Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, November

27, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome a resident of the Cowichan Valley, Shaye Anderson,

who also happens to be the former minister of Municipal Affairs in Alberta.

His wife, Kelly, and he have moved back to the Cowichan Valley, where he grew up.

They have two sons, 13 and 15 years old. Shaye is well known in the valley as a rugby

player and rugby coach. He's dedicated to his community, and I welcome him here today.

Can you help me make that welcome.

P. Milobar: As we all know, there are several members from the Canadian Home Builders Association

from B.C. in town over the next day or two, and we'll see how the

schedule works out

for those meetings.

[1:35 p.m.]

In the House today — Kamloops has always punched well over their weight when it comes

to both provincially and federally with this organization — we have Tom Calne, Chris

Crowell, Tom Eggers and Rose Choy. All of them would agree Rose is actually what makes

everything so efficient and operational within Kamloops and enables us to do the great

advocacy work that we do coming out of Kamloops.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have two special guests from Peachland — the mayor of Peachland,

Patrick Van Minsel, and councillor Alena Glasman.

I had the pleasure of visiting their community back in August, and I thought it was

just absolutely beautiful. I saw firsthand their stunning 11 kilometres of Okanagan

lakefront community. I also had the opportunity to meet with local business owners,

the Peachland Chamber of Commerce, to listen to their thoughts and concerns. I really

loved meeting the neighbours.

I'm looking forward to meeting with mayor Van Minsel — I call him Patrick, so I'm

having problems with last name — and councillor Alena today, after question period.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have two guests who are here today.

One is sitting over on this side. Diana Dilworth is here. She's the government relations

professional with the Homebuilders Association Vancouver. She's also a Port Moody

councillor and one of them my favourite divas — just one of my favourite divas. She's

joining us here in the chamber.

I have a very special guest. Chris Aubichon is here. He's from Tl'azt'en Nation. He

was taken into care when he was six years old by government, left care on an AYA agreement

when he was 16, found himself without the skills to care for himself and found himself

in a time when he was homeless and engaged in behaviours that resulted in some jail

time. Government really failed him.

Last spring, when we announced that we had a tuition waiver program that we were extending

to anyone who had been in care, Chris, who at the time was living in New Brunswick,

got on a bicycle and rode his bicycle right across Canada to Nanaimo and is starting

at Camosun in January.

I'd like everyone to please welcome Chris.

G. Kyllo: I'm very proud to have my mom, Marianne Thomsen, joining us today. I can't see her,

though, unfortunately. I was hoping she might be able to…. Oh, there she is.

Mom, welcome.

My mom is amazing. She's a grandmother, a great grandmother. She's turning 84 this

next June. She's definitely the matriarch of her family.

Mom, just so very proud to have you here with us today.

K. Chen: I'm happy to welcome a Burnaby-Lougheed constituent. Keats Morton is joining us in

the gallery today. Keats is a young professional who is passionate about environmental

and social justice issues. He has lived and worked in Burnaby for many years and is

very active in the geocaching community, which is a fun activity my son and I also

love.

I ask the House to please give Keats a warm welcome and hope that he enjoys the always

very passionate question period.

Hon. B. Bailey: I'm very lucky to have three guests in the House today.

I think all members join me in recognizing the incredible work our constituency assistants

do for us, taking care of people in our community, advocating, ensuring that they

have access to the important services that our province provides. I have three such

guests today, my three part-time CAs, Meagan Baird, Naomi Lam and Kathleen Serrano.

Please join me in making them most welcome.

I. Paton: I'm happy to introduce today Bonnie and Terry Ludwig, friends of mine, farmers from

up in Black Creek–Courtenay area. They were dairy farmers, and believe it or not,

when I sold my purebred dairy herd many years ago, Terry and Bonnie purchased my dairy

herd.

[1:40 p.m.]

It was a sad day for me. They all left to go to Black Creek–Courtenay. Then Bonnie

and Terry moved to Saskatchewan to dairy-farm for several years, but now they're back

living in Black Creek–Courtenay.

Between them and their children and their spouses, they're producing blackberries,

blueberries, wine made from blackberries and blueberries, honey and pumpkins. They

do corn mazes and are growing corn as well. Boy, they're active farmers, and I'm just

happy they drove down to spend the day with us here in Victoria.

Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: I am very fortunate to have somebody very talented, skilled and dedicated, who works

in my office and whose name is Ella Champion, as a ministerial assistant. I'm very

pleased to introduce to the House today her parents, Steven Champion and Lana Leeson.

They're stalwarts of East Vancouver, constituents of Vancouver-Hastings, so the Attorney

General represents them.

They have just had a custom legislative tour with veteran legislative bureau reporter

Keith Baldrey. They talked about lots of things — I think the 1980s was one topic

— and got to see their way around this building.

Anyway, Ella is a true pleasure. You have raised her well. Thank you for having her

work in this wonderful building and in my office. I hope you enjoy the rest of your

time here. Welcome to the Legislature.

R. Merrifield: I just want to echo the Minister of Municipal Affairs' welcome to both the mayor of

Peachland, Patrick Van Minsel, and Coun. Alena Glasman. We got to enjoy the bumpy

ride in from Kelowna last night. I just wanted to extend our welcome to them, in the

gallery.

Also, I've got a guest here today from my riding, the past president of the B.C. Home

Builders Association, Cassidy deVeer, as well as the president and founder of 3rd

Gen Homes. Definitely, she's a force in providing homes for the Okanagan and also

in coaching basketball for our OKM girls team.

Would the House please join me in welcoming her today.

R. Parmar: It's a pleasure for me to stand in the House and welcome some friends from the great

city of Langford. We have His Worship Mayor Scott Goodmanson, as well as the director

of corporate services, Braden Hutchins. They're here for the first time in their roles,

visiting with myself and fellow ministers on this side of the House. I just want to

thank them for the great work they do and to welcome them here.

I also want to echo the comments from the colleague just in front of me, the Minister

of Jobs. Our CAs are incredible. I've been lucky enough to have had the chance to

work with one of my new CAs for the last couple of months since taking on this role,

and I'm very pleased to welcome back, for the second time, Hudson Copley-Spencer.

Will the House please make these incredible residents of Langford very welcome here

today.

A. Olsen: For everyone who's worried about their own CV, I apologize, because I'm introducing

Maya Achuthan to the Legislative Assembly today. Maya is still a grade 12 student

at St. Michael's University. She's the head prefect, and she has a long list of accolades.

She's an AP scholar who finished third in the National Persuasive Speaking Competition

— I didn't know that one — on the B.C. Health and Wellness Youth Advisory Council;

a B.C. ambassador for STEM Fellowship; has received awards for her Youth Science Canada

project in gene editing for cystic fibrosis; and has founded the Aspire Society, a

youth-driven organization empowering young leaders to create inclusive, sustainable

and just communities. Through all this, she chose to intern in my constituency office

this past summer.

Could all the members of the House please make Maya feel very welcome.

R. Russell: We've had a little bit of CA love here already this morning. It's my pleasure to have

the opportunity to welcome to the House Sarah Dinsdale, April Lebedoff and David Lubbers.

They are part of what I think of as my home team.

I think everybody here recognizes how vital these people are to get the work done.

Particularly for us, I think, it's a little bit of a lonely venture in these rural

communities. There's not a neighbouring CA office you can go to.

[1:45 p.m.]

They're going to be around all week. If they come knocking on your doors, please make

them feel welcome.

Thank you for everything you do.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BUY LOCAL WEEK AND

SMALL BUSINESSES IN STEVESTON

K. Greene: I rise today to celebrate B.C. Buy Local Week, November 27 to December 3. We all have

favourite shops that we love to visit. By purchasing goods and services from these

businesses, we're strengthening our economy, supporting job growth, fostering a sense

of community and creating a greener province by reducing transport pollution.

I'm lucky to represent Richmond-Steveston, a riding that is rich in small businesses

that offer everything you could need, from fishing equipment to small gifts to tropical

plants and more. Small businesses also provide the services we want and need, like

dining out, physiotherapy or aesthetic services.

Buy Local Week is great to think about as we head into the holiday season. Local businesses

not only provide high-quality products, but they actively give back by providing sponsorship

and support to charities and events, making our communities richer for it.

I know that many folks in Steveston will be heading to the Monkey Tree for fun and

meaningful gifts, or to Touch of Class for a seasonal floral arrangement. Shopping

in Steveston can really whip up an appetite. Luckily, there are so many great restaurants

like Britannia Brewing, Ember, Ichiro, O'Hare's Gastropub and lots more. You will

never leave Steveston hungry.

There is more to small businesses in Steveston than food and gifts. It's services

like Allied Physiotherapy, which can fix your tennis elbow, or Bellatudo, to get beautiful

nail services. It's also shops like South Harbour Fish and Gift, where you can find

seafood delicacies, or Pacific Net and Twine, where you can get sport and commercial

fishing gear.

There are way too many great businesses to fit into two minutes. I encourage everyone

here to get out there, support your local businesses over this holiday season and

thank them for all that they do in making our communities a better place to be. I

know Steveston really wouldn't be the same without them.

CHAD PEDERSON AND

COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS

T. Wat: I rise to acknowledge the outstanding community service of Chad Pederson, a constituent

of mine who has been dedicated to various causes for almost two decades.

At the local level in Richmond, Chad's commitment to community service was first evident

in his involvement with the Steveston Historical Society. During his tenure on the

board of directors, he played a crucial role in saving the historic Japanese Fishermen's

Benevolent Society building, which now serves as a museum showcasing Japanese history

in Richmond.

While serving on the board of directors of the Richmond City Centre Community Association,

Chad's contributions were instrumental in supporting the construction of their new

long-term home, which now acts as a vibrant community hub in our downtown core.

Most recently, Chad completed nearly ten years of service on the Richmond Hospital

Foundation board of directors, serving as chair for the last three years. His unwavering

advocating for the health care needs of the Richmond community played a pivotal role

in the approval and go-ahead of the new acute care tower at Richmond Hospital.

Additionally, Chad has represented the B.C. mining industry in various capacities,

actively involved in provincial, national and global industry associations and advocating

for responsible mining practices. He also has been on the steering committee for Mining

for Miracles, the annual charitable fundraiser of the B.C. mining industry, supporting

the B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation.

Chad's selfless dedication to community service makes him an exemplary volunteer,

contributing to making Richmond, B.C., a wonderful place to live. I applaud Chad for

his remarkable service thus far and extend my best wishes for his future endeavours,

which will undoubtedly bring about more meaningful service to our community.

BURNABY HEIGHTS DISTRICT AND ROLE OF

JACK KUYER AND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION

J. Routledge: What we know today as Burnaby Heights is part of the territories of the Coast Salish

First Nations, who shared this hill for millennia to forage, hunt and fish. Today,

settlers still gather on Hastings Street to shop for essentials and share meals.

[1:50 p.m.]

The commercial district turned 115 this year. While Helen's Children's Wear is gone,

its iconic neon girl-on-a-swing sign remains and continues to be a defining feature

of the neighbourhood.

Gone, too, are the streetcars that carried working people to their jobs in a growing

Vancouver, but they are remembered in a mural at the corner of Hastings and Ingleton.

After World War II, car-centric consumer culture began attracting local customers

away to the shopping centres. The stores on Hastings Street suffered. Becoming an

expressway from Vancouver to the outer suburbs has long been a threat to this unique

urban village, so the Heights Merchants Association was created in 1954. Its aim has

long been and continues, today, to be cooperation amongst merchants to preserve the

district's character, pedestrian safety and economic viability.

A driving and unifying force behind the Heights Merchants Association has been Jack

Kuyer. Jack was 14 when he started working for the Valley Bakery, a business started

by his father in 1957. Jack took it over in 1979 and ran it for the next 44 years.

Under Jack's leadership, Valley Bakery draws customers from Point Grey to Langley.

Under his leadership, the Heights Merchants Association began to host Hats Off Day,

a signature street party that draws 60,000 visitors every June to experience what

the Heights Merchants have to offer.

Jack Kuyer and the Heights Merchants Association embody everything that Buy B.C. Week

stands for. Please join me in wishing Jack a healthy and fulfilling retirement.

GINNY BECKER AND

CHILD ADVOCACY CENTRE IN KELOWNA

R. Merrifield: Today I stand before you to celebrate a monumental achievement in our community. A

week ago, Ginny Becker, the executive director for Kelowna's Child Advocacy Centre,

received the Social Change Regional Impact Award at the 2023 RBC Canadian Women Entrepreneur

Awards. This honour, bestowed upon Ginny amidst a highly competitive field of over

11,000 nominees, is a testament to her unwavering dedication and impactful contributions

to our community.

Ginny's leadership at the Child Advocacy Centre since its inception in 2020 has been

nothing short of inspirational. Under her guidance, the centre has become a beacon

of hope and resilience for children and families affected by child abuse and neglect.

Her approach, fostering a collaborative environment among law enforcement, child protection,

victim services, health care and mental health professionals, has significantly improved

outcomes for the most vulnerable in our community.

This award is not just a personal accolade for Ginny Becker. It represents the collective

strength and commitment of everyone involved in the Child Advocacy Centre. From front-line

workers to donors, each person's contribution is integral to the centre's success.

Ginny's leadership embodies the spirit of collaboration and dedication that is essential

in addressing such critical societal issues.

As Ginny herself stated: "The survivors' courage fuels us to push for change and to

do better, because they deserve better." This sentiment resonates with all of us who

strive to make a difference in the lives of those in need.

Thank you, Ginny, for your exemplary service and for inspiring us all to strive for

a better future for our children and families. Your leadership and dedication are

truly commendable. This award is a well-deserved recognition of your outstanding contributions.

WEST END SENIORS NETWORK

S. Chandra Herbert: Best friends tell us the truth. Best friends know how to reach us in a way that others

just might not. Best friends know how to bring fun to the scene, how to bring a little

joy when we're feeling down. Best friends know how to lift us up and how to get us

on a better path.

I've got to say, the West End has a best friend in the West End Seniors Network. I

do, as well. They're an organization that goes above and beyond each and every day

to make life better for seniors in our community and beyond our community. They give

incredible advice.

I just think about their advice around housing. It's seniors coming to me to say:

"We see empty homes in our community. Why can't people live in them?" It's seniors

coming to say: "We need to invest in more affordable housing, because that hasn't

happened in too long." It's seniors coming to say: "We need to end renovictions. We

need to support the SAFER program. We need to end the fixed-term tenancy loopholes."

All are things that we've been able to do because of the good advice that they've

provided us.

[1:55 p.m.]

I think about their advice in health care, saying we should be allowing our seniors

to be able to have better choices around where they go in long-term care. We should

be able to invest in nurses and doctors so they get better care when they're in long-term

care. They should be able to invest in services so people can stay home longer — great

advice that we're trying to implement everywhere in this province.

They have great advice around affordability, things like Fair PharmaCare. Why don't

we make sure that seniors can actually afford the drugs that they need? Good advice,

good service, good assistance to people.

But it's not just advice. They take people who come to them at Kay's Place, Barclay

Manor, they come to people at Clothes and Collectibles, and they help them attach

to the services, the supports that they may not know exist.

I know seniors who are housed, who are living fabulous lives now — who at one point

were cold and alone on the streets — because of the best friend, the West End Seniors

Network. So please join me in celebrating their work.

OKANAGAN ANGLICAN CAMP

REBUILDING EFFORTS

B. Stewart: It's a pleasure to rise again. I want to draw attention today to a cause that is not

only close to my heart but resonates deeply within our community: the story of Camp

OAC, a beloved institution that has weathered storms since its time of inception in

However, this past summer the McDougall Creek wildfire wreaked havoc upon this cherished

camp, reducing it to ashes and leaving behind memories scorched by the unforgiving

flames.

Camp OAC is more than a physical space. It's a sanctuary where generations of community

members have found solace, formed lasting bonds, forged memories that linger like

a comforting embrace.

In the aftermath of the devastating wildfire, the resilience of the Camp OAC community

has shone brightly. Reports indicate that, to date, nearly $200,000 has been raised

for the rebuilding efforts. Yet the monumental task lies ahead, with a goal of $3

million to fully resurrect this haven for our youth.

With over 1,500 youth attending every year, and growing at 10 percent per annum, we

have a duty to ensure that Camp OAC rises from the ashes stronger than before. And

for those who have attended, for the generations to come, let our collective efforts

pave the way for a bright future.

As we face the challenges of rebuilding, let us remember that every contribution,

every effort, brings us closer to restoring the laughter and the joy around the campfire

or doing water sports in Lake Okanagan that help define Camp OAC.

I implore each and every one of you to consider what Camp OAC means to our community

and join hands in supporting its rebirth.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX

AND HOME HEATING COSTS

K. Falcon: Last month the Prime Minister exempted east coast homes from the carbon tax, a move

that acknowledged the rising and crushing cost of rising heating bills.

I've repeatedly called for this Premier to extend the same relief to B.C. residents

— exempt carbon tax on all home heating fuels — but he has outright refused. Now we

find the NDP is desperately scrambling to find another hollow, big and shiny distraction

to deflect from their inaction on skyrocketing living costs.

So here's a simple question for the Premier. Instead of looking for more big and shiny

distractions, why doesn't he follow every other Premier in the country and fight for

British Columbians in removing carbon taxes from all home heating fuels?

Hon. D. Eby: There's really no question that with rising interest rates, with global inflation

impacts we're seeing here in British Columbia, families are struggling. They need

help with affordability. I certainly would welcome the opposition joining with us

to call for fair treatment for British Columbians by the federal government in a number

of different programs, including the heat pump program.

You know, families that are dependent on fuel oil — the dirtiest, the most expensive

way to heat your home…. When they hear that fuel truck pull up and they know they're

going to get a bill for more than $1,000, they don't want to heat their homes this

way, but they can't afford to transition to something cheaper like CleanBC electricity.

If they had fair access to the same program that Atlantic Canadians do, they would

be able to switch.

[2:00 p.m.]

That's where our government's going. We're reducing emissions and costs at the same

time for British Columbians.

Now, I know the member across the way has abandoned climate action. I know he no longer

thinks it's a good idea. His big climate action plan is to fight forest fires and

to re-embrace Christy Clark's worn-out LNG plans from 2013.

But I'll tell you this. We're not going to quit action on climate, and we're not going

to quit looking for ways to provide affordability to British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, on this side of the House, we actually want to see climate results, which is

a lot different from what we're seeing over on that side of the House.

The fact of the matter is that winter heating bills are hitting British Columbians

right now, yet the Premier stands idly by, refusing to offer any relief to those that

are struggling. Families are being squeezed, with one in seven families now being

forced to choose between heating their homes and basic necessities like food and medicine.

British Columbia — remember — under this NDP government, has become the most unaffordable

province in the entire country.

That's your record, Premier.

Yet he is stubbornly refusing to fight for British Columbians and refuses to give

the public, one million of them — one million households — a break on their home heating

costs.

Again to the Premier, why won't this Premier stop his tax grab on families who can't

afford the heating bills because of his relentless carbon tax increases?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. People need support. They need support right now…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …and our government is taking action to provide affordability for people. We've got

to do more, and I sent a message out to ministers that they have to find more ways

to support people with affordability.

There is some good news about what we're doing in the province. I don't know if the

member saw, on the cover of the Globe and Mail this weekend, the coverage of the most livable cities in Canada.

I think it's fair to compare us with other provinces. What's it like to live in British

Columbia compared with other provinces? This data-driven project found that six of

the top-ten most livable cities in Canada are in British Columbia. That includes the

No. 1 and No. 2 spots.

In fact, 60 percent of the top 20 most livable cities in Canada are in British Columbia,

despite us being 14 percent of the population; 60 percent of the most livable cities

for young professionals are in B.C.; 70 percent of the most livable cities for people

entering mid-life are in B.C.; 60 percent of the most livable cities for newcomers

are in B.C.; and 50 percent of the most livable cities for entrepreneurs are in B.C.

We have a lot to be proud of in B.C., but I accept the member's point. We have a lot

more work to do on affordability. I'm happy to hear his next question, so I can go

through all we've been doing on affordability, knowing that we've got a lot more to

do.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

K. Falcon: This is truly incredible. He likes to go on about how it's the most livable place.

The reality is the people can't afford to live here.

Go ahead and clap. Yes, clap to the fact that you've got us to be the most unaffordable

jurisdiction in North America when it comes to housing. That's your record.

Families are desperate for actual relief on their home heating bills. That's the reality.

The NDP want to talk about their big and shiny distractions and hollow announcements

they want to make. But on every front, we see the same thing — this massive chasm

between the rhetoric on that side and the results that people actually have to live

and deal with every single day.

We know that further confidential B.C. Hydro documents that were obtained by the opposition

confirm there's growing panic as their cost B.C. scheme fails to account for the fact

that we need a heck of a lot more electricity generation to actually see emission

reductions. It's very revealing — what the NDP say when they think nobody is listening.

A simple question for the Premier: can the Premier confirm if he's going to overrule

the B.C. Utilities Commission and instruct B.C. Hydro to ignore the independent regulator?

Hon. D. Eby: The member wants to talk about B.C. Hydro? Let's talk about B.C. Hydro. Under his

government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Under the old government, B.C. Hydro rates skyrocketed 80 percent. That's an average

of 5 percent a year.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, since we've been sworn into government, B.C. Hydro rates are currently 15.6 percent

lower than the rate of inflation. They're not just lower than the inflation….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: They're not just lower than the rate of inflation. They're 12.4 percent lower than

the old government's ten-year rate plan. That means savings of $140 for average households

this year, $1,070 for average businesses and $526,000 for average industrial customers.

That's our record on B.C. Hydro, and we took the tolls off the bridges. The Leader

of the Opposition still says the tolls were a good idea. If he gets back in on this

side, what's he going to do?

Now, the member on that side had the opportunity to take action….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Let's listen.

Hon. D. Eby: He had the opportunity to take action on ICBC. He declined. We did. We reduced ICBC

premiums by $500 a year. He had the opportunity to take action on child care. We're

saving families $900 a month. We're going to keep looking for ways to provide affordability

in ways that he can only dream of.

M. de Jong: The confidential memo that the Leader of the Opposition referred to and that the Premier

did everything he could to ignore is dated November 20, one week ago today.

The memo makes it clear that the government sees itself as having a choice between,

on the one hand, respecting the independent jurisdictional authority of the BCUC or

providing the direction to overrule that authority and not, in effect, to actually

raise rates that British Columbia families would be paying to create a slush fund

that could be funnelled into the Premier's politically appointed task force.

The memo says the following: "Under a directed scenario, flexibility around allowable

net income could fund task force initiatives."

The question for the Premier: is he planning to overrule the BCUC and use B.C. Hydro

to funnel funds into his politicized task force?

Hon. D. Eby: Our record on B.C. Hydro speaks for itself. It's very obvious what the other side's

record was when they were on this side. They directed B.C. Hydro, through their independent

power producers program, to buy hydro we didn't need at times of the year when we

didn't need it…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …and increasing hydro rates for British Columbians by 80 percent.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, take it easy.

Hon. D. Eby: B.C. Hydro was forced to sell that power at a loss. And guess who paid for it? Every

single B.C. ratepayer. That's why, when we changed that program, B.C. Hydro rates….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: That's right. We cancelled it.

B.C. Hydro rates are 15.6 percent lower than inflation and 12 percent lower than the

rates that…. If those guys were on this side of the House, British Columbians would

be paying 12.6 percent higher hydro rates, because that is how they ran the province

— for their donors and friends. If they get back over here, they'll do it again.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Electricity we didn't need? From the party that opposed Site C. From the party that

opposed independent power, who today are confronted by their own documentation saying

that we don't have enough electricity in British Columbia.

Look, I know the Premier doesn't want to answer the question. It's a specific question.

It relates to a choice he and his government have acknowledged exists. He set up a

task force, a very political task force, and he's now confronted by having to either

respect the independent jurisdictional authority of the BCUC or overruling that via

direction to funnel funds into what would, in effect, be a political slush fund.

[2:10 p.m.]

The question for the Premier today…. He was all too anxious to stand up and answer

for the minister last week when we were confronted by these documents.

Is he going to overrule the BCUC, and is he going to create a slush fund, or is he

going to do the right thing and respect ratepayers in British Columbia and respect

the BCUC?

Hon. D. Eby: It is very difficult to listen to a member on the other side who was part of the government

that forced through IPP projects so B.C. Hydro sold hydro at a loss, which was paid

for by families across the province, and then they took big donations to fund their

party.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Over and over and over again they repeated that pattern.

Now, we got the big money out of politics.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members, please.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, British Columbians got the B.C. Liberals out of government, and then we got

the big money out of politics. And the results are in. B.C. Hydro rates are 12.4 percent

lower than that government's ten-year rate plans.

If they were still in government, the average family would be paying $140 more a year

in B.C. Hydro. So this member can make up whatever nonsense he wishes. But the reality

for families is $140 in savings, and we're going to do more.

WATER LICENSING PROCESS AND

REGIONAL WATER TABLES

S. Furstenau: Recently, the responsibility for the Water Sustainability Act was transferred from

the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. I

see this as a positive step after the Ministry of Forests failed to ensure that water

users across B.C. were properly supported to license their wells.

This is only the beginning of the necessary work for creating water security in B.C.

Regional water tables are key to ensuring success and engaging locals in a proactive,

positive and constructive way. Of equal importance is addressing the groundwater licensing

failures that have plagued this province and unnecessarily hurt farmers and small

businesses.

My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. Will he commit

to ensuring that the licensing of non-residential groundwater users will be reset

in good faith, that staff will work to support licensing processes and that there

will be regional water tables co-led with First Nations in every region in B.C.?

Hon. N. Cullen: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge my colleague's understanding and recommendation

of what was done recently in aligning the authorities of particularly water within

one ministry.

This is something that the Premier and I and others heard directly from the Cattlemen's

Association, from foresters, from people in industry, from environmental groups and,

particularly, from First Nations facing the unprecedented drought and the effects

of climate change that we see in so many of our communities, to devastating effect.

The member's specific question was with regards to water licensing. There had been

an initial three-year program that was then extended. We are working with water users

around the province to make sure that the licensing is done in a good way because,

as my friend would acknowledge, if we can't measure, then we can't manage. There remain

some challenges that we are facing on directly. We are just doing our realignment

of staffing resources right now.

With respect to water tables, which was also part of the question, we look to the

Koksilah leadership and the water table that was set up there, Nicola Valley and others

around the province, where First Nations are engaging with us in a government-to-government

way, setting up water tables to have those conversations with all of the water users

within a particular water basin.

That, in line with the $100 million watershed security fund we established, again

with First Nations partnership, paints towards the more bright future for British

Columbia so we can have those important conversations in advance of the drought conditions.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

OF SHIPBREAKING INDUSTRY

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the clear response from the minister. Glad to hear that, in particular,

the licensing process will be done in a good way.

The government's job is to protect people and the environment and to regulate industry.

Currently, there is a shipbreaking industry emerging in this province with no clear

regulatory framework attached to it. In Baynes Sound, where 50 percent of B.C.'s shellfish

is produced, a company is actively dismantling freighters full of toxic materials.

[2:15 p.m.]

The province has been silent about this unfolding environmental disaster and unclear

on who takes responsibility. K'ómoks First Nation and residents of the region can't

get answers to which ministry is responsible for regulating and enforcing shipbreaking

in this province, so it would be very helpful to get this on the record.

To the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, is his ministry responsible

for regulating and enforcing shipbreaking, and if it is not his ministry, then which

ministry is it?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I have been monitoring, as has the environmental

protection division, certain aspects of shipbreaking that have to do with the limited

parameters of the Environmental Management Act, that have to do with the release of

pollutants. This is complicated. It is also the Canadian Coast Guard as well as the

federal government that have jurisdiction over other aspects of this.

We are monitoring what is going on. We are waiting for the Canadian Coast Guard to

deal with the fact that there is a ship sitting for which no breaking activity has

been authorized by them. They are also saying that that ship cannot be moved. I know

the MLA for the area, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, has met with people in the area on a number of occasions.

We are continually monitoring. We are concerned. But this is a mixed jurisdiction,

and we are waiting for the federal government as well as looking for any violations

of our own laws in British Columbia.

FRASER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

B. Banman: This NDP government is replacing the four-lane Pattullo Bridge with another four-lane

bridge. They're replacing the four-lane Massey Tunnel with another four-lane tunnel.

They're supposedly widening the No. 1 in the Fraser Valley, but as of yet, nothing

of substance is happening. So far the only things that have been successfully expanded

are the bike lanes, which cities seem to be in charge of.

This NDP government failure to plan for the future is costing British Columbians.

It's costing all of us tax money as the costs of red tape, community benefit agreements

and the delays pile up and up. It's also costing British Columbians precious time

with their families as they sit in endless traffic grid, idling.

In my home community of Abbotsford…

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

B. Banman: …parents are losing precious time with their children and sitting idle in the traffic.

My question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Infrastructure: when can Abbotsford residents

expect the highway to be widened to six lanes or more so they can get home faster

after work to spend time with their kids?

Hon. R. Fleming: It's great to hear from this member on this project. I know it was so three months

ago that he was a member of a different party, but I didn't hear from him once on

this project in all of that time. Congratulations on switching affiliations and discovering

that Highway 1 for the Fraser Valley is a key infrastructure priority of this government.

I'm sure he can't help but notice, driving through the corridor, that there is significant

construction activity happening on Highway 1 now. I'm sure he knows, from talking

to former and current municipal colleagues, who we're working with on expanding this

important trade corridor, which, of course, links British Columbia to the rest of

Canada….

We were reminded of its importance for goods movement during the atmospheric rivers

two years ago. We are working with those local governments. We are working with First

Nations communities to improve this corridor.

It has not had significant investment in it since the 1960s, and now there are literally

billions of dollars allocated by this government into making the most significant

improvements to Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley corridor in generations. That's

what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.

B. Banman: I didn't hear a date.

How can residents of the Fraser Valley believe anything this government says when

they have failed to build a desperately needed hospital in Surrey?

[2:20 p.m.]

They are sending more and more and more of our kids to school in portables, and they

can't get even one metre –– that's right, just one metre –– of new SkyTrain track

built for this new station in Surrey Langley

Hon. R. Fleming: There's quite a gamut of issues there, but I'll take the question as being about the

Surrey Langley SkyTrain. Again, our government, the first government in 30 years to

be building, south of the Fraser, SkyTrain additions….

This member ought to know, because I believe we've briefed him on the details of this

project. It is exciting. It is new. It is going to be eight new stations, a 17-kilometre

extension, billions of dollars. We've confirmed a federal contribution of $1.3 billion.

Transit-oriented development is a feature. The municipalities that are part of this

line are updating their neighbourhood plans as we speak, and the project is underway.

Preconstruction activity is happening right now. They're widening the Fraser Highway

in order to build the guide rails down on the new line. There are workers being hired

on the project. We're in the advanced stages of an RFP process. This is going to be

the most exciting mass transit project in decades in British Columbia. It is going

to….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: It is evidence of our new way of doing business as a government, because no longer

are we taking a "Build it and they will come" approach. We are saying: let us align

our transportation investments with our interest in building tens of thousands of

units of affordable housing — transportation, housing, hand in hand. That's a national

conversation the government of British Columbia is leading.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

AND ENERGY COSTS AND SUPPLY

P. Milobar: Well, it all becomes clear now why the Energy Minister felt the need to write herself

a note, saying, "Help the Premier understand the scale," because the Premier, based

on his previous answer, certainly doesn't understand.

We don't have enough electricity in British Columbia, and they've cancelled how many

projects? In fact, two weeks ago, the government tried to dismiss their own cost B.C.

data, which paints a very grim picture of forcing the B.C. economy to grind to a halt

because of a lack of electrical capacity.

Then, only last week, the memo from the Energy Minister admitted the same thing. Industries

are being forced to scale back their projects due to a lack of electricity. Now another

piece falls into place: a confidential briefing note from B.C. Hydro itself that shows

the NDP's cost B.C. scam is floundering big-time because of a lack of electricity.

Again, with mounting evidence from these internal sources, why is the Premier putting

a cost B.C. scheme that will shrink the economy by 10 percent, massive job cuts across,

and cut family incomes by $11,000 a year?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, it's true: our government has created an investment environment where we have

a long line of proponents that want to invest right here in B.C. It's also true that

because we have prioritized clean energy projects, we have multiple hydrogen producers

that want to locate in B.C., across the province. Just three of these projects require

1,500 megawatts of power. This is massive, and we don't want to do what the old government

did.

We know what they did. In 2004, there was a proposal for an aluminum facility in Port

Alberni. Now, the previous government had a choice: work with the proponent, find

a way forward. They were looking for a significant investment in electricity, 150

megawatts.

Instead of working with the proponent, they hit them with a $1.3 billion bill under

the B.C. Hydro tariff and told them that unless they paid $1.3 billion, the project

couldn't go ahead. Well, guess what happened. The proponent walked, and Port Alberni

lost a transformative economic opportunity.

Now we face a similar challenge in Prince George with the Fortescue proposal. They

need 1,000 megawatts of electricity. This is a transformative economic investment

for Prince George. We've got to find a way forward. We're not going to do what the

old government did and force that investment somewhere else. We're going to find a

way to move forward.

[2:25 p.m.]

We know we need a lot more electricity. That's why we issued, through B.C. Hydro….

That's why B.C. Hydro issued a 500-megawatt renewable power call, the first…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: …in a generation. We're going to keep doing that work, but we've got to ensure affordability

for British Columbians. We've got to ensure economic opportunities for the entire

province.

P. Milobar: I know this party loves to backdate things and look at things in the past, but let's

look at what's happening in real time under their watch. This is the government that

said…. Their minister said Site C was on time and on budget when the keys to government

were handed over to them. Instead, we see it at least $10 billion over budget and

way delayed.

This is the government that cancelled IPPs, and now it's trying to have them come

back because they're finally acknowledging they don't have enough power. This is the

government whose Energy Minister, just last week, wrote a note saying: "We don't have

the power." They're going to have to downsize the same investment this Premier just

tried praising.

It's the NDP's cost B.C. scheme that is failing. They basically decided to politically

interfere with the BCUC in a desperate attempt to try to look like they were doing

something. Secret backroom deals, bullying and intimidating businesses, killing green

jobs, steamrolling the independent regulator — that is actually what's been revealed

by the steady stream of these confidential documents. Instead of results, we get a

blame game. The minister's memo actually confesses: "I worry B.C. Hydro is trying

to dump their problems onto us."

Once again, why is the Premier making B.C. Hydro ratepayers pay the price for his

failing cost B.C. scheme?

Hon. D. Eby: If it weren't the case that the evidence of the last five years was the complete opposite

of what the member said, if we weren't currently delivering 12.4 percent savings over

what the old government's rate plan was for all British Columbians, saving families

more than $100, saving businesses more than $1,000…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …saving industrial customers more than $100,000 a year….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: There is only one party that's prioritized ratepayers in this House, and that is this

government. If that party was on this side of the House, families would be paying

at least $140 a year more for hydro.

There's only one party that is delivering on a clean economy, including 450 amazing

family-supporting jobs in Maple Ridge, and a long line of other proponents that want

to invest here.

We want them to invest here, and we have a task force to deliver the power to make

sure they can invest here, but we're not going to do it at the expense of British

Columbians. It's going to be for the benefit of British Columbians for generations

to come.

T. Shypitka: Let's be clear on the clean economy here. B.C. United were the ones that kickstarted

the clean power industry. Want to hear any groans on the other side?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let's listen to the question.

T. Shypitka: Introduction of IPPs, the standing offer program of 2008, the Clean Energy Act in

2010. The NDP have fought it all the way. For example, in 2019, the NDP attacked clean

energy producers, made up mainly by Indigenous nations, wrongfully claiming B.C. didn't

need the power. Now they're trying to scoop them all back in again. It's absolutely

shameful.

The NDP have left B.C. in this position, with a power shortage that we're facing today.

Instead of owning up, they're ramping up their political games. Why has the Premier

wasted years doing nothing but kill clean power projects, slashing green jobs and

creating the power shortage we face today?

Hon. D. Eby: Can you imagine how transformative it would have been in Port Alberni had there been

a clean aluminum plant in that city? That's a city that needs economic development.

Instead of facilitating it, the previous government killed it with $1 billion bill.

For regular ma-and-pa hydro customers across the province, families in this province,

they hit them with an 80 percent rate increase for B.C. Hydro. Their rate plans, if

they had stayed in government, would have hit them even more.

The member says now, apparently, that the other side of the House, they suddenly believe

in a clean economy, despite the fact that they just released their climate plan that

says their big plan is: "We're going to put out the fires." Okay. Well, that's a good

start.

[2:30 p.m.]

Okay. Well, what else are you going to do? What else are you going to do?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, we're going to warm up Christy Clark's LNG plan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, for God's sake, please.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: We've reduced emissions. We've grown the economy. Since we launched CleanBC, B.C.'s

GDP growth has been the highest in Canada among large provinces. B.C. workers earn

the highest wages in Canada. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Canada.

Last year's job creation was three times higher than what the Leader of the Opposition

issued in a press release when he was Finance Minister. Exports are up 41 percent,

foreign direct investments up 250 percent.

We're going to keep delivering for British Columbians: affordability first, economic

development for this province that is clean — for our kids, for the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: They hate it, but we love it, and so do British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

Hon. R. Kahlon: By leave, I move:

[That the Sessional Order adopted by the House on October 5, 2023, enabling certain

proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections, be amended by:

a. striking the text of

section 8 and replacing it as follows: “Section A consist

of 14 Members, not including the Chair, being eight Members of the Government Caucus,

three Members of the Official Opposition Caucus, one Member of the Third Party Caucus,

one Member of the Fourth Party Caucus, and one Independent Member.” and,

b. adding Ravi Parmar and Adam Walker to the membership of

Section A as set out in section10.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 59.

Government Motions on Notice

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 59, standing in my name on the order paper.

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1), the adjournment time of the sittings

of the House commencing at 1.30 p.m. on

a. Monday, November 27, 2023, be modified to 9 p.m. with a recess from 6.30 to 7 p.m.;

b. Tuesday, November 28, 2023, be modified to 9 p.m. with a recess from 6.30 to 7

p.m.; and,

c. Wednesday, November 29, 2023, be modified to 10 p.m. with a recess from 6 to 7

p.m.

And further, that this modified time of adjournment extend to the application of Standing

Order 3 and to the

interpretation of the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the

House in the Sessional Order adopted by the House on October 5, 2023, enabling certain

proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections.]

T. Stone: I just wanted to weigh in again on this motion today. I would start off by just saying

that it would be refreshing if the Government House Leader actually, when he stood

up to move a motion that changes the calendar, the hours of sitting in this place,

said more than just: "I move the motion."

A rationale for why, a justification for why this is necessary, in his opinion, would,

I think, be the least that he could do for all members, if there was truly respect

for every member in this place. All members are elected, first and foremost, as MLAs.

If there was true respect there, the Government House Leader would give us a reason,

a rationale, for this constant changing of the parliamentary sitting hours for this

particular session.

He has done this three times in the past week — three times. Last Monday the Government

House Leader moved a motion to move to a late-night sitting for a couple of hours.

He then, a couple of days later, moved a second motion to provide for a few more hours

of sitting time. Now here we are today with a third motion saying that, in his opinion,

another hour and a half of time is required tonight and tomorrow and two hours on

Wednesday of this week, without providing any background or context or rationale for

why this is necessary.

This matters because the urgency around the need for these changes certainly hasn't

come from the official opposition. For the official opposition, the best that can

be done in our situation is to actually respond to the legislative agenda that the

government brings forward within the time parameters, the allocations of time that

we have in this place.

[2:35 p.m.]

There certainly haven't been any efforts on the part of the official opposition that

should be interpreted by the Government House Leader as being anything but cooperative

in terms of wanting to make this place work and wanting to ensure that there is a

balance between the government — which is its right — being able to bring forward

a legislative agenda and that there be adequate debate time on that said agenda, balanced

with the opposition doing what it is predominantly here to do, and that is to ask

those tough questions, query, hold the government's feet to the fire, ensure that

there's accountability on the legislation.

Frankly, as I pointed out in my intervention not once but twice last week on previous

motions to change the hours of this place, I've said to the Government House Leader

that it's not the opposition that's bringing forward bills that require amending because

they're sloppy. It's not the opposition's prerogative to bring forward legislation

that must be debated in this place. We bring forward private members' bills. They

don't ever get called. It's the government's job to manage this place and bring forward

their legislation.

This latest piece today is egregious at a whole other level, in the sense of this.

There are five bills that are still before this House — five — four of which involve

housing and substantive changes to housing legislation in this province. Whether you

support the changes or you don't support the changes, there are a lot of changes being

made.

In many respects, this collection of housing legislation is creating a tremendous

amount of activity, a flurry of concern, and many stakeholders and the public, obviously,

as well, are wanting certain questions answered about the government's intentions

around the package of housing changes that the government has opted to bring forward.

Bill 44, the Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act. These are some

pretty significant changes that are being roundly criticized in some quarters and

not so in other quarters. These are big changes to public hearings for rezoning applications,

the permits for accessory dwelling units provincewide, upzoning changes, a whole bunch

of new rules that are going to apply in the housing market.

There's a whole wide range of questions that need to be asked about this legislation.

While this bill has been before the House and some questions have been asked, the

official opposition hasn't yet put forth all of its questions, and we intend to. That's

called doing your job. That's what we're going to continue to do.

Bill 45, the miscellaneous statutes bill. Again, in my previous two interventions

on these similar motions last week, I said that one of the erosions of this place

is the increasing reliance on miscellaneous statutes bills, not just for what they

were originally intended, which is to provide for generally minor changes across a

whole range of bills. You do it all in one bill. That, arguably, when applied in that

manner, is good housekeeping.

To embed in a miscellaneous stats bill very significant changes that impact shelters

and encampments in this province and impose some very severe, frankly egregious, limitations

on the autonomy of local governments to take action within the parameters of the constitution

and previous court decisions…. Some pretty fundamental changes that need to be properly

debated in this place. You bet we have a lot to ask of this legislation with questions

we intend on posing to the government.

Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act. This creates

a whole new tax scheme on new development with respect to amenity cost charges and

development cost charges. Again, hugely significant in the sense of just what the

scope and scale of this change actually looks like it. It warrants proper debate in

this place and a good amount of time for the opposition to ask those questions on

behalf of local governments and the public and stakeholders.

Bill 47, the transit-oriented development piece of legislation. This bill is one that

also makes fundamental changes. We haven't even got to this one yet. There is undoubtedly

a whole wide range of accountability required on it.

[2:40 p.m.]

Last but certainly not least is Bill 48, which is the one non-housing piece of legislation.

It's the Labour Statutes Amendment Act that creates some pretty significant changes

for the regulatory scheme with respect to gig workers.

I would point out that each of these bills was introduced in November. Not when we

started sitting in October; they were introduced in November. In fact, the labour

statutes bill was only introduced on November 20. The other bill is being introduced

in the late second week of November.

The housing legislation, as I said, is a significant change, a change that we know

and the public knows this government has been contemplating and has been working on

for at least the 18 months that the Premier has been the Premier. Yet this legislation

wasn't brought forward in the last legislative session.

They didn't publicly announce the specifics of what they were doing at any point after

that last session. They didn't put it on the table at the beginning of this session

so that there could be that much more opportunity for the public but also the legislators

in this place to actually dive into the legislation and make sure that it's receiving

the scrutiny that it deserves. We find ourselves instead, here, with four days left.

I said in both my previous interventions on the previous motions that this is not

about an extra hour here or an unwillingness on the part of the official opposition

to be here for an extra hour one night or two hours another night or whatever. I actually

said both previous times, and I'll say it again, that we'd be quite happy to extend

the hours of a session.

But it should be done at the front end of a session. It should be done with some consultation

and engagement with the House Leaders of the other caucuses, not done on a piecemeal

basis where, basically, the government, through the Government House Leader — it's

really the Premier's office through the Government House Leader — dictates not just

the legislation that comes in front of this place, which, as I said, is the government's

prerogative….

The government is now in the business, through the Government House Leader, of dictating

exactly how many hours they will allow for there to be debate on each piece of legislation

and jam us, as an official opposition, by introducing these major pieces of legislation

with only a matter of weeks to properly scrutinize them.

I can predict what the theme of the next couple of days is going to be. Instead of

the government looking inward and going: "You know, perhaps we could have done this

better and managed this place a little better. Perhaps it would have been better if

we'd have actually brought this legislation forward in a timely fashion, maybe doing

it last session or making it exposure legislation so that the opposition and the public

have a chance to look at it. Maybe there are ways that we could improve that…."

What's going to happen here is…. The narrative that the government is going to try

to drive is the suggestion that the opposition somehow is dragging its heels, that

the opposition is somehow filibustering or not being willing to actually ask, in a

timely fashion, the questions and impose limits on ourselves as to how much time and

how many questions we're going to ask on each particular piece of legislation. That

is nonsense.

The official opposition and, in fact, all opposition members have a role, a very important

role. That is to properly scrutinize legislation and to actually identify flaws, suggest

improvements and compliment legislation in areas where we actually can find some common

agreement.

The transit-oriented development bill, Bill 47 — we've already said that this is a

bill we have a lot of questions about. We're going to canvass hard in committee. But

this is a bill that we can generally get behind and support. Why? It's a piece of

legislation that embodies concepts and ideas around transit-oriented development that

the Leader of the Opposition and our caucus have been talking about for quite some

time. So we will support that bill.

But we're not going to support this motion again today, just as we haven't supported

the last two. It's not about the extra hour and a half on a day with a half-hour dinner

break and whatnot, as ridiculous as that is. This is on the principle of — and, actually,

our request to the government, through the Government House Leader — managing this

place better.

[2:45 p.m.]

We're here for four days. There is a very important session coming up in the spring,

assuming the Premier lives up to his word, and we're actually here for that entire

session.

But surely to goodness, the government already knows at this point what their legislative

priorities are likely going to be for that spring session. Let's work together on

mapping out the hours required in the calendar and so forth and come into this place

at the front end of a session with certainty for everyone. Certainty for all the legislators

in this place, for all the staff that work in our caucuses and in this building. Certainty

for the public. Let's put the critical legislation on the table much earlier in the

session so that there's appropriate debate.

We're hearing from legislators, by the way, in other parts of the Commonwealth that

when you express to them this package of housing bills that I just walked us through,

and when you say that, basically, we have to finish these four housing bills in the

next four days — not a heck of a lot of hours, of time, on top of, maybe, the last

two weeks of session, time on and off, when the bills have come up — people think

you're actually trying to pull a fast one on them. That's not possible, they say.

In our jurisdiction, speaking as the other individuals here, this type of sweeping

amendment or significant changes to the legislation actually are done over weeks,

if not months of time. Sometimes, it can span a year or two. I'm not saying that's

necessarily the ideal either, but the point is we surely have to be able to do better

than this.

As the government says pretty much every other day now, we're actually going to restrict

the debate to…. We're going to add two more hours tonight, and we want to get done

44 and 47, and then we're going to do this tomorrow. No. Lay out your legislative

agenda earlier. Let us ask our questions and get to all the accountability that we

need to on this legislation and ensure that there is a balance to and fro on this.

The last thing I'll say is this. What is the government's intention? We're sure as

heck not going to skip over critical components of these bills. With the hours remaining,

notwithstanding an hour here or an extra two hours there, what is the government going

to do when they find themselves, inevitably, again, in this place on Thursday morning,

going: "Oh, my gosh, we still have two bills that aren't done yet, and it's Thursday"?

What's the government's plan then?

Is it to add another day onto the calendar? Is it to require all members to come back

next week, or is it more likely going to be another session of the imposed time allocation

and closure on top of all of the fiddling around with the hours of this calendar.

It's just not a place that we should be. It's no way to run a Legislative Assembly.

Again, as I said twice now in the last week, we implore the Government House Leader

— and, through him, the government — to do much, much better on this and stop jamming

the opposition. Let's make sure that this legislation gets the critical analysis that's

required. That requires the government to actually get its act together in terms of

how they manage the legislative agenda that they bring forward on the front end of

every single legislative session.

A. Olsen: I rise to speak on motion 59 on behalf of the B.C. Green caucus.

I just want to say that now this is the third time we've changed the timing of this

legislative sitting. I suspect we'll probably be back here again later in this week

to extend this sitting, because I can't imagine that the single largest package of

housing policy that government has brought forward, spread out over about a half-dozen

bills, would warrant anything other than the amount of air that it takes in order

to get through each clause.

[2:50 p.m.]

I have, as I expressed last week, a growing concern for the management of this House,

the growing blurring of the lines between the different roles, the diminishment of

the role of the Legislative Assembly as all of the members together, recognizing the

different roles that each of us plays.

Government brings forward their legislative agenda, if you can call it an agenda.

They bring forward their legislation, and we in the official opposition have to ensure

that there's sufficient amount of air given to these initiatives.

If the government doesn't provide the members of this Legislative Assembly, if they

don't provide the members of the public, if they don't provide the media the time

to actually be able to know what's going on…. Not only have we not had the benefit

of time to understand the potential impact of these legislations; we've not been given

the information that's needed — the data, the modelling and the analysis that's behind

the various initiatives. And we learned that we're not going to get that information

until after the initiative has been passed by this House.

We are moving in a very, very dangerous direction as we undermine the various roles

that we have celebrated throughout history as being the balance that the public requires

of their Legislative Assembly, the people that are elected here.

The Government House Leader arbitrarily sets the calendar. The Government House Leader

also is responsible for the legislative agenda. Then there is this culture in here

that if the members of the opposition want to stand up…. How dare we want to stand

up and speak using the allotted time that each member, elected from their communities,

wants to use and is entitled to use to have their voice heard on the pieces of legislation?

How dare we take up more time than the Government House Leader has arbitrarily set

for us?

Again, yet another indication of the dangerous direction that this supposed democratic

institution is tracking on, where the government uses the agenda, the calendar, to

limit the debate of legislation.

We have a member who works in our caucus, who came from the New Zealand Parliament,

absolutely taken aback that the scale of changes in the housing legislation would

be introduced and passed in three weeks. You know, when we say it should take time

— six months, 12 months — we say: "Well, we need to respond to a housing crisis, a

housing affordability crisis. We can't take six to 12 months to do that."

But you know, an organized government with an actual agenda, working towards a goal,

is much more coordinated and has a far greater detail of planning than what is being

demonstrated here, which actually calls into question and brings into question the

quality of the legislative initiatives that they're bringing forward.

This government does not want us to debate this legislation. There's this constant

tension around whether or not we're taking up too much time, as members of the opposition,

asking questions. It's like there's an offence taken that the opposition would be

questioning the supreme intelligence of the other side or something. That's the impression

that's left. It's like there's an offence.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been talking to members of the public about their

knowledge of the proposed housing legislation, and I'm shocked at the lack of awareness

of the legislative initiatives that are before this House that are going to impact

the people that I'm talking to, whether property owners or renters and non-homeowners.

It will impact both of those.

I'm just going to say this. We set these artificial deadlines. We create this fake

tension around those artificial deadlines to try to harry the debate, to make it feel

like there is some offence taken to actually wanting to stand up and speak to it,

which is the right of every member that's elected to this democratic institution.

I and my colleague from the B.C. Green caucus are prepared to stay here until this

legislation has had the full benefit of the debate, every clause to the end. We're

prepared to do the work until it's done.

[2:55 p.m.]

A. Walker: I'll be brief. I just want to begin by thanking the B.C. NDP House Leader. The previous

vote that just took place, well, maybe it went quickly, but it fixed an issue that

for two months, as an independent member, I wasn't even allowed voting when a division

was called.

That meant that on amendments that I brought forward, depending on who was in the

room, it would mean that I wasn't able to vote for my community. I want to thank the

House Leader and his staff for getting that resolved.

I want to thank the House Leader as well for providing notice for this motion. This

is not a surprise to anyone. It's been in the order paper for a while now. I think

that clarity is useful for all members in this House.

I see this as a desire not to invoke closure. I think that is something that should

be applauded. Yes, we're going to be here late at night. Yes, it means that we're

going to change our schedule. But to ensure that all members of the opposition are

able to speak, as the previous speaker said, to every clause in every bill that's

before us and truly represent our community, I give credit to government for that.

But there is still the issue with the way this is structured in that I can't be in

two places at once. The result is that we have legislation moving forward in two different

chambers. I have to decide, as do all members of opposition if they want to speak

to a bill, which they're going to speak to.

I found myself in a situation where I want to hold government to account for the changes

in housing in our community. I've been sitting in on Bill 44, as has the minister.

Those are long times, but we've got employment changes coming to the gig economy.

This is work that I spent a considerable amount of time on. I heard from hundreds

of workers across the province, and I haven't once had an opportunity to speak in

public in this chamber about some of the concerns I have with that legislation.

It is broken when a member of this Legislative Assembly is prohibited by rules of

government to not be able to speak to legislation that is still not being addressed

by this.

In wrapping up quickly, I want to thank the Speaker for the clarity of the ruling

in the small chambers as far as motions and amendments on committee. The Clerks and

Chairs, I think, are all on alignment there. I do want to thank the House Leader and

government for.... We're in the circumstance where we've got a lot of legislation.

We're at the end of session. I believe that the government is doing the best it can

to create space for everyone to speak. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this

as well.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, you have heard the question. Division has been

called.

[3:00 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

yeas — 50

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Banman

Beare

Begg

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Rankin

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Rustad

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Yao

nays — 25

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, housing

statutes amendment act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 48; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

The Chair: I call the committee to order.

We're dealing with the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, Bill 48.

G. Kyllo: It is great to be back.

Last week we finished off with a series of questions around the additional 20 percent

premium that the minister and his staff have concluded is the appropriate amount to

offset some of the waiting time for those that are involved in the ride-hail and delivery

service industry. I did ask: what was it that the minister relied on in identifying

and coming up with the 20 percent as the appropriate number? The minister did provide

some anecdotal information, but I certainly feel that it's worthy of some additional

inquiry.

I do appreciate that many of those individuals that are working in this industry work

multiple apps at different times. One of the items that the minister did allude to

was…. For some individuals, they may have to wait a series of minutes, maybe even

up to 20 minutes or so, before accepting another ride.

The very important piece…. One of the most important aspects of individuals working

in this sector is to have the opportunity and the flexibility to determine which different

service requests they choose to take. In many instances, it's up to the driver. They

set the standard or set the determination on whether they're going to take that immediate,

next available ride or delivery opportunity or not, as well as with different individuals

saying they might work on different apps all at the same time.

I'm just wondering if the minister can provide a bit more light into how it was determined

that 20 percent was the appropriate level to provide as a premium above the minimum

wage rate. Then also, for individuals that are working multiple apps at the same time….

How on earth will the delivery service provider in any way, shape or form be able

to determine what the actual earnings were over a set period if that driver is engaged

in multiple apps at different times?

I know there's a lot there. Maybe if the minister could just start by providing a

bit more context on how they came up with the determination that 20 percent was the

appropriate level.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, it is good to be back.

When we decided 120 percent of B.C.'s minimum wage, it was recognized that the workers

do wait, between the assignments and waiting for the assignments, and they are not

being paid for that period.

When you look at traditional work out there, whether a customer comes or not, you're

at the job, and you are getting paid. There was a recognition by the companies and

by the workers that that period somehow needed to be covered.

We looked at other jurisdictions. California — they came up with 120 percent of their

minimum wage. UFCW, which is one of the leading unions in Canada, and Uber jointly

approached us and said 120 percent makes sense in recognition of the workers who are

having to wait for the assignments. We believe that that is a good compromise, and

it is a good start.

I have said in media before, and I said publicly, that we will monitor. We need to

have more data. Once we have the data — how the workers are being paid over a period

of time…. Is there a way to tell how much, actually, is the wait between assignments

and wait for the assignment? What does that look like? And considering all of that,

are they being paid at least minimum wage? So we will monitor going forward.

Then, again, we will sit down with the companies and workers and their representatives

and see if there are still some gaps. But this is a good start, looking at other jurisdictions,

setting a level playing field for all companies and making sure that everyone has

the same level for competing. I think that is the right thing to do.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

There are a few points there. I'll start with just a comment on one of the responses

the minister had indicated, and that was the need for additional data. I think that

is something that I've posed a number of questions on, that in a lot of the consultative

work that was undertaken both by the minister and his staff was the absence or the

lack of a robust method to actually capture and segregate the data.

With specific reference to the amount of potential time that drivers or food delivery

individuals may be waiting between assignments, was any effort undertaken to reach

out to those involved in the industry to actually ask for any raw data or information

that would establish the amount of time and the pay that may be paid out to different

contractors that are engaged in either the food delivery or the ride-hail business?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: When we met with the platform companies, met with drivers in person, online, and their

representatives, it was recognized that there is a legitimate waiting period when

the drivers are actually waiting. They're on, but they are waiting for the next assignment

or to get to the assignment. That's why the companies believe that 120 percent would

represent and compensate some of that period. They recognize that the drivers need

to have that period covered. So that's why 120 percent. Otherwise, it'll be just a

minimum wage.

I think that's how the companies…. They recognize, the drivers told us this, and that's

why this 120 percent is to pay for the period that they legitimately are waiting for

the next assignment or going to an assignment.

G. Kyllo: Obviously, just to be clear, there is no recognition of the additional time with respect

to the time allotment. It is the anticipation…. The minister has indicated that this

extra lift, the 20 percent above minimum wage, is intended to compensate for the potential

wait time. I don't know that it's been established that either ride-hail or food delivery

service individuals working the space now are actually earning the minimum wage rate.

I don't think that's been actually established.

[3:30 p.m.]

Most of the companies that have provided information have suggested that the actual

wage rate earned by ride-hailing and food delivery service providers is significantly

higher than minimum wage, but I do appreciate the minister's indicating that the 20

percent is intended to look after that wait period.

The challenge I have…. I think I'll just go back to the question. Was there any effort

undertaken by the minister or the ministry staff to reach out to the different ride-hailing

or food delivery service companies to get a sense or even to request any data, empirical

data, that they obviously must be accumulating over the last number of years to determine

what the actual wait time is, on average, for those that are working in a specific

space or in this sector?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

If that effort was undertaken to determine from the ride-hail companies and if they

provided any information whatsoever with respect to, from their perspective, what

they felt that wait period or wait time was between assignments…?

Hon. H. Bains: That information would be very useful, and we did ask for it. I think the member will

appreciate the complexities in this type of work. The workers could have three apps

open, and they are waiting for the assignment. Each three of those companies could

record that as they're waiting, so that will complicate it in calculating for each

company.

So because of some of those complexities, the companies advised us that they are not

able to give us correct information about waiting. But it was recognized that there

is waiting. How much, the average — that piece of information hopefully we'll get,

going forward.

But Uber and UFCW, like I said, came to us and suggested that 120 percent is the right

amount to compensate the waiting that the drivers are having to incur between assignments.

[3:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: I don't know that I quite heard an answer. The minister did reference that there was

consultation, both with, obviously, those working in the sector and the platform operators.

Did the platform operators refuse to provide any information? Or did they provide

information that maybe was not as telling as what the minister may have been looking

for?

I'm just trying to get a sense of if there was that direct engagement with the platform

operators and if there was a refusal of the platform operators to provide any empirical

data with respect to the number of drivers on the system and what the estimated wait

time may be of those that are currently using their apps.

Hon. H. Bains: The companies did not refuse. The conversation was there between the ministry and

app-based companies or platform companies. But they did advise us that because of

the complexity that I just mentioned, they may not be able to give us a credible number

because a driver may be on one, two or more apps at a time, so who are they waiting

for?

That is the kind of complexity. That's just one example. There may be a number of

other complexities the companies face. They could not come up with a credible number

for us to take, and they would say: "How would you justify the numbers that we may

use?" So I think it was the complexity behind the question and what their ability

was to collect that information.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

Can the minister confirm, is it the intention that the additional 20 percent is to

cover the estimation of the entirety of the wait time that an individual working in

this sector may have between assignments, or is the 20 percent intended to represent

and offset a portion of that potential time that they're waiting between assignments?

Hon. H. Bains: Because of the complexity that I said, no one was there to say that this is exactly

what the waiting period is, this is exactly what 20 percent will compensate for. But

the recognition was there that there is a waiting period. Legitimately, drivers are

waiting.

In recognition of that, Uber and UFCW believe 20 percent would cover all of it or

part of it, but we will not know until we have the entire data available to us. Like

I said before, we will monitor and see what data is available, and then we will see

if there are gaps still.

Again, to this House, 120 percent is the floor. I mean, if the drivers are making

more money, good for them. The idea here is that, over the pay period, if their earnings

are less than 120 percent, then the platform companies will make up the difference

by topping it up.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that. The minister has been clear, and I would agree that there are many

complexities. I did hear, in a previous answer, the minister indicating that the 20

percent was intended to cover a portion of the wait time, maybe not in its entirety.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think for those who are listening at home, if the base wage rate, minimum wage in

the province, is $16.75 an hour, the 20 percent roughly reflects a little over $3

an hour, an additional premium that would be reflective on account of this 20 percent

increase.

Now, I think it is important, and I appreciate the minister has engaged and now recognized

the complexity of individuals that may be working with multiple apps open at the same

time. Obviously, with private contractors as they currently are, having the ability

to refuse the next job, not being required to take the next job, which would increase

the waiting time that an individual may have….

As I've heard from both ride-hailers and food delivery service apps, they may choose,

for a varying number of personal reasons, why they may not take that next delivery.

They may be looking for a ride that's going into another jurisdiction or another area.

But having said that, I think it is important for us to have a better understanding

from the minister and this government if it is the intention for this premium, which

I appreciate is now currently 20 percent…. The Minister has indicated that that would

be subject to review, likely, as they start to monitor the amount of data they can

collect over the maybe months or years ahead. But I think it is important to have

an understanding.

Is it the intention that the premium would be to offset the entirety of the average

wait time that you may see between individuals working in the sector, between job

assignments, or if it is only intended to provide a portion thereof? If the minister

could just provide some clarity on that.

Hon. H. Bains: I think I answered the question last time. Not knowing exactly what the wait time

is and at least one company agreeing to pay 120 percent along with one of the unions,

I recognize that there is a waiting period. How much waiting period? Will 20 percent

cover the entirety of it or a portion of it? We'll find out, I guess, when we monitor

and collect the data.

That's the best answer that I could give you. It is to recognize that there is a waiting

period. It may not cover the entire waiting period. It may be a portion of it. But

until we have that data for us to compare, it's hard to know what portion of this

20 percent will cover, if it's the entirety or not.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the candour of the minister, and I certainly appreciate where we're at.

The challenge is because the detail is not here in the legislation. That's why I think

it's really important to get on the record what the intention is.

I'll pose the question this way. If there was empirical data that determined that

the average wait time of drivers between assignments was 30 percent, would the minister

be recognizing or recommending a 30 percent increase at this point in time?

Hon. H. Bains: At this time, we have made a decision that 120 percent is the number to go with. Then,

like I said before, we will monitor the next six months to a year to see what data

is available to us. Based on that data, we will sit down with the companies again.

Again, there is no intention by me or this government to make a decision behind closed

doors and just come up with a number.

The idea is…. Like we did before, we will meet with and engage with the platform companies

and the workers and their advocates and see what numbers are actually provided by

the data. If there are still some gaps, then we will engage with them, and we'll make

that decision at that time.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that, but the situation that the minister has referenced is exactly what

has happened. The minister has made an arbitrary decision, not based on empirical

data or fact. The minister has indicated that "When we decided…."

The "we" — maybe the minister can share specifically who that is. My suggestion is

that "we" is likely that this minister and his government have made the determination.

Based on the reference that the minister has shared, it was the rate that's been applied

in California and a rate that a union organization has actually suggested and recommended

to the minister.

[3:45 p.m.]

A couple of questions come to mind. One is: can the minister confirm, on the record,

when the minister references "We have decided," specifically who "we" is? And then

also, as that empirical data is determined and collected over the next number of months

or years, if that number….

I have suggested: if the minister was provided with data that showed that 30 percent

was the average wait time, would that number be 30 percent? Likewise, if that data

in the future shows that it's only 15 percent, would ride-hail delivery drivers and

service delivery drivers potentially expect a 5 percent reduction? Or is 20 percent

the floor, and we will only, potentially, see incremental increases above that?

Again, none of the details are in the legislation. We have to take the minister and

this government at their word, going forward. So I'm hoping the minister can provide

just a bit more comment on those two specific areas.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member is moving about a year ahead of himself. I have said that we will

monitor, and we will make those decisions at that time.

G. Kyllo: Well, look. The details are not in the legislation. The minister is sharing with us

that, largely, he and his ministry have not undertaken the effort to clearly identify

and determine what that wait period time is now. He's indicating and trying to, I

guess, provide some comfort that that work is going to be done. I appreciate that

work will likely be done in the next month or, if the minister says I'm a year ahead

of myself….

A year from now, when the minister is armed with all of the information, the empirical

data that he's referencing today, if that number is higher than 20 percent or lower

than 20 percent, will the minister undertake to implement an adjustment?

Nothing in this legislation sets out the 20 percent the minister or this government….

It could be 50 percent next year, for all we know. The minister has certainly indicated

it will be 20 percent, but there's nothing that actually would require the government

to only put forward a 20 percent increase next year.

I certainly take the minister at his word. He has done some work as far as listening

to UFCW, I believe it is, a union organization, and maybe looking to California state

for some recommendation. But that 20 percent number — my guess is that the data will

clearly show it different a year from now. Could be higher; could be lower.

Is the minister indicating that he would undertake an adjustment of that rate, based

on the data that is actually uncovered within the next year?

Hon. H. Bains: Difficult to decide today what will happen six months, a year down the road — what

data is available. Even today there were some who were going for higher numbers. They

believe that they have done some work, and it should be 167 percent. Others say it

should be lower.

But we looked at California. We talked to Uber. We talked to UFCW — not just UFCW;

Uber as well — who believe 120 percent reflects a reasonable amount to deal with the

wait times. So that is a beginning.

I may add that we're the only jurisdiction in Canada that is going through this and

going to implement this. No one has done this. Ontario has brought the legislation,

but it's not implemented. It is sitting there.

I think I can say very proudly that these workers needed protection, and we are providing

that protection as a first step. We will monitor, and then we will see if gaps are

still there. So 120 percent is the amount, after discussing with the platform companies

and others to see what is the reasonable amount. We came up with 120 percent — that

this is the right start.

Again, more data comes as more data comes. And if it shows that we need to make a

decision at that time, we will leave it at that time and make that decision at that

time — not today for something that may happen six months, a year down the road.

[3:50 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Lookit, I appreciate the response from the minister, but there's nothing in the legislation

that indicates it actually will be 20 percent.

Can the minister comment? Does this government not have the ability, when they actually

implement the premium, for it to be a number other than 120 percent?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I have assured the member that after consultation, listening to all sides,

we believe the 120 percent is the right amount, and we will implement 120 percent

through regulations.

There's no other number right now.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the minister confirming that.

Both ride-hail, delivery-service providers, those working in the sector, can they

have the assurance of this government that should the empirical data a year from now

indicate that there's either an increase in the average wait time or a decrease in

the average wait time, that there would be an adjustment?

Or, as I had proposed earlier, is it the anticipation of the minister and his government

that the baseline would be 120 percent, and there would only be adjustments if it

was going to be increasing, not decreasing?

Hon. H. Bains: I have answered the question more than once. I will repeat that one last time again.

Once we have the data available to us, those decisions will be made at that time.

G. Kyllo: The minister, in his response, has referenced a couple of times the complexity of

trying to determine what the average wait time for a driver may be.

Anticipate a driver might be working for company X, Y or Z. They may have three different

apps open on their phone. They may choose to engage with one or multiple at the same

time. How does the minister believe there will be the ability of properly identifying

the wait time that's associated with the time that an individual is engaged with a

single company when they may be working over multiple platforms?

Certainly, I gave this some thought. The three different companies are not going to

be sharing in any way, shape or form or identifying which individual may be working

on their apps at a different time. So the challenge that I, certainly, believe exists….

Maybe the minister has thought of this, and maybe staff have come up with a creative

way.

If I'm an employee working for company X, and I choose to take two rides over a one-hour

period…. I can show that I started my shift at 10 a.m. My first delivery was dropped

off at 10:20. I took another ride until, say, 10:40. I was finished that ride at 10:50.

I only booked 30 minutes of work in a one-hour period. On face value, it would look

like I have over a 50 percent wait time. But what would not show on that record is

the fact that with another company that same individual may have worked two different

or three different small lifts within that same period.

I think the real challenge will be…. The minister has indicated to us today that that

data will be collected, and rest assured we'll have more information. Can the minister

share how he or staff have determined the ability to actually carve out the raw data,

where individuals have that choice, that very important choice, one of the most important

choices they have in undertaking this type of work — the flexibility of choosing which

ride or which delivery they're going to take at a given time?

As the minister has indicated the importance and the necessity of tabulating and collecting

this data, how is it that government has made the determination of being able to pull

out that raw data in its aggregate so that it's not necessarily skewed by individuals

working on multiple apps, as the minister himself has recognized is extremely complex?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member answered some of his earlier questions with this last question,

recognizing the complexity. The platform companies also, when we were engaging with

them, told us the same thing — those challenges. That's why 120 percent for the engaged

time was proposed.

If they are able to provide us better, more succinct data, then we will look at it

at that time. Again, it all depends on what kind of data we are able to collect and

what they are able to collect that can identify what exactly the waiting time is.

That's why the 120 percent formula, I think, was created rather than they're waiting

20 percent and now there should be extra money for that. Or they're waiting 10 percent,

there should be extra….

That is the complexity that I talked about earlier, and the member repeated in his

question. The 120 percent formula offered by one company, by one of the unions — we

believe that is the right amount at this time. Going forward, let's see what kind

of data is available. Those decisions will be made at that time.

G. Kyllo: Well, look, the 20 percent number that is being proposed today by the minister…. Of

course, it's not in the legislation, so we have to trust government and the minister

at his word, and I have every intention to do that. But that is an arbitrary number.

That is not a number that is based on any empirical data, any formulation, any review

of even 50 or 100 different drivers.

This is a number that government has picked up based on a number that was determined

in California. Who knows how they arrived at that number? Unless we can see what empirical

data they actually derive from that, it's kind of anecdotal. It's just a number that

California used.

The recommendation, apparently, of Uber, supported by UFCW, a union, is 20 percent.

Haven't heard from Lyft or maybe DoorDash or some of the other food delivery companies

that are in this space. Fair enough. I'm okay with 20 percent. But for those listening,

20 percent is an arbitrary number that has been selected by this government without

any basis in fact.

The minister has indicated that there will be future adjustments after they can collect

the data, but the minister, from his own admission, has indicated it's very complex.

I proposed…. As we know, a significant number of drivers work multiple platforms at

the same time, and the minister has yet to be able to provide any confidence that

there's even the mechanism by which they can collect the data in such a way that it

would be useful.

I gave an example of a driver that may only book 30 minutes in a one-hour period with

a specific company. Now, that on its face value would reflect up to a 50 percent wait

time. But what's unknown and that there will be no ability for government, from what

I can see, to be able to determine is that that same individual worked over those

same time periods for different companies.

Now, if the minister and his staff have come up with a clever way of doing that and

ensuring that individuals working in this space, if they are working for multiple

apps at the same time, which we know is customary in this space…. If the minister

can share that his staff have found a way to ensure that the data that's coming in

is going to provide the basis for future evaluations, I would certainly appreciate

hearing that now.

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: I think we are starting to get a little bit repetitive, just as a caution. I think

we've travelled this route a few times. I will certainly…. If the minister wants to

address this…. But I think I've heard this question a few times now.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate your advice. It's not through a desire of wanting to be repetitive.

It's from a lack of concise answers from the minister, which is creating the opportunity,

I guess, to continue to seek out how it is that the minister is going to be able to

determine what the appropriate percentage is going to be, to reflect the wait time

between assignments in the future, when the minister's own admission has indicated,

it appears, the inability to actually determine what that is.

Now, I'm looking at a document, the backgrounder that the minister has provided, which

I think will kind of set, largely, some of the work that will be undertaken in regulation.

This comes right back to this 20 percent number. With respect to the minimum wage

piece, it references platform companies. I would anticipate that as: platform companies

shall, going forward, top up the difference when the earnings paid in a pay period

do not meet the minimum earning standard for the engaged time worked.

Can the minister just confirm, with respect to the engaged work time, how that calculation

will be determined? What is the requirement for the reporting of that information

from these different companies to government? Is this something that will be a mandatory

requirement for reporting? Or is this something that these ride app-based companies

will only have to make available to either employees or to government?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The platform companies will be required to provide a statement of earnings every pay

period, at least biweekly, showing their earnings, their deductions and tips. So if,

during this pay period, their earnings are less than 120 percent of the B.C. minimum

wage, then the platform company will be required to top up the difference to make

up the gap.

G. Kyllo: Just to clarify, it is the intention that for the engaged time…. The engaged time,

as identified in the actual minister's release, is the time from which an order or

a ride is accepted until that ride is concluded.

Maybe just for clarity…. Actually, for my purposes…. Maybe the minister already has

asked this question, but is the ride deemed to be concluded when the ride-hail company

arrives at their destination to drop off, or is it determined once the passenger is

out of the vehicle and luggage is all removed from the vehicle and then the driver

is back in the vehicle? Just to get a bit better understanding of where that measurement

starts and where it stops.

Hon. H. Bains: So that we know exactly what "engaged time" means, it would be that the engaged time

begins when a worker accepts an assignment through its completion.

G. Kyllo: I'm just looking to the minister for a bit of clarity. Completion. Do the ride-hail

companies determine completion when the car arrives at the destination? Is there an

allotment for individuals to get out of the vehicle and unload the luggage?

I think this is important. If you've got a twenty-minute trip, it can easily take

two to three minutes for getting somebody out of the vehicle, which could be like

a 15 percent increase in time. We've established a minimum wage rate based on 20 percent

based on an arbitrary number.

I just want to get a bit more clarity, if the minister can. When is it determined

that the assignment is complete? That "assignment complete" could be different based

on the number of passengers, the age or maybe complexity of the riders that might

be with somebody. I just think it would be important, I think, for ride-hail companies

to have a clear understanding. Does the minister's

interpretation of the end of assignment

match up with what is currently tracked by the ride-hail companies?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member wants to get into very, very fine details.

The driver reached the destination. Now, is the passenger completely out of the car?

The luggage is in the trunk, now the trunk is open, they've taken it out, put it down.

Does that end there? I mean, these people work out there every day. Taxis work out

there every day.

They know when the meter stops. They know when the meter starts. I mean, let's give

them some credit, because these are all credible people. The driver will turn the

app on soon. Soon they receive the assignment, and then soon that assignment is completed.

[4:10 p.m.]

If I was a driver, I would deliver the person to the address. The person is out. The

luggage is out. The passenger has got the luggage. I'm back in my car and turned the

app off. I don't know what the other drivers do. I guess the driver will advise the

company that the assignment is completed.

Half a minute here. Two minutes on one side. I can't answer all those questions.

We will leave it to the director, if it goes to the employment standards branch for

a complaint, when the assignment actually began and when it was completed. That's

the language that we're proposing.

I will read that one more time. The engagement time begins "when a worker accepts

an assignment through its completion."

G. Kyllo: Look, I'm certainly not trying to be cute. I think it is incredibly important to establish

clearly what is intended by the completion of the assignment.

Now, I don't know…. I have not asked the ride-hail companies. I'm assuming, with all

of the work that the minister and staff have undertaken with the consultation and

the engagement with the industries….

Can the minister share with us how the ride-hail companies currently determine the

completion of an assignment? Is it when the car actually rolls up at the destination

and puts the vehicle into park? Is that when the assignment is deemed completed and

measured by the ride-hail companies? That would be my suggestion, likely, on how they

determine when the ride is complete.

The minister suggested…. Maybe it's up to the driver to make their own determination

on how long it takes them to get the passengers out and get the luggage moved to curbside,

which I'm assuming could be two to three minutes quite easily. It is important, and

I think that there's a lack of clarity.

The minister has provided the definition, but I think we need some clarity on the

definition. When is the end of an assignment? Does that include the time it takes

to get the individuals and the luggage out of the vehicle? Or is it only when the

vehicle actually arrives at the site? That would be my suggestion on how ride-hail

companies are, likely, currently tracking the data.

I'll leave it to the minister to provide that clarity. I'm sure that he has undertaken

to get that clarity directly from the ride-hail companies.

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I could go by…. That work goes on now. Workers are being paid.

At least one company gave us the same definition that I'm repeating here. They said

that engaged time consists of the time from when a worker accepts a request for services

to when the worker fulfils that request. The companies understand what that means,

and workers know what that means. So I'll leave it with them.

We will be developing regulations. We will be engaging platform companies and drivers

again to make sure that they all understand what this actually means.

G. Kyllo: Hon. Chair, I think you can appreciate, maybe, the repetitiveness.

The question is…. I certainly hope that the minister and staff have actually made

the determination. When ride-hail companies currently track the time frame of a specific

ride…. Is the end time that's currently calculated by ride-hail companies when the

car arrives at the destination, or is it a time later than that, when the driver makes

their own determination to hit the screen and indicate that the work is complete?

The Chair: I do caution the member again. We are starting to get very repetitive in asking, basically,

the same question a few times. If the member is able to look for other questions that

might achieve the same result that he's looking for, the table certainly would appreciate

it.

Next question, Member.

[4:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, that is unfortunate.

I can only imagine the amount of staff time and effort that was undertaken as part

of this consultation process. Something as imperative, I think, as a clear understanding

of what this time frame is for engaged time….

The minister and his staff either are unwilling or unable to provide some clarity

with respect to how ride-hail service companies currently track the end time of when

a work assignment is complete. However, in the absence of an answer….

The minister had referenced earlier, with respect to the 20 percent…. These were the

minister's words: "When we decided on the 20 percent…."

Can the minister clarify, when he references "we," who specifically "we" is? Was "we"

the minister, with advice from staff, or was this a determination that actually went

up for discussion at cabinet?

Hon. H. Bains: "We" here means our government.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you. I think that's important.

I do appreciate that the minister is a senior member of his government. I assumed

that was the case. It wasn't the minister acting alone when he says "we." It was he

along with his entire government, which would be the executive council.

Now, with respect to the challenge around multiple employers…. The minister has indicated,

and I think we all recognize, that a large part of the desire of individuals that

work in this specific space or this sector is the opportunity to work for multiple

employers at different times.

Last week, on Thursday, before we left this House, the leader of the Green Party raised

a number of questions around paid sick leave and how that may apply to this specific

set of workers. The minister had provided some indication that paid sick leave would

be a benefit that would be eligible to workers in the space.

I did not have a chance to ask that question. Can the minister just confirm if paid

sick leave will be an entitlement that would flow to this subset of workers that are

covered under this bill?

The Chair: Of course, if questions have been asked and answered on the record…. I would refer

members to those questions, just to benefit the House and not repeat the same questions

which have already been asked and answered, as the member identified.

If there is a change to the question or something more he needs help with, that's

great. Otherwise, I would refer him to the Hansard record, as he himself did.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, as always, hon. Chair.

With respect to paid sick leave…. We have talked about multiple employers. Should

paid sick leave benefits flow to this subset of workers…. Would the current legislation

covering paid sick leave equally apply where an individual working for three different

companies ultimately would be eligible for up to five paid sick days for each of those

three individual employers?

Hon. H. Bains: This question was asked and was debated. It took some time. They were very good questions

by the member at that time, the Leader of the Third Party.

I suggest that the member should look at that. If he had had the opportunity to listen

to the questions and answers provided, he probably wouldn't be asking this question

right now.

G. Kyllo: Well, okay, with all due respect, I don't know that I heard a concise answer from

the minister with respect to that. We do know that paid sick leave, I believe, is

based on an average day of pay.

[4:20 p.m.]

I know that this particular area of inquiry was not covered last week. So I do hope

that the minister will engage with a response.

With respect to this subset of workers, would paid sick leave be based on the average

pay rate excluding tips, or would an average day of paid sick leave include both the

base wage rate at the 120 percent and the tips that might be earned by a driver or

delivery service provider during the same shift?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member could go back to Thursday's discussion at 4:30. This question was

answered, but I will explain it to the member one more time.

Standards in the following areas will not be established at this time under the ESA

for ride-hailing and food delivery workers, but government will continue to monitor

these areas: hours of work and overtime, statutory holidays, paid leaves and annual

vacations.

So these areas do not apply to the workers that we are talking about here under this

bill.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that clarification.

It was my understanding that paid sick leave would apply to this set of workers. Can

the minister indicate or reflect on why it was the minister's decision to deny this

subset of workers paid sick leave?

Hon. H. Bains: That question was asked, and at 4:30 on Thursday, it was answered.

G. Kyllo: With respect to this category of workers that has been identified, the minister, in

his previous answer, had indicated that one of the requirements for the Lyft or food

service delivery companies will be to track and to report out, at least biweekly,

to the workers their earnings, deductions and tips.

When the minister referenced deductions, can the minister provide some clarity on

what specifically those deductions may or may not be?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: When we met with the workers, they identified that one of the key concerns was the

lack of pay transparency. So this will require companies now to show what their total

earnings were and then whatever the deductions are. So now the driver will know.

What those deductions are, I think, depends on the company. There could be some fees.

If they're a member of the union, usually, union dues are deducted. Whatever else

— I have no clue what would be deducted, but at least drivers will know what their

earnings were, what the company's fees were, what their pay is and what the tip was.

That's what they were asking us, and that's what the platform company will be required

to do now.

G. Kyllo: Through the consultation process, can the minister confirm if there was a request

to the different companies, or even from some of the different subcontractors that

might have participated in the consultation…?

Did they provide any copies of what they currently are receiving from their employer

to identify how they're tracking the work engagement, the assignment time, the pay-per-ride

tip function? Was there an effort undertaken by the minister and his staff to assess

and actually look at the current information that is being provided by these app-based

companies to their subcontractors?

Hon. H. Bains: The staff engaged with the platform companies, and there was no consistency across.

Some would show that they provide some information to the drivers; others do a different

way of reaching the drivers. And drivers — sometimes they see some deductions; sometimes

they don't, depending on where they are, who the company is.

That's why they all said that there has to be pay transparency. They need to know

what their total earnings were, and they need to know what deductions are and the

reason for those deductions, and what the tip was. They need to know how much tip

was paid and how much was actually deposited in their account.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I think those are the questions that were raised. The companies recognized, and they

agreed that that's the kind of direction that they could go and that they will work

with us. So I think that's what we are trying to achieve here so that the workers

will know what their earnings were, what the deductions are, what the reasons are

for those deductions and what their net pay is.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister provide an overview or maybe two or three of the deductions that

drivers could currently be incurring from ride-hail companies? I think the minister

referenced a couple. One could be, potentially, a union due. The other — the minister

referenced a fee.

I'm not familiar with the actual pay rate and how Uber or food delivery service drivers

engage with the app.

[4:30 p.m.]

Can the minister set out…? Is there an already accepted level of fees or a number

of different fees that are currently deducted or charged to these drivers, that the

minister would feel would be right or just and will not be changing at all, associated

with the new legislation?

I think the reason it's important for that clarity is, for example, the minister has

referenced the eligibility of workers for WorkSafeBC coverage. That will be an additional

cost, but I think that we can appreciate — certainly it would be my understanding

— that that cost would not flow back to the employees.

Maybe that is an approved fee. If there's a 2 percent fee associated with WorkSafeBC

coverage protection for workers, as long as the app-based company is paying these

employees a rate which exceeds the minimum wage rate, does that ability for those

companies to charge that premium back to the worker…?

I just wanted to see if the minister has given that some thought and if he can just

clarify what would be understood or recognized as approved fees that ride-hail or

food-delivery companies could pass on to their subcontractors, which now, under this

legislation, are going to be deemed to be employees.

Hon. H. Bains: Let's be clear. The companies have a different formula for how they calculate drivers'

earnings from any given assignment. What we are doing here is establishing a minimum

standard of 120 percent of the minimum wage over a payroll period. That's all we are

doing here. We're not determining how companies pay, what percentage they pay, what

they keep. That's not part of this bill. It's 120 percent of minimum wage.

As far as the WCB is concerned, just like other employers, they will register their

employees with WorkSafeBC, pay premiums on their behalf and work it out with WorkSafeBC,

and drivers will not pay into the WCB for their own protection.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much. I appreciate the clarification from the minister.

I think it is important that we're having this time to clearly identify what some

of these additional fees are and, also, the expectation that WorkSafeBC-related premiums

would not be charged back to this new classification of subcontractors now being determined

to be employees.

Now, I know that for most employers, if you pay a subcontractor, you can pay that

subcontractor whatever their fee-for-service is, maybe plus GST, and that's the end

of it. However, as soon as a subcontractor is deemed to be an employee, there's an

entirely different shift of responsibility when it comes to employee source deductions

— employment insurance benefits, Canada Pension Plan contributions.

Can the minister confirm and clarify that although these subcontractors are now going

to be deemed to be employees, there would not be the requirement of the employers

to deduct source deductions for federal or provincial taxes, CPP contributions or

employment insurance benefits?

Hon. H. Bains: The member keeps on talking about contractors and subcontractors. So that we are clear

here, for the purpose of the Employment Standards Act and for the Workers Compensation

Act, they are considered employees. That's what we are doing through this bill. It's

clearly listed here.

[4:35 p.m.]

When it comes to WCB coverage, they will be treated just like any other company and

their employees, how they are covered. The employer pays the premium.

We talked about employment standards. There is a minimum standard of 120 percent of

the minimum wage during the engaged time. That's what we are doing here. What the

other deductions are is up to the CRA or whateve