy of the good.
This legislation is a first step. It’s designed to address the most egregious problems. We will continue to engage with the drivers, the companies, the drivers advocates to come up with standards that protect their rights and protect the flexibility that they value.
In conclusion, while digital technology may change the conditions of the working relationship, it does not change the inherent power imbalance between the workers and the companies, as the Leader of the Third Party pointed out quite dramatically and quite eloquently. What changes that imbalance? Unions do that, and labour laws do that.
We live in a province and in a country in which I think we can agree that workers are not expected to subsidize the companies for which they work. I’d hope that we can all agree that the workers nor the customers are expected to subsidize the profits of the app-based companies.
Interjection.
N. Letnick: Applause of one. All right.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 48. I also want to say to the members, especially the one from Burnaby North, that if we wish to make a direct impact on the cost of operating as a gig operator and improving our ability to pay for ever-rising food costs, the first thing we can do is lower the cost of fuel.
I know we’ve been talking about that in this House for some time now, but maybe the message hasn’t been going through. If we lower the cost of fuel by looking at the gas tax, I think that would go right to the bottom line of all those people working in this industry.
I also want to thank the member for Burnaby North. She had the decency to say, “If the legislation passes,” respecting that there’s a process in this House, as opposed to the minister, who made it very clear that the legislation is passing. I’ve been in this place for 15 years now. I take exception to those words. We have a job to do. I had a job to do when I was the minister for four years.
I try to respect the members of opposition and their job. I wish that the minister would take it to heart, to know that the legislation has not yet passed and maybe keep that in mind when he’s making his speeches. I’ve seen other ministers speak to their legislation, and consistently, they always say: “Should the legislation pass” or “when” or “if.” What I heard today was different.
If I may, I just want to go through some of the timeline that we have seen leading up to this particular introduction of the legislation. In October 2017, Dan Hara was hired to do a comprehensive consultation with the existing industry.
Again, the member for Burnaby North was very eloquent in talking about the stories that she’s received as the parliamentary secretary — over 1,000 letters, etc. I know that she probably read every last one of them, as I did when I received thousands of letters when I worked with the government over the Health Professions Act. It’s an important job that the member had, and I’m sure she took it very seriously and read all that.
In January 2018, the province took action against illegal ride-hailing services. Drivers were subject to $1,150 fines and possible further sanctions.
In February 2018, an all-party standing committee delivered a report on ride-sharing to the Legislature.
In July 2018, the government adopted key recommendations of the Hara report.
In November 2018, legislation was opened, and the door to ride-hailing was set for the next year, putting safety first.
A few days later, the minister’s statement on ride-hailing said that the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations would examine and make recommendations on regulations regarding app-based ride-hailing.
In July of 2019, the province announced regulation insurance policy for ride-hailing — companies could apply to the passenger transportation branch starting in September of 2019 — and protecting accessibility with a new 30-cent-per-trip fee to fund accessibility programs.
In January of 2020, the minister’s statement provided a statement on ride-hailing services decisions. It said: “We will continue to support a passenger transportation industry that gets people safely where they need to go and ensures sustainable livelihoods for drivers.” This is going back three years.
In March of 2020: “Taxi industry to benefit from distance-based insurance product.” ICBC covered per-kilometre travel insurance to fleet and non-fleet taxis starting in May of 2020. In March of 2022, Bill 13 was introduced to modernize passenger transportation and improve safety.
October 26 of 2022, the gig work engagement was started. In October of 2022, Bill 40 continued the modernization of the commercial passenger vehicle industry, enabling accessibility programs. And in April of 2023, the gig work what-we-heard report was now made available to the public.
In May of 2023, a Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles was appointed. This Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles reviewed passenger-directed vehicles and transportation network services, including taxis and ride-hailing administered under the PT Act. This included looking at licensing and supply; safety and accessibility; impacts on public transit, traffic congestion and the environment; employment in the industry; and availability in small, remote and rural communities.
And then finally, in November of this year, legislative changes were proposed to bring fairness to app-based gig workers. A deadline to provide written input on consultation by the Special Community to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles was November 20, 2023.
So with all this work having been done since October 16 of 2017, my question is: why isn’t there more detail in the legislation? The parliamentary secretary, the member for Burnaby North, has shared the stories. She clearly understands — so does the minister — the needs of the industry, the stories saying how people wanted to make sure….
Drivers, for example, wanted to make sure that they got properly compensated, and other drivers said that they also wanted flexibility in choosing whether or not they work and when they work. I imagine, lots of times, that it would be both. They want the flexibility, but they also want to be properly compensated.
I’m not arguing against that. I’m just saying if that’s the case, and I believe it would be, as I’m sure everybody in this House would want to be properly compensated for their work and also have the flexibility that helps them make ends meet…. Again, if I can quote the member for Burnaby North, she said: “We can’t wait to get it all perfect.” If that’s the case, then why would it not be in the legislation? Why would a whole bunch of the details of this legislation, of Bill 48, be left to regulation?
Wouldn’t it be better to provide those details up front so that the official opposition, for example, industry and others can look at and review all those details, get some clarity? The drivers themselves, the workers in the gig economy, as well as industry….
I know we’ve heard comments about the industry. But everyone needs an opportunity to look at what the government is proposing, and I would say there’s no place better than putting those details in the legislation, especially those key details that the minister was so quick to provide here in his second reading speech. If he’s ready to provide those details in a second reading speech, then why wouldn’t they be in the legislation to begin with?
I’m just puzzled as to why we are faced once again with a piece of legislation that is very light on details and relying so extensively on potential regulations that may or may not come in, in the near future.
Despite prior announcements and media communications suggesting imminent changes, we are going to be, once again, looking to defer any of the positive moves coming from this legislation to the future, through regulations. This delay will impact diverse groups, including young workers, Indigenous peoples, racialized individuals, people with disabilities, women, newcomers, linguistic minorities and a range of other people that have provided input to the government on what would work and what should not be included in the legislation for this industry.
The decision to regulate the status and rights of online platform workers and operators through regulation rather than direct legislative action limits the ability of House members to effectively represent and address the issues of their constituents.
It also limits the ability of members of the opposition, including our Third and Fourth Parties and the independent, to provide amendments to the legislation. Once the legislation is passed, and if the legislation is passed, then the opportunity to impact any of those details is gone, because we don’t get an opportunity to provide amendments to the regulations. They are done in a closed room in cabinet, and then they are announced to the world without any opportunity for feedback prior to them becoming law in British Columbia.
What does the act do? Well, it does a few things. One, it provides a definition for online platform workers. It establishes the online platform workers as employees and the operators of online platforms as employers. That’s a very, very serious change to what we have now. I am sure that the critic for Labour will have many questions on how that’s actually going to give the employees the flexibility that they want, the independence that they want, if they are going to be considered full employees of the employer.
The bill also states that the director of employment standards, who is appointed by the Public Service Act, may take steps to investigate and adds a new circ*mstance in which they can investigate. The bill also adds regulation-making authorities, as I’ve discussed. The act will come into force by royal assent except for sections 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10.
What are we looking at in the section-by-section of the legislation?
Section 1 talks about an online platform worker, and this is defined as someone who performs specified jobs that the person accepts through an online platform. Again, it’s proposed through the legislation that they become employees of the online platform.
Section 2 establishes online platform workers as employees and online platform operators as employers for purposes of the act.
Section 3 clarifies that the circ*mstances in which the director of employment standards, appointed under the Public Service Act, may take specific actions regarding the investigations and adds a new circ*mstance in which the director may take those actions.
Section 5 adds a regulation-making authority regarding the prescribed work for the purposes of the definition of “online platform worker” and operator of the online platform and respecting online platforms and work accepted through online platforms.
There are also changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act that are being proposed.
Section 6 expands the requirement to maintain records to all employers, including the ones that operate online platforms. It strikes out the words “registered employer” and substitutes it with the simple term of “employer.”
Section 7 expands the period for the obligation to pay interest on amounts owing under a determination or order.
Bill 48 also has changes proposed for the Workers Compensation Act.
In section 8, it adds a new definition to section 1 of the Workers Compensation Act, which says that an online platform worker means a person who performs specified jobs that the person accepts through an online platform.
Section 9 establishes online platform workers as employees and online platform operators as employers for the purposes of the act, and section 10 adds regulation-making authorities regarding “prescribing work for the purposes of the definition of ‘online platform worker’” and operator of the online platform, and “respecting online platforms and work accepted through online platforms.”
So the bill provides many definitions, many changes for online workers and establishes the online platform worker such as SkipTheDishes drivers, Uber drivers and others as employees and the operators of online platforms as employers. I have to say that my personal experience with ride-hailing services and the employees has been exceptional. I’ve had great service from taxi drivers in my life, and I’ve also had great service from these drivers as well. I wouldn’t say one is better than the other. I would just say that it’s a different way of getting service.
In some cases, of course, with the extra charge for food delivery, you have to factor that in. If you’re ordering a Big Mac, you’d better make sure you really want the Big Mac, given the price it’s going to cost you to get it to your house. Some people don’t like Big Macs. I’m a personal fan of McDoubles. It has the same amount of meat in it, but it’s much smaller price-wise.
If any of the members who are talking to me with their sign language from across the way want to provide me with a BLT or a McD.L.T. or any of the other favourites that they have…. As they are suggesting, maybe I should look at Wendy’s or some other provider. No. Anyway, I digress. I’ll speak to the bill. I’m so easily swayed to talk about something else.
Interjection.
N. Letnick: Well, come on over to my office. I’d be happy to fix something up for you. All right.
I’m not too sure if Hansard is getting all this other banter on record or just me, but I’m sure it’s just me, so I’ll just move on, because it’s really out of context.
It’s essential that all workers are put in a position to succeed and are working under acceptable standards, and there’s nothing funny about that. I’m just carrying over from the humour from before.
Not only does looking after workers unleash the potential of our workforce; it also is the right thing to do. However, while we can support this goal, the official opposition has some significant questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how it will be enacted to benefit British Columbians.
Despite prior announcements suggesting imminent changes — and again, I describe in detail all the years that we’ve been looking at this — the implementation of these changes is largely deferred to the future. It’s going to happen some day, maybe after the next election, but some day. As such, the details on how these changes will practically affect workers, businesses and consumers are extremely limited.
These changes will, if the bill passes, make delivery more expensive for consumers. That would mean less business for restaurants and fewer opportunities for delivery drivers, because it’s all about supply and demand. Supply and demand are largely affected by cost, especially when you’re looking at something like having your food delivered to you, which is not a necessity in many cases. As the cost goes up, you’ll find that demand will go down.
The delay of regulations impacts a diverse group of workers, including young people and others. Additionally, the decision to regulate the status of rights of online platform workers and operators through regulation rather than direct legislative action limits the ability of MLAs, as I’ve said before, to effectively address concerns of constituents.
I would say it’s very difficult for constituents to articulate their concerns if they don’t know what’s being proposed in the regulations. So I really hope that when the minister gets asked questions on the regulations, he does not take the fifth and say, well, he can’t talk about that because it’s in the regulations and that he actually does like he did in the second reading debate — his speech — and give some detail as to what the government is thinking.
For example, 120 percent of minimum wage, written notice of compensation — these are things that I didn’t find in the legislation. If somebody knows that’s in there, let me know, but I think it just came out of the speech today from the minister in second reading. Well, these are very important things to identify upfront.
Ultimately, Bill 48 defers the meat of the bill to the future, leaving us with concerns that this might just end up resulting in more red tape and bureaucracy that sidelines workers and raises costs for consumers. Our B.C. United caucus looks forward to scrutinizing and debating the specifics of the legislation at committee stage.
In 2022, delivery workers on one food delivery platform, for example, earned an average of $27 an hour while delivering, including 100 percent of tips. B.C. drivers overwhelmingly value their flexibility, and most use our platform for supplemental income. This is some of what we heard from DoorDash drivers. On the issue of flexibility, as the parliamentary secretary already discussed, 97 percent of B.C. drivers agree that being able to choose when, where and how they work should be protected if laws are to change.
Again, I was an employer before I became an MLA, and I had a direct relationship with my staff. I would employ them. In consultation with them, of course, I would set their hours and their conditions of pay. They had a choice on whether or not to work under those conditions, and there was definitely an employer-employee relationship there. Their flexibility was that if they were sick, well, they would stay home and call in sick, and I would be responsible for finding somebody else.
With 97 percent of B.C. drivers agreeing that they should be able to choose when, where and how they work, I’m still puzzled by how you can have a direct employer-employee relationship under those conditions. I look forward to hearing from the minister, in committee stage, on how that would work.
Some 56 percent of B.C., drivers would stop dashing, we were told, if they had less ability to choose the days or time they worked, and 54 percent of B.C. drivers have other delivery or ride-sharing apps open while they’re driving. They’re not working for one specific employer but looking for many opportunities to earn their income.
Supplemental income. In 2022, the average Canadian driver spent fewer than three hours per week on delivery on the app — three hours per week. In addition to driving, 63 percent of B.C. drivers have a full- or part-time job, run their own business or do other gig or freelance work. Only 13 percent of B.C. drivers rely on delivery or ride-share as their only line of work.
Again, I have no idea whether what’s being proposed is that the employer-employee relationship would apply to those 13 percent. In other words, do you have to have a minimum of 30 hours a week, working for one specific employer, to be considered their employee? That would be really important to know as we discuss this in committee stage.
Some 76 percent of B.C. drivers say it would be hard to make ends meet if they couldn’t get income from ride-share and delivery. We also heard that 35 percent of B.C. drivers have dashed to make up for lost income or reduced hours at another job.
On the issue of mileage pay, what we’ve heard so far is that the costs associated with delivery and ride-hail are very different, and the government should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating pay in these two industries. Now, compared to delivery, ride-hail comes with a higher capital cost and higher cleaning costs and maintenance costs for workers that require higher rates of pay.
Delivery drivers can use any vehicle they want. Delivery drivers do not carry passengers, and delivery drivers spend much less time driving. Is the government proposing to have the same 120 percent rate of pay for both kinds of drivers? Again, this would be something that would be worthwhile canvassing prior to the regulations actually being made.
The last piece I’d like to talk to is the mandatory trades certification. The government has a history of failing to look at the full scope of labour legislation — which has, unfortunately, led to negative and unintended consequences on industries that are vital to our economy and society, such as the mandatory trades certification program. This program required a prescribed supervisor ratio of two apprentices per journeyman for ten trades. There were simply not enough journeymen in the province available to meet the 2-to-1 ratio.
The regulation as written would have likely resulted in apprentices having to be laid off because companies could no longer meet the ratio requirements. This is an example of the government adding red tape and regulation to an industry, with an improper plan to mitigate the consequences.
It is our concern that the legislation here, being devoid of much of the detail, may lead to the same consequences that were not anticipated when the government decides, in the privacy of cabinet, to review and pass regulations coming out of Bill 48.
In all, I would say that the official opposition has a lot of questions. We have a lot of issues that we’d like to see addressed in committee stage, and we hope that the minister will come forward and answer those questions in a strong and forthcoming way, give us direct answers so that we can make informed judgment as to whether or not we can support the legislation.
Again, it is my hope that at the end of the day, we’ll find a win-win-win scenario after committee stage.
M. Bernier: I’m not sure. I was waiting and stalling to see if there was anybody else from the government side, from the NDP, that was going to stand up. Possibly they still will. There’s lots of time and opportunity for them to speak to this bill that they have. Or possibly it’s because they’re as perplexed as we are with some of the stuff that comes forward from government.
We have Bill 48 in front of us, and I know the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, before me, I think, got everybody’s appetites going when he digressed and talked about his personal preference around burgers, which was interesting to bring forward in the piece of legislation that we have here.
But I think, as I look at my colleague there, the reason being is that there is very little meat in this bill.
Interjection.
M. Bernier: Yeah, where’s the beef? Exactly.
But seriously, I think it’s important that we….
For the people that are watching, I’m sorry that this seems to get a little strange sometimes, I know. But the whole point is that we have a piece of legislation that we didn’t expect to have in the House here, because just a couple of weeks ago, the House Leader for the NDP said: “We’re done with our legislation. We’re not bringing any more forward. Plan accordingly.”
And what do we see brought forward with seven days left of legislation time at the end of a fall sitting? A piece of legislation from the Minister of Labour, Bill 48. It’s only 2½ pages, ten sections with very….
Interjection.
M. Bernier: Yeah, ten clauses. Thank you. I’m old school when I talk about sections. Clauses now. But very little information in this, and I’ll get to that in a moment.
I think it’s important to highlight, first of all, the bill that’s in front of us, trying to understand the urgency, with only a few days left in the fall session. The minister had to put this on the floor, with no information in a piece of legislation. As I’ll get to in a moment, almost every piece of it says that it’s going to be in regulation at a later date, with no later date defined. The minister can stand up in his speech and say, “We’ll get to it sometime next year,” but that doesn’t give any certainty.
That also makes me wonder why this was not something like an exposure bill to say: “Here’s our intent as government to bring forward a piece of legislation.” That would give them time to actually bring forward, rather than in regulation at a later date, a piece of legislation that actually had the definitive parts in it that would explain what the intentions are of this government to either fix or change something that they see as an issue. We’ll touch on that in a moment.
Another part of this that I find very hypocritical for this government is…. Once again, not only is there no information, but they’re putting the cart before the horse. This government, the NDP government, put forward an all-party standing committee. I’ll try to remember when that was. I believe it was May of 2023, so just this year. A special committee was struck to review passenger-directed vehicles.
I’m trying to remember what the date is today, but interestingly, on November 20, 2023…. I look to my colleague. Was that yesterday or today? It’s right around now. Yesterday was the deadline to provide written input on the consultation of that review.
Once again, this government and this minister are putting forward a piece of legislation with no information, while we have a standing committee that was asked to do the work to collect the information which would, in essence, help form the regulations, you would think, and inform this government and this minister on what the legislation would look like.
Rather than waiting for the consultation to be complete, and rather than waiting for the standing committee to do its work and form a recommendation and a policy and a report to this House or to the minister, this government’s jumped ahead of it.
I’m curious, when we get to committee stage, what the minister’s commentary is going to be. What if — and I don’t have the information; I’m not on that committee — the committee’s recommendations are completely different or contrary to what this minister has put forward in this? In saying that, obviously, it doesn’t really matter, because there’s no information in here. He says he’ll do it later in regulation.
The minister has opened up the door for saying, “I can do it at a later date, after I get more information,” which is indicative of this government. To bring forward a few pages to signal there’s an issue — fair enough. A few pages to say they want to make changes — again, fair enough. But setting up false expectations for people who actually work in this sector…. There is nothing in here that is going to change anything.
Bill 48, as I mentioned, is only ten sections. Changing the Employment Standards Act — some definitions. Changing some wording around the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act — a few definitions. Workers Compensation Act — again, a few definitions. But nothing concrete that’s actually telling people who work in the gig economy or in this sector how it’s going to make their life better today. I hate to tell them, because it’s not…. There is nothing in here that will change their lifestyle or their work or the expectations that people have been talking about.
When we look at those regulations, as I mentioned…. Section 1 is adding a new definition around “online platform worker,” meaning a person who performs the work that we’re talking about. But when you read further, it says: “But we’ll define that later in regulations sometime next year, possibly.”
In section 2, it establishes online platform workers as employees and online platform operators as employers. But again, if you read later on…. You don’t have to go very far. You just flip a page, actually. You flip a page, and it says: “But that will be brought in later on, at some time, in regulation.”
Section 5. Same thing. Adds regulation-making authorities regarding prescribing work for the purposes of the definitions of online workers and operators of the online platform. They all sound very repetitive, because again, when you flip the page, it says: “But not right now. At a later date, defined by government through regulation.”
Section 6, same thing. It expands the requirement around maintaining records. But don’t worry. That one there, you get to do now. It expands the requirements to maintain records to all employers, regarding and including the ones that operate online platforms. That, I guess, has to be done now. Very little definition there.
If you go to section 8, section 9, section 10, it’s the same thing. These are adding definitions of what the expectations are in this piece of legislation, but nothing comes into force until some magical later date, as undefined in this piece of legislation. The minister, through his own acknowledgment, said: “We’re going to work on that next year, sometime.”
It’s supposedly urgent. It’s so urgent that they’ve been working on it for years. So urgent that they had to bring it forward with only a few days left in session. So urgent that there’s actually no information.
On that point alone, it makes you start to wonder the intent of this government. If they want to be virtue-signalling, just do a press release, like they always do. Just do a photo op and say: “This is what we’re going to do.” That could have sufficed in this case. When you read through this piece of legislation, it’s not much different than just a press release or what they do in a photo op. There’s no information in here, which is not fair to the workers that they report to be trying to support and protect and help.
One other point I want to make. When we look at the piece of legislation, in the first section, it’s talking about the Employment Standards Act. I think it’s important to highlight the struggles that this government is already having with the employment standards branch. Back in 2017, the wait-lists used to be around two months. They have increased to 16 months now for somebody who goes to the branch. This government’s own mandate to them was to try to get the complaint process through the branch within six months, or 80 percent, but they’re only doing about 20 percent.
So we know that they failed there. Yet, again, they want to add more work rather than going to some of the challenges that are already being faced and trying to address those.
It leads me to some of the commentary we’ve heard over the last couple of weeks, of the mismanagement of this government — of bringing bills forward, like Bill 48, at the last minute, with no information, telling us there were not going to be any more bills but then presenting in the House, trying to rush things through with no information and saying, again, the whole high level: “Trust us. Trust us. We’re going to do this behind closed doors in the cabinet room at some later date. We don’t have to bring it back to this House for debate or for the opposition to do their due diligence of holding government accountable. We’re going to do it behind closed doors later and just tell you what we decided.”
Since there’s nothing in this bill of substance that actually takes effect in the next week or two, what was the rush? Why could they have not just signalled and said: “We understand. We’re in the process of consultation. We have a standing committee doing the work. Once we’ve gathered all of the appropriate information, we’re going to put forward a meaningful piece of legislation that will actually solve or accomplish what we hope to do as government.” That’s not what they’ve chosen to do.
The minister stood up in his opening remarks and actually mentioned a whole bunch of things — I won’t get into that detail; we’ll read them again later in the Blues, in Hansard — of what they will do in regulation. As we’ve heard from some of my colleagues prior, it’ll be interesting when we get to committee stage, if he’ll reiterate those or repeat those when we have some very serious questions on this.
It’s not that we don’t support the intent. The challenge is that it’s hard to support a piece of legislation when the information, as I’ve been saying, is not there, and it’s a “trust us.” Well, we’ve learned with this government that we can’t trust what they do in many circ*mstances.
The minister also, through his commentary, talked about how the need to bring this forward was because of the challenges that he’s been hearing from our drivers, whether it’s Uber, Lyft, whether it’s DoorDash, SkipTheDishes. The minister, and the parliamentary secretary I think referred to it too, has said: “Well, we’re doing this because we’re hearing of the struggles because of the price of gas. They’re not making as much money. The impact on their bottom line because of the price of gas…. Let’s help them out.”
Well, I hate to inform them, again, that that piece of legislation does zero to help them out right now.
It’s interesting how this government wants to continue to pick winners and losers. I think we’re hearing from everybody right now that they’re struggling in this province because of the price of gas, not just those working in the gig economy.
What about those volunteering, driving people to health care appointments in small communities where we don’t have Uber or Lyft? People are volunteering or have community groups that are busing people around. They’re struggling with gas prices.
What about our seniors? They’re struggling.
What about the single mom trying to do the best she can to get to work to help raise her family? She is struggling.
Everybody right now in the province of British Columbia is struggling with affordability. Why? Because we’re the worst in the country when it comes to affordability. That’s why it’s a crisis.
The minister kind of acknowledged it by saying that, yes, these drivers are struggling because of the price of gas. The minister could have easily done what we’ve been calling for in the B.C. United group here. Get rid of the provincial portion of the tax on gasoline. That could happen today. They could make that announcement.
There’s a photo op. Hell, I’ll even stand in the picture with them. They can take credit for it. It’s our idea, but they can take credit for it because it’s going to help people today. It would help the exact people that this piece of legislation purports to be trying to support, but it doesn’t do it.
If the government really wants to put their money where their mouth is, why don’t they do that, as a quick, easy step? That can make a difference, not just for these people that we’re talking about in this piece of legislation but for everybody right now who is struggling.
The minister also failed to acknowledge, I would argue, depending on how the regulations are created and rolled out, who is paying for the changes. Well, we know who. Fees will go up. I think my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country kind of alluded to that. Whether it’s your Uber fees or the price to get food delivered to your house, if that’s what you choose to do, fees are going to go up.
It’s not to take away from the fact that people deserve to be treated fairly and equitably. We’re not saying that.
I think we also need to remember some of the statistics around this. Things have become more expensive, for sure. We have an affordability crisis, absolutely. That is why, when you actually look at the statistics….
I don’t want to contradict the member for Burnaby North, but in all fairness, she was a little bit contradictive of herself. She started off by saying that the majority of people actually do this as their sole source of income, if I heard her correctly. Then she followed on to say that, actually, a lot of people do it to try to supplement.
Statistically, about two-thirds of the people who drive in this sector that we’re talking about do it because of the affordability crisis and to supplement their already full-time job or the income that they have from other revenue sources. I know a number that I’ve spoken with have full-time jobs, whatever those might be, in communities like mine. We don’t have Uber or anything, but we do have DoorDash or SkipTheDishes.
The ones who use it as a supplement…. It’s because they’re struggling to make ends meet. They have a full-time job, and then they do this on the side.
No wonder 97 percent of the people who work in this sector want flexibility. They want that flexibility because they need it to work around the other jobs they have, to ensure they continue to have the opportunity to supplement their income, to be able to put food on the table, to hopefully be able to afford to put their children, if they have them, into sports, to be able to pay their rent or their mortgage in this affordability crisis.
In fact, only 13 percent of the drivers for one of the major — I won’t mention the name — companies, when they did their stats, use this as their main source of income. Yes, they work long hours. I’m sure they do. They have to, I’m sure, to help pay the bills. Many of them are also temporary foreign workers.
I understand the concept of the minister trying to bring in regulation to ensure people are treated fairly, equitably, 100 percent. There’s no challenge or no argument here, as I’ve mentioned.
I’m trying to square the circle from this Minister of Labour when we’re talking specifically around those working in the gig economy, working in these sectors that we’re debating here today. I don’t know the answer to this. So I’m not going to say I’m right. I’m asking a question on this that will come to the minister later.
This bill, whenever it comes into effect — again, it’s through regulation — says that they will now be employees. This government has…. I almost hate to bring this up, because I hate putting ideas into government’s head if it’s going to mean adding more taxes to something.
But a question that I’ll have is: if all of these drivers around British Columbia are now employees, does that mean Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and SkipTheDishes are going to have hundreds and hundreds of employees? Does that mean they now have to pay employer health tax to the NDP?
This government forgets about the fact that when they got rid of the MSP for some, all they did was transfer it to others — to companies, to businesses — who passed that cost on. Anybody who doesn’t actually think that’s factual hasn’t noticed the price of everything going up because of the downloading that happens, because of the increased cost that this government’s put on industry, businesses and others.
I’m curious, though. With the rules that this government has brought in, do they have to pay employers health tax? If I’m driving for SkipTheDishes, and I’m not feeling good one day, I’m now an employee of this company. Do I fall under the new regulations of sick time? Do I get to stay home for five days and claim sick pay? I don’t know. None of that’s in here. It’ll be interesting to hear what the minister has to say on that.
Right now these members that work in this sector…. For lack of better words for me, I call them owner-operators or private contractors, whatever terminology you want to use. The same thing that we see in our taxi sector. There are some taxi drivers that are employees of a group. There are others that choose to own a taxi, and they’re an owner-operator.
Again, I’ll ask the minister, or our critic will, maybe. My question is: under the CRA regulations, when you’re filing your taxes, there’s a difference of whether you’re an employee or an employer on how you file your taxes. I know there have been court rulings back in 2022 on this exact topic, specifically around taxi drivers.
I haven’t read the entire court disposition, the ruling on that. But I know that came up, because some taxi drivers challenged that. They said: “No, I’m filing as an independent. I’m not an employee of a company. I’m a contractor.” So does this rule apply only to these people? Maybe rules have changed in the past. Now all taxi drivers are going to be like that as well.
Here’s an interesting one. Some of the stats show that those that are driving for Uber, Lyft and others, in 2022, based on a lot of the data collected through the revenue agency and disclosures, were making, on average, $27 an hour. Plus they got to keep tips if they received them.
When this bill came forward — and I knew we were going to be talking about it today, even though it was rushed in — I tried to do as much research as I could. Through the same online portal that talked about the income of this sector, I looked up the same thing around taxis. Under the government’s own legislation, the taxi driver, if they’re an employee, must be paid at least minimum wage.
Interestingly, when I looked into it, guess what. The majority of employed taxi drivers, not owner-operators or contractors, on average, last year, 2022, disclosures through CRA and others, were paid minimum wage. I only flag this because I know there was a huge controversy that this government was trying to deal with when this was coming in, Uber and Lyft and others.
I’m still a person that uses taxis. I don’t even have the app. I’m a taxi guy myself. Always have, probably always will be. I enjoy the service, enjoy the work they do, and I like supporting them. Others choose Uber, Lyft, whatever. That’s free market. I get that. Very supportive of it.
I’m always a little suspect of what the intentions are of this government, and that’s why I raised those two differentials on price comparisons and wage comparisons. Because this government always likes to…. I always wonder. They look like they’re picking winners and losers, but I always wonder in the back of my head: what’s their ulterior motive? What are they really trying to accomplish?
They’re trying to say, in this piece of legislation, what they’re trying to accomplish is protection and fairness for these workers. Fair enough. I can support that 100 percent. I wish I could support it based on the wording in this piece of legislation, but I can’t. I’d like to say I can take the minister and the government’s word for it that they’re going to do this at a later date, which is something I will 100 percent be able to support. I would like to say that I trust them on that.
I hope, for everybody involved, that the regulations, whenever we see them, will be proper, fair and something that I could support. On behalf of not only my constituents but of people of British Columbia, who expect the opposition to come in here to hold government accountable, I regret to say we are not able to do that, once again, in a holistic way because government hasn’t given us the information to be able to challenge them, to be able to hold them accountable. It’s another one of those: “We’ll wait to see, and whatever happens, happens.”
Once again, through their government’s own admission, people are struggling in the province of British Columbia in an affordability crisis. Once again, under the government’s own admission, they’re looking at trying to make sure that these people that are struggling because of everything being more expensive have more opportunities.
There’s no argument from the opposition that this government has failed. There’s no argument from the opposition that life has never been more unaffordable than it is now. We can agree on that one.
The government, every time they stand up, acknowledges how horrible things really are for people. In almost every one of their commentaries, every speech they do or every question they answer — if they ever answer one in question period — they always say: “We know how bad things are.”
That’s because after seven years of an NDP government, things have only gotten worse. Under Bill 48, they’re trying to shed some hope out there, as I’ve mentioned. I would have thought or hoped that the proper process would have been to do their due diligence and gather the information properly, after some proper consultation with those affected, through the committee that’s established right now. They have not yet filed their report, I understand, so the minister is just guessing in so many ways.
I’ll just end, because I notice that I’ve almost run out of time here. I think the intentions of government are valid in the sense that they’ve acknowledged people are struggling and they want to try to fix a problem. We’ve just never seen this government be able to actually fix those problems. It’s all virtue-signalling. It’s legislation without information. It’s press releases and photo ops.
I completely understand the pressure they’re under right now. A year or less away from an election, they have to try to now signal that: “Oh, now we get it. Now we have to try to find a way to fix these problems, many of our own making.” I would hope that people realize, at the end of this, that a 2½-page bill, Bill 48, basically just signals that once again they’ve acknowledged that people are struggling but have put nothing forward substantively that is going to fix that.
We need action. We need stuff that we can point to that’s actually worked. And you know what? I’ll be the first one to stand here and applaud if they can finally do something that’ll help people in my riding. But I’ve yet to see that.
I know our critic for this is going to have a lot of questions for the minister in committee stage. My fear is the minister won’t have a lot of answers for us in committee stage and punt it down the road. Unfortunately, if he had those answers, our question would be: then why is it not in the legislation?
Thank you very much for the opportunity. I see it has now hit 0:00, and I will sit down.
C. Oakes: I am pleased to rise in the House today to continue the discussion on Bill 48. It is essential that all workers in British Columbia, all people, are put in positions to succeed and are working in equitable and fair working conditions.
I’m going to open my comments, however, with process. I think I’ve talked in this Legislature multiple times about a pattern that we have all been witnessing, especially over the last year, of an erosion of process in how bills are being brought forward and the role that…. Each of us has a responsibility to provide vigorous debate and review of legislation. What we’ve seen through this erosion, with this government, is that they’ve moved beyond the normal practice of bringing legislation forward to let’s do everything through regulation.
I will raise some alarming comments as I make further remarks.
Another example of the erosion of the process is…. Multiple members of this House have had the true privilege to sit on select standing committees in this House. I currently have the privilege of sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and I sit on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and carbon sequestration. These are an incredibly important part of the process of this parliament.
The work that is done through these select standing committees is an important function of what we do as parliamentarians and legislators. It provides an invaluable opportunity for stakeholders to come forward and share their views in a thoughtful way that has a well-articulated agenda of expectations through these select standing committees.
What we have here before us today is a bill that supersedes an all-party select standing committee on passenger-directed vehicles that was struck May 11, 2023, that’s currently in the consultation process. The consultation process ends on November 30.
Here we have a bill that supersedes, that says, “Government knows best. I’m going to bring forward a bill that supersedes an all-party select standing committee,” which builds on this experience, this erosion that all of us have experienced as MLAs. Where it’s the government knows best. “We are going to ignore the work of select standing committees. We’re going to ignore the work that is currently going on in this House. We’re just going to bring forward an outline of what we think, and then the real work is going to happen in regulation.”
For members of the public and members of the gallery that are here today, thank you very much for coming and listening. The challenge becomes that when a government decides to move forward and not legislate but rather regulate, it moves all of the decision-making process into the executive council.
Now cabinet makes all the decisions. This process of us doing, and the ability for us to do, our thorough accountability checks and balances of the bills that are being brought forward is diminished, because we no longer have the ability, other than after, when we see the impacts on the ground in communities…. This is a dangerous erosion of the democratic process that we’ve seen in this House.
It’s also incredibly alarming that we’ve seen, in the same dismissal of our parliamentary duty in this House, the transparency required for a proper review of the material being…. Because again, all of it will be going, or the majority of the details will be going, through regulation. Look. We already know that this is the government that is the most secretive government in Canada. I mean, we started off, I think, the spring session with a thorough debate of yet another bill where everything was done through the executive council and cabinet.
Look. If we, as legislators and parliamentarians, are saying, “Okay. Well, cabinet, you make all the decisions,” then what is our role? What is our role if we, all of a sudden, dismiss all of the authority to cabinet to make all of the decisions without the necessary checks and balances that were set forward in our democratic processes? That’s a dangerous, slippery slope.
I’ve heard from various stakeholders. I’ve heard from the media. I’ve heard that change around the transparency around freedom of information and that secretive nature of the government — the process where there is a significant lack of transparency and the results that we’re getting. This most secretive government in Canada is having real impacts on people.
I would say that as we see a province that has now become the most expensive province to live in Canada, as we’ve seen the housing crisis worsen, as we’ve seen the challenges that we have on the streets, as we see the challenges with small business, as we see the challenges with the restaurant sector, as we see the challenges with the tourism sector, as we see the challenges with the agricultural sector, as we see the challenges with the forest sector, as we see the challenges with the mining sector…. I could go on and on and list the all of the sectors that are struggling with challenges.
I would say that the government should rethink the process that it has on bringing a legislative framework and then moving everything to regulation. Because I think that we can help support this government on actually making sure those checks and balances…. Those are critically necessary so that the types of things that the government is bringing forward don’t end up with some significant consequences on the ground.
I would just like to share a couple of stories. One of the things that I think is incredibly important…. As parliamentarians, our job is to look at policy, whether you’re in government to bring forward policy or as opposition, to critique and provide those checks and balances on things being brought forward. But I think another critical element of being a parliamentarian and being an MLA is the profound importance that each of us has in listening to constituents and stakeholders and being their voice and bringing their concerns and their dreams forward into this House.
I would like to share first the story of Carol. Carol drove me from the airport on Sunday. Carol is fantastic. If anyone has had the opportunity to take Uber from the airport to Victoria…. Carol was a torch relay bearer in 2010, and she talked about that experience. She was actually on Canadians chefs. Fascinating to hear this story of her experiences.
Carol says, “I work from home, and I became an Uber driver because it’s an opportunity to again supplement” — supplement her work, get out of the house, meet people. You can tell she loves people. Right? Here is somebody that is a tourist ambassador, who is driven by that ideology of customer service and making sure that your experience is the best experience possible.
Carol says: “You know, I pick up…. I don’t work all the time.” She goes: “My husband was watching the Grey Cup game, so I thought, you know what? This is an opportunity today. I’ve got some extra time. Why don’t I drive today?” She loves the flexibility. She loves the flexibility of being able to be a driver, and she’s doing a great job.
A couple of weeks ago I met Debjit, who has a really interesting story. He moved to Victoria a couple of years ago. You know, COVID has been really challenging on so many people, and for a lot of people who have family that live internationally, it’s been hard to get back home and visit, to go home and see…. Travel is very expensive. Anyone who has travelled to India recently knows that the price of tickets is pretty expensive, so you really have to do a lot of saving.
He talked about the fact that he loves being a driver, his business, because it provides him the opportunity to work the hours necessary so that he can save with this goal in mind so that he can go back and visit his family, and then he’s going to go to Australia. He has this wonderful itinerary that is planned.
He’s got his whole goals set forward about the hours he needs to work. He’s going to work really hard for a couple of months, and then he’s going to take time off. He’s going to take time off and visit family, go and do some travels that he hadn’t had the opportunity to do because of COVID. That’s why being a driver for Uber has been very impactful for him and why the model currently, as it is, works for him.
The third story of a driver that I would like to bring forward is Talsan. He’s a single dad, and he was hurt. He works in construction, and he was hurt. He was trying to figure out what kind of job he could do that provides him the flexibility so that he could be at home with his kids and that he could have that flex be there when he needs it.
He was thinking: “Do I go back into construction? Do I go back to school? What are the decisions that I need to make?” But right now this really works for him. This ability to drive works for him.
The reason I raise those three individuals is because they have three very different experiences, and I feel that sometimes what we’re seeing with this government is this ideology that there has to be one-size-fits-all in this province. It’s the autism hubs, right? How has that been working out in our communities? One size does not fit all in British Columbia.
Electric vehicles. I mean, we’ve had that discussion in the House. Look, I come from the Cariboo and rural parts of the province where some of these opportunities just don’t exist.
It’s critical that you listen to Carol. It’s critical that you listen to Debjit. It’s critical that you listen to Talsan because they all have unique and different experiences of why they made the decision to become entrepreneurs.
I want to use that word because I think it’s important. I think we’ve lost, in this conversation with the government, that drive to be an entrepreneur, that carving out your own path, that ability to have the flexibility to drive your own dream and to set your own course.
I feel that that conversation in this Legislature has been lost. I want to bring that back. I can tell you: the spirit of entrepreneurs has built this province, and I think we can do better. I think when you see legislation through regulation, where the decisions are all at the cabinet table, versus listening to the people like Carol, Debjit and Talsan…. When it’s the government knows best, when it’s the cabinet that knows best, it’s not talking to the average people — the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the risk-takers, the dreamers.
When you don’t take the time to talk to them to find out what suits them, what we have in this province is an erosion of competitiveness. Bills like this do nothing more than create uncertainty, to make people make the decision…. Look, I don’t know where this province is going.
I see these bills come forward. I thought we were supposed to be finished bills last week. Here we’re going to have another bill that we’re just going to slip in at the last minute: “We don’t actually have a bill, because we’re going to do everything at the cabinet table. We’re going to regulate it, but we’re going to make it look like we’re virtue-signalling.”
We have a two-pager that says: “Oh yeah, we’re listening to people.” No, you’re not. If you were listening to people, you would actually wait for the all-party Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles to do their work.
Here’s the shocking thing. I think this bill and this announcement came out by the Premier and this government at the exact same time as the special committee was meeting with stakeholders. That’s ludicrous. How is it that you’re skipping the fundamental reason of why, as parliamentarians, we have these processes? Rip up the books. Look, if you’re just going to make all of the rules at the cabinet table, then guess what. The cabinet takes on all of the responsibility.
Let me talk about the responsibility that this cabinet is responsible for. We’re the least affordable province in the country. We have the most expensive gas prices in North America, and it’s because we’re taxed to death. Do you wonder why we’re so unaffordable? You can say that it’s because of some global thing here; it could be that. Look at the taxes. It’s not just one tax; it’s not two taxes; it’s not three taxes. It’s not four taxes; it’s not five taxes; it’s not six taxes. I could go on and on, because I think we’re up to 29 or 30 new or increased taxes.
I’ve heard this government do the virtue-signalling about things: “Oh, well, we eliminated that tax.” Well, no, you didn’t. You just renamed it. You renamed it, and you shifted the responsibility into the employer health tax. Let’s be real. Do you want to start wondering why we’re the most expensive jurisdiction? Start looking at the policies of what the cabinet is doing. Start holding them to account.
We need to be asking tough questions of this government. As much as they try and bring these bills forward that don’t provide us the true ability to do the checks and balances on it, I’m calling on British Columbians, like the B.C. Business Council, to start saying: “We’re paying attention. We’re holding this cabinet and this Premier to account.” When you start to say, “We know best. It’s only the cabinet that makes decisions in British Columbia, and every member in this House no longer matters,” then we need to start calling out this government, this Premier and this cabinet.
Let’s get back to some of the taxes. Some members have talked about the fact that costs have been going up for gas, unequivocally. For a year, B.C. United has been calling on this government, this Premier, to provide some solutions. Part of that is to get rid of the provincial fuel tax. Do you want to cut some costs and make things a little bit more affordable? There’s one solution.
There are very real solutions that this government, this cabinet, could be taking today and that they ignore. At the end of the day, they are ignoring people on the ground in communities. That’s a shame. We can, we should and we need to do better. I hear, every single day in my community, and I know every MLA in this House has heard that people are really struggling in this province. It is heartbreaking.
When I have the privilege of going on to a lot of post-secondary campuses and meeting with a lot of students, I bring them into this conversation. A lot of students are drivers and are part of this gig economy. They do an important job.
I want to make sure that they’re protected and have all the rights afforded to them, but the number one thing that comes up on every single meeting I have with students in this province, is food insecurity. The growing need for food banks on our campuses is deplorable. What I’m hearing, more and more across this province, is that many students are being turned away from community food banks.
Here we have a bill that says we’re going to protect…. Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act and Workers Compensation Act. Where’s the protection for our international students? How are we supporting them right now? Because they’re struggling.
If you, as MLAs, are not listening to your constituents and the people on the ground, shame on you. In a country and a province as wealthy as we, we should not be seeing the amount of people that are relying on food banks and the people that are really struggling and have lost hope.
I see this bill as nothing more than creating uncertainty, increasing costs, making things more unaffordable for people. If I’m wrong, then you should have brought it forward in legislation. “Trust us,” Premier Eby says. “Trust us.” Do you remember his election campaign? Do you remember the 2017 election campaign: “We’re going to make life more affordable.” That’s what they ran on.
How affordable is your life right now? Go and talk to some of the people in those food bank lines. Where are the entrepreneurial hope and dream that this province was built on? Where is the inspiration so that our kids feel that there’s hope for the future? Where are the dreams that all of us should hope that the next generation feels?
I’m tired of the mismanagement of this House. I’m tired of the erosion of the parliamentary role that each of us has as MLAs. Quite frankly, I’m tired of the legislation that comes forward here, that just creates a level of uncompetitiveness and that at the end of the day is hurting everyday British Columbians.
T. Shypitka: I just want to give a special thanks to the member for Cariboo North who eloquently stated her case on Bill 48 with a sore throat. It’s quite an effort for her to have done that. I thank her for all the efforts. Perhaps there are some sore throats on the other side because I haven’t heard anyone over there yet.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Before I go into the debate, I just want to say that I’ve got something on my face. Some people refer to it as a beard. I certainly don’t. I don’t do it because my wife likes it. I don’t do it because I like it. I do it because it’s important to bring awareness to men’s health — hon. Speaker, if you allow me the two minutes — to make sure that men, especially those 50 and over, get their prostate checked, get that number, get that PSA, do the right thing. Prostate cancer is treatable if caught soon enough. I just wanted to put that out there.
Interjection.
T. Shypitka: Well, thank you. Somebody referred to me as Kenny Rogers earlier today. I thought that was a compliment. I’m not sure.
Interjection.
T. Shypitka: Yes, that’s exactly what I said to her.
The member for Shuswap — I want to give him a little recognition because he has for the last six or seven years gone out and forced us MLAs on this side of the House to get Movember going, and through that, he’s successfully raised, I believe, over $100,000 for men’s health. I think that’s an honourable thing.
Getting to Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, I just want to start out and preface and say that there’s nobody on this side of the House that is opposed to ensuring that workers are treated fairly and equitably. You heard the member from the Green Party suggest that some workers sometimes get taken advantage of, and we on this side of the House certainly don’t want that.
I do appreciate getting the opportunity to speak to this amendment to the act in the hopes that it will bring that security and that safety to some workers in the province that are in the gig economy.
The reason I believe that we’re having this debate right now is because of the details or the lack thereof in this bill. The meat of this bill will be determined later, and who knows how long that will be. Some are suggesting probably, maybe, as long as a year from now, maybe after the next election. Who knows? But the fact is we’re not getting a lot of detail, and it’s hard to go into committee stage on this bill, to actually dive into what the details of this bill should include and what it doesn’t include.
The minister even said in his opening comments, in his opening statement, that it’s complex. It is complex. But what we’re getting after seven years…. This has been recognized for quite some time. I’ll go into some more details on quotes that the government has made over the years and that kind of thing. What we’re getting is ten clauses — a very, very light bill. Actually, quite honestly, a lot of it won’t come into force until regulations are set. As a matter of fact, 60 percent of this bill won’t come into force until a later time.
What we’re talking about in this bill and the things that the minister has been touting as being an effort to provide safety and clarity for workers won’t be seen for quite some time. That’s what the debate of this bill is. It’s not so much about the bill as it is the process of how this bill is being presented.
Ten clauses. It is by far not the shortest bill which, I believe, might have been Bill 32, Provincial Symbols Act, or whatever, the dinosaur act. I think it was only two clauses. I think it was a very short bill.
Interjection.
T. Shypitka: It was amazing. I’ve got a lot of…. You know, when that bill actually came through, the members on the other side were talking about the elasmosaur, I think it was, as being 50 million years old. Yet I’ve got trilobites in my area that are 500 million years old.
Deputy Speaker: I’m sure this will relate to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act at some point.
T. Shypitka: Absolutely, hon. Speaker. There is a tie-in here, because it is the shortness of the bill. Bill 32 being only two clauses long while this being ten, but only 40 percent being recognized under royal assent brings that ten down to four. So I guess we’re getting closer to Bill 32. I don’t know. Does that work? I’m not sure that tied in very well, but it is what it is.
As the minister said, this is very complex and identifies a lot of things. He said in his opening statement that under consultation, some said this bill goes too far, and some said this bill doesn’t go far enough, but he’s confident enough to present this ten-clause bill that he’s threaded that needle perfectly but not perfectly enough that you’ll see that in the actual legislation. But that detail will have to come later down the road. I find that kind of amazing — that something that is identifiable and so concerning of public safety and cost affordability isn’t identified in this legislation.
The minister said a couple of things. He said the two things that he heard the most…. One was that the high cost of gas does not meet the acceptance rate of the pickups and delivery, which is critical. If you can’t make money at what you’re doing, why do it? So that could be a collapse of the whole system if this isn’t identified.
I understand that’s very critical, but he identified gas prices being that piece that’s a huge concern. It’s funny, because it has been this side of the House that’s been asking government over and over and over again to identify that cost pressure that people in British Columbia are facing every day, and that is the cost of gasoline.
You’ve heard it from many on this side reaffirming that we are the highest cost district in North America on the price of gasoline. There are many reasons for that. There are actually only four reasons on the price of gasoline. It’s the price of crude that makes up the cost of gas, and that’s a fairly straight level across the country. The price of crude is the price of crude.
There’s the wholesale price, or the refining price, which is something that is a little different in different jurisdictions. B.C. suffers a little by that, because our refining capacity isn’t that of Alberta, so of course there is a differential there. There’s the price of retail, which is what the gas retailers sell it for. And there’s a little disparity there, but nothing too major.
Actually, as a matter of fact, a lot of that price to the retailer is zero in places like in the Peace region and, I believe, even in regions like the southeast, because we compete heavily with Alberta on the price of gas, which is 60 cents a litre cheaper.
Then, of course, there’s the fourth piece, which is tax, and that’s where we’re seeing things. The B.C. United has been very unified on bringing that message that we need to bring that disparity a little closer, which would help out Bill 48 and would help out those delivery drivers to get some economy back into their businesses again. If they dropped the fuel tax, it could save them 15 cents a litre. That is quite significant when all you do all day is drive and deliver. That’s your number one cost.
So 15 cents a litre would go a long, long, way. If government would pick up on that, I think they’d help not only every everyday British Columbians, but they would certainly help those affected by Bill 48.
The second thing he said was on safety. He recited a couple examples. He recited one person in Abbotsford, I believe he said, that was attacked and another person that was stabbed. Once again, it has been members on this side of the House that have been calling for a review on how our public safety is being addressed, prolific offenders that are in a revolving door of crime, in and out. If we could address those things, then this bill wouldn’t be as critical as it is now.
Talk about — what’s the old saying? — treating the symptom and not the cause. I think that’s specific to this bill. There are a lot of issues, and the top two that the minister stated were things that we could probably do here and now without forcing this bill through, which I believe it is…. We don’t have any detail on this bill. A lot of it, 60 percent of it, will not be brought through royal assent. It will have to wait for cabinet decisions, which is bizarre to me.
The consultation period for the select standing committee for transportation issues doesn’t end until November 30. I was on the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy standing committee. This happened once before, where the NDP government put through a piece of legislation before the recommendations came out of that select standing committee.
We’re seeing history repeat itself a couple of times here, and I think we’ve heard the member for Cariboo North and the member for Peace River South talk about the process that we’re seeing once again here in the Legislature.
Getting back to the bill and what it means…. My daughter, Allie — proud as punch of her. She’s 18 years old. She just graduated from high school last year. She’s going to the College of the Rockies, my alma mater. It used to be called the East Kootenay Community College when I went there, but now it’s College of the Rockies.
She’s taking her first couple of years to be a nurse, something, once again, that we need in this province, desperately. She’s not exactly sure what field she’s going to go into, but she’s doing really well and getting good grades, and I couldn’t be more proud.
But what she does right now to put her through college is…. She was delivering. She was doing delivery work for a chain restaurant. I won’t say which one, but it’s very recognizable. People have all been there before, and I can give you some….
Interjection.
T. Shypitka: Not quite. I’ll give you a hint. Their theme song is a song from Boston. “More Than a Feeling” I believe is the actual song. I think you probably could…. They sell a lot of pizza.
Anyways, she does delivery driving, and I believe she’s protected fairly well. I worry about her going out, to be quite honest, when she makes these deliveries in dead of night to places she doesn’t know. There have been a couple of conversations I’ve had with her that were a little scary, I would say. But she has been treated very well at her place of employment.
Right now what happens to her is she gets $6 for every delivery. She gets to keep 100 percent of her tips. If she has to go back because of an issue — maybe they forgot something — she gets another $5. So she actually makes pretty good money, and I want to thank her employer for giving her that opportunity. Now she’s working on the serving side of things. Now she’s on the inside, and that’s equally as good.
So what this bill, I think, hopes to do is to provide those same assurances that she has with her employer in Cranbrook and to give some clarity and stability and some assurances. I think the minister said: “Keeping those tips.” I think the minister also said, when he gave his speech, that there would be a minimum wage attached to the employer.
Now, the platform operator in section 1…. I believe it identifies the operator of the platform as the employer, and the worker of a platform is the employee. But once again, no details on that when we separate things like ride-hailing or platform delivery — two different things but the same job, and of course they would come with different nuances.
Painting all this with one brush in a one-size-fits-all attempt for these workers I think is disingenuous. I don’t think it really attacks the actual nuances to what the gig economy, actually, really is.
I’m really disappointed with the legislation that’s in front of us. I’m disappointed that we are going down this unknown road, which we’ve seen time and time again with this government.
We always hear, and we always say — it’s kind of a cliché — that the devil is in the details. It’s the truth. The devil is in the details. What those details are we won’t know for quite some time.
Any of these workers that are watching here today and that are expecting this helping hand that the minister talks about…. It isn’t coming. It won’t be coming for quite some time. One could guess it might not come until, maybe, October of next year. I’m not a soothsayer. I’m not claiming to be Nostradamus. I’m guessing that might be the case with this. So I’m very disappointed in what this bill represents.
Once again, 3.1 of the bill says that an online platform worker is considered an employee, and the operator of the online platform is the employer. So what happens if somebody is working two platforms simultaneously? That does happen in the gig economy.
You’re working for, perhaps, Uber, or you’re working for SkipTheDishes. Sorry, on two platforms. Maybe you’re working for SkipTheDishes and — what’s the other one? — Uber Eats. I guess that would be the other one. They’re doing simultaneous deliveries. Who is the employer? That hasn’t been decided in this legislation.
We can’t ask those questions in the committee stage. The default answer is going to be: “We’re going to decide in regulation on that. It hasn’t been determined yet.”
What we end up with is, essentially, a couple of empty pages on a four-page…. Well, it’s not even four pages. Yeah, it’s four pages. So what we end up with is a couple of empty pages on a four-page bill. I’m not sure how many people in the general public would think that’s right. I don’t think a lot, if they actually knew what was happening here.
This is a bill that just came out of the blue, as a matter of fact. I think there was a discussion that there wouldn’t be any new legislation brought forward until after…. I can’t remember. November 8, I believe, was the discussion. Well, it’s November 21 today. We’ve got a week left of the legislation for this fall sitting, and we’re getting this bill presented to us right now, with no details. The only answer is: “We’re doing the right thing. The devil is in the details, and we’re going to tell you what it’s about later down the road.” Very concerning.
Like I said, the key sections…. I’ll just give you a couple of bullets on what it actually says in this bill and what it actually identifies. It does provide a definition of “online platform workers,” as I mentioned. It establishes the online platform workers as employees and the operators of the online platforms as employers. That’s about as basic as it gets.
The bill states that the director of employment standards, appointed under the Public Service Act, may take steps to investigate and adds a new circ*mstance in which they can investigate. So that’s the enforcement piece. Just hold that. I’ll come back to that in a second.
It adds regulation-making authorities. Also an enforcement piece.
Then the final thing that we know about this bill is…. The act will come into force by the date of royal assent, except for sections 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10. That’s six clauses in a ten-clause bill.
It’s interesting. The clauses that do come into force by royal assent…. Section 3 is the Employment Standards Act. That’s about the director. It clarifies the circ*mstances in which the director may take specified steps respecting investigations and adds a new circ*mstance in which the director may take those steps. So enforcement.
The next one is section 4. This is the Employment Standards Act. It needs to be amended. It provides that the appeal period, under this section, ends 30 days after the date a determination is served. Once again, that goes with section 3, the director’s ability to investigate.
The next section that will come into force is section 6, and that’s the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, section 28. It expands the requirement to maintain records to all employers. This is for temporary foreign workers and the director having those records maintained for his investigation purposes — once again, investigation, enforcement.
The final piece is clause 7, again the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, section 51, that amends dates that apply in relation to the obligation to pay interest on amounts owing under a determination or order.
This bill, under royal assent, will only identify the enforcement piece of a bill that…. We don’t even know the definitions and how the workaround is going to be with the different platforms and different delivery models and those things. As the member for Peace River South said, this is really putting the cart in front of the horse.
It’s very suspect, coming this late, unannounced, no real briefing. I think we got a briefing today at 11 o’clock. I mean, it’s appreciated, but this bill was originally scheduled, when it was first thrown at us, to come in yesterday before a briefing. We weren’t even going to get the opportunity to get that.
So you’ve got to wonder, after seven years…. And I’ll see if I can find some quotes, because this has been identified for quite some time.
November 18, 2018: “Legislation Opens the Door to Ride-Hailing Next Year.” They were going to bring ride-hailing in 2019. It was identified in 2018 of putting safety first. That was a big piece back in 2018.
There were a few other announcements, but on January 23, 2020, the Minister of Transportation at the time, Claire Trevena, in a statement on ride-hailing service decisions: “We will continue to support a passenger transportation industry that gets people safely where they need to go and ensures sustainable livelihoods for drivers.” That’s four years ago. Three years ago, sorry — almost four years ago. It will be four years ago this January.
And it goes on for the next couple of years about identifying this issue. We knew that safety was an issue in the transportation sector with the gig economy and delivery, ride-hailing, all those kinds of things.
Yet here it is seven years later, after it was first identified, and we get a bill with ten clauses that only four, all surrounding enforcement, will be brought into force under royal assent. The other 60 percent of the bill is going to be decided around the cabinet table. No consultation at the cabinet table, other than the ministers themselves.
I just wanted to also stress…. I talked about my daughter, Allie, and working in the delivery sector, which is aligned with Bill 48. And to be quite honest, for the most part, the gig economy is supplemental income. There are statistics around that.
For example, in 2022, the average Canadian driver spent fewer than three hours per week on delivery on the app. In addition to driving, 63 percent of B.C. drivers have a full- or part-time job, run their own business or do other gig or freelance work. So that’s 63 percent that have other jobs. Only 13 percent of B.C. drivers rely on delivery or ride-share as their only line of work.
Now, I’m not discrediting those 13 percent. As I said at the preface when I started out, we absolutely need to ensure public safety. There’s no question about that. And we need to ensure sustainability. These folks deserve to get paid an honest dollar for their work.
But with the high cost of gas, the profit model for ride-sharing needs to be on par. When we’re addressing cost pressures, like this government says they know about, we have to identify that. So how do we reduce that cost of gas? Because that gas price, as I said, does make up pretty much your entire cost, expense, for your business. How do we reduce that? Well, we’ve got a simple solution. Let’s just knock 15 cents a litre off. Let’s do what Alberta did and take the fuel tax off.
Now, there are members on the other side that have said that it doesn’t work. If we took off 15 cents a litre, the retailers would just add it back on, and people wouldn’t see a savings anyway. It would just go in the pockets of greedy gas retailers.
We know that’s not the truth. We saw it in Calgary. We saw it in Alberta. We saw the University of Calgary, I believe it was. I think it was Professor Tombe — is that the guy’s name? — who did a review on this, did a research paper on this. I’m getting smiles. I don’t know everybody’s name, but I think it’s Tombe.
He said that 97 percent of the reduction of the gas tax was passed through. That was the exact quote. Almost 100 percent passed through, meaning that the 60 cents a litre that I see in a 20-minute drive between Cranbrook and the Alberta border…. Sorry, not Cranbrook. Sparwood, let’s say, sees a 60 cent a litre difference in price.
That’s concerning, because a lot of people from my riding can just head over the line. They just buy a truckload of gas, and of course, when they’re down there, they might as well pick up some groceries, too, and maybe a couple of other items, which ties into our businesses in the Kootenays. They’re at a disadvantage, because now not only do they save the fuel tax; they save the provincial sales tax, and they get, maybe, some better goods. There’s more availability in Calgary and Lethbridge than there is in Sparwood.
Anyway, I just wanted to bring those things forward. I’ve only got a couple of minutes left. I know we’ve got a couple of other speakers here that want to get on with it. I really wish there would be some members from the other side that would talk to this piece of legislation because it is complex, and it is important. I see the Minister of Health, perhaps. He looked like he was ready to stand up there. Maybe he’s just fidgety. I’m not sure.
But I’d like to see some debate on the other side. I think it is something that we should talk about. Like I said, it’s not the bill that I’m as opposed to as the process. We all in this House want to look out for public safety. We all want to look out for sustainability with any worker in the province, not just the gig economy. Anyone in the province of British Columbia should be looked after. So we support the intent of the bill. We just are very weary of what the process is on this bill and how it’s being presented today.
So with that, I guess we’ll look forward to committee stage. I’m not too sure how robust that will be. I’m not sure how many questions we’ll actually have answered. There’s nothing much in the bill that actually you can question on, other than the default answer of: “Well, it’s going to be in regulation.” So we’ll see how that turns out.
With that, I’ll take my place.
T. Wat: I expected the Minister of Health to stand up. I was trying to wait for him to stand up and listen to his explanation about this bill.
It is always my honour to stand up in the people’s House and debate any piece of legislation that comes up for debate. Before going into…. Well, all my colleagues have been talking about the deficiency of this Bill 48. I just want to share my thoughts about this whole Legislature since the NDP government has come into place for the last seven years.
I was fortunate enough to be part of the government between 2013 and 2017. I remember clearly that every time, before any spring session or fall session, the government side would come up with an agenda for that legislative session.
They would lay out, clearly, the number of bills that would be presented for debate by parties in the Legislature, so that all the elected officials — whether on the government side, the opposition side or independents — could do their homework. You could look at what bills were going to be debated, do some research and find out what the issue was about, and you could talk to your constituents about the kinds of bills that were going to be presented in the Legislature and get their input so that we could serve them well as elected officials.
I was an immigrant into this country in 1989. I think for most of the immigrants who have come from Asia, we have chosen Canada to be our second home because we really admire and respect the democratic system in Canada.
I was brought up in Hong Kong, under a colonial government. Some of the very few elected officials — it was called urban council; obviously, they didn’t deal with pieces of legislation — dealt with cleaning the streets or how to have more parks and gardens. They never had a chance, like us, as elected officials in Canada, to openly be given full information and to discuss back and forth between the government side and the opposition side.
I remember that when I was in Hong Kong as a student in journalism and, later on, working for the media and for the government, I always said how good it is for Canadians that they can have their elected representatives to represent their voices, their concerns and debate in the Legislature so that their voices can be incorporated into pieces of legislation.
In the first four years that I was blessed to be part of the government, I really felt that this was the way that elected officials’ responsibilities lay: that we represent our constituents and we present their voices to the Legislature.
Interjection.
T. Wat: Yes, I’m coming to the bill.
That’s why I’m trying to tell my constituents who are watching, and my colleagues here, why I’m disappointed at Bill 48 and disappointed at the process of this Legislature in the past few years. There’s no transparency, as several colleagues on our side have already pointed out.
First of all, I’m so disappointed that only the minister and the parliamentary secretary stood up in this House. The minister has no choice but to talk about your bill, and the parliamentary secretary has a responsibility for this portfolio. We should talk about it. How about the other MLAs? How about the other ministers? The government side should be more familiar with this bill than the opposition.
Our designated speaker for this bill, my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson, was telling the House that even this morning, we were not sure whether there would be a briefing on Bill 48. We were only told later in the morning that it would be confirmed at 11 o’clock. It was rushed together for the briefing.
This is really not acceptable, when we are stretched to three Houses right now towards the last couple of weeks in this fall session, especially for our Third Party and Fourth Party, which only have two MLAs. Even for us as the official opposition party, we are stretched to the limit.
If the government side cannot have any of the elected officials coming up and debating the bill, which they should know full well, how do you expect the opposition MLAs to be doing a good job? We are given just a two-page bill, and we don’t have much information. As the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson said during the half-hour or 45-minute briefing, there’s not much information.
From the minister’s opening remarks, we got more information. How come we were not given this information during the briefing and beforehand? Isn’t this what democracy is about? We expect transparency and full information to be provided to the opposition, but we are not.
As some colleagues pointed out, it makes us remember the FOI piece of legislation, when our colleagues and all of us were trying to get more information about this FOI bill, and nothing was given to us. Lo and behold, just a few hours after royal assent was given, we found the actual fee for FOI. It meant that the government had all the information during the debate on the bill. The government just did not want to share with other elected officials.
Is this what democracy is about? I am shocked. I have emigrated to the province and decided to run for politics because I thought of becoming an elected official representing my constituents. I am an ethnic minority; I speak the same language that most, 70 percent, of my constituents are speaking. Quite a number don’t speak English. I have the responsibility to represent their voices and express them.
This bill affects a lot of immigrants, ethnic minorities. Many of my constituents, because they don’t speak English well, take on a supplemental income job as a SkipTheDishes driver or Uber driver. How am I going to explain to them after the session is over? I guess this bill definitely will be passed, even though maybe we’ll vote against it. We don’t know.
We all, on our side, support the principle of this bill, that we’ve got to provide fairness to all workers. I don’t think anybody in this House would dispute that, but how come there’s no information forthcoming? What is there to hide? Why has the regulation only been discussed around the cabinet table?
How am I going to explain to my constituents when they ask me: “Why did you support the bill when you don’t know the regulations?” I don’t know how to talk to them. Tell me. I hope the minister can provide more information.
The minister is laughing. I see you laugh. I see you, through the Chair.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, one person has the floor. That’s the current speaker. Let’s just have her have the floor and not have a back-and-forth.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
T. Wat: When the minister was having his opening remarks, it looked like the government already had the gist of the regulations in mind. The minister even talked about the minimum wage — what percentage. Why wasn’t that information given to the whole House? Why does it have to be included in regulations after royal assent?
How do you expect our MLAs in the opposition to be able to have an intelligent debate on this piece of legislation with only ten clauses and two pages? There’s nothing there for us to debate.
They only talk about it: “For the purposes of this Act, (a) an online platform worker is to be considered an employee, whether or not the online platform worker is an employee under any law, and (b) the operator of the online platform through which an online platform worker accepts prescribed work is to be considered the employer of the online platform worker.”
What are the details? How does the government expect us to have a comprehensive and intelligent debate? That’s why…. I have to stand up and debate this bill, but I’m scratching my head. How am I going to debate as somebody who is a representative who is fully informed? I’m not.
It’s not that I’m not trying to do my work, but we were told that we don’t have any pieces of legislation coming. All of a sudden, on Monday morning, the minister stood up and presented a bill. This all came as a surprise to all the opposition.
I’m sure the government MLAs all are aware of it. Then, if you are familiar, will you please stand up and let us know why you think this is a piece of good legislation and talk about the details so that we can debate back and forth?
Already with the three Houses opening and making all the opposition MLAs stretched to the limit…. I’m asking the government: do you think it’s fair to the opposition MLAs, especially the third and fourth opposition parties? They have only two MLAs. They can’t even have somebody represent them in all three Houses, not to say that they have to do research and to prepare their speeches. Is that what this House is about?
I honestly think that the government should really think about what they have done in the last few years. It just looks like the government feels that they can do whatever they want to do. You either take it or leave it.
Is that what democracy is about? I’m sometimes wondering whether I’ve emigrated to a western democratic country. When I talk to my constituents, when I tell them what’s happening — the closure bill, the last-minute decisions of late-night debate…. They were wondering. They asked me: why didn’t you debate and convey your concern? I have no choice but to say that there’s no use. The government is not listening.
Well, I guess I already expressed my concern as a three-term elected official, as an immigrant to this country, as somebody who ran for politics because I wanted to encourage more immigrants to get involved in politics, to get involved with the government, to try to express their voices. Don’t keep quiet. Don’t be silent. Speak out. But what’s the point of speaking out when you are not given full information?
Getting back to this Bill 48, this bill provides a definition for online workers and establishes online platform workers — SkipTheDishes drivers, Uber drivers — as employees and the operators of the online platform as employers.
We all agree, every MLA in our caucus agrees, that it’s essential that all workers are put in a position to succeed and to be treated fairly and also are working under acceptable standards. Not only does looking after workers unleash the potential of our workers, it’s also the right thing to do. That’s why I keep saying that we support the principle of the bill.
But shame on the government for not giving us detail. If they are so proud of this bill, why hide the details? It doesn’t make sense at all. As I keep saying, as all my colleagues are talking about, we definitely support this goal. But the B.C. United caucus has some significant questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how it will be enacted to benefit British Columbians.
Despite prior announcements and the news release last week suggesting imminent changes, unfortunately, the implementation of these changes is largely deferred to future regulation, just as many of the bills this government presented in the past were. Now, it seems to be typical of this government to have regulation just decided in the privacy of the cabinet table and not for the elected officials in opposition to discuss through debate. It just helps us wonder. There must be something to hide.
Also, since the spirit of this bill is quite commendable, why do we have to wait several months, even way past the election, for the bill, for all the regulation to be effective? Well, whatever details that will come out after the cabinet table decides on whatever they think is fit for the online platform workers, the changes will affect workers, business and consumers. If the regulations are something to be desired, there’s no opportunity for us, as elected officials, to convey our voices in the Legislature, because it’s all decided. The bill has been passed.
Even my constituents…. The concerns of my colleagues conveyed to them that they are not happy with the regulation. But our hands are tied. We are tied. We cannot make any changes because the bill has been put into legislation. Truly, I don’t understand why, after seven years that we’ve have this online platform industry, we still have to take, maybe, at least a year or even longer for the regulations to come about.
This regulation impacts a diverse group of workers, including young people, Indigenous people, racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, women, newcomers, linguistic minorities and, of course, a lot of immigrants. That’s why I’m really upset: because, as I said, most of my constituents are immigrants. Many of them are linguistic minorities.
The decision by this NDP government to regulate the status and rights of online platform workers and operators through regulation rather than direct legislative action limits the ability of us MLAs to effectively address the concerns of our constituents.
Ultimately, Bill 48 defers the meat of the bill to future regulations, leaving us with concern that this might end up resulting in more NDP red tape and bureaucracy that sideline workers and raise costs for consumers. Already we are the most unaffordable province in the whole of North America. It is the result of this incapable government and all the secrecy. No wonder this government has been branded as the most secretive government.
The online platform workers described in this bill — Uber drivers, food delivery drivers — all depend on their vehicle to do the job, spending hundreds of dollars a month on fuel. Even the minister has rightly pointed out that the price of gas in B.C. is astronomical. In fact, and I’m sure everybody knows it, our province is home to the highest gas prices and taxes in North America.
That’s why the B.C. United caucus has advocated for the scrapping of the fuel tax. If this government truly, as they say, cares for British Columbians, they should support the B.C. United caucus in scrapping the fuel tax now.
Yet we just heard them criticizing the B.C. United for putting up this idea. By not scrapping the fuel tax, we have put additional strain on British Columbians, continuing to make B.C. the most unaffordable province.
This bill is meant to help all these online platform workers who depend on gas-powered vehicles to get to work, for their jobs. I’m sure even my colleagues on the other side of this hallway also agree that if they want to support these drivers, to make life more affordable for them, we have to eliminate the provincial gas tax. But sadly enough, nobody in the government side has the guts or the courage to say it, to represent the voices of their constituents.
Our B.C. United caucus have been calling for this for months, and we have committed to taking action. That’s what we will do when we are in the government. We will end the pain at the pumps by permanently eliminating the provincial gas tax, providing immediate relief for so many British Columbians.
Eliminating the gas tax will save drivers up to 15 cents per litre on gas and diesel. For the average family minivan in Vancouver, that will equal to $14 in savings per trip to the gas station. This measure will make a real difference in the lives of people like online platform workers, which this Bill 48 is supposed to be helping.
Most people, most families, have a family car. They are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of fuel. In 2022, delivery workers on one food delivery platform, for example, earned an average of $27 an hour while delivering, including 100 percent of tips. Just imagine how much more they can earn if we eliminate the fuel tax.
Well, 97 percent of B.C. drivers agree that being able to choose when, where and how they work should be protected. If laws were to change, 56 percent of B.C. drivers would stop dashing if they have less ability to choose the days or times they work, and 54 percent of B.C. drivers have other delivery or ride-sharing apps open while driving. These are all the details about these online platform workers.
Unfortunately, my time is running out. I have to stress once again that without giving this House any details about such an important bill, and at the last minute of the fall session, only having a week to go, and without having seen any of the government MLAs standing up and supporting this bill…. Give the opposition MLAs more information so that we know this is truly a bill that benefits the online platform workers.
Instead, our critic and many of us have to go to the committee stage and try to squeeze every ounce of information from the minister. Well, lo and behold, maybe after royal assent is given to Bill 48…. I don’t know whether we will see some of the regulation, but I don’t think so. During the briefing, even the staff was saying that it will take months for regulations to come out.
To conclude, I hope that this is the last act by this government to try to catch the opposition by surprise and the last piece of legislation, the last bill, that is without any meat for this House to debate.
M. Lee: I rise to speak to Bill 48 and want to say that the bill, of course, starts to address what has been a process. As the member for Kamloops–North Thompson has pointed out, the work started, actually, back in 2017. So over the last 6½ years, we’ve been waiting on this government to bring forward and address the kind of measures that the Minister of Labour spoke to in a second reading speech.
The question is: what took so long? Recognizing that of the ten clauses of this bill, only four will take effect at royal assent, which, as anticipated by this government, would take place next Thursday, we presume….
The other clauses will still be subject to significant consultation that we’ve heard other members here in the B.C. United caucus speak to, for the end of this month, the ongoing discussions and consultations that are necessary, the regulation-making that will be important to understand the operation of this bill and its applications.
The Minister of Labour spoke to the important changes to the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. The new economy has been going on for many, many years. In terms of those workers here in British Columbia who work in the gig economy, the online platform that this bill addresses, it’s been something that’s been operating in our province for many, many years.
I must say there has been significant focus in the Minister of Labour’s comments and the ministry’s communications around app-based, ride-hail and food delivery workers in B.C. But certainly, we know that even in the news release that was put out by the Ministry of Labour, there’s recognition that they’re not the only gig economy workers in our province.
When we look at the understanding and the interpretation of “online platform,” I know that the member for Shuswap and other members here on the B.C. United caucus will want to understand more thoroughly what the online platform refers to. As far as I see, in Bill 48, it’s actually not defined.
I’m sure the Minister of Labour will answer in a way that suggests that there may be a common understanding of online platform for gig economy types of workers. But I think it’s important, as we understand this legislation, which workers of our province are being covered in this act beyond those who are food delivery workers and ride-hail workers.
I will say again, when we look at the application of Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act and the Employment Standards Act, that the jurisdiction and recognition of workers who work in online platforms will be important to understand, including where they work, what jurisdictions they work and live in, certainly their hours of work and the requirements by their employer on their shifts.
We know that when this government made promises before the 2017 election, they made assurances to those in the transportation industry. And the Minister of Labour and the ministers of this government understand that despite the assurances by the party on the other side in terms of the taxi industry, there had to be, as I’ve said many times, a fair and level playing field. Even when it talks about costs of transportation, whether it’s insurance, safety standards, there has been an unlevel playing field for the ride-hailing industry in our province, whether it’s Uber or Lyft or other applications.
We have here a government that made promises to the taxi industry, which they broke. And 6½ years later, they’re now imposing the kind of employment standards, even if I were just to focus on the ride-hailing industry, that they ought to have brought forward much sooner.
When we’re talking about employment standards for those who are working in the ride-hailing industry, those drivers that are just trying to make ends meet, who have the ability to earn some income in a way that fits with their family situations…. As far as it went in terms of the impact on the taxi industry, those small business owners, those drivers, those families that depended on the investment, the lines of credit, the debt that they took out to invest in their taxi licences….
The impact of this government breaking their promises to the industry and then delaying in bringing forward the types of fair and level playing field requirements has led to an unfair advantage for at least 6½ years under this government.
Dare I say, when the minister…. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson, as a member of that committee back in the day, back in 2017, asked the fair question: “What took so long?” They’ve just added more insult to injury for those workers in the taxi industry, in the transportation industry.
They have been harmed by the unlevel playing field and the delays of this government, this Minister of Labour, in bringing forward the types of minimum employment standards, the types of requirements for employers of ride-hailing platforms, the types of employer responsibilities, in the words of this Minister of Labour, under the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, the need to register for coverage and pay premiums for workers compensation to WorkSafeBC on their workers’ behalf.
This is just an example of the cost that this government is requiring of those employers using these ride-hailing online platforms that should have been in place 6½ years ago. This government has dragged its feet to ensure that fair and level playing field and brought forward a bill that is not clearly defined. Much of the details will be still left to regulation.
We know that it will be important, with the delay in the regulations…. It has an impact on what are, of course, many individuals that work in the industry, young people, Indigenous people, racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, women, new Canadians and other ethnocultural linguistic minorities.
We’ve seen time and time again the reliance and the decision by this government to bring forward legislation without a clear understanding of the legislative framework, in this case, for online platform workers and operators. Deferring all of the details to the regulation-making stages, rather than through direct legislative action, limits the ability of members of the B.C. United caucus and opposition to effectively address the concerns of our constituents.
I would say, though, the points that I’ve made to date in my remarks here certainly address an ongoing concern for my constituents in Vancouver-Langara, in Vancouver-Fraserview, in South Vancouver, in Richmond, in Surrey, across the Lower Mainland. I hear time and time again the disappointment from those who work in the taxi industry, the owner-operators, the drivers and the families who were misled by this government.
Deputy Speaker: Be careful with your words. I’d ask you to please be careful with your words.
M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the guidance.
These family members, the workers in the taxi industry, to say the least, are disappointed in this government.
I know that when we talk about representing our constituents…. The member for Surrey–White Rock; the member for Surrey South; the member for Richmond North Centre; and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the Leader of the Official Opposition, clearly understand and appreciate the impact, by this government, that has led to a very unfair and unlevel playing field.
Now we are seeing this government come forward with little details around what they’re going to be imposing on these online operation type of businesses. Despite the prior announcements that were suggesting imminent changes, the implementation of these changes is largely deferred to the future.
We know as well, as has been pointed out time and time again by my colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock, that when we’re talking about the impact on food delivery, when we’re talking about the online platform for gig workers working in food delivery, the changes could make delivery more expensive for customers, for consumers. That may mean less business for restaurants and fewer opportunities for delivery drivers.
This is just another example of the reason why, when we bring forward legislation of this importance, we have the opportunities to debate and review that legislation. But because those details, including for online platforms that are involved in food delivery…. We don’t have those details here, and it really constrains the ability to understand the impacts and costs.
We know that where the concern may lie is that in deferring the substance of the impact of the bill to future regulation, it may just result in these online platforms being caught up in more NDP red tape and bureaucracy that will effectively sideline workers and raise costs for consumers.
I know that the Minister of Labour made comments in a second reading speech, talking about the challenge for online platform workers, including ride-hail drivers and food delivery drivers. As we’ve seen with the taxi industry, the truckers, those who are involved in getting our goods to market, who are sitting in traffic day after day, with the lack of a replacement for the George Massey Tunnel, for example…. So 88,000 residents of British Columbia are burning up gas, and all the emissions are coming to our environment because of that.
But we know the concerns around families and affordability. If this minister is concerned around the impact of fuel costs…. We know that our province is the jurisdiction with the highest prices and taxes on fuel and gas in North America. This does put an additional strain on those who depend on gas-powered vehicles to get to work or for their jobs.
So Mr. Speaker, as you know, with the Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, we’ve been calling for months and months for this government to take action to end the pain at the pump by permanently eliminating the provincial gas tax so that we can provide relief for so many British Columbians.
This would make a real difference to the lives of people and to those online platform workers, which this Minister of Labour recognizes are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of fuel. We know that with DoorDash drivers, we’ve seen the impact on the online food delivery platform.
We know that B.C. drivers are requiring additional flexibility to use this platform for supplemental income, that 56 percent of B.C. drivers would stop dashing for DoorDash if they had less ability to choose the days or times they worked, and that 54 percent of B.C. drivers have other delivery or ride-sharing apps open while driving. So the impact of where this framework is going will have an impact for sure on the ability of those B.C. drivers.
The costs associated with delivery and ride-hail are very different. When we talk about using the one-size approach that this government likes to use, the government-knows-best approach, even not seeing the end of the consultation process for the matters that are dealt with this bill….
The government needs to understand and appreciate that that one-size-fits-all approach to regulating pay in these two industries — the ride-hailing and the food delivery industry — does not work.
Compared to delivery, ride-hailing comes with higher capital costs, cleaning costs and maintenance costs for workers that require higher rates of pay. Delivery drivers, in contrast, can use any vehicle they want. We know that delivery drivers wouldn’t be carrying passengers, not for their job, and they’re spending much less time driving.
These are just examples of the kinds of concerns and considerations around this bill.
Recognizing, as we bring into place online platform workers under the Employment Standards Act, that under this government we continue to see delays and challenges…. Even in dealing, for workers, with the employment standards branch, wait-lists have increased from two months in 2017 to 16 months. And the employment standards branch only achieves a 20 percent success rate in finalizing claims within six months. Their mandate is 80 percent.
As we add more workers in the province of British Columbia to be able to deal with their employers and the Employment Standards Act, we need, certainly, assurances from this government and this Minister of Labour that the challenges and the delays that we continue to see with the employment standards branch are addressed.
The bloated public sector that we’ve seen under this government, which has only added 137 workers at a cost of $17 billion annually, has not led to improved performance at the employment standards branch. As we continue to see a growth in the bureaucracy, that’s actually leading to lower and lower performance when it talks about workers getting through their claims with the employment standards branch.
We know that the failure to continue, from this government’s point of view, to create private sector employment has only declined year after year. And we know, when we talk about workers and the prejudicial, unfair treatment of workers under community benefits agreements, the preference to only certain unions to work on community infrastructure projects…
Deputy Speaker: Can the member…?
M. Lee: …that these are just other examples of the unfair treatment of workers in our province.
As we talk about members of the transportation industry and the taxi industry, we know, again, that there needs to be a level playing field. This government is addressing part of those considerations now, under the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act and the temporary foreign workers act. I hope that we will continue to see this government ensure that there is a fair and level playing field between all workers in the taxi and transportation sectors of our province.
As we look at the opportunities, the way forward…. We need to ensure, certainly, that all workers in our province have that safe workplace, that they are getting the kinds of supports they need from WorkSafeBC and the employment standards branch.
Despite the increase in the number of government workers under this government’s watch, we’re actually not seeing improved performance and results. As we add more online platform workers to that, we should expect to see better performance and protection for workers that we aren’t seeing under this government.
As we look at this bill and support the understanding of how this will impact on online platform workers, we recognize the continued need and change from a regulatory point of view of the gig economy that this government seems to have some real challenge in catching up with.
Despite having that transportation committee for ride-hailing back in 2017, it has been a 6½ year delay, where we’re now finally seeing legislation come forward. This is just an example of this government’s inability to bring forward what British Columbians need to ensure a fair and level playing field but also to ensure that those gig workers are being properly protected in their workplace.
I know that as we look forward to the committee debate on the four clauses that will receive royal assent, such as it is, we’ll want to have the full opportunity to walk through the clause-by-clause discussion with the Minister of Labour on the bill itself.
We know that when we’re talking about online platform workers, we’ll want to have a clear understanding of which type of workers and online platforms are to be considered as part of this bill and whether online platforms that involve workers in other jurisdictions are actually captured within this bill.
We know that with call centres and other applications, whether it’s part-time or otherwise, and other hours of work, that there is a significant amount of workers in other jurisdictions that are being employed at online platforms in our province. So we will want to understand how this bill will attempt to deal with those employees.
Recognizing that the scope of the identified purposes under clause 2 of Bill 48 extends to online platforms, whether or not the online platform and its employee under any law…. Those words as to whether an online platform worker is an employee under any law need to be understood. Are we talking about laws of this jurisdiction, laws of other jurisdictions that are outside of Canada? That will be an important one to understand.
Of course, in terms of the work and the timelines that are contemplated under both the appeal processes, as well as the determination and investigation processes, we’ll want to understand clearly those measures as to those periods that are contemplated under the act that is being amended here.
As well, under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, when we’re talking about expanding, in effect, the application by striking out “registered employer” with the term “employer,” that broadens, of course, the general reference and consideration of the application of the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.
To understand what the government’s intent is by broadening that term beyond just an employer who is a registered employer under that act, these will be considerations for the committee stage of this bill. We will look at how we continue to support workers in growing our economy. We know that even with the expansion of the public sector, there has been a failure of this government to continue to support the growth of our economy through a private jobs creation effort.
With the impact of mandatory trade certification, we’ve seen a government that has had a history of failing to look at the full scope of labour legislation. This is the reason why I’m giving other examples of how this government struggles with bringing forward a legislative framework for online platform workers and not appreciating what might be the unintended consequences on other industries that are vital to our economy and our society.
We’ve seen the challenges of this government adding more regulation and more red tape to industries that are looking at those mandatory trade certification processes and requirements that lead to regulation that doesn’t have a proper plan to mitigate the consequences.
Time and time again in the labour legislative effort by this government, as it makes changes to our labour laws of this province, we’ve seen the shortsightedness and the narrowness of this.
Deputy Speaker: Speaking of time, Member. Might the member note the hour.
M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 48, and I look forward to the committee review on the points that I’ve spoken to here.
Deputy Speaker: I acknowledge the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and I guess you’ll reserve your place in the debate.
J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise to Bill 48, but I guess I reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.
J. Sturdy moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Reporting of Bills
BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2023
Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. Osborne moved adjournment of the House.
Deputy Speaker: This House will be adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 1:30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2023
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 42; J.Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 1:35 p.m.
The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 42, which is Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023. We are on clause 110.
Clause 110 approved.
B. Stewart: Having not had the luxury of looking at Hansard to see where we got on 109, I guess I’m questioning a question on 109. Did that pass?
The Chair: According to my notes, yes.
B. Stewart: Madam Chair, I know that there are two of my colleagues here that had questions on 109 that they wanted to further pursue. I just wonder if we could at least honour the opportunity. Being that in the other House, they were doing other work on Bill 44 earlier, if they might have a chance to speak to this?
The Chair: The Chair will accommodate that.
I’m going to seek consent from the committee, so we can go to 109 to give a member a chance to ask questions because they were not in the room, on clause 109, at the time. I’m looking for consent.
Leave granted.
On clause 109.
The Chair: Consent has been given. I am going to recognize the House Leader of the Third Party.
A. Olsen: Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re getting ourselves resituated back with Bill 42.
I just have a question. I attempted to introduce an amendment right before we adjourned. That amendment was ruled out of order by the then Chair. I guess I just have a question on the procedure, and I have a question on the ruling of that amendment being out of order.
I have a private member’s bill that is standing on the order papers. It was accepted by the Speaker. It stands on the order paper, and should the government decide, however unlikely it might be, to debate it, it then has seemingly passed all the tests to be a legitimate private member’s bill that doesn’t do what the Chair previously said the amendment that I tried to table for clause 109 did, which is spend money or open the door for money to be spent, which was the ruling.
I’m just wondering if I can get an understanding of why it is that I can have a private member’s bill doing exactly the same thing, which is essentially repealing the line out of the legislation.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We went back to deal with the clause because I believed the member had a new question that was related to the clause itself.
As to the ruling of the previous Chair, I’m not going to be commenting on that or taking any actions on that, either. Also, you’re referring to a piece of legislation that is not before this committee. This opportunity was to ask a question about clause 109 only.
Clause 109 approved.
On clause 110.
B. Stewart: Madam Chair, thank you for that accommodation, and I apologize for the time taken on that.
I just want to understand. It’s my understanding that this amendment is to….
A. Walker: Point of order.
The Chair: State your point of order.
A. Walker: Thank you, Chair. I stood to speak before 110 but after 109, I had my place and rightfully stood in this place.
The Chair: Let me try to clarify. You were not on 109, or were you?
A. Walker: After 109 passed, I had an amendment that I am to bring forward that will amend the bill that we have before us, for 109.1, and I was intending to speak before we got onto 110.
The Chair: Just give me a minute, please.
For clarity, you are not going to try to amend 109, but you have an amendment to the bill that will go before 110. Is that correct?
A. Walker: Correct.
The Chair: Then I now recognize the member for Parksville-Qualicum.
A. Walker: I move an amendment that will add a new clause, 109.1, that will amend clause 18 of the original act, which removes the ability for the trust to ensure that donations only go into the general reserve account.
[CLAUSE 109.1, by adding the following clause:
109.1 Section 18 is repealed and the following substituted:
Management of Regional Account
18 The North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust must manage the Regional Account.]
The Chair: We are going to be taking a five-minute recess so we can make copies and make sure that everyone has them.
The committee recessed from 1:43 p.m. to 1:51 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act (No. 3), 2023, back to order.
The amendment has been circulated to all members now, so I invite the member for Parksville-Qualicum to make his remarks.
On the amendment.
A. Walker: Thank you, Chair. We’ve had quite a lot of engagement with the trusts over the last while, especially the ICET, Island Coastal Economic Trust. They’ve gone through significant struggles. They were capitalized, just like the Southern Interior Trust, with $50 million, but unlike that trust, they wound down their assets.
They had to be bailed out once already, to the tune of $10 million, and this bill will enable government to bail them out again. We have, through the debates in the committee stage, discussed the importance of Indigenous participation on the RACs. While the amendment didn’t pass, we know that the minister is committed to that. We know that good work will continue, and we will see that.
The challenge with this trust is that even with the capitalization of $10 million, the trust is still in that same framework where they’re winding down their assets. They’re not able to live in perpetuity, because that endowment is certainly not large enough to be distributing what they’re familiar with distributing, the $2 million or so a year, while having the overhead to run the operations of the trust itself.
This amendment is about providing that trust with some flexibility. The act first came in, in 2006. Is that right? It has been around a long time. This provision has limited the trust from the ability to be able to seek private, public and charitable donations, and to have those donations go into an account that is separate from the regional account.
We’ve heard from ICET, which will be very different than the other two trusts that are very well capitalized. They’re able to sustain their operation, but Island Coastal Economic Trust basically has their hands out. They’re in a situation where they know — government says it’ll be five years — that realistically, in three years or so, they’re going to have to come back to government again to have a conversation about what the future of that trust looks like.
They have tremendous opportunities on the Island with some very innovative businesses. Mosaic, on the Island, has their new program to decarbonize, or at least take carbon credits from forests. It’s generating significant revenue for Mosaic, where they can keep old-growth forest intact and generate revenue from that, instead of removing that fibre from the land base — to have a partnership.
I’m not saying Mosaic is doing this, but to have an agency that is able to generate revenue and that wants to put it into an endowment for clean investments on our Island, investing in a future, having that attached to their name…. Forcing that funding that could be coming in to go into the general account limits how that money is to be spent. The trust has been asking for this for a while now, but it’s especially important now that we know that that trust is close to dissolution.
I was on the regional advisory committee at the RAC. This is the table where all the MLAs and mayors will discuss the direction of the trust. It is still palpable. The conversation about the dissolution of this trust is still happening. It is a sad thing. We have seen almost 20 years of this trust investing in our communities. A large portion of their energy right now is focused on: what is it going to look like when this trust disappears, if this trust disappears?
We’re definitely thrilled to see the province stepping up with $10 million, but to have that donation linked to an account as inflexible as the management in the regional account is dramatically limiting the ability for this trust to go out to private donors to seek investment, to recapitalize, without reliance on the taxpayer, on the provincial government.
I can see opportunities where, perhaps, a large telecommunications company wants to see investments in a specific area. They want to get credit for these types of investments, as any corporation would. These are a mechanism to get their name out there and increase their reputation. To have those donations then go into a regional account would limit that intent immensely.
On this amendment, I’ve heard from the CEO of the Island Coastal Economic Trust about the importance of this flexibility. The first question to the minister is: have they had a similar conversation with the CEO of ICET? What are the minister’s and government’s thoughts on this initiative?
The Chair: The amendment is in order. So we will proceed.
Hon. B. Bailey: We have received communication this summer from the trust, and this was one of a number of different items that were brought forward.
We want to do this work with the trust. There are a number of different issues that are not included in the changes that we’re making in this current legislation. That is by design, because we have a significant amount of work to do together, including ensuring that there’s a co-governance structure put into place.
We are going to need to open the legislation again in order to do that work. It’s at that time that we’ll be going through the additional changes that this trust and the other trusts are hoping to explore. We look forward to doing that work with them.
B. Stewart: This amendment does bring up some openness — ICET has invested, I believe, over $50 million on the Island — on the opportunity to have the benefit of having some of those industries being able to reinvest, perhaps, in their sector.
I know the member for Parksville-Qualicum used Mosaic, which is a large forestry company. With all of the issues in terms of value-added, I’m sure that they and local First Nations would have a lot to say about that, rather than just handing it over to the general account.
This is an area of flexibility that is not unreasonable, and I think it should be considered. The trust now is 18 years old. The amounts that have been recapitalized into ICET, this $10 million, I’m sure will be welcome. For sectors that maybe could see the benefit in helping small producers, why would we restrict it and not allow them to do that?
I don’t know about this term, the “co-governance” that the minister just mentioned, but I do think that it sounds to me like there are further amendments that they’re working on. Co-governance. Is it her intention to consider a way of incentivizing businesses to put money back into ICET and the other trusts?
Hon. B. Bailey: A couple of things in the member’s question. One, the reference to co-governance is in regards to the Declaration Act action plan, action 4.39, which guides us to move towards co-governance with economic trusts.
There is a lot of work that has been done already moving us in this direction. It’s happening currently, and that work will continue. Because of the importance of this work and the priority of it, we will be opening this act again to include that work. At that time, we will be exploring other opportunities to make the changes that the trusts have brought forward, including the one that is being discussed now.
It is not, in my view, the right place for us to do that work. We need the trusts in the room, and we’re going to do that work with the trusts when we open up the act again.
B. Stewart: I know, from talking to the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior for B.C., and some of the discussions they’ve had with NDIT and ICET, that they have spent a lot of time reimagining how they can do this.
Now, I realize that the co-governance and what the minister has just shared with us here is a really important part, but I think that they’re trying to move ahead. They have been working, I’d say, aggressively and actively with the RACs. These are big groups of organizations. The amount of consultation that goes on and the pace at which we kind of step up and address some of these….
The Chair: Member, I don’t want to interrupt, but I’m going to. Can you please make sure that your remarks are based on the amendment and on the amendment only?
B. Stewart: I guess really my question, Madam Chair, would be: how is it that the work that they’ve done is maybe considered to be irrelevant? Why is it that it wouldn’t be considered at this time?
These other things that the minister just mentioned, section 4.39 of the plan to have co-governance as part of the Declaration Act…. I guess my question is: is this other information not as important, that it should be considered at this time, being that we’re opening up the act, and we have that?
Anyways, I think that the amendment is a good first step.
The Chair: Thank you. I didn’t hear a question related to the amendment in there, so we will go back to the member for Parksville-Qualicum to close debate.
A. Walker: My understanding, in chatting with the Clerks, is that for motions brought forward, whether by government or opposition, in the committee stage, debate will go back and forth and questions can be asked through the Chair.
Could I seek clarity as to whether that’s the case or not?
The Chair: If there is any other member who wishes to speak on this motion, to make a point, I will recognize them first. Then I will go back to the member for Parksville-Qualicum to close the debate.
A. Walker: I’m confused by that ruling, as it’s not been the precedent set in this House. Even in this session we’ve seen, in committee stage, amendments have come forward in the main chamber. We have seen an active opportunity to be able to ask questions in committee stage. The ruling, which….
Of course, I’m not contesting the ruling of the Chair, but that dramatically limits the opportunity for government. If they are to bring forward an amendment, it prevents an opportunity for members in opposition, or even of government parties, to ask questions of amendments brought forward in committee stage. Committee stage, as far as I know, through the precedents that we’ve seen, is an opportunity to ask questions.
I see the Clerk and the Chair have consulted. I don’t know if there’s something that the Chair would like to say, but I would certainly not want to lose my opportunity to speak.
The Chair: Member, you are not going to lose your opportunity to speak. You brought the amendment. You got to speak. Other members in the House got asked if they wanted to speak. Nobody did, so this is your opportunity to speak and close. Then the minister will respond.
A. Walker: I think that also contradicts the ruling of the Chair. I’m not disagreeing with the Chair, but if we’re treating this as a motion and the mover of the motion gets to speak last, then it would be unusual for a Chair to set the precedent that somebody else would then be able to speak after that position.
The Chair: Member, I’ve provided some leeway for the amendment after the fact. So the amendment got moved. You brought the amendment. You got to speak. Others got to speak. One person did. Others did not. So you say what you have to say now, because then we’re going to be moving on to the next item.
A. Walker: I respect that. The challenge will be that I’m not sure how to get questions answered, I guess, through this process.
The minister has mentioned that the Island Coastal Economic Trust, whether it’s the CEO or members of the board, have communicated in the summer their desire to see this change take place.
Now, of course, Chair, I can’t really ask questions, because I can’t expect an answer on this. So I’m sort of at a loss of how to proceed with committee stage. But it was brought forward that the minister stated that this wasn’t the right time to be discussing this type of an amendment and that these discussions will take place later.
Looking through the notes from the Attorney General as far as what this miscellaneous statutes amendment act was going to bring forward, it was specifically a portion that says in addition…. The description originally talks about the recapitalization of the fund for $10 million. It says that in addition, the bill will introduce some secondary amendments to the act, clarifying the role of third-party contribution agreements or arrangements, updating the purpose of the regional accounts and other minor amendments.
In the actual description from the Attorney General on this act that is brought forward by government, it says that we were going to have a conversation about that — that this bill will have an impact on seeking clarity for third-party donations and how those arrangements take place. Based on the ruling of the Chair, I find myself in this really awkward situation where I can’t even ask questions in committee stage on this. I’m not challenging the Chair on that, but that has certainly created some limitations here.
The minister has also mentioned co-governance, and as we discuss the ability to change the way that donations from third parties come into these regional accounts, there is a tremendous opportunity, with participation from the federal government, to ensure that as investments come in through that lens of co-governance, there is an opportunity for that funding to be dedicated, isolated and implemented in a way that moves forward with reconciliation.
This clarity is being sought not just by myself and other members who have spoken in favour of this but from ICET itself. I’m not sure the Chair fully recognizes the anxiety of running an organization that has as an uncertain future but big, bold ambitions for what they’d like to see as far as reconciliation, as far as investment in our communities.
The idea that a conversation took place at some point in the summer with the minister and then maybe some time in the spring we’re going to have a conversation about clarity….
This trust is desperate. They are looking for certainty. They want to be able to go into communities, whether those are business communities, Indigenous communities, and seek investment to recapitalize the trust because government has already said that that limit is at $10 million, but there is no clarity as far as how that investment can be kept out of the regional account.
This amendment is about providing that certainty, that clarity. It’s about providing that flexibility to a trust that has already invested $59 million on Vancouver Island and coastal communities, that is having a huge positive impact.
There are more First Nations that they represent — not that the ICET represents the First Nations, but constituents of the economic trust — than there are municipalities. And this limitation of government to restrict the ability for donations to be able to be flexibly used is a huge impediment. It has obviously been expressed to the minister and, I guess, through committee stage.
I can’t ask questions on this, but I would certainly hope that members of all sides of this House would support this. It’s a request that’s been asked for by the Island Coastal Economic Trust. We need them. They need us. Let’s work together and get these things done. It seems like common sense to me. Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Member.
Now I’m going to be putting the question….
M. Lee: Madam Chair, I just rise here in the committee room. Just hearing the conversation. Based on the minister’s last response previous to the member for Kelowna West…
The Chair: Member, could you…?
M. Lee: …I do have a follow-on question…
The Chair: Member, could you…?
M. Lee: …for the minister in respect of…
The Chair: Member, please.
M. Lee: …section 18 of this bill…
The Chair: Member.
M. Lee: …and the amendment that is affiliated to it.
Yes?
The Chair: We do have a Chair in the room.
Interjection.
The Chair: I know. We have a Chair.
M. Lee: Yes.
The Chair: You had an opportunity to stand up and speak before. I made it very, very clear. Anybody who wanted to speak before the mover of the amendment closed — to rise and speak. You did not rise and speak at that time.
I’m now going to be taking a vote on the amendment. That vote is going to take place now. After the vote has taken place, then we will be moving on to the next clause.
M. Lee: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll speak to the next clause then.
The Chair: Thank you.
Members, you are going to be moving to vote on an item that has been moved by the member for Parksville-Qualicum. You have all been provided with copies.
Amendment negatived on division.
Point of Order
A. Walker: It is customary in this place that when a member stands, they are requesting the floor. So we’re not quite at clause 110 yet. I would like to request….
I’m not sure what the parliamentary procedure is, but in council it would be a point of parliamentary inquiry. If I could get some clarity as to how a Chair previously during this session has allowed multiple questions on committee stage of amendments, how that was previously allowed and now it is not allowed. If I could get a ruling on whether this change is permanent and if the Chair is aware of the previous protocol that existed in this place.
The Chair: The Chair takes notice of your request and will get back to you.
House Leader of the Third Party.
Debate Continued
A. Olsen: Thank you. I’m going to move an amendment to 109.1.
This amendment is to replace language in section 6 of the act. I’m recognizing we’ve passed that act’s section. However, in light of the discussion that was raised here about some specific requests that the Island Coastal Economic Trust had made of this government for changes well prior to the drafting of this bill, this amendment replaces some basic gendered language in the bill, in section 6(5), just removing “he or she” and replacing it with “they” and turning it into the singular.
The Chair: We are going to be taking a recess because we have finished dealing with section 6, and the Clerk is going to go and get us some expert guidance. Let’s make the recess ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 2:15 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023, back to order.
Going back to the House Leader for the Third Party.
A. Olsen: Just reflecting that the amendment brought forward should have been 109.2. I believe you have my copy of that now.
[CLAUSE 109.2, by amending the following clause:
109.2 6 (1) Directors of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust must be appointed in accordance with this Division.
(2) Subject to section 7 and to subsection (8) of this section, the board of directors of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust is to consist of 13 individuals of whom
(a) 8 are to be appointed by the regional advisory committees, with each of the 2 regional advisory committees appointing 4 of their number as directors, and
(b) 5 are to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
(3) Subject to section 7 (3), the term of office of a director of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust is,
(a) if the director is appointed under subsection (2) (a) of this section, 2 years from the expiry of the term of the retiring director that he or she replaces, and
(b) if the director is appointed under subsection (2) (b) of this section, 3 years from the expiry of the term of the retiring director whom he or she replaces.
(4) Nothing in this Act prevents
(a) a regional advisory committee from removing and replacing, in accordance with any procedures it has established for that purpose, any individual the regional advisory committee has appointed as a director of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust, and
(b) the Lieutenant Governor in Council from removing and replacing any individual the Lieutenant Governor in Council has appointed as a director of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust.
(5) If a director is removed and replaced under subsection (4),
(a) the regional advisory committee or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as the case may be, must promptly notify the directors of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Island Coastal Economic Trust of the replacement appointment, and
(b) the term of office of the replacement director is the remainder of the term of the director he or she replaces they replace s.]
A. Olsen: Speaking to it, we’re going to get it printed?
The Chair: We are now going to get it printed, so we will take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 2:26 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.
[J. Sims in the chair.]
The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 42 back to order.
On the amendment.
A. Olsen: I’d like to just acknowledge, as we come back from this recess, the hard work of all of the staff here in the Legislative Assembly that allow us to do this work and to raise important issues. That’s what is reflected in this amendment.
As my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum noted earlier about being on the RACs, the regional advisory committees, for the Island Coastal Economic Trust…. I also sit on that same advisory committee and have really spent a number of months listening to our colleagues at local government talk with passion about the Island Coastal Economic Trust. They do a lot of really great work, and it’s not their primary job. Their primary job is to be elected officials in their communities.
They come together with a spirit around the Island Coastal Economic Trust that actually was really what inspired me to pick this issue up and make a big deal about it. Not only is this an important investment vehicle for our communities on the coast and on Vancouver Island, but to see the passion with which our local government officials do this work and their staff….
We went away last week, and we came back now for the last couple of weeks of the session, and we had a regional advisory committee meeting. On that, we saw amendments that were suggested to the government a long time ago that could have been brought into this Miscellaneous Statutes and Amendment Act bill. A simple name change. The way that the communities and the way that the community leadership and the leadership of the organization sees itself. Making a basic request to change the name of the organization, to have that reflected the way that we see ourselves.
Another one is to remove gendered language. I recognize that we’d made a significant way through the bill, the actual act, but I felt it necessary to honour the request that’s been made from the Island Coastal Economic Trust and to do something that, really, is an exercise that we’ve been doing numbers and numbers of times. There’s no reason why we moved the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act here today and not have this just basic change of language to reflect the kind of language that we’re using today.
I hope that this is just an oversight that we didn’t do this now that it was open. I recognize that it’s numbers of times throughout, maybe five or six times, I think. I’ve picked one here with this amendment. I’d like this amendment to change. I’d like the other gendered language, now that we have this act open, to change. If it means that we have to set this aside and just bring some amendments forward that just do that, I think that this is an opportunity.
We’ve heard the minister talk about the work that needs to go ahead. We know that the government has put $10 million that allows the space for that to happen. I think that while we’ve got this open today, we could fix that gendered language in this clause 6, as is proposed in 109.1, but in the other four or five locations throughout the bill as well.
I think it’s a reasonable request, and I hope that government supports it.
The Chair: The amendment is in order.
Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for bringing forward this proposed change. I do want to get clarity on the wording, but certainly, we share the perspective that it’s so important to have language that’s inclusive. People deserve to see themselves reflected in language.
I think the member is correct to suggest that perhaps this might have been an oversight. There’s a lot of work happening in my ministry to make sure in fact that we are correcting for outdated language that doesn’t include all British Columbians. Last spring, for example, we passed legislation that brought changes to 2,300 instances of gendered and binary language that wasn’t necessary, from 21 different ministries and 210 provincial statutes.
We’re working our way through another batch of statutes right now. It could very well be that this is coming, but I take no issue with the suggestion of making this amendment.
I do have two points I would just like to have further understanding on though, please, if I may.
If I could please ask for clarity on the wording “term of the director replaces they replace”? I’m just not sure exactly what the change is.
Then my second question is: will the member be bringing amendments for the other pieces of gender legislation that he spoke of?
A. Olsen: In my haste, in this amendment, admittedly, the word “replaces” should also be struck out, and then it will be grammatically correct, as the minister has picked up.
I don’t have the other amendments in front of me for the other locations throughout. This was an opportunity to raise the issue and to be able to have a discussion with the minister on it. I recognize that making this amendment is fixing one of them. It doesn’t fix the other ones.
Maybe we can symbolically pass this amendment and note that another misc stats amendment act will be coming — not this session, I hope — in the spring, where maybe that other gendered language can be changed.
Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you very much to the member opposite for that change in getting our grammar correct. I would agree with the member, in terms of passing this symbolically, and we’ll continue to do our work to clean up the language going forward.
The Chair: Minister, we do not pass things symbolically no matter how much we want to at times. So I would suggest that we….
I will be putting the question on this. What you may want to say is that you are going to look in the other areas and make sure that the language is consistent with the intent of this.
Hon. B. Bailey: If I could just provide clarification by what I meant symbolically, I agree with the member’s suggestion that we make this change as is proposed. We are doing work going forward with all of the trusts. This legislation is going to be up again. We’ll bring the additional changes at that time.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
Now, all those in favour of the amendment 109.2 put forward by the House Leader for the Third Party.
Amendment approved.
The Chair: We’re now moving on to 110. So if anybody has questions on 110, this is a good time to rise.
On clause 110.
M. Lee: As I was saying earlier in respect of clause 109, I wish to ask the minister, in response to her previous responses here at committee…. She referred to action plan 4.39….
Interjections.
The Chair: Member. Member, we are not going to go backwards. We have finished with 109. Two amendments came up. We’ve dealt with those amendments, and now we are on 110.
I had already put 110 on the floor, and we are moving forward. Thank you.
Do you have any comments to make on 110?
M. Lee: I do.
Clause 110 amends the relationship between First Nations and provincial economic trusts. Is that not the case?
The Chair: While the minister is getting ready to answer the question, I do want to remind people that once the Chair calls on the member, it is absolutely imperative that you do not just proceed as if the Chair has not spoken. Thank you.
Hon. B. Bailey: Clause 110 amends section 20(1) of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust. The purpose is to remove “Olympic opportunities” and add “technology and innovation” as one of the purposes for which the money in the regional account may be spent. The existing provision section 21 of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust defines the allowable areas of investment the trust may use its funds to support.
M. Lee: In removing Olympic opportunities, does that preclude a First Nation from opportunities to participate, for example, in bids as led by Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, Líl̓wat Nations in respect to the 2030 Olympics?
Hon. B. Bailey: I’m having difficulty trying to follow the reasoning from the member opposite. So 110 is in a section in regards to the North Island-Coast Development. It has nothing to do with MST.
M. Lee: The minister referred earlier in terms of the amendments and the relationship between the province’s economic trusts…. This bill deals with the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust, as I understand it. So the amendments to the sections that we’re looking at do enter into working with the province’s economic trusts and First Nation partners, as the minister referred to, as required under DRIPA action plan item 4.39.
I’m asking the minister: when the term “Olympic opportunities” is removed…? We know this government, of course, shut down the opportunity for First Nations to lead an Olympic bid for the 2030 Olympics. So when it talks about Olympic opportunities here in clause 20 of this bill, I’m asking the minister: why is the Olympic opportunities being removed? How does that limit the opportunity, of course, for First Nation partners to develop the mechanism to be included as part of regional decision-making for First Nations, as required under clause 4.39 of the DRIPA action plan?
Hon. B. Bailey: I believe they’re trying to make connections between things that have nothing to do with each other. This language in the trust does in no way impact the ability of any First Nations to pursue any opportunity.
M. Lee: The reason why I’m focusing on this clause is because the word “opportunities” is actually, literally, what’s being removed from this clause. Clause 110 of this bill is amending subsection 20(1) of this act, the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, to delete the words, subsection 21(e), “Olympic opportunities.”
We know because there’s been a past history with this government as to the relationship. When we’re talking about including First Nations — in this case, under 4.39, as the minister cited, under the DRIPA action plan — and the importance of including First Nations at a regional decision-making level, we’ve seen that opportunity get squashed in the 2030 Olympic bid, when the Premier and this government decided to walk away from accommodating what those nations had put forward.
So when I see the words here in this particular act, recognizing that it’s on a regional basis for the north Island–coast area, which is the lead-in language to this provision…. We see the opportunity in the minister’s response before — recognizing the important work with the province’s economic trust and First Nation partners to develop a mechanism that ensures inclusion of First Nations on a regional decision-making level — that there’s precedent here. There’s precedent from interest from First Nations to actually look at Olympic opportunities.
I ask the question because there’s recent history of a sore point with other nations in our province: the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh , Squamish and Líl̓wat Nations. Again, when this term is being removed and substituted with other words relating to innovation and technology, I think it’s important that we understand the purpose of the deletion.
I recognize that this is in the context of understanding the way that this minister and her ministry is approaching the work, the important work, between First Nation partners and the province’s economic trust, as referred in 4.39 of the DRIPA action plan, to develop the mechanism for inclusion of First Nations at a regional decision-making level.
This, when I look at the provision in the proposed amendment, does not do that. It actually excludes First Nations, potentially, depending on the relationship and this mechanism that the minister is working on — which I wanted to ask about previously, but we’ve already been through that, Madam Chair, as you know — as to what the relationship is and the work that’s being done.
Here’s another example where language is being deleted from the framework for the north Island–coast area and the economic trust relating to that.
The term “economic opportunities” does obviously refer to and could…. As we saw with the four First Nations that were involved in leading that 2030 bid, and as we see other Olympic Games and even the 2030 games, that might still be possible because there has been no decision, as I understand it, made by the IOC yet. There’s still a possibility.
So to First Nations that are looking at this, including any possible participation in north Island, which is, I presume, possible, when we remove these words, does that not exclude First Nations from the opportunity to work with economic trusts in relation to economic opportunities for the Olympics?
Hon. B. Bailey: No, it doesn’t.
M. Lee: The minister, in her last two responses, first suggested that it doesn’t preclude opportunities. Now it does not preclude these opportunities of any sort.
The language here is an exhaustive list. I do not see this as an inclusive list. I don’t see other categories. I don’t see prescribed by regulation. I see this as an exhaustive list. So where are the words that actually say “Olympic opportunities” in this amended list?
Hon. B. Bailey: A couple of things I want to say about this in talking about section 110.
First of all, North Island Coast Development Initiative, or ICET, should they have interest in pursuing…. The example that the member opposite has given is an Olympic bid. Should they have interest in pursuing that, there is nothing stopping them from doing that. The amended list, while striking “Olympic opportunities” for its specificity, still we have economic development, (g), or tourism, (c), so such a bid could very easily occur under those circ*mstances.
The inclusion of the words “technology and innovation.” Development of the technology and innovation sector has been a growing priority since the inception of the trust and is highly aligned with the trust mandate of economic development. The trust currently supports technology and innovation projects. However, this change provides a formal and explicit mandate for the trust to bolster their important work in this area.
In terms of modernizing the account purposes, the addition of technology and innovation is an evergreen category that will allow the trust to advance opportunities in all sectors of the regional economy.
M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for her response. It does take us back to the overall part 4 of this act, which does, of course, relate back to the regional account. This section that we’re discussing, clause 110 of Bill 42, relates to, under the heading “Purpose of Regional Account….”
The member, my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum, had proposed an amendment previous to clause 109 of the same bill, 42, in relationship to the management of the regional account. Just for the purpose of the sequence of this act, you might think that the purpose of a regional account should come before the management of the regional account, but here we are.
It does give the opportunity to come back — given the sequence of discussion at the committee level, which the Chair has spelled out for us — to talk to the minister again about the regional account. Clearly, as spelled out under clause 110 of this Bill 42, as it relates to amending subsection 20(1) of the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, now we’re talking about the purpose of the regional account.
“The purpose of Regional Account,” as spelled out under subsection 20(1) of the act, “is to support investment in the following in the North Island-Coast area….” It goes on to list “(a) forestry; (b) transportation; (c) tourism; (d) mining…(f) small business; (g) economic development; (h) energy; (i) agriculture” — and, by virtue of this amendment, “(j) technology and innovation.”
I certainly do not take any issue with the inclusion of the words “technology and innovation” — as the minister just described to us, that’s certainly an important area for investment — but what this amendment does is remove what is existing currently under the act, the wording around “Olympic opportunities.”
Yes, it doesn’t preclude, as the minister suggested, First Nations in the north Island–coast area pursuing an Olympic opportunity. Certainly, they’re free to do that. They can do that on their own, but that’s not the point.
The point is that under section 4.39 of the DRIPA action plan, amongst the 89 actions of this government, this government is now into 20 months of delivery of implementation against this DRIPA action plan, for which less than 15 percent of the action items are actually related to economic reconciliation.
On the one principal item under the heading “Economic,” there are roughly, probably, four or five action items out of the 13 that relate to this ministry, the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. Out of the four or five items, as I look at it here, it looks like one out of five items in 20 months — and the minister is coming forward with this amendment to pull out “Olympic opportunities.”
I would say that this is actually consistent with the Premier’s own stance against the 2030 Olympic bid and that we look at this provincially — the importance of inclusion of First Nations in leadership and recognition around economic reconciliation.
We have a DRIPA action plan as I mentioned, Minister, that only has 15 percent….
The Chair: Member, if you have a new question, please ask. I’m hearing the same question being asked again and again. Please, if you don’t have a new question, then…. If you have a new question, get to it. If not, then let’s move on.
M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Under subsection 20(1), the lead-in language says: “The purpose of the Regional Account is to support investment in the following in the North Island-Coast area….” By removing “(e) Olympic opportunities,” that means that the regional account is not to be utilized to support investment for Olympic opportunities. Is that correct?
Hon. B. Bailey: To the member, no.
M. Lee: Again, Madam Chair, I fail to see that though. We’ve established that the minister has said that First Nations are certainly free to pursue Olympic opportunities on their own, but that’s not the point.
The point is we’re talking about a regional account under this act under part 4, when it calls for allocations: “The purpose of the Regional Account is to support investment in the following….” It means…. I cannot see….
I really would ask the minister to help me understand the wording of this amendment.
I fail to see how with this wording, as amended, a regional account can be utilized to support investment in an Olympic opportunity. Is the minister suggesting that the funds out of the regional account can still be utilized to support investment in Olympic opportunities by deleting the words “Olympic opportunities”?
The Chair: Minister, you may answer the question one more time.
Hon. B. Bailey: Asked and answered.
M. Lee: Well, with respect, Madam Chair….
The Chair: In the interests of moving the….
M. Lee: Yeah. Well, with respect, I would just say this. I am a surprised by the minister’s response on the record here, because clearly, it doesn’t make sense. So this, to me, is a flaw in the drafting of this bill.
If it’s the intention that the minister is under the view that Olympic opportunities can still be funded by the regional account, if that’s what she’s saying on the record, then I think the record should show that. I think that the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust should know that.
They should know that the minister effectively is reading in the words, that despite deleting the words, they’re still there somehow. If they’re still there, then First Nations and others who are looking to get support for investment in Olympic opportunities on the North Island should pursue that.
I hope that, as others look at this record in the future, the minister has confirmed at least twice that that is the case.
With that, thank you for that discussion.
B. Stewart: On section 110, I’ve got some questions about the adjustment to deleting. Not the same question, but I’m just wondering how the existing sectors under section 110 were evaluated and whether the expansion of those was ascertained?
Hon. B. Bailey: The inclusion of the language “technology and innovation” is important, because this sector continues to grow and provide economic opportunity. Development of the tech and innovation sector has been a growing priority since the inception of the trust, and it’s highly aligned with the trust mandate of economic development.
The trust currently supports technology and innovation projects. However, this change provides a formal and explicit mandate for the trust to bolster their important work in this area.
B. Stewart: So in this re-evaluation, what other investments were considered that were maybe not considered at this time?
Hon. B. Bailey: This was not a time of re-evaluation, in fact. We included this one change, but the more comprehensive exploration of what the trust should and should not include will be happening at a later date.
We will be opening up this legislation, because we’re doing work on section 4.39 to ensure that there is co-governance with First Nations. At that time, there’s an opportunity to do a more fulsome exploration of other changes we want to see with the trust, as guided by our partnership with the folks at the trust.
That work is ongoing. It’s upcoming. This change was a specific change that we wanted to include to provide clarity. That focus on technology and innovation does, in fact, fall under economic development, and we encourage that continued focus.
B. Stewart: I guess the question, then, is: was this change requested by the North Island…? I see it’s ICET still on its marketing here. But was it recommended by the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust?
Hon. B. Bailey: Ministry staff had discussions with all three trusts in regards to the language and the changes in the legislation.
B. Stewart: To be clear, then, the minister is saying that this recommendation, this conversation that took place…. This is a recommendation from the trust to the minister.
Hon. B. Bailey: Yes. This was one of the recommendations on their list.
B. Stewart: I don’t know the criteria or the metrics. But on section 110….
I’m thinking about the industries that are in this particular area. It’s coastal. We’ve had many different opportunities for trades and ports, etc., in terms of activities that are in Port Alberni or other places.
I guess I’m just wondering. How are they evaluated in terms of their importance? What about fisheries, shellfish, recreational opportunities such as things like Mount Washington? Is that a tourism one? I see tourism is on the list. I’d just like to be clear. What are the metrics that are used to put one on the list or off the list?
Having been on the RAC for one of the other trusts, I worry about the fact…. Prescriptive language sometimes prohibits or limits the regional directors, or even the executive, from supporting something that maybe just seems to be outside of the box, especially with new technology. I know the minister is very aware of that.
I only think about…. Is it necessary? What are the metrics you use for that?
Hon. B. Bailey: I understand that the trusts have a very robust mechanism by which they make investment decisions. Adding this category of technology and innovation is helpful in terms of being clear that it is considered part of economic development.
The two examples that the member shared are both examples that would currently be captured. This is really just to provide additional clarity to the trust.
B. Stewart: Well, minister, I don’t know. It’s probably been in the DNA of anybody that’s been on the Island. The coastal fisheries have been impacted greatly by changes that have been made by government. However, on the flip side of that, there’s a ton of information.
I’ll give you an example. The underwater sea harvesters, the development with VIU in terms of the propagation of geoduck and things like that. I realize that it might seem small, but it’s very important to the underwater harvesters, as it is to the shellfish producers that are producing mussels and oysters and all of those things.
I was at the seafood festival with the owners of Fanny Bay Oysters. They were talking about a new species that they wanted to bring up. I just think that being in that sector, outside of government…. I just know that this is an explosive opportunity for the government.
First Nations are very much a big part of the farming of different shellfish and seafood and stuff like that. So I guess I’m just kind of…. I don’t know why it wouldn’t be on there. Aquaculture is not even mentioned.
Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.
I, too, am very excited about the opportunities that we’ve seen happening, particularly mid-Island, in regards to seafood. I’ve had the opportunity to tour the facility that the member mentioned.
There is no question that this is deeply important work. The member mentions that this is quite small. In fact, it has the potential to really be quite big. I think there’s a tremendous continued opportunity here.
What’s different, though, Member, is there is an understanding that that is economic development. It doesn’t need to be pulled out and listed separately. It is economic development. It has long been economic development, whereas with technology and innovation, perhaps sometimes it’s less clear if, in fact, that’s considered part of economic development. Thus we’re spelling it out quite clearly.
B. Stewart: Well, I know economics. I know that under the existing act, section 20 talks about economic development, and that is important.
I guess the real problem is…. Why do we have a list like forestry, mining, things like that that are indicative of resource development? The things that I think government has been talking a lot about are value-added and things like that. So why would we…? We do want to add value to products that are being looked at. Sometimes it’s these little ideas that get…. They percolate up, and somebody grabs a hold of it. There’s an ability to get some of that support that you need, especially as an entrepreneur.
I guess my question to the minister is: how is aquaculture or fisheries different than forestry or mining or the other things on the list?
Hon. B. Bailey: I wouldn’t suggest that it is different. Economic development is a very broad category which includes the category the member is speaking about.
Certainly, ICET has made investments in this category and continues to. For example, they recently made a $60,000 investment to the seafood business accelerator. That was matched by $126,000 from the applicant, for a total of an $186,000 investment into that sector.
A. Walker: To continue with my colleague from Kelowna West…. When I looked through this list, I hadn’t really considered some of the conversations that came up.
As the member was listing through these initiatives, economic development…. One of the items that we don’t consider economic development but that truly is in our communities is the non-profits in our communities for things like child care, for health care and for education. When we talk about a thriving community….
I was talking to a mother the other day — a parent, I should say. This woman was talking about how she was going to leave Parksville because the wait-list for our child care centre was over 200 spaces long.
It would be interesting to provide the ability for an economic trust like this to do economic development in more of a social space, which maybe wouldn’t be captured under this language. So a question to the minister is: has there been any consideration for adding things like non-profits, health care and child care to this list? What consideration would that have?
Hon. B. Bailey: The list that is being referred to was originally created in 2005. We’ve made one small change to it to ensure that it’s clear that technology and innovation can be included.
There’s going to be an opportunity for the trusts to do the very important work of looking at what they would like to have included as we go forward. As I’ve mentioned a number of times, this act will be opened up again in the coming years, as we do the work, to make sure that it’s inclusive under 4.39.
So there is an opportunity for that ongoing work, but we’ll take that advice from the trusts at that time.
B. Stewart: Just to the minister’s point — she talked about opening up.
You used the term “the coming years.” Is there a timeline when this is going to be revisited and opened up for input or dialogue from the constituents that represent ICET or the North Island-Coast Development Initiative fund?
Hon. B. Bailey: As we do the work to ensure co-governance, there will be opportunities to do that type of consultation, and we’ll be working with the trusts to ensure there is consultation with communities as well. This is work that the trusts generally do.
That work to prepare us for inclusion under 4.39 has already started. The trusts are doing that work right now, and this is work that’s ongoing.
B. Stewart: I just want to confirm, based on what the minister just said, because…. The trusts put a fair amount of work into preparing for this opening up for the changes that are here, and in some cases, they don’t feel that they’ve been heard. But I just want to make certain that they are driving this in terms of helping the minister to be able to deal with section 4.39 and that they’ll be listened to in terms of their recommendations, albeit that it fits with government’s mandate.
Hon. B. Bailey: Yes.
A. Walker: Just for clarity from the question from the member for Kelowna West. When we were discussing the trust — I don’t remember if it was yesterday or when it was — there was a statement from the minister that said that this was going to be opened back up in the spring. Then she just recently said that this discussion will take place over the coming years. So I’m just looking for certainty, as the member had asked.
As we discuss section 20(1) with the list of approved uses for this fund but also ensuring Indigenous participation in the RAC, what is the timeline that this trust can expect?
Hon. B. Bailey: I don’t believe that I said that this would be opened up in the spring. If I did make that statement, I misspoke. The timeline for this very important work is guided by the work itself. This is not work that we’re rushing. So I don’t have a specific timeline, but the work is deep and important and very engaged, happening now and continuing.
M. Lee: Just following the question from the member for Parksville-Qualicum, again, in terms of the action item under the DRIPA action plan, 4.39…. As we know, it’s a five-year action plan by this government, and we’re 20 months into that action plan.
So for the current year, are there milestones, then, for the balance of this year, before the end of March of 2024, for which the work between the province’s economic trust and First Nation partners to develop the mechanism that will ensure inclusion of First Nations at a regional decision-making level, as assigned by item 4.39 of the DRIPA action plan…?
Will there be milestones towards that in the second year of the DRIPA action plan? Also, what is the expectation around the balance of the five-year action plan in year 3, year 4 and year 5?
Hon. B. Bailey: Timelines will be determined by the trusts themselves in the consultation work that they’re doing with their partners and meeting with their member communities, and we support that process.
M. Lee: Just as a follow-on to the minister’s response. The obligation, though, under the DRIPA action plan, is on this minister and her ministry. So are there not ministry-set timelines and accountabilities to the Premier and the Declaration Act Secretariat as well?
If there are no timelines, that presumes, then, that if it’s in the hands of the trusts themselves, or First Nation partners, then it’s also possible that this action item would not be met by the end of the five-year action plan. Is that the case as well?
Hon. B. Bailey: Our staff team works quite closely with the trusts and ensures that they have what they need in order to do this work. The timelines really are set by the trusts, and we support that work.
A. Walker: I just want to read into the record the comments that were made on Thursday of the week before last from the minister. I won’t go through her commitment as far as governments committed to UNDRIP.
She said: “We have been working with the trusts. The trusts are leading this process to ensure that full consultation occurs, that the nations within their realm have been deeply involved in the recommendations on what that representation is going to look like. This work is undergoing right now. It’s happening. It’ll continue to happen in 2024.”
So I’m just confused how, when we had this conversation about timelines for representation on the regional advisory committees — which, again, is a different clause — the timelines were also mentioned as it relates to adding these sort of approved uses under the trust.
I’m just looking for some clarity on the timelines. The minister last week said that this work is happening in 2024 and is now saying that it’s a multi-year process. When can these trusts expect that government will be there to make the amendments required so that they can see these changes that they’ve been asking for since last summer?
Hon. B. Bailey: Yes, that work is happening in 2024 and may continue beyond that. But certainly in response to the member’s question, when the trusts are ready, we will be there to do that work with them.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to my colleagues for the opportunity to ask this question.
It’s a fairly specific question around the islands on the coast of British Columbia and part of the Island Coastal Economic Trust. The mandate of this trust — to develop, expand and create economic opportunities for coastal communities — has certainly been well embraced. I think as we look at the results that have taken place over the last decade, or decade and a half, it certainly has been beneficial to these coastal communities, especially some of the island ones.
There are, I think the minister will know, 40,000 islands on the coast of British Columbia, if you go up as far as, I believe, about Rivers Inlet, which is where the ICET extends to.
So I think it’s reasonable to say that there are tens of thousands of islands south of that, which are included in the Island Coastal Economic Trust, including Salt Spring Island, which I learned a little bit more about yesterday from my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, which, with a vibrant community population of 13,000, within the capital regional district, is obviously an important island, an important population, an important part of our economy.
There is, I’d like to point out to the minister, one island — just one island of tens of thousands — that does not benefit from the Island Coastal Economic Trust yet faces all of the same challenges that island communities do. A dependence on ferries. A very small commercial base — basically relies on a residential tax base — and has very much wanted to be part of the Island Coastal Economic Trust.
I wonder if the minister could help provide me some guidance and provide the community of Bowen Island with some guidance as to how they can take advantage or be part of the opportunities that are created by the Island Coastal Economic Trust community and a membership in that community.
The Chair: Members, leeway has been provided with respect to the debate on this clause, but I’d like to remind members that the debate must be relevant to the clause under consideration.
If the member could relate his question back to clause 110, please.
J. Sturdy: Well, I think the opportunity has been clear here that it is being provided to amend the terms, amend the opportunities and extend opportunities to different sectors. I’m asking for a little indulgence from the Chair in this regard, and I’m sorry I wasn’t here earlier.
If the minister isn’t willing to enter into any discussion here, then she can just say that. That’s fair enough. But it’s the only island of tens and tens of thousands of islands that doesn’t have an opportunity in this trust and does have the same challenges as every other island on the coast.
I’d hope that…. I’m looking for a little guidance on how this island community may have a chance to be part of a greater whole and a part of the same opportunities that every other island on the coast of British Columbia has.
The Chair: Are there any other questions on clause 110?
B. Stewart: Just to the previous member’s point, Madam Chair. The minister has brought up the fact that this legislation was only open for a small little sliver of adjustments. We’ve got lists of things that were to be considered, and ICET is no different than the rest of them.
So the question to the minister that’s being asked is just: is it open to the expansion of this one island that’s excluded or not? Is that going to be part of it? She’s the one that brought forward that.
The Chair: Members, if you can please tie it to clause 110, then I can allow the question.
A. Walker: I will read clause 20 of the original act that says: “The purpose of the Regional Account is to support economic investment in the following in the North Island–Coast area.” The member has requested how to become included in the North Island–Coast area, which is part of the clause that this bill is amending.
The Chair: Members, the clause under consideration is regarding the addition of technology and innovation and removing the Olympic opportunities. If there are no further questions on clause 110, I will call the question.
Clause 110 approved.
On clause 111.
B. Stewart: As I previously stated, there were a number of requests that were…. As this initiative of opening up and reviewing the individual trusts, there were questions raised by the trusts. I think that it’s important that as we go into this, there are many questions that were expected by the trusts to have been answered. They seem to have been either ignored or there’s been no response from the ministry about them.
I would like to read into the record about some of the ones that have been asked for by NDIT, which I think, by all accounts, has been certainly a very shining example of a trust initiative.
The government has helped it support connectivity in the North by giving it extra funds, but because of the magnitude of the area, they asked specifically about things like the mountain pine beetle account be changed to the forest community recovery account, acknowledging that our forestry communities have far more to contend with these days than just mountain pine beetle. So that’s one of the things that they raised.
They talked about name changes. These areas are to be more specific because of the broad nature of the Northern Development Trust, which essentially goes, I think, north of Williams Lake right to the Alaska and Yukon borders.
Maybe the minister could perhaps give us some opening comments on that, please.
Hon. B. Bailey: There are different categories of accounts held by different trusts. Specifically, the NDIT has a number of different accounts. Currently the requirement to deposit into the pine beetle account is quite restrictive, so we are making this change to allow more equity and flexibility to NDIT with their accounts.
B. Stewart: The change that the minister is referring to, to bring more clarity — could she just clarify the change that she’s referring to? I know that the bill talks about three or four sections we’re going to go through rather quickly. But I think that with the effort and time that have been put in by NDIT, ICET and ETSI, it’s important they do get some answers, if we can get them.
Hon. B. Bailey: Third-party arrangements enable the trusts to take on additional program delivery, which support rural and regional economies.
Examples of third-party programs currently being delivered by the trusts include the rural business and community recovery initiative, administered by NDIT, ETSI and ICET; connecting British Columbia, administered by NDIT; GO fund, administered by NDIT, a B.C. Hydro program; and the Northern Passenger Transportation Service, administered by NDIT, ETSI and ICET. That’s a MOTI program.
B. Stewart: I see in section 1, which this refers to, it’s talking about the one-time funding. Just to be clear, could the minister please clarify that one-time funding? Which of these accounts at NDIT is it going to be deposited into?
Hon. B. Bailey: It’s in section 111. That actually allows us to contract with the trusts. I think when we get to section 112, that’s more specific to where the deposits occur. We’ll probably be there in just a sec.
B. Stewart: I look forward to the clarification on that.
Obviously, this trust is complicated because of the number of issues and the different accounts that it has.
There was a request to change…. I mentioned pine beetle, but there’s also the change to the Prince George account, being renamed the north centre account. Is there any reason that that hasn’t been addressed in this amendment?
Hon. B. Bailey: There were a number of suggestions that came forward from all three of the trusts in July of last summer. Really, our priority with including this in the miscellaneous statute bill, No. 3, is to ensure that ICET is recapitalized in a timely way. That takes away the concern that there will have to be a windup coming of this trust.
I’ve had many meetings with ICET on this topic, so very important that we ensure, should we be successful in passing this, that ICET can have the funding at the levels that they have had, because we support the very important work that they’re doing. So that is the priority that we’re focused on.
The other suggestions that have come forward are important. There’s been some really good work done, and that’s going to move forward to when we open up this legislation again in order to accommodate the changes that we need to make for UNDRIP, under 4.39.
So that work is going forward, but specifically, we wanted to move this legislation forward in a timely manner, to ensure that ICET does have the capitalization that they so desperately need.
B. Stewart: That information about ICET does kind of…. I know we’re talking about NDIT right now, so I’m assuming that it precipitated the recapitalization on the other two funds.
My question really was…. The changes that were put forward by NDIT were specific to the regional accounts — like the Prince George account, the Peace region account, the pine beetle account, etc. I guess I’m just kind of wondering if it was…. I realize that recapitalization of ICET may have been the catalyst that brought this together.
And you can clarify that, Minister, but I do believe that these other changes…. It’s not very often that these bills have been opened up to these changes, and it is important — this one especially.
NDIT has a massive amount of a board and a territory, and I know from what used to be SIDIT — ETSI now — how complicated that is when you’re dealing with dozens of communities across the Interior. It has led to all sorts of other issues about the direction of where these development trusts are going.
They’ve asked for these changes on the basis that these…. Obviously, I use NDIT as maybe the best example of one that has been very successful or whatever, but they want refinement. I can’t understand, when we’re talking about making this change, why we wouldn’t consider the other ones that they’ve asked for.
I go back to the earlier question about the Peace River region account being changed to the northeast or the pine beetle account.
Hon. B. Bailey: In this case, we do know that this legislation will be reopened. So it’s a bit of a different circ*mstance than the example the member gave of not very often being reopened. We do know there is an opportunity coming, and there’s quite a lot of work that we need to do, including the work that the member has described.
So as we go forward, it’s important that that work have the opportunity to be shopped in its community, that the trusts will continue to ensure that they’re doing those consultations, and that the opportunity to make a number of changes, and not under a really pinched timeline — that that opportunity is coming.
B. Stewart: We talk about…. It sounded like the minister was suggesting these changes would be canvassed by the communities where they’re at. Take the Robson Valley or the northeast or northwest, places where northern development is, considering the timelines and just looking on the horizon of what we had asked earlier here about section 4.39 of DRIPA and kind of making those things…. I realize that’s very complicated. To layer that on top of this is going to be extremely challenging, especially with the 205 First Nations in the province and picking out who has that.
Is that what’s holding back the renaming — because of the fact that section 4.39…? It may see things differently than what they’ve asked for currently?
Hon. B. Bailey: No. This is a timing issue.
The Chair: Members, again, let’s stick to clause 111 regarding additional one-time allocation.
B. Stewart: Okay. Thank you, Chair. And I will tell you that section 1of this act, the actual act, does refer to everything that I’m referring to. All of these names are in that section, and I think if we’re talking about one, it gives us the opportunity to ask questions about the specifics.
These are recommendations, Chair, from the trust. They’re not my…. I didn’t create them. They’ve asked for them. I’ve got pages here from all the trusts asking about that, and I’ve been a member. I was actually a big part of starting these trusts. I know the complications that have been created, because they weren’t perfect when they started out.
I think that it’s important that things are dealt with in a timely manner. The minister’s predecessor and I spent an inordinate amount of time on trying to straighten out one of the trusts that I knew a little bit about. I know it’s not perfect, but we do need to kind of keep moving ahead on it. And I think reopening it is fine, but these are simple things that could easily have been addressed. That’s why I keep going back to it.
The Chair: Member, if you can take those concerns that you’re raising and relate them to clause 111, I can allow it, which is around the additional one-time allocations. We’re not revisiting the whole section. We are revisiting this amendment.
B. Stewart: Okay. The trusts have entrusted the minister, Chair, to make some changes or whatever. What it is…. The minister keeps saying that we’re going to reopen this. And the problem that I just described in the previous question was that if section 4.39 is the reason that we’re going to reopen this, because of DRIPA, and layer that on…. Is that really the reason that these have not been accepted?
These are the recommendations. Some of them in this particular clause and section may equally…. I mean, this is recapitalization, what this particular…. Section 111 is essentially a one-time allocation of another $10 million on top of the $50 million that they originally received, I believe. Yes, that’s under section 113.
The question I’m asking is…. The reason that these changes that have been asked for more than a year ago, according to the minister…. They haven’t been accepted. And I’m going into this quite deep because it actually is in this section. It’s not something that….
They’ve asked for specific changes to section 1 of this act. And I’m asking: if we’re going to talk about the change in this particular case, section 1 of the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, why wouldn’t we answer these other questions that the trusts have asked for?
Hon. B. Bailey: As I’ve mentioned a number of times, we know that there is an opportunity to do this work in a fulsome way.
While there may be specific things that seem quite small, and perhaps they could have been included, the issue is there are a number of them. Our priority and, I think, the priority of ICET, with the support of the other trusts, is to ensure the capitalization occurs. That’s been the focus. We know that we have the opportunity to do that other work. It’s not slowed down by or linked to specifically what we’re going to be doing in regards to 4.39.
That work is occurring. But what it does provide us is an opportunity, when the act is open, to thoroughly do the work ahead of us. That’s what we’ll do.
The Chair: Okay. Member, I’ve given leeway on this one. If you can ask a question relating to the additional one-time allocation and not on the whole section, just clause 111.
B. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to be compliant.
However, I have pages of questions here. And the only thing about it is that…. I understand that, but I think that it’s…. I will go back to the one-time allocation. In this particular case, this one-time allocation, because there’s been….
Minister, I’d ask you this. The term “an additional one-time allocation….” We know that some of these trusts have had multiple allocations. ICET, as you mentioned, has had a top-up not once but twice based on this legislation. The Northern Development Initiative Trust has had funds that have been not allocated into this specific account.
Why are we using the term “one-time allocation” when we may come back to this?
Hon. B. Bailey: I’m not really sure how to answer that. This is an additional one-time allocation. It’s happening one time, and therefore, we’re calling it a one-time allocation.
B. Stewart: In that particular case, then, if the government decides, and that was in our previous answer about ICET, that the fragility of ICET or Northern Development Initiative Trust is deemed to be not adequate, they may have to come back. And that might mean that the other trusts…. Possibly it won’t be just a one-time, but there may be other further consideration for top-ups.
Hon. B. Bailey: This is the only one-time allocation that we are considering at this time. It correctly refers to it as a one-time allocation.
B. Stewart: Okay. Since this is going to be reopened — we’ve already talked about section 439 as part of DRIPA, and it’s going to be opened up — these considerations or requests that have been requested by the trust will be specifically answered by the ministry, being that they are not answered today.
Hon. B. Bailey: I’m sorry. Could the member please restate the question?
B. Stewart: There were a number of things while there was consultation with the trust going on. They put forward a list.
In the case of the three trusts, they put forward: remove the one-time development allocation — exactly what we’re speaking about right here. Remove the requirement that directors of the trust must not accept remuneration other than reimbursem*nt of travel and out-of-pocket expenses. Update the purpose section of each act — i.e., removing the Olympic opportunities, which we just finished dealing with in clause 110, I believe, and pine beetle recovery; and replace with innovation and technology. I think the minister rightfully has repaired that.
In the Northern Development Trust, they’ve asked about changing the name of the pine beetle recovery account to the forestry community recovery account. They’ve asked for the Peace region account to be changed to the northeast regional development account. They’ve asked for the Prince George account to be renamed the north centre account, to better reflect that it serves Prince George, Mackenzie, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and the Robson Valley.
“We asked the government to remove all gender binary language and update the act accordingly, consistent with modernizing other government legislation. We’ve asked the government to consider including the ability of us to provide remuneration to our board members, as well, at our expense.”
There are also some other small regulatory changes about changing Queen Charlotte to Daajing Giids and Skeena–Queen Charlotte regional district to the North Coast regional district. Those are some of the changes that they’re looking for.
ETSI, which we’re not talking about right at this time, have specifically asked that the name be changed from Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust to the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior of B.C.
Those are the changes that…. I just am wanting to make certain that these concerns the trusts brought forward are going to be addressed when this is reopened, when we look at DRIPA.
Hon. B. Bailey: Yes, they will be considered.
A. Walker: Just a point of clarity as we go through this clause 111. The member for Kelowna West has asked questions that talked about the timeline, about when this is to be reopened.
This is based on the minister’s response. I know it’s a bit of leniency here. I just want a point of clarity, though. If one of the trusts is well down that way with reconciliation and has all of this work done, whereas the other two trusts aren’t, will that trust then have to wait to engage with government to bring forward legislation, or will they be able to bring that forward when they are ready?
Hon. B. Bailey: These trusts work quite collaboratively together, in fact, and they also collaborate extensively with folks from Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation in this work. We feel quite confident that all three of these trusts will be able to accomplish this work in similar timelines.
A. Walker: In response to that, though, the question was: if one trust is ready to roll. They’ve done their engagement with these First Nations governing bodies. They have proposed their language to bring things into alignment as far as non-gender language. If they’ve done all that work and they’re ready to go, is it clear from this answer from the minister that they will have to wait and hold until the other two trusts have completed that work?
Hon. B. Bailey: Our team is working extensively with all three trusts, and we feel confident that they will all come along around the same timeline, and we’ll work at the legislation at that time.
A. Walker: The question is really just a yes or a no. Ideally yes, all these trusts will work together, and they’ll ensure that all of this is able to move at the same pace.
But not all First Nations are at the position where they can be ready to make this adjustment and to be participated into this, whereas others may.
The question was quite clear. If one trust is ready, will they have to wait for the two other trusts? Or if two trusts are ready, will they have to wait for the third trust to get all this work complete before all three can move forward?
Hon. B. Bailey: Asked and answered.
A. Walker: Certainly, there was a response, but the response wasn’t an answer.
The question is: if one of the trusts is ready to roll and has all this work done, will they have to wait for the other two trusts to work with the ministry to get up to speed before that work can continue?
Hon. B. Bailey: I feel like I’ve answered this question three times, so asked and answered.
The Chair: Members, once again, we are on clause 111, which relates to the definition of “additional one-time allocation.” I would ask that members restrict their questions to that clause.
B. Stewart: I think that where my colleague for Parksville-Qualicum is kind of going is that these trusts, although they were attempted to be created equally, are not on an equal footing, etc. As he mentioned, if they actually have done the preliminary work and have agreement with First Nations, could they move ahead in reopening and addressing the concerns they individually have?
I think the minister mentioned that this one-time allocation was precipitated by the fragile state of one of the trusts, which is ICET, or the northern Island, and it needed a top-up.
But I guess the point about it is that if they’re given instructions or their RAC members take the time to try to facilitate and make the changes…. I can see from NDIT that there are lots of changes they’ve asked for, because things have changed in the last 18 years.
So I guess the question that I have for the minister is: is the terminology of one-time application likely to be reconsidered when they reopen, knowing that $10 million on a $50 million fund that is going to be topped up to…? Sorry. The original amount was less than…. NDIT was $50 million. It’s going to get a top-up of $10 million.
Is there going to be an opportunity for more funds? Because there is an allocation…. And the other clauses that we’re dealing with here…. Clause 113 talks about a very specific allocation of those funds that they’re receiving.
I guess my question is: is the government open to other one-time allocations as they open this up and revisit the things that are much more substantive that the trusts have brought forward, such as NDIT?
Hon. B. Bailey: At this time, we are considering a $10 million top-up to the three trusts that have been identified.
A. Walker: I just want to maybe reframe the question that we were going back and forth with before. The minister, not last Thursday but the Thursday before, stated that the work is undergoing. This is as far as ensuring the Indigenous participation on the RACs. It’s happening. It’ll happen in 2024. Once all of the trusts have completed this work, we will move forward on legislation.
Maybe I’ll frame the question differently. If this work is done by the trust, which has been identified as an independent body, will the government and the minister prevent the legislative changes until the two other trusts have done that work as well?
Hon. B. Bailey: This question was now asked five times. I’ve answered it three times. Asked and answered.
The Chair: Are there any further questions on clause 111?
A. Walker: Yes. I’m just trying to frame my thoughts. The question was originally: will they wait for another one? But when I asked the question of whether a trust will be prevented from pursuing legislative changes, that’s very different than working with the other two trusts to move things forward. It would be very disappointing for me to hear that government would actually get in the way of the legislative changes once that reconciliation work has taken place by the trust.
The minister is obviously not satisfied with the question and claims she’s already answered it. So I will just leave it at that.
Clause 111 approved.
On clause 112.
B. Stewart: Clause 112, section 10 that is being replaced. Section 1.1. I just want to go…. You’re adding “unless otherwise directed by the government after the additional one-time allocation and….”
I wonder if the minister could just help me understand where that is going to fit into clause 10(1.1)(b). The only reason being is that it talks about receiving the one-time allocation and a deposit, 60 percent of that allocation in the pine beetle account and deposit 10 percent of the allocation into each of the regional development accounts.
Could you just clarify where that’s going to be added in that paragraph?
Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.
To explain what we’re doing here, essentially, if we transferred $10 million right now to NDIT, under the legislation, without the changes that we’re suggesting, they would be compelled to take 60 percent of that into the pine beetle account and disperse the rest of it among the other accounts.
The change that we’re asking to make would allow us to consult with NDIT on the account allocation that best provides the intended equity and flexibility of the funding. It provides more flexibility for NDIT to help us identify where they want to put that funding, rather than being as prescriptive.
B. Stewart: I’m sure that that’s a great amendment. I just want to be clear on that. This wording in section 112 will remove that restriction or allow, at least, a discussion.
I guess the question is: how many of these, like in subsection 10(1.1)(b): “(ii) deposit 10% of that allocation into each of the regional development accounts…”? Could she just clarify how many regional development accounts there are, just so we have a better framework and understanding of that?
The Chair: Just a reminder once again, Members, that we are on clause 112, which amends section 10(1.1)(b) alone.
B. Stewart: Thank you, but the part I was reading from, Madam Chair, is actually that clause. It has subsection (b). There are two clauses in there, which the minister just referred to as being very prescriptive.
Interjection.
B. Stewart: No, they’re prescriptive. It doesn’t…. There’s nothing specific about the regional development accounts, and I just am trying to clarify if this is the intent — that the government’s going to negotiate or work with NDIT on where it’s going to be? The pine beetle account is obvious. As they’ve said, pine beetle is way different than just what it was 20 years ago.
That’s why I’m asking that question: to be clear as to what regional accounts are going to be changed or impacted by this clause.
Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.
To be clear, there are a number of different regional accounts. I’ll read them out to the member: the Cariboo-Chilcotin/Lillooet regional development account, the Peace regional development account, the Northwest regional development account, the Prince George regional development account, the cross-regional development account and also the pine beetle account.
B. Stewart: Sorry, could I just ask the last two? I don’t think I got it. I got the Prince George regional account, and then I got the cross and something else. I just didn’t hear that right.
Hon. B. Bailey: No problem, Member. The last two were the Prince George regional development account and the cross-regional development account.
B. Stewart: When I do the math on this and I take that section, I don’t know how the math ever worked in the first place. We’ve got five regional accounts, and we’ve got 60 percent being allocated to mountain pine beetle. It doesn’t make any sense.
I guess I’m just questioning: am I misinterpreting this? Or have they had to do some financial dance around this in the past? If you took the prescriptive method, it would mean that you’d need 110 percent to make that balance.
Hon. B. Bailey: We haven’t done a one-time allocation with NDIT since 2005. I’m not exactly sure how that would have worked, but it’s a good observation, and it points to the need for the change that we’re making.
B. Stewart: I do think this is odd. It creates that problem. I don’t know how they’ve dealt with it in the past. Anyway, I do think that it goes to demonstrate that there are adjustments needed to the original act that was drafted in 2005. I think that’s what they’ve been getting at. Just to comment on this, and I think we’re good on this clause.
Clause 112 approved.
On clause 113.
A. Olsen: Just noting that this is a clause, like the clause in 109, that amends the cap, in this case from $15 million to $60 million, recognizing that the cap is slightly different for the Island Coastal Economic Trust.
I’m just going to move an amendment to this that has been standing on the order paper.
[CLAUSE 113, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:
113 Section 13.1 is amended by striking out “$50 million” and substituting “$60 million”repealed.]
The Chair: Go ahead. It’s on the order paper, so it doesn’t need to be distributed.
A. Olsen: This amendment is exactly the same as a private member’s bill that I have standing under my name on the order paper. It was accepted by the Speaker.
I spoke earlier, when this sitting started this afternoon, about a decision that was made by a Chair in a previous discussion — that this was out of order, or that the amendment for 109 was out of order.
However, that happened right at the very end of the sitting prior to going for adjournment. I guess I’m just curious how it is that I can have the exact same wording, be accepted by the Speaker and by the Clerks and be sitting on the order paper for a debate, perhaps, by the government. If they run out of legislative initiatives this fall session and they need to fill some time, they could call my private member’s bill.
My understanding is that these amendments and the amending bills go through all of those checks, and they get deemed to be either out of order or in order and allowed to stand.
I’m moving this amendment here because I think the rationale is that these trusts have requested to have this; the Island Coastal Economic Trust did. All three of these feel that having this cap is unnecessarily restrictive and doesn’t allow the minister and the ministry to work with them with the kind of flexibility….
I don’t want to put too many words in their mouths, but basically, they feel that the removal of this would allow for more flexibility with the ministry.
The Chair: Thank you, Member. I’ve reviewed the proposed amendment, and by proposing to remove the limit on the total of one-time allocation payments that government may make, the proposed amendment has the effect of permitting increased expenditure of public funds and, therefore, permits an expenditure by implication. Consequently, this proposed amendment is not in order.
In recognition of what the member has just said, the private member’s bill has not been ruled whether it’s in order or not at this point. It typically is done at second reading, if you want to refer to Parliamentary Practice on pages 232 and 233.
If you look also on pages 297 to 298 of the Parliamentary Practice, fifth edition, you’ll also see that it requires a royal recommendation, of which only the members of the executive council have opportunity.
Amendment ruled out of order.
The Chair: We’ll return to clause 113.
B. Stewart: I wonder if the ministry or the minister could provide a history of the funds that have been allocated. As I go through the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, I see that they have these different funds. I’d like to know the principal funds that were allocated.
This one is talking specifically about the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, but there are multiple accounts. I’m just wondering if she could clarify if there’s only one account that government has been putting money in, because it does talk about money that is in other places where government has asked them to do services. So if she could just clear that up.
Hon. B. Bailey: The government has only made one one-time allocation. But what we do is sometimes contract with the trusts. With the Northern Development Initiative Trust, we have a relationship with our ministry, with them, to hire regional economic development officers, for example. That’s a separate thing than the one-time allocation.
Clause 113 approved.
On clause 114.
B. Stewart: Clause 114 looks very similar to the clause from ICET that we were talking about.
I just would ask if the minister could confirm the list that NDIT — that they’re going to look at the revisions. I mentioned the specific changes in terms of….
They have a mountain pine beetle account. It’s very different than ICET. But I think what’s really important here is that the whole shift in the forest sector has changed dramatically — spruce pine beetle, other threats that are there. I think that just being narrowly captured is definitely one of the things that….
I’d just like to know that they’re open to and receptive to working with the communities and NDIT on a revised set of parameters besides just technology and innovation.
Hon. B. Bailey: Yes, we’re open to considering the proposals put forward.
Clause 114 approved.
On clause 115.
B. Stewart: I think the only thing in this particular case…. I go back to some of the other things.
I know that section 1 in the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act talks about certain things. One of the things I’ve mentioned previously is their name change. They haven’t asked for a lot, I don’t think, but they’ve asked for three items. And in that particular case, I’m just wondering if the items that they asked for had been considered.
There are three items: remove the one-time development allocation, include the option to pay an honorarium to board members not already receiving honoraria from sources to attend board meetings and update the list in the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust to include other activities that are maybe not listed there. Aerospace — that’s a good example. Okay?
My question is: in this particular case, section 1 of the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act talks about the one-time allocation. But I’m just wondering about the other items that are in there and if they were considered to being changed, as they requested back on June 13, 2023.
Hon. B. Bailey: As I have stated a number of times now, we are going to be opening this legislation again. There are a number of changes that were brought forward that we weren’t able to incorporate or consider because of timelines. In fact, we will be considering them as we do this work, going forward.
B. Stewart: I think probably the one thing, to be honest…. It talks about the area and the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust. Can I get an answer why the ministry is not willing to address, at this time, the request for a name change?
Hon. B. Bailey: It’s not specific to any one request. There were a number of requests that came forward that were not able to be considered due to the timeliness of getting this bill done and the importance of ensuring ongoing funding for ICET.
Those requests will move forward as we open the legislation again, and we’ll have an opportunity to address those requested changes.
B. Stewart: So the question I have on this particular thing…. It’s been at least three or four years since Minister Ralston was responsible for this file. And then we made the significant changes. The question that I’m just wondering about doesn’t seem like….
I don’t know what it takes, but it seems to me that if there’s going to be a name change, it has to happen in legislation. They’ve been advocating for this for some time. I don’t know whether they can just change the name, which actually they have. They’re operating as ETSI right now. I’m just wondering why it is so difficult to make that change.
Is there any way that we can expedite this for this particular trust?
Hon. B. Bailey: As the member rightly noted, they are currently operating under the name that they’ve chosen, ETSI-BC. We’ll have the opportunity to consider more work as we go forward, when we reopen the legislation next time.
Clauses 115 to 117 inclusive approved.
On clause 118.
B. Stewart: I believe that we’re changing…. Clause 118 is the Local Government Act. I believe that there’s somebody else that’s going to be handling that. That’s not within…. Right? I think that 118 can’t be passed.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Member. We have gotten to clause 117, and we’re on clause 118. We will call a brief recess to reset the ministry at the table. Thank you, Members.
The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
The Chair: I’d like to call the committee back to order.
P. Milobar: To the minister, thanks for indulging us as we are moving around the various chambers.
I apologize on behalf of our main critic. He’s had some major surgical procedures done, so he’s unable to be here currently.
We did just want to touch base with 118. Perhaps the minister could…? It gets very convoluted when you’re going from section 649(1)(a) and (b), the upset price for a tax sale, with the substitution calculated in accordance with section 246, the delinquent taxes of the Community Charter.
Could the minister maybe explain the difference between the sections 649(1)(a) and (b), which are being removed, and why the substitution and the difference with section 246?
Hon. A. Kang: The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act of 2023 introduced a new requirement to the Local Government Act — a municipal tax sales provision. The intent of this is to stop a tax sale. These amendments were made in response to recommendations by the Ombudsperson following an investigation there.
Local governments will be required to serve a notice to a property owner and registered charge holder of their intent to sell the property to recover unpaid taxes at the annual municipal tax sale auction at least 60 days before the annual tax sale.
But this overstates the amount that the property owner must pay to avoid the property tax sale, as a tax sale can be avoided just by paying the delinquent tax only, hence the proposed amendment removes the section references and substitutes a reference to delinquent taxes only.
P. Milobar: We’ll come back to that answer in a moment.
Could the minister…? When myself and my colleague read clause 118, it says: “Section 647.1(2)(e) of the Local Government Act….” As we’re reading what we believe is the right version of the Local Government Act, 647.1(2)(e) does not seem to exist. We just want to make sure we have the right version of the legislation that we’re dealing with.
Hon. A. Kang: We made an amendment last year to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It has not been brought forth to action yet. But we realized that there was inconsistency between the statement that is required, so before this has come in as an act, we are correcting the inconsistency that is needed.
P. Milobar: Sorry. My colleague from Parksville-Qualicum clarified that it was a change in miscellaneous bill 3. Unfortunately, the book we rely on is supposed to have up-to-date legislation.
Is the minister saying that although something was changed a year ago by miscellaneous statutes amendments, we were supposed to somehow to know that by just reading this, even though we’re in what is supposed to be the most current version, pulled off a shelf literally in this room?
How, as opposition, are we supposed to reasonably question when the clause is buried in a miscellaneous bill from a year ago but hasn’t actually been brought forward into a new printing of what the laws are that you’re now amending a year later?
Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much to the member opposite for the question.
The amendment was passed this spring, 2023. The legislation is not in force yet. Therefore, it has not been printed. The King’s Printer has not published it yet. It’s not something within my powers to have it published when the legislation is not in force.
P. Milobar: Sorry. I’m struggling with this a little. Perhaps the Clerk’s office, in the background, can come up with a more definitive answer or something. I’m not sure. I guess our skepticism or worry here is we’ve had eight pieces of legislation in this sitting alone that have had to be amended by this government because of errors and flaws and things that they didn’t pick up going through LRC.
If I’m hearing the minister correctly, we’re now amending a piece of legislation that actually hasn’t been updated from the last time it was amended, and somehow the opposition was supposed to know that. We’re defaulting to “The King’s Printer hasn’t done their job,” but we found flaws in legislation that we brought forward last spring, a few months ago, and because it’s not enacted, we’re now amending it yet again.
Is it not enacted because 647.1 was subject to being enacted at regulation or at royal assent?
Hon. A. Kang: So 64.1 is a new section of the legislation. We recognized an error, and we are fixing it. This is a good thing, because we are correcting it before it is in force.
This amendment corrects an inconsistency that we found, before it has come into force, between the statement that is required to be included in the new notice of tax sales and the tax sale requirements in the local government. This is a good thing. So 64.1 is a new section in the legislation, and we caught an inconsistency. We caught a mistake, and we’re correcting it now, before it comes into force.
P. Milobar: I appreciate that with all the numbering, it can get confusing, but just to be absolutely clear, we’re talking about 647.1, not 64.1. I know what the minister meant.
I guess our problem, though, is we have a former piece of legislation that has now been discovered to be in error and needs correcting. It only was going to take effect by regulation. So here we are, several months later, and that regulation still hasn’t even been brought into effect. This change, 118, will only take effect based on regulation at some future date. Lord knows when, at this point. What are the odds? We could have a third amending piece here to 647.1 and all three of them waiting on some piece of regulation.
Municipalities are under a clock with tax sales. There are certain time frames that they need to do them in the year. What is the expectation that the regulations will actually be enacted so that these changes can actually be sent to the King’s Printer so the public and municipalities can actually have an accurate copy of what is happening with the laws within British Columbia?
Hon. A. Kang: This is not a second amendment. This is a new section. We’re now correcting a mistake that we have seen in something that we passed in spring of 2023.
To the question of royal assent. If we had enacted this during the royal assent, it would be too rushed for local governments. If we enacted in 2023, it would be a rush. We passed this by regulation for 2024 of tax sales year so that local governments will be prepared for the next tax season.
We did identify that as we passed this new section that there was an error. So in correcting this error, it is a good thing that people will not be overpaying what has been incorrectly stated. The proposed amendment removes section references and substitutes a reference to paying delinquent taxes only, because that is the only way that a tax sale can be avoided.
We are correcting an error that we made. It’s a word error. We’re not amending anything else.
P. Milobar: Well, that answer opens up a whole other line of questions, then, because the minister just said they’re correcting it so people won’t be overpaying, which means that they’re currently overpaying.
Well, if it’s correcting something so people won’t be overpaying, that means they are currently overpaying. This was changed in spring, and the deadline for tax sale notifications is September 25 of this year for this current tax sale year, based on the legislation — the last Monday in September, September 25. It was changed in the spring. The regulation wasn’t even brought forward in time for municipalities to actually enact the change, so people could not be overpaying, as per the minister’s own words in her last answer.
Now we’re having to change a piece that hasn’t even been enacted by regulation yet. Its enactment date is the same as the previous piece, by regulation, with no certainty that it’s going to actually be changed in time for the last Monday in September.
Given the confusion on this clause, can the minister direct the opposition to where exactly we can get the complete version of the Local Government Act that has been amended So we can, at that point, based on the answer, seek a recess so we can get a printed copy here?
Apparently, even the Legislature doesn’t have an accurate up-to-date copy of the legislation that is being changed here today. The book we’re working off of literally came off the shelf seven feet away from us. That is supposed to have all the current laws of British Columbia in it.
The Legislature doesn’t have an accurate copy of what we’re amending. We can’t seem to get a clear answer from the minister, whether this is actually saving people money from being overcharged or not, on a section that was supposed to be brought in by regulation and still hasn’t, even though it was passed in the spring. Now this change will have to wait for regulation moving forward.
Could we find out where exactly we can get a printed copy done? Then once we find that out, we can take a short break to be able to get a printed copy here so the opposition can actually properly assess the changes to a piece of legislation.
Hon. A. Kang: Section 647.1 can be found in section13 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, S.B.C. 2023, c.2. You can find it there.
P. Milobar: Just to be clear, then, the minister is saying the only version of what’s being amended in this current bill, in Bill 42…. We need to go back to a different bill to read it as a section of that bill to then go and layer that in with the piece of legislation that’s in front of us, because you’re not actually amending a piece of legislation; you’re amending a bill?
Hon. A. Kang: Yes. We are amending an act that has already passed this spring, 2023, but is not yet in force, so that when it comes into force, we will have corrected the error that we have identified in terms of wording.
I have no control over when law gets printed, because it has not come into force yet.
P. Milobar: Well, I mean, when you read, and it says that we are…. “Section 647.1 (2) (e) of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 2015, c.1, as enacted by section 13 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, S.B.C. 2023, c.2, is amended by striking out….”
One would assume it’s actually part of the piece of legislation that you’re reading, not that we’re going back to relook at a bill because that’s actually what’s just been floating out there because the government hasn’t seen fit to enact the regulation in time, several months later.
I guess I would ask for a recess so we can go back and find the bill of section 13 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, from the spring, get that printed, overlay that with the bill that’s in front of us and then overlay that with the legislation so that we can actually, as an opposition, have a clear understanding of what is or isn’t actually being amended and why, moving forward with this piece of legislation.
The Chair: I’ll call a recess for 11½ minutes.
The committee recessed from 5:18 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
[M. Dykeman in the chair.]
The Chair: All right, Members. If you could all take your seats and come to order, please, we’ll call the committee on Bill 42 back to order. We are on clause 118.
P. Milobar: To add to the further confusion, I guess, on the changes, and just so we’re absolutely clear in our thinking here, in section 647.1 of the Local Government Act, there are changes being made — changes that are still floating out there, because they’re just by regulation that hasn’t been done yet. We’re removing sections referring to section 649(1)(a) and (b) in the Local Government Act and substituting that in with a section from the Community Charter.
Am I getting it right that somebody would have to go from one piece of legislation to another and cross-reference sections from two totally different pieces of legislation?
Hon. A. Kang: Yes, that’s correct. It cross-references through the Community Charter.
P. Milobar: When the Local Government Act was amended with Bill 3 in 2023, that’s when the changes in 647.1 came in, or when the concept of them was first introduced. That was dealing with the Local Government Act.
I’m just wondering: is there not a concern that we’re cross-pollinating two distinct pieces of legislation by making you refer to one other piece of legislation as it relates to tax sales? How does that make things less complicated, more streamlined and less expensive for people?
Hon. A. Kang: No, this is not cross-pollination. The definition of delinquent taxes can be found in the Community Charter.
P. Milobar: Well, thank you. I get that there would be a definition of delinquent taxes in the Community Charter. My understanding is that the Community Charter deals much more with municipalities; the Local Government Act still deals much more with regional districts. But it’s really about the fact that we’re now changing out a section that was dealing exclusively with the Local Government Act and instead inserting a reference to the Community Charter.
What is the purpose of that? Would it not have been easier — if you’re amending the Local Government Act anyway, by virtue of this legislation — to just amend the definition you wanted to amend within the Local Government Act?
Hon. A. Kang: We work with legislative counsel. We take the advice of legislative counsel, and that legislative counsel will advise how to best express the policy intent.
P. Milobar: Well, when we’ve read through the various sections being removed and inserted by striking out “amounts referred to in section 649(1)(a) and (b) [upset price for tax sale] are” and substituting in “amount of delinquent taxes calculated in accordance with section 246 [delinquent taxes] of the Community Charter….”
Again, 649(1)(a) and (b) is in the Local Government Act. That’s being removed. We’re putting in section 246 of the Community Charter. But when I quickly read through (2), I don’t see a fundamental difference in what is going to result in a change of costs or calculations for either the municipality or the person who’s subject to a tax sale.
Can the minister explain definitively the substantive difference in calculations? They both refer to interest. They both refer to things of that nature. What is the core difference that’s necessitating this change?
Hon. A. Kang: Sections 649(1)(a) and (b), of the Local Government Act section, refer to delinquent taxes, taxes in arrear and interest to the first day of the tax sale and current year taxes with penalty. As a tax sale can be avoided by paying delinquent taxes only, the current section 647.1 overstates the amount that can be paid to avoid a tax sale.
P. Milobar: Well, again, it’s concerning that it’s overstating it and still holding out in regulation that hasn’t happened yet.
I truly am not trying to be difficult here. I know we came into this….
Interjections.
P. Milobar: The government can laugh if they want. Given that we’ve had eight pieces of their legislation that have needed to be amended in this sitting alone….
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
P. Milobar: This is yet another piece where we’re amending a piece of legislation, not an actual bill that has been enacted yet into law. Perhaps we could take a little time just to make sure that municipalities and the public understand what is actually being amended and that we haven’t accidentally missed something that we’ve already tried to amend before it became law.
Again, when I read this…. It’s referring to amounts referred to in section 649(1)(a) and (b). However, 649 has a (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and a (2). It’s silent on any of those. I get that only those two, (a) and (b), currently are referred to in 647(1). Then, when you jump to 246, which it’s being replaced with…. It’s got a (1) and a (2), a (1)(a) and (b).
We’re removing: “The collector is authorized to receive, for use of the municipality, the following amounts from the proceeds of a sale under section 645 [annual tax sale]” — so that suddenly disappears completely — “(a) the amount of delinquent taxes, taxes in arrear and interest to the first day of the tax sale for which the parcel of land and the improvements are liable for sale; (b) the taxes, including penalties incurred, for the current year on the land and improvements.”
Instead, we’re substituting in: “(1) Any taxes in arrear remaining unpaid on December 31 in the year following the year in which it became taxes in arrear (a) are delinquent on that date, and (b) bear interest from that date at a rate prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under section 11 (3) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act until paid or recovered. (2) The added interest under the subsection (1) (b) is part of the delinquent taxes and is a charge as in section 245 (3) [taxes in arrear].”
The other part of 649, “Upset price for tax sale,” is also: “(c) 5% of the amounts under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection; (d) the fees prescribed under the Land Title Act. (2) The total of the amounts under subsection (1) is the upset price and the lowest amount….”
Now, this appears to be removing references to 649(1)(a) and (b) in 647(1), but it’s not removing 649 completely.
How is there not starting to be a lot of contradictory pieces here? So 649(1)(a) and (b) appear to still be in existence. Then you’re going to have 246, which is in existence. You’re going to have 647(1), which refers to part of the one section. But then there are other parts of 649 that are still going to be in existence. In fact, all of it is still going to be in existence, all dealing with the same type of language.
Hon. A. Kang: The amendments to the Local Government Act made in the spring of 2023 require local governments to provide specific notice 60 days prior to a tax sale to property owners whose property is at risk of a tax sale. Certain contents of the notice requirements are required by legislation — for example, the time and place of the annual tax sale.
The amendments being proposed at the time address an issue that has been identified with the requirements related to the notice that local governments are required to make.
In particular, the Local Government Act requires that the notice sale include a statement that if the amounts referred to in sections 649(1)(a) and (b), which is the upset price for tax sale, of the Local Government Act are not paid before the annual tax sale, the collector will offer the property for sale by public auction at the time and place stated in the notice.
This includes delinquent taxes as well as taxes in arrears and current years, including interest and penalties. This has the effect of overstating the amount that must be paid to avoid a property from a tax sale — a tax sale can be avoided by paying delinquent taxes only — as the Local Government Act requires that property on which taxes are delinquent be offered for sale at a public auction.
The amendments being proposed at this time will amend the notice content requirements to refer to only what is required to avoid a property from a tax sale, by removing references to taxes in arrears and current-year taxes owing.
P. Milobar: I’ll try this again. We’re amending the Local Government Act with clause 118. Back in the spring, the Local Government Act was amended to create 647.1(2)(e). That’s what’s being amended with clause 118.
Now, in that, what’s being amended is a reference to section 649(1)(a) and (b) in the Local Government Act. Instead, the government would like to insert 246 from the Community Charter.
I understand all of that. However, the heading of 649 is “Upset price for tax sale.” It’s got more than (1)(a) and (b). It’s got a (c) and (d), and it’s also got a part (2). So all of that is still actually remaining, as I read this, in the Local Government Act. That is not being amended. It’s not being removed.
If it’s being removed, I would hope that the minister could point us to where they’ve actually removed 649 out of the bill. The problem is…. If someone was to read 647(1) in the Local Government Act, they would see one set of rules for a tax sale, which would be 246 of the Community Charter.
However, if they kept reading a little bit further in the Local Government Act, because they chose not to go back to 246 of a totally different piece of legislation, they would see other rules for the upset price for a tax sale in 649 because it’s still existing in the legislation. It hasn’t been removed. The reference to it in 647.1 is being removed, but 649 is still fully intact within the Local Government Act.
How does that not create confusion around the rules for a tax sale for local governments or the person subject to the tax sale that likely is not as versed?
I’ve been elected a long time. My colleague’s been elected a long time. We’re getting confused by this. I can only imagine what a layperson who’s under the stress of a possible tax sale, trying to figure out what they should or shouldn’t be charged, is going through.
They go to the legislation. They go to 647.1. They see something referenced as 246 in a totally different piece of legislation, and literally on the same page, in bold, they see “Upset price for tax sale.” Why was 649 not removed completely, then, if we are now referring to the rules on the tax sale in a totally different piece of legislation?
Hon. A. Kang: This amendment makes it more clear to the everyday person on what is required to avoid a tax sale.
P. Milobar: Again, this is amending clause 13 of Bill 3 from 2023. It’s pulling out, in 647.1(2)(e), the references to 649. But the heading of 649 is actually “Upset price for tax sale.” And 647.1(2)(d), right before the clause that this is amending, says “the upset price of the property for the purpose of the tax sale.”
Again, I fail to see how the minister can’t see how this is going to create confusion as to which rule is taking effect, because in (d), it’s literally referring back to the upset price for the tax sale in 649. However, in (e), they’re now substituting in “delinquent taxes” and a reference to 246 in a totally different piece of legislation.
I guess I’m asking why 649 is even staying in existence — period — if the reference to it is being contradicted by titles and different pieces of legislation and calculations of what will go into a calculation or not.
If you read…. I guess I’ll just leave it at that for the time being, because I’ll get into the other pieces of that upset price for tax sale. So in (d), you would go to the upset price of the purpose of the tax sale in the legislation, which is the entirety of 649. Then in (e) it tells you: “Well, just basically ignore that. We’ve just amended it, and you’ve got to go to 246 in a different piece of legislation that deals with delinquent taxes instead.”
Again, we’re not trying to be difficult here, but there seems to be contradictory…. Given that we’re amending a piece that hasn’t even gone through regulation yet and already is needing to be amended, yet again, in a very formal process, we’re, frankly, not confident that there hasn’t been a misstep yet again.
Hon. A. Kang: The only change is to amend section 647.1(2)(e). It removes the cross-reference to upset price, which is incorrect, and replaces with delinquent taxes, which is correct.
A. Walker: When the minister started her statement on this, she mentioned that this clause amends a miscellaneous statutes bill and that the specific clause in the miscellaneous statutes bill that amends the Local Government Act was initiated, at least partially, by an Ombudsperson report.
Could the minister confirm that that Ombudsperson report was A Bid for Fairness?
Hon. A. Kang: Yes, that’s correct.
A. Walker: Can the minister confirm if the ministry that she represents has agreed to all five recommendations of that report — knowing that the sixth recommendation was on the city of Penticton?
Hon. A. Kang: That is correct.
The Chair: Just a reminder for members to please stay within the scope of clause 118, which we’re on right now.
A. Walker: Of course, clause 118 — which amends subsection 647.1(2)(e) of the Local Government Act, which is brought in through the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — talks about the amounts that are to be referred to in the upset sale.
The Ombudsperson report was very clear about an individual, a vulnerable woman of 60 years of age in Penticton, who was forced to sell her house. The minister has said that part of that, the report from the Ombudsperson, was why these changes will take effect. I see that this discusses the upset price in the specific bill.
I’m just wondering if, through those five recommendations the Ombudsperson recommended, that the Local Government Act should…. The Chair is looking at me.
The Chair: Yes. Just to clarify when you look at the full amount, it’s the notice that must be given. It’s just a reminder to stay within the scope.
Continue.
A. Walker: Of course. If you don’t pay your property taxes, notice is given, and this change will impact the amount that basically would have been disclosed to that property owner. It relates fully to that.
In the Ombudsperson’s report, they had recommended that the Local Government Act should establish the starting point of an auction that reflects the assessed value of the property.
That notice that is given to the property owner — as we’re talking about right now, that amendment that’s taking place to that notification — I’m just wondering if this change will allow for property owners to expect, from the recommendations of the Ombudsperson, that the sale of these properties would be for at least the assessed value of these homes?
Hon. A. Kang: The answer is no, it doesn’t respond to that particular recommendation. Section 647.1 responds to the notice to be provided before the tax sale.
A. Walker: As the minister has accepted these recommendations, hopefully that significant policy change can be looked at in detail there.
As these tax notices go out, one of the other recommendations — as we talk about these notices that are going to be distributed to people who don’t pay their property taxes — was that a template be developed that uses plain language. Has that been implemented and that recommendation passed through to local governments?
Hon. A. Kang: The answer is yes, we have a draft, and we are reviewing it. We tend to use plain language so that people are able to read it.
A. Walker: Again, as we discuss this very convoluted clause that, essentially, talks to these notices that are being sent out to property owners, another recommendation from the Ombudsperson was that there be guidelines that will notify property owners and that those guidelines be established. Have those guidelines been established, and have they been implemented?
Hon. A. Kang: Yes, it is also in draft form, and we are currently reviewing it.
A. Walker: Last question, don’t worry.
The last recommendation that, again, relates to the issuance of these notices to these property owners is that there be best practices guidelines issued about how municipalities are to protect vulnerable property owners within their tax sales scheme. Just looking if that has been implemented.
I want to clarify that this Ombudsperson report did come out in 2021. So hopefully, these will move along quickly. I just wanted to see if that has been implemented.
Hon. A. Kang: We are responding to all five recommendations by the Ombudsperson.
P. Milobar: I assure the Chair and the minister that we do intend to be done, to note the hour and be finished with the bill, today.
The Chair: This bill, today.
P. Milobar: Yes. Not just clause 118, but we can finish it off.
The Chair: Fantastic.
P. Milobar: Just bear with us.
Again, there’s a lot of discussion, as we heard from the previous member. The city of Penticton and others have been imploring the ministry to have very clear template language, clear expectations.
When you look at 647.1, (d) is the upset price of the property for the purpose of the tax sale. Then (e), which is what we’re amending, instead of referring to 649.1(a) and (b), which is the upset price for a tax sale — so at least that language is consistent — is now going to be the delinquent taxes in a totally different piece of legislation.
Then you read 246(2) in the Community Charter, which is now being inserted into 647.1(e): “The added interest under subsection (1) (b) is part of the delinquent taxes and is a charge as in section 245(3) [taxes in arrear].”
Then you go up to 245(3), and it says: “The interest under subsection (1) (b) is part of the taxes in arrear, and the total amount of the taxes in arrear is a charge on the land or improvements, or both, as if the penalties and interest had originally formed part of the taxes imposed.”
Then you have to go to 245(1), which is: “The taxes for the current year on land or improvements, or both, together with any applicable penalties, that are unpaid on December 31 in the year imposed…(b) bear interest from that date at a rate prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under section 11(3) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.”
Now, mercifully for the minister, I don’t have a copy of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, so I don’t even know what Section 11(3) of that act says. But I think it’s safe to say this is not a clean and easy template for people to follow, when an average person reading the Local Government Act on tax sale issues, trying to figure out what they may or may not be charged, will read, at 647(1)(d), “the upset price of the property for the purchase of the tax sale,” then (e) “a different area on delinquent taxes,” which is a very convoluted thing.
However, as they keep reading through the Local Government Act, they will also still see in its entirety 649, with a bold heading, “Upset price,” which any layperson would reasonably think refers back to (d), which is talking about the upset price of the property for the purpose of a tax sale, and start being confused as to what calculations are or aren’t in there.
I’m simply pointing out to the minister that this has turned what should have been a fairly straightforward exercise of staying within one act, the Local Government Act, amending 649 to better reflect what the government wanted….
We are now cross-pollinating two pieces of legislation with multiple different references to interest and calculations at a time that we’re supposed to be making things more streamlined and easier for the person to understand.
I think we’re still thoroughly confused by this. We recognize that the government outvotes us two to one anyway, but this certainly has been an exercise in frustration for the opposition.
I have a municipal background. I was a mayor for nine years and a councillor for six years, and I’m thoroughly confused as what you’re trying to do here with tax sales. I can only imagine what the layperson would be thinking.
I hope the minister can clarify once and for all: does 649 also exist in its entirety within the Local Government Act moving forward, as well as 246 in its entirety in the Local Government Act, as it reads in 647(1)?
Hon. A. Kang: Cross references allow for precision and accuracy.
Clauses 118 and 119 approved.
Schedules 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Kang: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.
