Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

23, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

NORMAN ARMOUR AND DUNCAN LOW

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today with some sadness. Two great leaders in Vancouver's arts community have

recently passed. I speak of Norman Armour and Duncan Low.

Norman — an incredible guy. I remember meeting him out on a corner one day, and he

said: "You're a young artist." I said: "Yes, I am." He was keen to encourage me and

keen to follow my growth in the theatre and professional arts world, as he did for

so many young artists across B.C. A founder of the PuSh Festival, somebody who's just

made such an incredible difference for our arts community, he will be missed. I know

that many in the arts community are struggling right now.

Another whom I worked with was Duncan Low, longtime executive director of the Vancouver

East Cultural Centre. He grabbed me when I think I was 19 and said: "Hey, you're interested

in campaigns and things like that. Why don't we win $1 million from Vancity to create

the Vancouver East cultural studio theatre?" I signed up right away, and he and I

worked the corners, worked the banks, worked the credit unions — it's a credit union

— to win $1 million for Vancouver East Cultural Centre.

He transformed that place. He came over to the Island, and he transformed the CPA.

He worked for government for a time. A creative mind, founder of the Edinburgh Children's

Festival, a great British Columbian as well.

I really want to say to all those who knew Norman and Duncan: we're with you. We honour

the artistic contribution they made to our province. We are all wealthier for their

having lived here in British Columbia.

To their friends and family, we will miss them, just as you will miss them.

[1:05 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 44, Housing

Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

The Chair: So everyone knows, I think we're waiting for the critic to arrive. We will take a

brief recess until the critic gets here to ask the questions.

The committee recessed from 1:06 p.m. to 1:08 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 9.

The Chair: All right, Members. Thank you for your patience.

C. Oakes: What new regulation-making authorities are provided for, expanded on or otherwise

under this clause?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: For the member, I know this is breathtaking professional regulation.

There was always general transitional authority under the act for dealing with the

transition either of a new regulatory body underneath the act or a new profession.

What this does and what this amendment does is make that regulatory authority more

precise and transparent for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

C. Oakes: What events demonstrated the requirements for these specifications to be included,

as outlined in the new subsection (1.1)?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question.

Really, it's just the process of iterative learning that the OSPG has gone through,

going through the two designation assessments that we've discussed as well as the

process of the architects.

C. Oakes: This is something I'm curious about. Why is it "must do one of the following" as opposed

to "more than one"? So in subsection (1.1), "In a regulation…must do one of the following,"

why not all of them?

Hon. A. Mercier: Must do one of the following applies to subsections (a), (

b) or (c), and it has to

do with the mutually exclusive nature of those options. You can create a new regulatory

body or continue one, for instance.

Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On clause 12.

C. Oakes: This clause appears to include some of the more substantive changes. Can the minister

outline the purpose of the new 90.1

section and provide a practical example as to

how this may be applied?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, this provision deals with creating a new regulatory

body under the act, and I can give an example.

What this does is bring clarity and precision to some of the consequences that flow

from creating a new regulatory body. The example would be….

If you created a new regulatory body, as opposed to continuing one, you would do it

in one of two circumstances. You would either be creating a new regulatory body to

regulate a profession out of the ether, so to speak — you'd be creating a fresh, new

body — or you'd be creating a regulatory body to replace a previous existing body,

in which case what this provision does is bring specificity around the cessation of

the previous body.

C. Oakes: When this was being contemplated, was there a new regulatory body that provided, perhaps,

the impetus for putting this in? Is there something that has brought this forward?

Hon. A. Mercier: To answer that question, this wasn't done in mind with any particular profession to

come into regulation, but it is to make sure that there's clarity for regulators and

for government, going forward, and that all contemplated options are covered in this

provision.

C. Oakes: Under the proposed 90.2, can the minister indicate why it's necessary to specify this

within the broader process?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This 90.2 is a provision that deals with the continuation of a professional regulatory

body. What it does is clarify the continuation of a corporation, a regulatory body

that's a corporation, through the process so that there's not any ambiguity about

how it's constituted.

That comes out of just, really, I think, a need for clarity that comes out of the

OSPG's experience, particularly with…. This is what happened with the architects.

The body was continued through, as opposed to dissolved and reconstituted. But it's

really just to bring clarity to the act and to this whole process so that everyone

out there in the regulatory community knows exactly what the process is and exactly

how it'll be applied.

C. Oakes: Has there been an opportunity from a stakeholder engagement process to help redefine

the amendment of this to help with the streamlining, the clarification and all of

the items that the minister has brought forward?

Hon. A. Mercier: There was no specific engagement done with professional regulators on this provision.

The reason is that this is really a provision about bringing clarity on the rule of

law around Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council powers and making sure that they're clear.

But that being said, the OSPG as an office, as an entity, does considerable work with

the professional governing bodies that are underneath its remit in the act. It's drawn

from its knowledge and experience with the process to make sure that the act is as

clear as possible for any future processes that happen underneath it to bring new

regulators or professions in.

C. Oakes: I'm going to put three questions into one.

Can the minister walk through the regulation-making authority that is established

under 90.3 and what the policy intent is, how it integrates with the act, and how

the minister expects this to be utilized, practically speaking?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: It's not an expansion of powers so much as it is an expansion of clarification of

what the regulatory-making authority is.

The intent of this is to be incredibly clear in the regulatory authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

to affect 90.1 and 90.2 to either establish a new regulatory body, continue a new

regulatory body or affect the cessation of an existing regulatory body. How it will

play out and how it will work, where the rubber hits the road in practicality, is

much in the same way that it worked in terms of the continuation with the architects,

to go back to that example.

But what this is…. It's really making sure that it's clear for everyone involved on

what those powers are precisely.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

C. Oakes: To the minister: can you explain the process and obligations outlined in subsection

90.4(ii) for an existing regulatory body to assume responsibility for carrying out

the objects of the act in relation to a designated profession?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This provision deals with the situation where you may have an existing profession

that you want to bring under the Professional Governance Act. It is a member of a

pre-existing regulatory authority, and you don't want to bring that entire regulatory

authority under the act.

What it allows is the designation of a professional regulatory authority for that

profession. Then the provisions deal with the cessation of the authority of the previous

regulator as to that profession.

The linkage back to the main Professional Governance Act in here is to ensure, then,

that the new regulatory authority — I don't say "new" because it's new; it could be

one that pre-exists under the PGA — has all of the obligations of the act for the

sake of that profession.

C. Oakes: In the proposed

section 90.4(3), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is granted the

authority to make regulations.

Could you provide examples of circumstances outlined in paragraphs (

a) through (

d) where regulations may be necessary, as specified in this section?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The regulatory authority under subsections 90.4(3)(

a) to (

d) is very similar in kind

to the previous section, 90.3, that we discussed in the previous clause.

Namely, it allows for very clear and precise regulatory power to deal with the transition

of a profession from one body to another, dealing with regulation to declare the assumption

of the one body and the cessation of the other; having regulatory authority over that

profession but then also making sure that there's a provision there for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

to create regulation where needed when the rubber hits the road, if there are issues

that arise in what is a very technical process between regulator. So it's not silent

on that, and it's clear for all of the parties going into it as well, and sets forth

very clearly what the structure and the rules are.

C. Oakes: In the new subsection 90.4(4), it mentions: "The authority to make or amend a regulation

under subsection (3)…ends 3 years after the applicable date under

section 89 (1.1)…."

What is the significance of this time limitation, and how does it impact the regulatory

landscape?

Hon. A. Mercier: Subsection 90.4(4) is a limitation on the regulatory authority of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The reference to 89(1.1)(c)(ii) is the date of the assumption of regulating duties,

by the one professional regulator that's named under the regulation, of an existing

profession.

What that means…. Because these powers under this

section are transitional in nature,

that transition period where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations

subsequent to this is limited to that three-year window of the transition, understanding

that the transition is not necessarily an event but a process in professional regulation.

It sunsets the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make those regulations

without sunsetting the regulations themselves. The regulation under this

section will

last past that point in time, but the ability to make or amend those regulations doesn't.

This ensures that the regulatory authority is used properly for the transition.

C. Oakes: According to subsection 90.4(5), if a regulation is made under subsection 89(1) for

the designation of a profession, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may repeal the

pre-existing act. Could you elaborate on the conditions or considerations that might

lead to the repeal of the pre-existing act or its provisions?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This is a continuation of a provision under the current Professional Governance Act

that exists under subsection 90(5)(a). What it allows, as the member has rightly stated,

is the repeal of a pre-existing act or statute, which you may think of as that professional

regulators home statute, as that profession is brought under the act.

That's how we avoid some of the situations that the member alluded to in an earlier

question about conflicts between the statutes. And that's particularly why, as well,

we have the regulatory-making authority under 90.4(3)(

d) as part of this amendment

to deal with issues that may arise through that process to make sure that everything

is done in a way so as to cause as little regulatory disruption as possible.

Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

The Chair: We're coming up to clause 16, dealing with the Insurance Corporation Act, Public Safety

Solicitor General amendments. Is the critic in the room? No.

Okay. We'll take a short recess to make sure everyone's appropriately in the right

places. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 1:42 p.m. to 1:44 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. Let's call this committee back to order. We are here with Bill

45, looking at clause 16.

On clause 16.

T. Halford: Welcome to the minister and his staff. I appreciate the time.

part 3, generally dealing with the ICBC

section of Bill 45, can the minister detail

who was consulted in the preparation of the amendments for this part of the bill?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Coulter: I'd just like to first begin by introducing staff here with me: Toby Louie, who is

the executive lead of the Crown agencies secretariat; and Anne Foy, who is the director

of the Crown agencies secretariat. I'd like to thank them very much for their assistance.

Because the language and the changes are quite technical, there has been some consultation,

but it's been internal to government because it's quite technical language.

T. Halford: Can the minister detail who internally was consulted and what the rationale…? I just

heard the minister say because it was complicated, but that doesn't really…. Does

that define why they didn't go and do any external consultations? That answer doesn't

really make a lot of sense to me on that.

Hon. D. Coulter: Yes. It's not complicated; it's technical language. It's just removing outdated and

unnecessary processes and language within the corporation. The consultations were

internal to government.

T. Halford: A follow-up question to that: who in government was consulted? Who made the decision

not to consult externally on this part of the amendment?

Hon. D. Coulter: Yes. It's a standard process within government when we change technical language like

this. It would include the government's lawyers, the Ministry of Finance, the Indigenous

law group and ICBC itself.

T. Halford: Again, who made the decision not to consult externally on this piece of legislation?

There are pieces in here that I'm going to explore regarding remuneration, regarding

headquarter locations, things like that. It's not…. Yes, it's a technical piece, but

there are many facets to this.

Again on this piece, who made the decision not to consult anybody outside of government?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Coulter: As I've said, it's a standard process. It's a common, standard process of internal

government decision-making. These are technical amendments, and they do not affect

how ICBC operates.

T. Halford: Okay. I hear that answer from the minister, but he says that these do not affect how

ICBC operates. There are provisions in this bill that talk about decision-making authority

with remuneration, with headquarter locations and other such. So I'll ask: when did

the consultation on this part of the bill begin internally to government?

Hon. D. Coulter: That was during the development of the bill, which was spring through summer 2023.

So that's of this year.

T. Halford: Can the minister confirm if either the chair of ICBC, the CEO of ICBC or any member

of the board of ICBC was included in any consultation on this part of the bill whatsoever?

Hon. D. Coulter: The consultations were at the staff level with ICBC, not directly with those positions

you just listed, as well as with ICBC's lawyers.

[1:55 p.m.]

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Can the minister detail what positions those

staff members were and to what level they were in terms of ICBC? And I think he mentioned

ICBC's internal legal department. Is that correct in what I heard?

Hon. D. Coulter: Those consultations would have been at the manager-director level and, as well, with

corporate counsel.

T. Halford: Later on there's….

[The bells were rung.]

Did government hire any outside agencies to help give advice on anything to do with

this piece of legislation and mainly, specifically, on the remuneration piece of it

or when talking about the location of the head office?

Hon. D. Coulter: I mean, the simple answer is no. But the Ministry of Finance was consulted on remuneration.

T. Halford: Was that just specifically in terms of setting the CEOs' remuneration, or did it have

anything to do with the property value of the ICBC head office as well?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Coulter: Thank you, Chair. Lovely to see you again.

No, the consultation was specifically on changing the word "salary" to "remuneration."

This piece of legislation doesn't put a valuation on ICBC's head office or contemplate

to do so.

The Chair: Member.

T. Halford: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair.

So the minister is saying that there was no consultation done whatsoever by the Ministry

of Finance when it came to changing the structure, which we'll get to, I think, in

clause 18, in terms of setting remuneration and who is ultimately responsible for

that.

I want to clarify…. Sorry. I just want to clarify what the minister just read in —

that there was absolutely no consultation or input from the Ministry of Finance on

that.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Coulter: All this clause does is…. The clause essentially said that the directors must determine

the salary of the president and a general manager. All it does now is it changes that

to the chief executive officer's remuneration. The directors still have the same power,

are still doing that. There's really no change other than changes of "salary" to "remuneration."

T. Halford: Okay. I think I'll come back to the minister's comments that he just made on that

on clause 18.

Sticking on clause 16, if this is a routine practice, which it can look like in here,

can the minister explain the length of time it has taken to repeal the

definitions,

specifically when it comes to "president and general manager" and replacing it with

"chief executive officer"?

Hon. D. Coulter: There are many acts, in government, that have some outdated language, and when we

can, we take the opportunity to update that language. We're looking at simplifying

processes, and that's why we're updating this language now.

The general manager position is a holdover from the 1970s, when the minister was appointed

board chair and president of ICBC. ICBC does not have a general manager as an executive

position. All functions that the general manager would carry out are carried out by

the president and chief executive officer. Those are the terms that we're using now,

so we're just updating the legislation to indicate that.

T. Halford: When was the general manager position eliminated at ICBC?

Hon. D. Coulter: We don't have a specific time that I can give you right now, but we believe it was

the 1980s.

T. Halford: Why would it have taken…? We're going to talk about remuneration in clause 18.

[2:05 p.m.]

Why the delay in terms of now, in terms of putting these changes in? I get that the

minister said they're routine, or they're mechanical or whatever. I don't want to

put words into the minister's mouth. But why today? Why not when they've had previous

opportunities to make these changes?

Hon. D. Coulter: This act is amended very, very rarely. But we were looking to simplify processes,

and we were like, "Oh hey, we should update this language," so we did so.

T. Halford: We can probably go to clause 18, if that's okay.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

T. Halford: Can the minister explain the benefit of removing cabinet approval for the appointment

of the CEO and setting the CEO's remuneration?

Hon. D. Coulter: Cabinet endorsements are not required for other Crown corporations when they make

board appointments of their chief executive officers. It's an outdated process. It

creates more work for the public service and more work for ICBC itself. This is just

helping to bring it in alignment with all other processes that we use for other Crown

corporations.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

We've seen changes at ICBC in terms of their CEO, and everything like that. Can the

minister go back to that previous change and explain then, in his words, when that

CEO was changed and replaced, who made that decision in terms of the remuneration

that CEO then incoming had? Was that done in context of what's before us, or was it

done under previous, with what this legislation, out amended, would have allowed it

to do?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Coulter: There's kind of a bit of, I think, clouding of exactly what's going on here. The board

sets remuneration according to PSEC guidelines for all Crown corporations. This is

just an outdated process. None of the other Crowns require endorsement from the cabinet.

So we're just bringing it in line with all the other processes that we're using in

government.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

But the question I asked is…. When you're looking at clause 18,

section 4(a)(1): "The

directors must appoint a chief executive officer of the corporation and determine

the remuneration of the chief executive officer."

The minister has stated that this is outdated, and I understand that. These are changes

to bring it up to speed with other Crown corporations. I understand that.

The question I asked, though, is that when we've seen the most recent change of CEO….

In terms of that CEO's replacement and their remuneration, was that done following

this current guideline that the minister has said is bringing this

section up to date?

Hon. D. Coulter: Yeah, I think we're getting a bit confused here. All this

section does here is basically

replace salary with remuneration. And the remuneration guidelines are set through

PSEC guidelines that all Crown corporations use.

T. Halford: I don't really think I'm confused. I'm asking a fairly straightforward question.

When the most recent CEO was appointed…. There is a clause in here that we are talking

about, 18

section 4(a)(1): "The directors must appoint a chief executive officer of

the corporation…."

We'll leave the salary part for the next few questions. But when I'm talking about

the appointment of the current CEO, I'm asking the minister if that was done under

what we're talking about today or if it was done in terms of another — whether it

was a cabinet decision made at the cabinet level or another level. Was that decision…?

The minister is saying it's just to catch up with the other Crown corps. How was that

decision made, and who had that decision-making authority?

Hon. D. Coulter: I mean, it's similar to what's going on here. The board puts forward an appointment

of the chief executive officer. Cabinet gives it an endorsement, but that's just for

the appointment. The remuneration is still wholly decided by the board using PSEC

guidelines that are used for all Crown corporations.

[2:15 p.m.]

T. Halford: This doesn't make any sense now. If we're looking at a clause that says that the directors

must appoint a chief executive officer….

We'll park the salary stuff for later. But what the minister is saying…. Then that

has to…. So the board can decide whatever it is they want, but what the minister is

saying, then…. Cabinet, which is their prerogative, has the decision to either veto

or appoint whoever they want as CEO. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Coulter: So the process that is used now, or the process that would have been used for the

situation you're talking about, is that the board would have chosen someone. Basically,

cabinet would have ratified that or given their endorsement.

Part of the reason we think that cabinet endorsement was required in this piece of

legislation is because in the 1970s, the minister responsible was appointed to the

board of ICBC. So we think that's where this is sort of hanging over from — that cabinet

endorses the board's pick.

All we're doing is modernizing the way things are done and bringing it into alignment

with every other Crown corporation.

T. Halford: I'm familiar with the case that the minister said about the…. I think it was the minister

coming in and sitting on the board in terms of remuneration and things like that.

What we're seeing here — and I'll read it again — is: "The directors must appoint

a chief executive officer of the corporation…."

Again to the minister, is the minister saying that with this language in here now,

that will not endure cabinet approval or anything like that with this being put forward?

Or is that…?

In the past, board makes a recommendation. Cabinet yeas or nays. In the language in

here, is that saying that you're eliminating cabinet's decision in terms of a CEO

recommended by the board?

Hon. D. Coulter: Exactly.

T. Halford: Okay. So going forward, then, what this clause here says and what the minister has

just communicated is that cabinet will have…. The minister responsible, the Solicitor

General, the Premier or anybody on executive council will have no say in terms of

who the CEO of ICBC is and their salary. Salary I understand, but the minister is

communicating today that cabinet will have no input whatsoever on who that CEO is.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Coulter: We're eliminating an OIC process here. The legal decision–making here is with the

board of directors. They could informally consult with government or people within

the government if they so choose, but the legal decision–making is with the board

of directors.

T. Halford: Again, what I've heard from the minister today, and I appreciate the transparency,

is that the minister has communicated that — and I'm going to get to the reverse on

this in a second — the CEO of ICBC is going to be completely…. I appreciate the independence,

but there will be no cabinet unless it's informal, which is actually a little bit

concerning, to be honest with you. There's going to be no role by cabinet in terms

of determining when that individual is hired, right?

I guess my next question would be that cabinet would not have that role in determining

if that individual at some time needed his employment or her employment to be terminated.

I would imagine that would be the same context. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Coulter: That's correct, but that's exactly the same as for all our other major Crown corporations.

Operate the same way. The board of directors chooses who the CEO is. We're just bringing

ICBC in alignment with that.

T. Halford: Okay. We've seen a change at B.C. Ferries. We've seen a change at ICBC. We've actually

seen the former ICBC head now go to B.C. Ferries. Is the minister communicating today…?

Because based on other Crown corps that government, the Minister of Transportation,

Solicitor General, anybody at the executive level, including the Premier himself,

would have had no idea that the CEO from ICBC was moving in to become the CEO of B.C.

Ferries, and that was not at all a cabinet decision or directive whatsoever. That

was completely following the guidelines that we are discussing here in Bill 45, this

part,

section 18.

Hon. D. Coulter: Cabinet appoints the board, and the board selects the CEO. This clause here is just

setting up the path of the legal decision–making of the board to choose a chief executive

officer just like other Crown corps.

T. Halford: Maybe I'll ask the question in a different way. When it came to the changes that we've

seen from ICBC, when that individual moved and then became CEO of B.C. Ferries, I

understand the process that the minister has laid out, and that process at that time

existed. What we're talking about here existed for B.C. Ferries. I think that's correct.

What the minister is doing is trying to update and modernize, I guess, the process

that we are seeing or talking about in this

section with ICBC. I understand that.

The question I've been asking, though, is: is the minister communicating that? I understand

cabinet appoints the board and how that operation happens and materializes. I get

that part of it. What I'm asking, though, is: is there a determination set by the

executive council when it comes to the appointment of a CEO for the Crown corporation?

Today we're talking about ICBC, okay? But I'm talking about a CEO from ICBC moving

directly to B.C. Ferries, which is their prerogative to do, the board's prerogative

to do, executive council's prerogative to do.

The question I'm asking to the minister, and I think we're kind of going around here….

The minister has communicated sometimes that cabinet is taken out of that process,

and in another answer, he's saying, "No, they're informally consulted," and they kind

of understand a little bit of what it is.

[2:25 p.m.]

The minister has said two different things here. One is, he said in an answer very

definitively, that cabinet is not included in the decision-making of an appointment

of a CEO of a Crown corp. The minister said that. Okay.

Now the minister is saying informally they may be consulted. I don't know what the

minister's definition of informally is, so I don't know if informally was…. If they're

moving from the CEO to ICBC over to Ferries I imagine cabinet would have been consulted….

[The bells were rung.]

I imagine cabinet would have been consulted at some level on that, but I'm kind of

getting two very inconsistent answers from the minister here. In one answer, the minister

said no, cabinet is not included in terms of the appointment of a CEO. Very direct

on that.

The second question was okay, well, maybe they're informally included in that selection

process. I don't know what that definition of informal is, so can the minister please

outline cabinet's role in terms of the appointment of a CEO in this case?

We're dealing with Crown corps with multibillion dollar budgets here, and the minister

has explained in some cases, they're not included. In some cases, they are. Can the

minister please determine how that is done in this process if cabinet is now eliminated

from that decision-making authority?

Hon. D. Coulter: We're specifically talking about ICBC in this piece of legislation, so I'd like to

just bring it back to ICBC. With this clause setting up the legal decision–making,

basically cabinet will appoint a board, and the board will select the CEO.

T. Halford: I've been talking about ICBC the entire time. Never once…. I included B.C. Ferries,

because we saw a CEO go from ICBC to B.C. Ferries. But the minister is saying ….

Okay, so you appoint the board. I get that part of it. I understand how that part

of it happens. You appoint the board, but then the minister is saying that once you

do that — once you have your board appointed, whether it's B.C. Ferries…. I'll stick

to ICBC specifically here. You have that board appointed, and cabinet is done at that

point in terms of any sign-off on…. Like I said, we'll park remuneration, but in terms

of their appointment of that CEO, cabinet's done at that point.

The minister's answered that, I think. I want to kind of make sure that I'm totally

in line with what the minister is saying.

Hon. D. Coulter: You are correct.

T. Halford: Well, that is good, because when we see future changes at any Crown Corp, specifically

ICBC, B.C. Ferries or anything like that, the minister is communicating that cabinet

has no authority in terms of their hiring or their getting let go. That's a pretty

big…. That's good. That's transparent, but I'm expecting that that's….

I would assume that if we see changes at the CEO level going forward of any Crown

corps that…. So, there's no cabinet decision-making whatsoever. That is all done independently

by the board without any cabinet influence or direction whatsoever.

With that, I can move on to, well, just one other question. We talked about the appointments,

and I appreciate the minister's patience on that, and I think we've got clarity on

that going forward, but on the remuneration part of it, what is the recourse if the

directors set the remuneration too high or too low?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Coulter: We are specifically talking about this legislation, ICBC. This removes any OIC or

cabinet approval process for the board of directors' choice of CEO. That's what this

piece of legislation does. It gives the decision solely to the board of directors

to choose a CEO. Remuneration, which this act doesn't actually deal with, is set according

to PSEC guidelines, just like at any other Crown corporation.

T. Halford: It does deal with remuneration. It's right there in the clause. That's in there. That's

why I asked the question. I appreciate the answer. I think I can piece together the

answer — that the directors will set the remuneration for the CEO. That will be done

independently of government, whether that is, by public interest, set to be too high

or too low. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Coulter: I'll just start: (1) the actual piece of legislation doesn't really have anything

to do with remuneration or how that is set; (2) all it does is change the word "salary"

to "remuneration," as far as cleaning up language that fits across other legislation;

and (3) the board has already been setting remuneration for the CEOs at ICBC under

PSEC guidelines, like at other Crown corporations.

T. Halford: The heading for the

section — why has it not been amended from "President, general

manager and staff" to "Chief executive officer and staff"?

Hon. D. Coulter: In terms of timing of why we are amending this piece of legislation now, I've already

answered that question.

T. Halford: No, sorry. Maybe I'm asking it wrong, but the question is: why is the heading for

this

section not being amended from "President, general manager and staff" to "chief

executive officer and staff"?

Hon. D. Coulter: That language will get updated editorially. That's just a marginal note, and it doesn't

require a formal amendment to be changed.

[2:35 p.m.]

T. Halford: If we're doing all this work right now, why wouldn't we have done that? If the minister

is talking about updating the language in terms of that position being eliminated,

why would we not have done that basic work in this piece of legislation?

Hon. D. Coulter: This is common. It's kind of the way legislation works, in many ways. It doesn't need

to be in the bill. It'll be done after the bill is passed, because it is a marginal

note.

T. Halford: I don't really…. I guess I'm a little bit daft on that. I don't understand that, but

I'll take the minister for that.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

T. Halford: What is the significance for removing the requirement for designating, by regulation,

where the head office would be?

Hon. D. Coulter: No other Crown corporation has the location of its head office set in regulation.

This is, like the other piece of the legislation that we've talked about, just bringing

ICBC in line with that.

T. Halford: Through the government's internal consultation on this part of the bill, have any

other locations been determined when we're talking that it "authorizes the corporation

to establish branch offices"? That's why I asked about external consultation done

with this — where those branch offices would be, which locations and when they may

be opening up.

Hon. D. Coulter: In this piece of legislation, the powers for ICBC to choose locations of branch offices

are already contained elsewhere. So we don't need that provision here. That's why

we're striking it.

T. Halford: Through this consultation, was anything done in terms of the government's plans for

the location of the current head office, 151 West Esplanade in North Vancouver?

Hon. D. Coulter: I'm completely, you know…. I'm right now talking about this legislation, specifically

this legislation and what this legislation does, what these amendments do to the existing

legislation. As far as the head office is concerned, I don't believe any decisions

have been made, but it's not contained within this bill. It won't be contained within

regulation for this bill. Really, it's not something that we should be talking about

in committee.

[2:40 p.m.]

T. Halford: I appreciate the minister's recommendation on that.

We've heard the Premier talk about ICBC's headquarters in the past. We've talked and

just canvassed on the branch offices in different locations. I think right now, when

you look at the staffing levels at ICBC's headquarters from COVID, internal, external

documents have said there are a number of people that still aren't working in that

head office.

When we're talking about the locations and the branch offices, will the directors

have the authority, in terms of planning for the future, where these branch offices

could be done from home, over the phone, like other agencies we're seeing?

Hon. D. Coulter: This piece of legislation just amends this one piece here, because the power of the

board to establish branch offices is contained elsewhere in the legislation.

That said, we wouldn't want to presume, or I wouldn't want to speculate on, the decisions

that the CEO, the board and branch managers would make, the processes they'd make

— where these offices would be or anything like that. That isn't within the legislation

or even contemplated within the legislation or regulation. But the authority rests

with the board and the CEO.

Clauses 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

The Chair: We're going to take a recess to change ministers.

The committee recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

On clause 22.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for the opportunity to ask a few questions on a number of clauses.

I do want to start, if it pleases the minister, with just some general questions.

Frankly, there won't be a whole bunch, but I do have a few questions. I want to start

with just saying that I definitely understand the good and the bad of these types

of meetings — because of where I live, frankly, in rural B.C. I'm sure the minister

would share that same sort of sentiment.

What I want to understand a little bit better is what sort of conversations have been

had leading up to this. I can appreciate that we see the same language in other parts

of legislation here in British Columbia. What I want to understand is who might have

been consulted with respect to First Nations.

Hon. N. Cullen: I thank my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin for the question. Yes, these are important

bodies that we're talking about here, in what I'd classify as housekeeping amendments

that we're doing today, with respect to the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act and the Water

Users' Communities Act, for those following along at home.

As we saw throughout the pandemic, many groups that historically would have met face

to face needed to meet virtually. If they were governed by certain acts, we had to

change those acts to allow those meetings to still have the same legitimacy as they

would normally. These two groups were simply left out of that change. They have been,

in fact, meeting that way.

To my friend's specific question, there was not a consultation done with First Nations

rights and title holders, simply because this was allowing these two groups — the

Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act groups that met that way and the Water Users' group —

to continue to meet online, to be able to make their decisions on behalf of those

particular entities and the decisions that they had in front of them.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for that. Often we see that legislation may have certain flaws that are repaired

at a later date and those types of things.

[2:50 p.m.]

Obviously, because we've seen some of this language, I guess my question is: have

there been any learnings from the other legislation that has been put in place? Was

there anything that was contemplated that could have perhaps been better or improved

upon? I would just like to understand if there was anything there with respect to

this legislation.

Hon. N. Cullen: This is what I'd deem a pretty surgical amendment to the act.

My friend is right that, time to time, changes are made. To the larger groups, this

was done in the spring. It has been working — again, to allow groups to meet and vote

electronically, make decisions.

So no significant learnings other than, I guess, the learnings that we've all had

— and some of our colleagues are on the screen today — that we're able to meet and

conduct our business, all sorts of different groups across the province and across

the world, electronically.

The learnings have been that it works. The other learning was to make sure that these

groups are also included. We're feeling quite confident that they'll be able to continue

and conduct their business on behalf of British Columbians in a good way.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I guess one of the concerns that I have…. Surely the minister

would appreciate the challenges some people face in rural B.C. I wonder if that has

been contemplated.

I just suggest that…. This is what I meant by good and bad. It's great that we can

meet. Certainly, that's a benefit. We've seen that, and obviously, we reacted during

COVID and other times. We saw all this technology that we could have been potentially

making use of.

What I'm a little bit concerned about is the connectivity in different parts of British

Columbia and what that might impose on members that are trying to meet. I can appreciate

that it might make a minister or a government official more accessible, but I'm worried

about their access on the other end. Might we see that people are having to travel

long distances to get into a place where they can actually join these meetings?

Now, it could be argued, I suppose, that if you were in the south part of the Chilcotin,

you have to drive a long ways to go to Tatla anyhow. But I am concerned because there

are many First Nations, certainly throughout the province and definitely in Cariboo-Chilcotin,

that do have access issues.

I wonder if the minister could speak to that.

Hon. N. Cullen: It's a good question.

Coming from…. I represent the largest riding in British Columbia. There are enormous

distances that people sometimes have to travel to participate.

A couple of things, and we might get into this in later clauses.

This enables, first of all…. If a group or an authority chooses to take meetings electronically,

virtually, they are able to do so. It doesn't insist that they do.

The second point is that I've noticed some of our groups have greater participation

because people are able to remotely engage — don't have to make the 200-, 300-, 400-kilometre

drive to sit on that board or that committee.

Lastly, and we can get into this in future clauses, it's not all video. This enables

telephone participation and voting and all the rest.

Connectivity is something, of course, our government has worked on a lot, connecting

all British Columbians by a certain time, and there's been progress in that in many

parts of our world.

[2:55 p.m.]

But for those that still have connectivity issues, telephone is also imagined and

prescribed in this legislation, which we can get into in future clauses.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I totally agree. Cariboo-Chilcotin is huge, and there are areas

just simply not served. I guess that's exactly what I mean. This is the good of what

this does create.

Now, maybe to…. I don't know if "bad" is the right word, but I also worry that with

access through these types of meetings, perhaps it gives an opportunity to not meet

in person. What I mean by that is that it makes it pretty simple just to simply turn

on your computer from Victoria. I think that there's good reason for us to continue

meeting in community.

I wondered if the minister could tell me if there's been anything contemplated around,

potentially, this sort of being…. I don't know if "backup" is the right word, but

I think the preference is for us to meet together. Has there been anything contemplated

with respect to those meetings happening first together and then, secondly, this way?

Hon. N. Cullen: First, as a general commentary, I absolutely agree. Virtual and through telephone

is a very convenient thing. But oftentimes, especially if you think of these groups

that are dealing with dikes and drainages and water use, it can be important and sometimes

challenging conversations. Face to face is always ideal.

Again, these amendments are only enabling. For the base requirements of these groups

meeting once a year, them coming together in person is, I think, ideal. But also,

we want to pay attention to the distance, remoteness and cost that may be incurred

by people who want to be involved but live far away — that they are able to come online

or join through telephone. This is something that groups have also done and done effectively,

I think.

I personally do agree. I think being in person is quite important, particularly just

informing those relationships and making decisions. But we don't dictate that. We

allow the groups to meet in the way that they wish. That enables people to avoid particularly

costs and hardships and allows more people to participate, which we think is good.

L. Doerkson: I totally agree. It's better in person. But I also understand the flexibility that

this provides. We talked a little bit about consultation, and frankly, I forgot to

ask one question there. I'd like to go back there just for a moment.

With respect to consultation with First Nations, if I understood correctly from the

minister, there really was no consultation, because this work has been done prior.

I wondered if any other groups have been consulted directly with.

Hon. N. Cullen: The review was done internally because, again, during COVID, particularly these groups

were meeting this way. It was functioning well. Other emergency provisions…. This

was done for other groups that the government has some implication for.

[3:00 p.m.]

These two were simply missed in the last but had shown effectiveness in doing this.

There was no desire to go out and do further consultation. We're not changing what

they do. We're just making sure of that in the statute. We're indicating that they

can vote and meet this way.

There was never any concern brought forward by someone saying: "Well, technically,

our votes have to be conducted in person because we're relying on statutes that existed

before we made all of these different changes through all of the groups that meet

under the authority of the provincial government."

We didn't foresee and didn't contemplate doing a broader consultation for that reason.

L. Doerkson: I guess, also, I'm curious what the minister referred to…. Perhaps he didn't say "housekeeping,"

but generally speaking, it's housekeeping and just a cleanup of some legislation.

My question is: was there anything that prompted these changes to this legislation?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Because these groups are required to meet — it's under statute — we wanted to make

sure that we moved quickly to give them the flexibility. Again, they can meet in person.

They can meet virtually.

There weren't contemplations beyond that in terms of other amendments. This was just

something that, again, was brought into a number of groups in the spring. These groups

were not included. We wanted to include them, and this is what the statute, if it

passes, will allow them to do.

Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

On clause 26.

The Chair: We're now on to clause 26.

Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Chair. You've come at an exciting time, Mr. Chair.

On clause 26, the question I have is…. The general reference to notice of delivery

comes up several times throughout the bill. In

section 76.1(2), it states: "The notice

must be given not less than 10 days before the date of the meeting (

a) by delivering

it to each owner…." How does the notice have to be delivered to the owner?

Hon. N. Cullen: I think it might be in the next

section where we describe how we have to let people

know about these meetings, because we are quite descriptive on that. I might be wrong,

but my friend will correct me, I'm sure, right away.

[3:05 p.m.]

section 27(a), in subsection (2), there is a description of "a written notice mailed

or delivered to each owner and posted in at least 3 conspicuous places in the district."

We can get into the notification requirements of this.

The allowance for electronic or virtual meetings is also an effort to increase transparency

for those people that may be affected by those decisions and to notify them when those

meetings will be happening. Oftentimes people are able to participate themselves,

even if they don't sit on the commission.

We've seen an improvement on that from town councils and other groups that have hybrid

— meeting in person, meeting electronically. Citizens who would normally not be able

to attend — cost, mobility — are able to show up virtually and find out what's going

on in the community.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

L. Doerkson: I guess we'll go right there, then, Chair. We'll go to that exact point.

The word "conspicuous" and those notices about meetings that could be held, frankly,

only once a year…. That's really what I'm worried about. The minister sort of touched

on it by saying the word "conspicuous."

I wondered if the minister could, perhaps, just explain what that might mean. My fear

is…. I've heard, certainly in my riding, about notices for meetings. People simply

didn't see them or weren't aware, even though the MLA has gone to great efforts to

try to make sure that they are aware.

Certainly, advertisements have been placed in the local media and, potentially, on

radio. The fact is that rural B.C. can be very rural, and there are challenges getting

those notices to individuals.

I'd be curious to know a little bit more about what the meaning of "conspicuous" may

indicate.

Hon. N. Cullen: I may have misspoken. I want to make sure I'm clear on the record. I think what I

was reading out before, in subsection 27(a), was the striking out piece. I think the

new notice comes in on 77.1. It's a lot more clear.

Again, we're getting to the principles of…. How do people find out that the meeting

is going on? My friend raises a good point. I've had more than a few community consultations

then argue that we're not giving them enough notice of meetings.

The way that the act describes that, and we'll see that in 77.1 — it's very specific.

Anyone sitting on these districts has to give the time, date and place of the meeting,

a description and, if the meeting is electronic — I think this is important — really

clear advice for people on how to log on to make sure that those maybe a little less

familiar with how to get into a virtual meeting or phone-in have instructions for

voting, for those that are able to vote.

[3:10 p.m.]

Notice must also be given not less than 15 days before the date of the meeting by

delivering it to each owner. At some point, as my friend articulated, you give people

lots of notice. You deliver it to their homes, their residences. You make a public

notice.

The three conspicuous public spaces are not defined in the act. The intent is what

it is — to post it around the community. Every community is different, and that might

be one of the reasons it's not laid out that it must be in the town square. Maybe

you don't have a town square. It must be in the local newspaper. Unfortunately, a

lot of places no longer have a town newspaper.

The conspicuous places are to the best of the district's ability. When giving the

notice 15 days prior to the meeting, make sure you're putting it in a place where

people frequent. If that's on the poster board at your local supermarket, perfect.

It's in addition to the other ways that people are being let know that the meeting

is happening, and I think it's offering a lot more clarity than what existed before.

L. Doerkson: Under 77.1, I appreciate what will be in the notice. Frankly, it's really the…. I

suppose, if there was one thing that I wanted to convey today, it is exactly the way

that we deliver those messages. I just think it really is a challenge. It's not a

rabbit hole that I want to get into or anything like that, but I think that there

are challenges that need to be acknowledged with respect to people getting these notices,

not what's in the notice. That's not my fear.

When the minister refers to three conspicuous places and then refers to where they

might frequent, that's exactly my concern if you're going to have a meeting about

dikes, ditches, etc., and we're trying to get ranchers to those meetings that do not

have access, potentially, to the Internet. We had conversation with ranchers together,

actually, just the other night. We know that the challenges are massive.

I guess, potentially, just one more question. Has there been anything contemplated

with respect to direct mail or things like that? We know that people are picking up

their mail. I know that if you want to get a message out in Tatla, you go and see

Uncle Dave, and he will look after it.

It's so important that people are aware of these meetings. Again, I can't stress it

enough. I know that we've had very serious conversations with respect to, certainly,

water, wildlife, other things that people really wish that they had an opportunity

to comment on.

Again, I don't want to belabour the point, and I don't want to get into a rabbit hole,

but I really want to know if the ministry has contemplated other forms of accessing

these folks.

Hon. N. Cullen: Understandably, because I've been doing it as well, we've been switching between the

two different groups that are affected by this: the drainage, ditches and dikes component,

as well as the water users component. They're slightly different, but the contemplation

is the same.

[3:15 p.m.]

To the owners of the dike, the commissioners that we refer to in the act, those are

the folks that get the notice. This wouldn't be a general public meeting about diking

in the valley. This is very specific to the ownership.

On the water users side of things, this would be people who have water licences, and

they would also be notified. I may have incorrectly left the impression that this

is a general public meeting about water in a community and how do we notify everybody

and get them on. This is much more specific than I think I may have indicated. So

apologies for that.

We are affecting two different groups here, two totally different structures. They

look a little different, but the notification, to my friend's point, is the same.

These are very important. We wouldn't want somebody who is an owner in a dike system

to not be notified and not be implicated in the decisions that get made.

Similarly, on the water user side, somebody who has a water drawing license. We would

very much want to make sure that the notices are given in a timely way, which I think

everything that I've seen in the legislation would indicate that. So apologies for

any confusion that I may have let on. I'm still catching up three weeks in on some

of the authorities that we have within the ministry.

L. Doerkson: I guess I am going to ask one more question.

No, I'm completely aware that this will affect and I think the minister just touched

on it. I was giving examples of other public meetings that people have missed. But

certainly, with reference to the ranchers that I was referring to and other people

that may own water licenses, they will obviously have an opportunity to meet with

regard to this.

I'm guessing that, potentially, ratepayer groups and those types of groups are also

parts of this. I suppose it's easy if you're referring to potentially one stream or

one dike or one whatever that you might be able to get to those six or seven people.

I'm just wondering, I guess, and I'll ask it one last time: how has the minister or

the ministry contemplated those rural folks? Is the minister confident that the individuals

that should participate in these meetings are getting their notice? I'm very concerned

about that, and frankly, it's the biggest concern I have with respect to just about

anything that we do. Is the minister confident that those notices are getting where

they need to go?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah. The responsibility is to both know who's within that water user group authority

and to notify them, as it is spelled out in 77.1(2), by delivering it to each owner

and then the posting in three conspicuous places.

I very much agree with my friend just with respect to making sure that people are

notified, that they're able to participate in the decisions given their implication

as being licensees, and that the statutes make crystal clear the responsibilities

of those authorities to make sure everybody on that list, which they hold, is notified

in a timely manner as is described in the sections that we read out earlier.

Yes, the imperative is high enough that we are changing some of the statutes to make

sure nobody is under any illusions as to what the requirements are so that people

can participate and have their voices heard, particularly given the sensitivity of

water these days in our province.

I thank my friend for his concern. It's one that's shared, and I think it's well addressed

in the bill.

L. Doerkson: I have no further questions on

part 4, of course, but earlier, there were a couple

of clauses that were stood down, so we wouldn't complete today.

I just wanted to inform the Chair, of course, that I have no further questions.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Much appreciated, Member.

Clauses 27 to 41 inclusive approved.

The Chair: I will seek the Speaker to report progress, as the other sections have been stood

down.

Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

sit again.

Hon. M. Dean: I call the Committee of the Whole, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 48; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 3:25 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We're here with Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023,

committee stage.

Would the minister like to introduce his folks or shall we dive right in?

Hon. H. Bains: I just move that we move ahead and have my critic ask any questions that they may

have.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise and to go through a series of questions

with the minister with respect to Bill 48.

First question would be: can the minister lay out before this House what consultation

was undertaken with respect to the legislation that is before us today? I do know

that there was a committee that was struck and had done some initial work, and the

conclusion of which it didn't seem like there was any real direction, and then further

consultation. I heard also from my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Sea to

Sky that there's some ongoing work that's even being undertaken now with respect to

ride services in B.C.

I just wanted to get a better sense of what is it that the minister undertook with

respect to consultation that has led us to this piece of legislation before us today.

Hon. H. Bains: I want to clarify for the member. I think, if I heard him correctly, that he's referring

to the all-party committee to deal with the ride-hail company in that sector. What

we are trying to do through here is separate and different than what that committee

is doing. Their mandate is different.

On my mandate letter is, through the parliamentary secretaries as well, continue to

develop a precarious work strategy that reflects modern workplaces, diverse needs

and unique situations, propose employment standards and other protections relevant

to app-based, ride-hail and food delivery drivers.

Maybe the member has mixed up the mandate of the all-party committee to deal with

the ride-hail companies, PTB role and all that. We are not linked with that committee

or their work.

[3:30 p.m.]

What we are trying to do here is the workers who are employed in that industry, the

workers who are employed with the ride-hail companies and with the food delivery companies….

How do we provide them the protection to employment standards and through the workers

compensation? I think those are the two different things. That committee's role, in

my understanding, is totally different than ours.

G. Kyllo: Although I appreciate the response from the minister, the question was specifically

about what consultative work was undertaken.

I do know that the previous parliamentary secretary had undertaken some work and some

engagement with the different service providers. The results of that report, from

what I recall, didn't necessarily land on the legislation that is before us today.

I appreciate that there's been some further consultative work. I'm just trying to

get a bit of a better understanding of the breadth of the consultation that was undertaken

across the different sectors.

Just for clarity, I did give reference to the work of the standing committee that's

undertaking work with ride-hailing services. Certainly, this legislation will have

a significant impact on some of that work of the other committee.

I was just raising that for the minister, for his recollection. Hopefully he might

be able to weave in his consultative efforts undertaken by his minister and include

some reference on how he believes the work that he has undertaken on this consultation,

which has led to this particular legislation, is totally disconnected and will not

have any impact on the work of the other committee.

Hon. H. Bains: This work started in fall of 2022. The ministry engaged with app-based ride-hail and

food delivery workers, platform companies, academics, worker advocates, community

organizations, businesses and labour organizations. So there was a variety of consultation.

I will perhaps help the member in breaking that down.

There were in-person, round-table discussions. In 2022, the parliamentary secretary

held both virtual and in-person round-table discussions in Prince George, Kamloops,

Kelowna, Victoria, Nanaimo, Parksville, Abbotsford, Richmond, Vancouver and Surrey.

In September, we held three additional in-person sessions with workers in the Lower

Mainland and two virtual sessions for workers in other parts of the province.

Overall, direct discussions have occurred with over 200 workers to hear their perspectives

and ideas from across the province. That's in person.

Then online, a public survey was conducted, and a survey which was posted from November

23, 2022, to January 6, 2023. It was available in multiple languages, focused on the

benefits and challenges of app-based ride-hail and food delivery workers. A total

of 1,470 survey responses were received, including 1,106 from current or former workers

in the sector.

Then we had meetings with the stakeholders. Over the past year, ministry staff, my

parliamentary secretary…. We have had meetings with union representatives, platform

company representatives, academic experts and advocates, then a representative from

business associations and Indigenous organizations.

[3:35 p.m.]

The first engagements include 22 virtual meetings and additional written submissions.

Those are the kinds of consultations we held. The idea behind this was to understand

from the workers who actually are working in the industry, hear them directly.

I attended at least, I know, one such session in Guildford. To my estimation, there

were about at least 50 people in there, and they all had their own stories, their

experiences. The result of all of that is what's before us.

We tried to take what they told us, hear from the stakeholders, listen to the companies

and listen to the workers. As a result, we tried to deal with the concerns that were

raised during those consultation sessions. We tried to deal with them through this

bill.

G. Kyllo: The minister, in his comments, referenced a number of in-person meetings. Of those

different municipalities or communities in which the minister or his staff undertook

to have these consultation meetings…. Is ride-hail service available in each of those

communities where those consultations were undertaken?

Hon. H. Bains: Some of the cities we mentioned had ride-hail service, and others had food delivery.

Some had both.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister share with us, of the number of communities where they did undertake

the direct consultation, specifically which communities…? There about nine communities

in total, I believe, that the minister referenced. What was the total number of communities,

and which ones actually have ride-hailing?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: At that time, if the member is asking me about that particular time, in Richmond,

Vancouver, Surrey, the Lower Mainland, the ride-hail was operative there. There were

also announcements or anticipation that they would be expanding to Victoria and Kelowna,

which, since that time, they have announced,

But it wasn't just about the ride-hail drivers. It was ride-hail and food delivery

workers, and food delivery workers were employed in different parts of the province.

Ride-hail is expanding. They started in the Lower Mainland, and now they're expanding

to Victoria, Kelowna. Who is next? We don't know, but we want to hear from both ride-hail

and food delivery workers.

G. Kyllo: Look, it's not a difficult question. I'm just trying to better understand. Ride-hail

is a big portion of the drivers that are going to be affected by this particular legislation.

Consultation was undertaken in a number of communities where I know, and British Columbians

know, that ride-hail services do not exist. I'm just trying to get a bit better understanding

with the number of in-person consultation meetings that were held around the province.

I don't have the exact list in front of me, but hopefully, the minister might be able

to share if it was seven communities, nine communities, whatever that number is. Then

of that total number, how many communities actually had ride-hail services in effect

at the time that the consultations were undertaken?

Hon. H. Bains: Chair, I answered the question.

G. Kyllo: With all due respect, the minister has not answered the question. The minister has

not shared with us, specifically, the number of communities where the consultations

were undertaken.

I know the minister referenced a number of communities, but I didn't hear a number

as far as the quantity. Was it seven communities, ten communities, 12 communities?

And of those 12 communities, how many of those communities had ride-hailing services

in effect at the time the consultations were undertaken?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I mentioned every community we went in, and he could just read the Blues.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult. This is not complex stuff.

Can the minister share, specifically, at the time that the consultations were undertaken,

which communities had ride-hail service in effect?

Hon. H. Bains: It's the second time I've answered the question, Mr. Chair.

At that time, Richmond, Vancouver and Surrey.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the clarity, and I'll go back through the Blues. Maybe I just wasn't

quick enough to write down all the communities that the minister rattled off.

This consultation piece is incredibly important, especially when we see this legislation

being tabled very late in the legislative calendar. It's certainly my understanding

that the House Leader had made a commitment to table all legislation by midpoint of

the legislative calendar but certainly no later than November 7. Yet we see a new

piece of legislation, this particular piece of legislation, being tabled on Monday

of this week, largely just in the dying days of the legislative calendar.

So the consultation that was undertaken by the minister is very important, which has

obviously led them to the piece of work that we see in front of us. But in addition,

it does put the opposition in an awkward position to try and actually also go out

and undertake to contact the different affected user groups to better understand what

the implications are of the legislation that's before us.

[3:45 p.m.]

Again, I think, with this legislation only being tabled on Monday of this week, it's

important to let folks know, on the record, that we certainly weren't apprised that

this legislation was forthcoming and only found out about it on Monday of this week

when the actual legislation was tabled.

Further to the consultation that was undertaken, was there any differentiation with

the questions that were asked of the different user groups impacted? The minister

has referenced both ride-hailing and then restaurant or delivery services. Those are

two separate subsets of the app-based legislation that's before us.

Was there a focused effort of carving out and accurately recording the information,

the lived experience, from those two separate groups? Was that differentiated? Or

were their concerns bundled together and formulated into the legislation that's before

us today?

Maybe I'll just add some context. I think it's important, because the requirements

that would be placed upon somebody driving passengers for ride-hailing services are

very, very different and distinct from the equipment and the vehicles that may be

employed for those that are delivering restaurant goods across the province. I just

want to have a better understanding of the consultation that was undertaken.

Was there work and an effort undertaken to clearly identify the two different groups

that have a very different lived experience? Was that information compiled separately,

or was it all collated together to inform this piece of legislation that's before

us?

Hon. H. Bains: I think it's important to understand, for the member and everyone who's listening,

that the workers that we heard from — many of them do both. They provide ride-hail

service, and many of them also do the food delivery service. That's an important part.

[3:50 p.m.]

When they forwarded their concerns to us, there were certain areas that they were

the same, like fair compensation, such as pay transparency, such as knowing and understanding

the destination and the pay thereof, WCB coverage.

Both workers advised us that those are the concerns that they have. Where there may

be some differences that we heard from food delivery versus ride-hail is that ride-hail

is all cars or vehicles, and for food delivery, they use both. They have e-bikes,

they have regular bikes, or some of them use cars. When it comes to determining how

to pay for the work-related expenses, that's where the difference may come from, but

that's where the consultation will take place.

We will work with the food delivery app-based companies and listen to their side of

it, how their workers are doing most of the deliveries or some of the deliveries or

different modes of deliveries and what kind of compensation could be worked out. On

the other side, ride-hailing, it would be the vehicle cost. Is there a requirement

by the company to have a certain type of car? We will understand that part from the

ride-hail companies. If none, then we will see what different model of compensation

there should be.

Also, pay transparency. Workers told us that they don't know how much they will be

paid for that particular assignment before they accept it. Workers told us they don't

know, in many cases, how much the customer paid and what their portion will be.

I think there are different types of concerns that they raised. In ride-hail, largely,

we heard that app deactivation takes place. It's quite common, but many of them told

us that no reason was given, and when they asked, it took a long period of time for

them. They didn't even know what the process was to have that thing addressed. When

they did, it took days or weeks sometimes, and the company would realize that actually,

it wasn't the driver's fault, but they have lost a number of days as a result of that.

I think those are the concerns that were raised by different drivers, and we collected

all of those, but again, my mandate letter requires me to look at both food delivery

and ride-hail and come up with the employment standards and WCB protections for them.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister, and I do appreciate that there may very

well be some that undertake, with the use of their cars or automobiles, to provide

a service both to ride-hailing and delivery services, but the minister also indicated

that some on the delivery service side might use an e-bike or even a pedal bike. Certainly,

they aren't participating on the ride-share application.

It's important, I think, to differentiate the distinct concerns and the different

lived experience from workers that work in those two different sectors. The minister,

to this point anyhow, certainly hasn't provided any confidence or comfort that the

information was kept separate. I do appreciate that there may be some that do both

ride-hailing as well as a delivery service.

Did the minister track or tabulate what percentage of those comments that came in

were from individuals that worked specifically for one app or the other and then,

in addition to that, which individuals actually worked under both scenarios?

I appreciate that some of the concerns with respect to WorkSafeBC and those…. There

are some common issues. I think everybody would appreciate that. But what I'm trying

to get a bit of an understanding on is: was there a conscious effort…? Did the ministry

undertake to specifically identify that there are two distinct user groups that they're

looking to try and provide some protections for? Were those comments captured separately?

I appreciate that as the minister undertakes the work to go to regulation, there may

be differences respecting the different lived experience of those two different user

groups, but I'm just trying to get a bit of a sense on if that was on the minister's

mind and on staff's mind when they went to undertake that consultative work. And are

there clear lines of data that specifically differentiate between those two groups?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes. The answer to the member's question would be yes.

In many of the areas that we mentioned, there were food delivery workers. They have

their concerns. In other areas, we listened to both. One thing is sure here, what

we are trying to deal with is concerns that were raised by both sides. The common

concerns, as I mentioned, that are being addressed here came from both sides. That's

the answer I think the member is looking for.

Did we keep them separate? Did we count them separately? Each one of them separate?

No, but we listened to the food delivery workers, and we collected the information

that was provided. Same thing from ride-hail. Some of them said they were working

on both, and some of them told us they were on more than one app.

That's the information we collected as a first step. Because this is a new economy.

This is a different type of work. It's unique. It's not a traditional seven to 3:30,

same employer, and you go to work every day, the rest of your life sometimes.

[4:00 p.m.]

These workers could be employed by three different employers on the same day. We just

wanted to hear what their concerns were as employees. They told us. They listed those

concerns, and those are the concerns that we are trying to address. One thing was

clear. Food delivery, for example. One claim was accepted; another claim wasn't accepted

by WCB. Then we want to make sure that all of those workers are covered by WCB in

case they get injured or become ill due to their work-related injury or illness.

They all had concern about pay transparency or lack thereof. Some of them had issues

with the act deactivation and not knowing what the process is and not knowing who

to talk to even, sometimes. So that's what we are trying to do and achieve through

this bill — what the common concerns were from food delivery workers and from ride-hail

companies, ride-hail workers, and address them as a first step.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Then we'll monitor going forward— I've said that in public — and see how and whether

these changes are making a difference or hitting the target that we are trying to

and addressing the concerns of these drivers. At the same time, making sure that the

app-based companies also have a comfort level that they want to continue to provide

the service that we have and grow these jobs. I think we're trying to keep that balance:

provide protection to the workers; at the same time, preserve the jobs that come with

this in this sector.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to share what percentage of input was provided by those that

actually work specifically with ride-hailing or ride-hailing services and what the

percentage of respondents were that work with only the delivery services? Then, what's

the combined number that actually work in both ride-hail and delivery services? I'm

just trying to get a bit of sense of all of the respondents that participated, what

the ratio was.

The minister has referenced that there were only three of the communities that they

undertook the direct consultation with that actually even had ride-hailing services.

I'm just trying to get a bit of a sense of all of the information that flowed to the

minister. The minister indicated that he didn't necessarily track it all, but I'm

hoping that at the very least they were able to track those that only work specifically

for ride-hailing, those that specifically just work for delivery service apps and

then those that might work for both sectors.

I think that's incredibly important as we look to the contents of this bill and what

consultation — not just the consultation that was undertaken. What was the work of

the ministry and the minister to really understand the varying issues of those different

classifications of workers?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I tried to explain it to the member before.

What we were interested in was: what were the concerns? The member, if he had read

the what-we-heard report that was made public…. All that information is there. Hopefully,

the member…. If he hasn't read it, maybe he could read it. That information is in

there.

What we were interested in was: what was the common theme coming from both sides of

these two particular services, food delivery and ride-hail?

The member will know, if you have read the what-we-heard report, that there are a

lot more food delivery workers than there are ride-hail. Obviously, you will have

more of them participating than the ride-hail.

The common theme was these four or five areas that I talked about. That's what we

were interested in. How do we provide them protection under the Employment Standards

Act? How do we provide protection under WCB? That's what the interest was, and that's

the information we collected. We collected those concerns that were common to both.

Regardless of how many came to participate from the food delivery or from the ride-hail,

if they all said…. They all fit the common theme: lack of pay transparency, a lack

of WCB coverage and also the destination — lack of understanding of the destination

and pay thereof. Those are the areas that came from both sides, and those are the

areas we are trying to address here.

G. Kyllo: Look, I think it's incredibly important when government goes out to undertake this

consultation that there's a measure of, I would say, professionalism, and I mean no

disrespect to the minister.

When you're capturing data…. Data drives decisions. We know that if we can't measure

it, we can't manage it.

I do appreciate, and I think everybody can appreciate, that the cost structure of

an individual that has a nice-quality automobile and is participating in the ride-hail

service delivery system — their cost construct is going to be much different than

somebody that's running a pedal bike. Also, the concern about impacts of WorkSafeBC

coverage is probably very different for somebody driving in an automobile with air

bags versus somebody that's on a bicycle in traffic.

There are definitely very, very different lived experiences by the two different classification

workers. I'm really surprised that the minister seems to — at this point, anyhow —

have indicated that there was no effort undertaken to differentiate between the two

in any way, shape or form. That is incredibly concerning. It should be very concerning,

I think, to British Columbians that might be listening at home, although there are

probably very few of them. But it is important.

If we're going to consult with two very different, distinct groups of workers that

have very different cost constructs, very different lived experiences, how can we

possibly come up with a one-size-fits-all program and then just trust the minister,

as he starts to develop the regulation, that it's all going to be right and it's going

to be just?

This piece of legislation is enabling legislation that really puts the opportunity

for the minister, with government cabinet, to make all the rules without the scrutiny

of this House. The work that was undertaken to really clearly understand the issues,

from what we're hearing to date, that the minister and staff either chose not to differentiate

between the very distinct, between those two classifications of workers…. Either they

chose to just ignore it or they've chosen not to actually share that information.

[4:10 p.m.]

I believe it is incredibly important that the work that was undertaken on the consultation,

which has led to the piece of legislation before us…. I really do hope that the minister

is able to share with us, specifically, the percentage of those two different classifications

of workers and, if there's overlap, to understand what percentage of workers are working

on both app systems. Is it 10 percent? Is it 20 percent? Is it 50 percent? I have

no idea.

I'll give the minister an opportunity to hopefully provide some additional clarity

that I've been looking for almost an hour now.

Hon. H. Bains: I gave the answer. The member doesn't like the answer, unfortunately. I said that

we listened to the food delivery drivers. We listened to the ride-hail drivers.

The common theme, the food delivery drivers, whether there were 1,000 on this side

or there were 25 on this side…. It doesn't matter. The issue is what issues that they

both raised with us. Those are the concerns that they raised. Are they getting minimum

wage? They were not sure. They both told us the lack of pay transparency is concerning

to them. They both told us that WCB coverage…. They don't know whether they are entitled

to WCB coverage or not.

Those are the concerns we are trying to address here. Minimum wage. We're trying to

address the WCB coverage. Trying to address process in case their app is deactivated,

lost their job. No reason. Those are the concerns both of them raised.

It doesn't matter to the member whether 80 percent here because they are hiring numbers.

Obviously, there will be more of them coming to participate. There are fewer of the

ride-hail. Fewer of those come than the food delivery. It just the areas of concern

that we heard from both sides.

I advised the member earlier that we listened to both of them. They both gave us those

common concerns, and that's what we are trying to fix here.

G. Kyllo: Well, that's disappointing. What I would certainly believe to be the most basic level

of information and scrutiny of tabulating and tracking the information that was provided

through this broad consultation…. There was, it appears, zero level of concern or

interest at all in differentiating between the lived experiences of those two very

different classifications of workers.

But while we're on the question of consultation, was there any work undertaken by

the ministry or the minister's staff to understand what some of those common themes

or concerns may be for other industry sectors that are similar to ride-hailing?

Although they're not app-based, we certainly do have individuals that are delivering

documents throughout the city. We've seen them on bicycles for 30 or 40 years, delivering

documents around the city to different businesses.

We've also seen, obviously, taxis. The taxi industry has been in this province forever.

I'm sure some of the concerns that may be experienced and shared by both ride-sharing

drivers as well as delivery service drivers may also be in common with those of the

taxi industry.

Was there any work to understand what some of the lived experiences of the taxi industry

or some of these other similarly related workers in the province as part of this consultative

work with the app-based workers in the province?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Currently these are the two sectors in this industry that we are dealing with through

this bill. The consultation was, again, also concentrated and focused on these two:

ride-hail and food delivery workers. Now, taxis — the member had mentioned taxis —

are already covered under the Employment Standards Act.

There may be some other workers who get their employment through app-based companies,

where they are employed by two or three different app companies. They may be out there,

but we're not there yet. Right now we're taking — I think the member will know, and

many members here will know — the precarious work.

The gig economy is quite vast; it's growing. We are taking a focused approach as a

first step for these workers. Food delivery — because we have become accustomed to

the service that we have already received from them — and ride-hail are quite prominent

in our lives right now. There are so many workers already employed in this. So those

are the areas we are trying to fix or deal with, with this bill.

Going forward, I think we need to look at what else is available out there. What other

industries are similar to these and may not have coverage under the employment standards?

I think in this particular case also, the difference is that these employers, the

platform companies, took the position that these are not their employees, but that

they are their contractors. As a result, they took the position that employment standards

don't apply to them, workers compensation coverage doesn't apply to them, and other

labour laws may not apply to them.

That's why we're taking these two sectors, at this particular time, through this bill.

We consulted those two groups of workers. These are the common concerns that came

from both of them, and those are the ones that we are dealing with.

S. Furstenau: I'm glad to have the opportunity to ask some questions on this bill.

I just want to start at sort of a high level with the minister. In my second reading

comments, I talked about the role of government when it comes to really providing

conditions for workers and that this is an example of government stepping into that

role.

I guess my question to the minister is: could he articulate his view, his philosophy

and view on what role government should be playing as we have these emerging industries

like the gig economy? Yes, I've heard the back-and-forth about ride-hail and food

delivery. There are already other types of this work. There's TaskRabbit, for example,

where people doing handyperson services can be brought up on an app and dispatched

to do that kind of work.

I would say that this is expanding, as the minister just indicated. It's expanding

rapidly. Up until now in B.C., it has expanded without a lot of the articulated role

of the government.

We see these changes in this legislation, but I would like to hear, from the minister,

his overall view on what role government should be playing as a new part of the economy

unfolds in this way.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member. A good question, Member.

My view — and, I believe, our government's view — is that if you're working in the

province of British Columbia, regardless of the sector you work in, regardless of

your immigration status, you're entitled to the minimum basic standards that workers

in this province expect to enjoy, such as health and safety protection, WCB coverage,

a minimum wage. Those are some minimum standards that all workers, in my view, are

entitled to and deserve. That's what the government's role is. If they are not, then

the government steps in.

In this case, we noticed that these workers who reached out to us, and more so during

the consultation, didn't believe that the current labour laws protect them. As the

economy changed, as the workforce changed as a result of a different type of economy

— precarious work, gig economy, as we talked about — I think our labour laws need

to change, to reflect the new economy, the new way of work. That's what we are trying

to do here.

Of course, there are others. I think the economy is changing, as we said and, as we

all know, what else is out there and how deep that is. I have learned in a short little

while that different sectors that are digitally controlled, or app-based work, have

different challenges. You need to understand the industry side of it and the workers'

side of it. Where are the gaps in the law to provide them the basic minimums that

I talked about? Then we would be looking at that, going forward.

Right now, this is what my mandate letter is, because this is quite emerging and came

quickly. It grew very fast before our eyes. We're trying to deal with those concerns,

which they raised with us, for the food delivery workers and for the ride-hail.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister.

In the conditions that we're looking at with this, with the gig economy, I've talked

about some of the profits that these companies are posting right now. Uber posted

over $1 billion in its third-quarter profits. DoorDash said up to $2.2 billion. Lyft

third-quarter revenue reportings were $1.158 billion. SkipTheDishes, $649 million.

Also, the estimated revenue per employee, they said, was $200,000.

These companies are gaining a lot of profit out of their platforms, out of their new

industries. What role does the minister think that governments generally should be

playing in determining how much labour can be used to develop those profits?

We know that the history of workers' rights has been about levelling that field a

bit. It has been about ensuring that there's a value on the labour of workers and

that the exploitation of workers isn't so unequal and unfair as to generate enormous

wealth for employers or owners at the expense of the workers.

[4:25 p.m.]

Given the conditions of this industry and the profits that are being posted by these

companies — and that the Simon Fraser study indicated that the average salary of employees

in this sector is $40,000 — is this the playing field that the minister thinks is

reasonable for workers in this province?

Hon. H. Bains.: An interesting discussion, Member .

I wish the government had powers to set wages and benefits for workers based on the

company's profit. Unfortunately, we don't. I think in this market economy, what we

can do, though, is make sure that the workers can exercise their right to association,

so that collectively, they can bargain based on employers' ability to pay and how

much they can pay.

We've seen that happening in different industries. That's why unionized wages and

benefits are higher than for non-union workers.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: The member would have the opportunity to speak, and he could ask those questions.

Right now these are very intelligent questions coming from a very capable member.

I'm trying to answer them as best as I can. I think our role is to set the basic minimum

standards as a government. In this particular case, it wasn't happening. The laws

need to keep up with the changing economy. That's what we're trying to do here.

Certainly, there are companies out there, international companies, operating all over

the world. As the member said, many are making huge profits. Are the workers getting

their share? It's a challenge. As I said, we have moved in that direction, allowing

workers to exercise their constitutional right. That's why it is recognized in our

constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the workers' right to association.

It's so that they can collectively bargain for better conditions, better wages, better

benefits. That's the process that workers can use.

Here it's available to them as well. What we are trying to do here, at least…. The

government role is to establish basic and minimum standards. By the way, these companies

also agree that there have to be some sort of standards, which means that they also

can play on a level playing field for all of them and that at the same time, workers

get the basic minimum standards.

That's what we're trying to do here, but the discussion the member is having is a

bigger discussion that we could have somewhere else and maybe at a different time.

S. Furstenau: My colleague and I have now both been invited out by ministers for discussions at

different times on things in the last couple of days. We might take you up on that.

In response to my first question, the minister said that regardless of sector, workers

should be entitled to minimum basic standards, health and safety, WCB, minimum wage.

What about paid sick leave?

Hon. H. Bains: I have said that we brought five paid sick days for all workers in British Columbia

and five paid days for workers who experience domestic and sexual violence. In this

case, because it's a very different industry, unique work and a different workforce,

many of the workers who came to us told us they use multiple apps. So it was challenging

to deal with some of those protections that are provided to traditional, seven-to-3:30

workers, with the same employer every day.

[4:30 p.m.]

The work will continue during the process of developing regulations in many of those

areas, trying to understand the complexities and how to deal with the complex situations

that these workers are faced with and that are different than the regular, traditional

workers.

As I said before, this is a first step. We are moving in some of these areas that

they all brought to our attention. We'll monitor for the next six months or year,

and then we will, again, get back into talking to these workers and to the app-based

companies and see what the gaps are.

The members have mentioned sick days. Hours of work could be another area that we

will look at. Again, because they're different…. Right now different sectors have

different hours of work protection as well. They're dealt with differently under employment

because of the nature of the work that they do. I think that's why unique to this

particular industry and what the workers' priorities were, we found through our consultation,

are the areas we're trying to fix here.

S. Furstenau: I think, just to push on that point a little bit, the amendments to the legislation

in front of us still do not resolve the fact that people working in this part of the

economy, in gig work, are not afforded all of the same minimum benefits that other

people who work in B.C. are. The work is…. As the minister indicated, the gaps are

still meant to be filled.

I think there needs to be some capacity for creativity. When we were, probably a year

ago, talking about paid sick leave — or I don't know, two years ago; time has no meaning

— one of the proposals that we put forward to the minister, I'm not sure if he ever

thought about it after that, was of approaching paid sick leave more as an insurance

policy than putting it on the specific businesses. This addresses the burden it can

put on smaller businesses that can be very financially impacted by paid sick leave

if they only have a handful of employees and very limited revenues.

It also is a way for larger businesses and businesses making these kinds of profits

— which, of course, a small business could never even dream of — to be able to contribute

in a more fair way to a pool of resources that would be available to workers across

B.C., to all workers and to ensure that particularly workers in the gig economy —

who are often newcomers, who are often racialized workers — are afforded the same

minimum rights that we would expect for everybody in the province.

In fact, with an approach to paid sick leave that makes it a collective effort, as

opposed to putting it on individual businesses, we are sharing that collective burden

of keeping people well more effectively than we are right now.

I think that given the kind of rebound that we've seen since the height of the COVID

pandemic, where people are being pressured to come to work sick again…. People in

government, by the way, are being pressured to come to work sick. People in the health

care sector are being pressured to come to work sick. We have not accomplished what,

I think, I would hope the minister had hoped to accomplish with a paid sick leave

program in B.C., which is that people get well when they need to get well, that we

aren't asking people in this province to come to work when they're sick.

With the lack of those protections in these amendments, we do leave the employees,

the workers in this particular sector, without the choice. If they have to get that

revenue in order to pay their basic bills, they aren't afforded the benefit of paid

sick leave. I think that that is a pretty significant oversight.

[4:35 p.m.]

Back to the question of online platform workers. We hear specifically, and keep hearing

today, about ride-hail and food delivery. Will this definition be able to encompass

people who are not ride-hail or food delivery workers but who are working in online

platform apps right now?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I'll give you the first half of the comments. The other, I'm trying to get

the information about.

The sick leave, the member asked. That discussion took place, remember, during COVID.

What should we be doing? Workers were forced to go to work, because if they stayed

home, they would lose wages.

There were many suggestions about what model there should be. We understood that employers

were hurting. The businesses were hurting. But they weren't being helped by workers

going to work sick, because they take the illness with them. Other workers get infected,

and they go home to their families. It was causing a bigger problem.

There were some suggestions. That's why, the member may recall, we went to the federal

government EI type of program. I think that there was much support to have that kind

of a collective pool of benefits — that model. We suggested…. There are EI sick benefits

available, but there is a waiting period. That doesn't help someone who's sick for

three, four, five days. Also, when they do qualify, I believe it was only 50, 55 percent

of the wages that they were entitled to.

I agree with you, and I still do believe that that type of system, if that system

was reformed to allow workers to stay home without loss of pay, would be better for

businesses. I think workers would enjoy that benefit. You and I don't differ on that.

We tried that. I remember, then, our Premier, John Horgan, went to Ottawa and advocated

on our behalf that that's the model we should be looking at. They made some changes,

to give them credit, but they didn't go far enough to deal with what we are trying

to deal with. So we came on our own. Remember? Three days during COVID, and then we

added five days permanently, because there was a need.

Those are my comments on that. But I'll get the answer to the second part, whether

this will allow us to add other sectors who may be in a similar….

Again, I think I want to say this. Even if we are able to, they may be different than

what we are dealing with here today, because different technology, a different workforce

and a different way of doing work may be existing out there right now. We need to

understand them.

If we add them, again, I think it'll take a lot more consultation directly from the

workers, their employers and academics to see what type of work relationship they

have with the app-based companies and then the workers. I think the idea is to learn

in each of those industries and then see where the gaps are and how do we deal with

them.

[4:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I do believe the minister indicated that he was going to get me the answer to the

second part of my question. So we're waiting on that answer now.

Hon. H. Bains: What clause 1 talks about is it defines "online platform worker" as a person who performs

prescribed work that the person accepts through an online platform.

Right now these are the two areas that we are looking at, but prescribed work would

fit ride-hail and food delivery. Then, if there are others, we can use this definition

to add others if they accept work through an online platform.

S. Furstenau: That brings me to the question around regulations. I expect that that could be added

in regulations. There's a lot in this legislation that will be brought in through

regulation.

The question for the minister is: is there a clear timeline for when the regulations

will be brought in so that workers can know when they will start to see these expected

protections and benefits?

Hon. H. Bains: What we are looking at is developing regulations as quickly as possible, soon after

royal assent of this bill. I'm hoping the members will support it, and we would pass

this, and then the regulations will start to develop. My expectation is early 2024

that we will be completing the regulations. But the second part of that is also that

the companies need some time to update their technology to build these changes into

implementing and providing the benefits to the workers.

WCB. I don't think that I need to take a long time, because WCB and the employer can

work out how they could actually start to register their employees with the WCB. But

there is some work that needs to be done for regulations — for example, what model,

what formula to use to pay for work-related expenses and what the process should be

in case their apps are deactivated.

I think those are some of the areas that we need to work on through regulations. I

think WCB is a bit more clear, and I think that

part can be done quickly, but we are

looking at early 2024. But again, still, the platform companies need to adjust their

technology to make changes according to this bill and regulations.

S. Furstenau: They are tech companies. I would hope that they would be able to very quickly adapt

their technology. Will the minister be giving them a firm date by which time they

have to implement these changes?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes. As soon as we receive royal assent, the regulations will start to get developed.

My understanding is that WCB already has met with the platform companies. So some

work that can be done is starting to get done.

Then, after the regulations are developed, it goes through the cabinet procedure.

Certainly, my expectation would be giving them a date. I agree, these are tech companies,

and my expectation would be that they could implement them as early as they can.

S. Furstenau: Just to kind of close on that, and I don't need another answer on that, I think it

is important for the workers that there is not only an understanding of when they

can expect these benefits but some accountability to the companies that they implement

them and that they implement them in a timely fashion. I will watch with interest

how that unfolds.

Hopefully, should, as the minister indicates, the legislation pass and royal assent

happens, there can be some clarity provided to workers as to when they can expect

to see these changes implemented in for them.

There's another area in the consultation that workers brought up, and it sounds like

there's another consultation in the works to look at how to compensate workers for

their out-of-pocket expenses. Again, for employees in most fields, if you have out-of-pocket

expenses that you incur while you're doing your job, you can expect to be compensated

for those. That does not exist for these workers.

Is there a timeline that we can expect to see that brought in and that level of protection

brought in for workers?

Hon. H. Bains: As we canvassed this earlier, it is all part of the regulation development, and they

will be part of the regulations. And as I said, as soon as there's royal assent, the

regulations will start to get developed. Some will not take much time; others may

take a little time.

There are, again, differences and complexities. Even coming up with answers to this

particular question…. For example, food delivery — they use different modes of delivery:

pedal bike, e-bike or sometimes cars. So we need to figure that out. At the same time,

ride-hail — what is their cost, and then what kind of a formula do we need?

All of that will be part of the regulations. Once they are developed, they go through

the cabinet process, and then we will be writing to the app-based companies or platform

companies our expectations and what the regulations are for them to implement. My

expectation, again, will be, through a letter to them, that they implement those changes

as soon as they can so that the workers will start to enjoy the basic minimum standards.

[4:50 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: This will be my last question. I'm going to beg the minister and his staff a little

bit of forgiveness, because it's probably later in a clause, but just to hand things

back over to the critic for the official opposition.

For workers who are injured outside of what's considered to be engaged time — for

example, if they're returning to a pickup location or waiting in between different

jobs…. So a bike courier or a bike delivery person waiting in between dispatches suffers

an injury or, as has happened in some places, is mugged. Is there going to be coverage

for workers for WCB in those in-between times? Can they be assured that in between

dispatches, they are going to be covered by WCB?

Hon. H. Bains: Currently there is a Workers Compensation Act that determines when a worker is covered

and what is a work-related injury, illness. This is the act that it's guided by. Under

the Workers Compensation Act, an injury is compensable when it arises out of and in

the course of a worker's employment. This is the standard for all workers covered

by the act, and it will apply here as well.

WorkSafeBC, as the member will know, is responsible for adjudicating workers compensation

claims and determining whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment.

As such, it will be, again, up to WorkSafeBC to determine if and when a ride-hail

or food delivery worker is considered working during engaged time. So they will make

those decisions. I will leave it up to the WCB to determine under this particular

act how they determine whether the injury is considered to be work-related.

The member will know that even today there are many challenges whether injuries arise,

even in a traditional employer-employee relationship. You're walking to your job.

You are in the gate. You punch the clock, and you're walking to your job. Slipped.

Fell. Is it work-related or not? It's not clearly specified where, but WCB, using

these particular guidelines in the act, determines whether the work was work-related

or not.

Even sometimes, I've seen cases…. A person who was actually working and filed a complaint

that their back became sore. It depends what happened. The claim could be accepted.

The claim could not be accepted.

I think there are a number of criteria that WorkSafeBC uses in order to determine

whether the injury has risen during or out of the course of employment. I think I'm

not saying clearly exactly what, but that's the language that they use. Then there's

an appeal process, and the workers have the way of challenging, if they didn't like

the decision.

[4:55 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I promise this is my last one.

As a matter of clarification, given the discussion we've had back and forth and the

recognition that this is a new arena of work and that it requires these amendments

to the legislation to clarify the expectations of government when it comes to what

are the minimum standards of protection that workers should have in British Columbia,

I think it's important to understand whether the intention of these amendments and

bringing these workers under the protection of workers compensation is to recognize

that even if somebody is on a platform in between two dispatches, maybe waiting, they

are effectively not employable elsewhere, right? They are employed doing this task.

Well, we all know about workers compensation claims through all of our constituency

offices and how well that goes all the time. But I think it's really important for

there to be some clarity of intention with these amendments around whether people

employed by these online platform companies are considered employed in between, say,

two different dispatches during a workday and that they would have coverage by workers

compensation in those circumstances.

Hon. H. Bains: It's difficult for me to adjudicate different scenarios. For me, I think I will leave

that to WorkSafeBC. The intention is that all injuries or illnesses that arise during

the course of employment are covered. That's the intention. Like I said, I gave you

different scenarios before.

It happens all the time. Sometimes workers strongly feel that it is work-related,

but the WCB adjudication determines it's not. They go through an appeal process. Sometimes

the decision gets overturned. Sometimes it goes all the way to WCAT, and it's adjudicated

there.

I will leave that to the WCB. There could be a number of scenarios that we could come

up with here, whether they are covered here, there and else places. My intention is

that all workplace work-related injuries, illnesses are covered.

G. Kyllo: In the minister's comments when he was having discussions about the consultative work

and some of the common concerns that were raised by different workers, whether they're

working in the ride-share or delivery services sector, he indicated there were concerns

about wage rates.

Were there any individuals or correspondence that indicated that their pay rate was

less than the minimum wage, and if so, what was the percentage of respondents that

indicated that they were extremely concerned because their pay rate was less than

the minimum wage rate in B.C.?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: During our consultation, we asked the drivers: "Do you have any comments about your

experiences with gig work that you would like to share?" In response, calls for a

minimum hourly rate and a higher per-job rate were among the top themes.

This aligned with the input received during in-person round-table meetings, in which

higher, more predictable pay was consistently raised as a top priority. We heard from

many workers that once their tips and expenses were deducted, less than minimum wage

was being earned for the hours that they worked. That was a common theme and one of

the top priorities from the workers that we heard from.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to share what percentage of workers expressed that specific concern?

Hon. H. Bains: The majority of the workers that we heard from.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister also share what level of worker investigation was undertaken to follow

up, to get examples from those workers in order to verify that those statements were

indeed factual, as the minister indicated? The commentary I believe he recited was

that workers were indicating — after they took their wages, plus the tips, minus expenses

— that for some, or maybe for many, the net resulted in what was claimed to be less

than the minimum wage.

I'm just trying to understand if the minister took those comments at face value, or

if any work was undertaken by the ministry or staff to get some actual examples. You

know, if an individual states that that's the case, did they provide any information

to the minister so that the minister or the minister's office was enabled, in any

way, shape or form, to validate or verify that the claim was accurate?

Hon. H. Bains: In 200 direct meetings — workers who came directly to in-person meetings — and 1,000

emails, clearly, one of the issues that the majority of them raised was that they

didn't believe that after deductions, they were earning minimum wage.

As a government, we want to make sure that the workers are earning at least minimum

wage. Right now, I have said that…. Companies also recognize that a certain standard

on pay transparency and pay should be there.

Then in some of the other areas, we are working with the platform companies and with

the workers to make sure that at least the minimum wage is paid. If they are already

earning enough…. Some of them may be; others may not be.

[5:05 p.m.]

Through these changes, it will ensure that all workers are paid at least 120 percent

during the engaged times. If, during the pay period, they're not making 120 percent

of the minimum wage of B.C., then the companies will be required to top-up to make

the difference.

G. Kyllo: I think this is actually a very important point. Am I hearing the minister correctly

that there was no work undertaken by staff or the minister's office to validate and

actually capture detailed information from any of the respondents to validate and

verify that, indeed, any of them are getting a pay rate that results in a net wage,

as the minister indicated, that is less than the minimum wage?

Maybe I'll stop there. I certainly hope that the commentary in their generality was

not just utilized and what is basing the minister's decision to table this legislation.

I would certainly hope that there'd be some effort to undertake to validate it. Like,

if a claim is made, I would certainly hope that there would be some work undertaken.

Fantastic.

Certainly, as a minister, as anybody, you'd want to have a look at: what is that information?

"Can you share with us an example? Can you share with us a copy of your pay slip?

How are you paid? What are the expenses that you're incurring?"

How do you make the determination? Or is it just a general gut feel from folks that

say: "You know what? We should all get paid more? We're concerned that after expenses,

we're getting less than minimum wages."

Was that the standard that this minister has required that has been utilized to develop

this legislation that's before us? I hope the minister has some more information to

share.

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I heard the word "seriously." A thousand workers, 1,000 who were employed in

this industry, told us this is their number one priority. I believe them. I want to

make sure that minimum wage is earned by these workers. That's all we are doing. If

they are already making more, then no one needs to worry about it.

There is a need, when 1,000-plus people are telling you they are not making, at times,

minimum wage. Do I need to say what day, what hour, when? They may have presented

that evidence to the people who were conducting the engagement. Must have.

But again, you take them at their face value, because they are all telling us what

I believe to be true — that there are times that they're not making minimum wage.

There may be times they're making more. Even over a period of time, they may not be

making minimum wage.

But then, if you start to deduct — they are not allowed to deduct right now — off

their expenses to do the business, they are saying that they're not making minimum

wage. So I would say that there's a need, clearly. They advocated that we need to

move in through legislation and then regulation to ensure that they are paid at least

minimum wage.

Why 120 percent, the member may ask later? It is to realize that there are waiting

times when they're waiting for the assignment. They complete one assignment, and now

they are waiting. But they were only paid during the engagement time. Many people

use the argument that if you're working at McDonald's, a customer comes, and then

you're waiting for the next customer. Does the clock stop paying you? No, you continue

to get paid in a traditional employer-employee relationship.

Here the workers advocated that when they turn their app on until they turn their

app off, at the end of the shift, they are saying that they should be paid. We understand

that there are complexities in dealing with all their requests completely as they

put it to us. That's why we're saying we're using engaged time to compensate some

of the waiting time that they have. Some of the companies agree that we need to move

in that area.

WCB is another area where we need to make sure that they are covered. I think we heard

from them, and that's why we are moving, and they are telling us what their experience

is.

[5:10 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide this House one example, just one, of the thousands of individuals

that responded, even just one example, that shows clearly…? We don't need to see names

or anything. Can the minister share with us one example where the pay rate provided

to a ride-share or a delivery services driver resulted in less than the minimum wage?

I appreciate that there has been work undertaken. The minister has developed this

legislation on broad generalities, but I think that facts matter. I'm hoping the minister,

at the very least, shares one example where a driv