Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

21, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I'm honoured to rise today to support this important step in our commitment to protect

workers in British Columbia. In recent years, we have all become aware and accustomed

to increased goods and services available….

Deputy Speaker: Government House Leader.

Hon. L. Beare: Yes. My apologies, and my apologies to the minister.

I did forget to call in

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, continued Committee of the Whole,

Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Hon. H. Bains: We are on a second reading of Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023. I really

am honoured and privileged to stand here in support of this bill.

As I was saying, in recent years, we have all become aware of the increase in goods

and services available online through an app-based approach. It has been described

as the 21st century's new economy and has led to dramatic changes around the world.

Now, at the click of a button, we can order just about anything we can imagine. We

can have it delivered right to our door. A craving for butter chicken? Another favourite

dish? With the touch of your telephone app, it arrives at your doorstep. Going to

a party? Want a safe ride home? Again, by using your app on your phone, a car will

come and pick you up and take you wherever you want to go. It has become so much a

part of our lives now that we wonder how we ever got along without all these services

before.

[1:35 p.m.]

I don't know about you. I can go back to…. When I first came to Canada, these were

only dreams that people had: that they could be able to use this type of technology

to have those kinds of services that are available today at our fingertips.

But with a huge growth of a new economy has also come extraordinary shifts in both

work and workforce. This includes a rapid growth of precarious work, which can include

part-time, casual, temporary and seasonal work. While these kind of jobs can provide

flexibility for workers, they are often marked by low pay, little security and few,

if any, benefits. Many precarious workers have to take on multiple jobs in order to

support themselves and their families.

In particular, app-based gig work is a type of precarious work in which a digital

platform company uses technology to manage certain aspects of work, such as using

real-time order matching to dispatch workers to the customers, process payments and

allow customers to rate the workers. Within this digital platform sector, ride-hail

and food-delivery services are among the most popular, both with workers and with

customers. That's why, at this time, we're focusing specifically on those two services

for legislative and regulatory amendments.

In B.C., there are currently about 11,000 ride-hail workers, with roughly 20 companies

licensed under the Passenger Transportation Board, including multinational companies

like Uber and Lyft. The Ministry of Labour roughly estimates that there are about

27,000 food-delivery workers with companies such as SkipTheDishes, DoorDash and Uber

Eats. Those numbers will only continue to grow, we know, if you only look at how they

grew in the past five, six, ten years in B.C., in Canada and in countries around the

world.

Growth is not a bad thing. I want to make it clear. Growth is not a bad thing, as

long as it does not come at the expense of or through the exploitation of workers.

In 2023, in British Columbia, Canada, these workers, regardless of the sector that

they work in…. All workers, regardless of what their immigration status is, if they

are working in British Columbia, enjoy basic protection and rights as all workers.

That's the value that this government is driven by.

Many ride-hail and food-delivery workers are newcomers to Canada and B.C. who may

face language barriers and other challenges that make it more difficult to find employment.

Ride-hail and food delivery can be a good opportunity for them to earn a living as

they adjust to their new lives. But workers, as I said before — regardless of where

they are from, what they do and how they do it — deserve appropriate employment standards

and protections like minimum wage, tip protection, wage transparency, health and safety

standards and access to workers compensation coverage if injured or become sick on

the job.

They can exercise their constitutional right to association under the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms, so they could join a union and collectively bargain for better benefits

and wages. Those are standards that workers should be entitled to. Those are the minimum

standards that any company should provide to workers, who are the key to their success.

We say to these companies: "We welcome you. We appreciate that you are here, investing

in British Columbia, creating those jobs, providing the services. But at the same

time, we expect you to abide by labour laws." That is not too much to ask, and, to

their credit, they worked with us. Through engagement, they all agreed, in general,

that certain standards are needed in British Columbia through government actions.

[1:40 p.m.]

But as the new economy has developed, it has created challenges that, frankly, could

not have been foreseen when the Employment Standards Act and Workers Compensation

Act were introduced. They were created to deal with our traditional even-to-3:30 jobs

— the same employer they go to, day in and day after, and sometimes they retire from

the same employer. Up until recently, that's what many workers went through. So the

laws were designed to protect their rights under those circumstances, as their employer-employee

relationship existed.

But a key challenge is that most platform companies consider their ride-hail and food

delivery workers to be independent contractors and not employees. They take the position

that these workers are not subject to the Employment Standards Act's minimum standards,

so they have no obligation to provide these standards to their workers.

There can be many disadvantages for companies to not have actual employee status.

They don't have to pay minimum wage or workers compensation premiums. They don't have

to provide equipment or workspace or benefits or health and safety protections. This

can be beneficial for a company but not so much for the workers. Those are the people

who actually do all the work.

Ride-hail and food delivery platforms offer services that are entirely provided by

people, not machines, not drones, not automation — real people. People who have bills

to pay, families to support. They deserve to be paid at least a minimum wage. People

who should be able to figure out exactly what they are getting paid so they can budget

accordingly. People who should have safe working conditions. People who should have

access to supports they need if they are injured on the job.

Platform companies rely entirely on a workforce of real people. Regardless of whether

they call them employees or independent contractors, those people work for them and

should be treated fairly.

Last fall, we started a public engagement process that included an online survey as

well as meetings and round-table sessions with workers, platform companies, labour

and business organizations, academics and researchers. Workers consulted included

those who rely on ride-hail or food delivery jobs as their primary source of income,

as well as those who use it to supplement their income.

A number of themes emerged during the engagement. Overall, workers value the flexibility

of this work and want to continue to choose when they work, for how long and on which

apps. But they have concerns about low and unpredictable earnings, the cost of fuel

and other vehicle expenses that they must bring to do their job, the transparency

of pay for assignments and unfair deactivation from platforms.

We heard stories. I sat at one of those sessions with those workers, and it was quite

moving to hear that they take an assignment and they don't even know how much they

will get paid. They told me the customers don't know how much of their fare is going

to the driver, and the driver did not know what the customer actually paid and how

much tip was left behind. We also heard that they are really concerned about their

safety while working, and they were worried what would happen if they were injured

on the job.

Let's take a look at each of these points.

On the positive side, we heard that, no doubt, one of the biggest attractions to the

jobs is flexibility. App-based work provides a way to earn income that can be picked

up or dropped at any time. It can work around unpredictable family obligations or

academic schedules. Some people have specifically chosen this work to maintain greater

freedom from the requirement of a more traditional employer-employee relationship,

and they value having the latitude that these platforms provide.

[1:45 p.m.]

They choose when and for how long to work, decide which specific orders to accept

or decline, and work across multiple platforms to maximize their earnings.

But that earning potential can be very hard to predict, and a number of factors contribute

to that unpredictability. App-based workers currently pay their own fuel and other

vehicle costs. Workers told us that significant increases in gas prices can have a

real impact on how much money they end up making at the end of the day, after they

subtract their vehicle costs to operate.

In some cases, workers told us that the payment offered for an assignment is less

than the cost of gas but that they feel pressure to maintain their acceptance rates

and are reluctant to decline the trip. These acceptance rates can be critical to their

earnings since some platform companies will guarantee a minimum payment per delivery

but only to those workers who maintain a high acceptance rate.

Meanwhile, workers are not paid for the time they spend waiting for assignments, and

those wait times can be significant. When they do get an assignment, they can face

long delays due to traffic, late passengers or slow restaurants, all of which can

significantly impact on their earnings.

Another concern we heard during our engagement was about unfair deactivations. We

heard of numerous instances where drivers' accounts were suspended for days or they

were terminated based on a negative report by a customer. They would have no recourse

to appeal the deactivation nor any compensation and would certainly face being cut

off from what was sometimes their only source of income.

Finally, app-based workers are worried about safety on the job. What would happen

to them if they were injured on the job or become ill at work?

We all remember the terrible incident last year when a DoorDash worker, a newcomer

to Canada, was viciously stabbed while delivering an order in Vancouver. He suffered

life-threatening injuries, but thankfully he survived. Because he worked for a company

that does not contribute to the B.C. workers compensation system, he was not eligible

for financial or medical support and had to rely on a GoFundMe campaign to get him

through until he could work again. This should not be allowed in British Columbia

this day and age. That's not the kind of society and economy we want to have.

What about the Uber driver who was attacked by a passenger last April in Abbotsford?

Again, his workers compensation claim was denied. In B.C., in Canada, as I said, that

is just not right. It's not acceptable.

Those are just two examples of risk that these platform workers face, risks that they

have very little control over. Some apps withhold the final destination when offering

an assignment. Through our engagement, we learned there can be serious vulnerability

for some app-based ride-hail and food delivery workers. But gig workers, like everyone

who works in our province, deserve to be treated fairly. This is a foundation in our

effort to make work less precarious.

We also heard extensively from companies themselves, and most of them acknowledge

that there is room for improvement to the model. There were a number of themes of

importance to the platform companies. They emphasized the importance of maintaining

flexibility for workers, specifically that workers be able to choose the hours they

work, be able to accept or decline specific assignments, and be able to work on multiple

apps simultaneously.

On the question of classification, many of the platform companies indicated, not surprisingly,

that the workers should be recognized as independent contractors, not employees. But

overall, they indicated their support for establishing minimum standards for workers,

including guaranteed minimum earnings, as long as flexibility for workers is maintained.

[1:50 p.m.]

I want to recognize and express my appreciation to the companies for participating

in this process and for being open to minimum standards and protections for this sector.

Our next stage of consultation began this past August, where we sought feedback on

possible solutions that could address specific concerns raised by app-based workers.

We released a discussion paper that spoke to potential employment standards and other

protections, including fair compensation standards, pay and destination transparency,

a fair process for suspensions and terminations or deactivation and workers compensation

coverage.

The discussion paper outlined these priority concerns that were heard during the engagement,

including views from workers, platform companies and others, and it provided the policy

context for examining appropriate employment standards and other protections for this

sector. It also posed discussion questions for workers and companies for consideration

and asked for their input.

We received valuable feedback as a result of the discussion paper, which assisted

in the development of the proposed employment standards and other protections for

ride-hail and food delivery workers.

A few days before this bill was introduced, my minister released a policy backgrounder

describing how those solutions will be implemented through regulations after this

bill is passed. The policy backgrounder lays out a set of priority employment standards

and other protections that are aimed at improving working conditions for app-based

ride-hail and food delivery workers in B.C. while supporting the continued operation

of these services in this province, protecting the jobs.

Let me go through those proposed changes quickly. First, they will set a minimum wage

of 120 percent of B.C.'s general minimum wage for engaged times. That means from when

a ride-hail driver or a food delivery worker has accepted an assignment to when the

passenger or food is delivered to the final destination.

The worker will receive at least 120 percent of standard minimum wage. At the current

general minimum wage rate, this means that the worker would earn $20.10 per hour of

engaged time. This will be calculated over a pay period. If the worker's earnings

are less than 120 percent during that period, the platform company will be required

to top up to make the difference.

Next, there will be additional compensation standards to recognize that the workers

incur costs to use personal vehicles to perform this work. The minimum standard for

this compensation will be determined following further study and consultation during

the development of regulations.

There will also be a provision to prohibit companies from withholding tips from workers,

consistent with tip protection already applicable to British Columbia employees, as

well as requiring companies to provide workers with a wage statement every pay period

to ensure full pay transparency.

I see some students up in the gallery.

On behalf of this House, I want to say welcome to you. What we are doing here is debating

a bill that will provide basic protection to gig workers like ride-hail, like food

delivery service workers. Right now they do not enjoy the basic minimum standards,

like minimum wage, like workers compensation protection.

Those are the areas of this bill that we are proposing, and the debates are being

held right now here so that you know that you are witnessing something that is new

to this province and that those workers will appreciate once this bill is passed and

implemented to provide them those protections. So thank you for coming here, and enjoy,

while you're here in this House.

[1:55 p.m.]

There will also be provisions…. I just talked about the tip protection — there will

be tip protection, where the employer will not be able to withhold the tips they received

— as well as requiring companies to provide workers with a wage statement, as all

workers do in this province, every pay period, to ensure full pay transparency, indicating

and outlining their earnings and deductions. We're focusing on pay and destination

transparency so that workers know where they will be going and how much they will

be paid before they accept the assignment.

Another of the concerns we heard from workers was that they could be deactivated from

the app without warning, explanations, reasons or recourse. We will be requiring companies

to have a written notice or compensation if they want to terminate a worker's account

unless there is a just cause for the termination. As well, companies will be required

to provide written reasons for an account suspension or termination and establish

a timely review process for the workers to present their side and their evidence.

Finally, companies will be required to comply with employer responsibilities under

the Workers Compensation Act and the occupational health and safety regulations. That

means they will need to register for coverage and pay premiums to the workers compensation,

WorkSafeBC, on their workers' behalf.

They will also be responsible for providing a safe workplace and be required to report

injuries and diseases and investigate significant incidences because, like all workers,

every worker, when they go to work, deserves to come home to their families, their

children in the same shape that they went in with. Health and safety are of utmost

importance to all workers in British Columbia, and these drivers and these workers

deserve nothing less.

Some say that these standards go too far, and others say they do not do enough. I

say that those are very strong points on both sides. Developing appropriate standards

and protection for this sector is complex. It is new territory for government. For

that reason, we are taking a phased approach. The standards we are proposing in this

phase are based on top priorities we heard from workers. The ministry intends to engage

on other potential standards and proposals in later stages.

What I can say now is that the standards and protections we are proposing today will

make a real difference in the lives of thousands of workers across B.C. and will result

in this province being a leader in all jurisdictions in Canada — in fact, across North

America.

All jurisdictions are struggling to find ways to provide protection for these workers

— California, New York and EU countries. But I'm confident that because of the consultation

we have, engagement we have, to the extent that we have with companies and with workers

and their advocates, we will be the first jurisdiction to succeed in having these

basic minimum standards provided to these workers. I feel so proud and look forward

to having these changes implemented.

As I mentioned, these solutions will implement through regulations, which will be

developed. But first, we need legislative changes that would enable those regulations

to be developed. That's what this bill will do. This brings me to the specifics of

this bill. Yes, I realize that was a very long

preamble to get to the details of this

actual bill. The context of how we got here and what we are trying to accomplish is

critical to this discussion, to this conversation.

The legislation before us is quite short and straightforward. It is primarily enabling

legislation. Amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation

Act will provide the legislative framework for applying employment standards and other

protections to online platform workers. The amendments will add

definitions of online

platform worker to both the Employment Standards Act and Workers Compensation Act,

specifying that online platform workers who provide certain prescribed services are

considered to be employees for the purposes of these acts.

[2:00 p.m.]

The amendments then go on to provide regulation-making authorities to both acts, which

will enable the regulations to implement the solutions I outlined earlier for the

online platform workers who provide ride-hail or food delivery services.

We know that there are gig workers providing services beyond ride-hail and food delivery.

We know precarious work is expanding. We know that the gig worker and gig economy

is expanding. But here and now we are dealing with these two workers who are employed

through app-based platform companies to deliver food to our doorsteps and to provide

ride-hailing services.

Others we will look at as we go forward. We will monitor how these changes will impact

the lives of those workers, their health and safety. We will determine, actually,

whether these changes had the intended impact on the workers, their wages, their health

and safety. We'll monitor. Then we will sit down with the platform companies and with

the workers and their advocates and determine if there are some gaps and whether these

changes have hit the mark.

Many workers and their advocates have said that perhaps we haven't done enough. They

probably are right. But this is a start, and we would be the first jurisdiction in

Canada, if not in North America, to provide these basic minimum standards to these

workers, because we have relied on these services so much. I see my doorstep deliveries

coming every day because my son, their family and their children live with us. They

use the service quite a bit.

So those workers…. We enjoy the services, but those workers who provide their service

to us through app-based platform companies deserve nothing less than any other worker

when it comes to the wages and health and safety protection. We know that, as I said,

improving working conditions in the app-based, ride-hail and food delivery sector

is our first step in ensuring that the vulnerable gig workers have the minimum employment

standards and other protections that they need.

It is important to understand that these amendments do not establish or require an

existing employment relationship between online platform workers and platform companies.

Rather, they provide that online platform workers are entitled to specific standards

and protections of the Employment Standards Act and Workers Compensation Act, even

if they are declared contracted within some other means and other laws or declared

contracted by someone else.

I want to make one thing clear. The authority to determine whether the worker is an

employee or a contractor or independent contractor…. The employment standards branch

has the only authority to determine that — no one else, not employer, not workers,

not anybody else. The employment standards branch, through tribunal, can make and

have the authority to make that determination.

Lastly, we have taken the opportunity to include a couple of minor amendments to the

Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act and the Employment Standards Act. These amendments

have to do with recordkeeping, paying interest on money that may be owed to a worker,

and improving the timeliness of the employment standard branch's dispute resolution

process. I'm happy to get into details of all of these amendments during the committee

stage of this bill.

The amendments proposed in this bill and the regulations that will follow are the

culmination of extensive engagement, meetings, consultations, discussions and research.

I'm absolutely thrilled that we have reached this point. We chose to focus on the

sector where we have seen significant issues come up, but those are just the first

steps, as I said before.

[2:05 p.m.]

In the future, we will look at other sectors impacted by the new economy to support

other online platform workers with appropriate employment standards and protections,

while also supporting the continued operation of these new industries and services

in British Columbia, but also monitoring these two particular areas that we are dealing

with through this bill in regulations. We will monitor in the next six months to a

year. Then we will determine if there are still some gaps and improvements needed,

working with the platform companies and with the workers and their advocates.

This bill is very, very important to me, to my colleagues and, I'm sure, to everyone

in this House, especially to those tens of thousands of workers who — many of them

— are relying on the income that they draw from app-based work. Their health and safety

is paramount. The minimum wage is important. Peer transparency is important. If they

are injured at the workplace, they will know that there will be protection for them

through the workers compensation system.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to further debates.

P. Milobar: It's my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 48.

You know, there was a lot to unpack there from the minister's comments. I think the

last time I was in this chamber and heard a piece of enabling legislation that is

going to be left to regulation — yet the minister seemed to have a ton of regulation

that is going to be, with no actual written detail for anyone in this chamber to actually

scrutinize and ask questions about — might have been when we had FOI legislation in

here.

We were told that nothing had been worked out, yet lo and behold, the orders-in-council

were signed, barely, by everyone leaving this chamber. Only after the bill debate

was over did we find out what the fees for FOI were going to be, which had apparently

developed over that debate.

Unfortunately, Bill 48, introduced as we're into our final few days of the legislative

sitting, does not really have any detail. And the minister, in his comments, was combining

all the things the bill is going to do with what regulations are going to do, while

still saying they're consulting on the regulation.

I think the drivers, I think the companies, and I think the public deserve to know

what the actual regulations are, because based on the minister's comments, it definitely

sounded like the government has already decided, down to the detail of 120 percent

of minimum wage. That might come as a surprise to people. It might not. It might come

as a surprise to the companies.

On a ten-clause bill, there are only four clauses that will actually take effect at

royal assent. Of those clauses, the one "clarifies the circumstances in which the

director may take specified steps respecting investigations, and adds a new circumstance

in which the director may take those steps." That's clause 3. Clause 4 "provides that

the appeal period under this

section ends 30 days after the date a determination was

served."

Clause 6 "expands the requirement to maintain records to all employers." This is in

regards to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. Clause 7 "amends dates that

apply in relation to the obligation to pay interest on amounts owing under a determination

or order" — again, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

But you know what doesn't take effect on royal assent? The Employment Standards Act,

section 3.1, which is clause 2, which provides that online platform workers are to

be considered employees. So as much as the minister's opening comments went at length

about how this bill creates the avenue for the drivers to be considered employees

and the companies to be considered the employer…. Something as basic as that won't

take effect until regulation comes into effect.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, at the rushed briefing we had today…. I do thank the staff for it. They're always

professional and were willing to answer the few questions we had.

On a ten-clause bill with no other background, it's kind of difficult to have any

depth of questions at that stage. We'll certainly have a lot of questions at committee

stage on this bill, but the staff made it clear that the regulation will take several

more months.

That's after 18 months of apparently developing Bill 48 — 18 months to come up with

clause 2, which says: "For the purposes of this Act, (

a) an online platform worker

is to be considered an employee, whether or not the online platform worker is an employee

under any law, and (

b) the operator of the online platform through which an online

platform worker accepts prescribed work is to be considered the employer of the online

platform worker."

That took the government 18 months to come up with, and it doesn't take effect until

regulation — regulation which will take several more months to develop. On top of

that, the government made it clear in the briefing that there will have to be a phase-in

period in the regulation so that the companies can adjust.

I can understand that, but I think it's incumbent on the government to be open and

straightforward with the drivers — the very people this piece of legislation is purporting

to bring instant help and protections to.

This has been 18 months in the making, at minimum, is going to take the better part

of a year and, like lots of other legislation we've seen in this House to do with

housing, magically, won't take effect until after the next provincial election. My

goodness. The Premier's lucky streak of things not taking effect till after the next

provincial election seems to be growing by the day with the legislation in this chamber.

This government talks a good game. I give them that. This is the same minister that

talked about rushing in the asbestos protections, except for the fact that it took

them almost six years to action that while telling me how critical it was to protect

workers. I agree it was critical to protect workers. Why did it take six years?

We've been talking about the gig economy in this chamber since it really started to

take root back in 2017. Pre-2017, it was still in its infancy. That's when the whole

discussion around Uber really kicked off in earnest, I know. I was on the Uber committee,

as it was dubbed, the ride-hail, ride-share committee. There were reports. There was

the Hara report, which was created to help consult with industry back in 2017.

From 2017 moving forward, this government has talked about these types of changes

that need to happen for gig workers, like those in Uber Eats, Uber drivers and SkipTheDishes.

In fact, they reconvened the Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles

not that long ago. Terms of reference: "On May 11, 2023, the Legislative Assembly

agreed that a Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles be appointed

pursuant to

section 42.1 of the Passenger Transportation Act to review passenger-directed

vehicle services and transportation network companies administered under the act.

This includes, but is not limited to. a review of the following…."

One of the points is: "(

c) whether the act promotes employment in the passenger-directed

vehicle services and transportation network services industries." Why that's important

is according to the government's press release on September 11, 2023, that committee

is still accepting feedback till November 30. Yet as this government does all the

time, they rush in legislation that's enabling legislation, which really won't take

meaningful effect until we're back here in the spring again. They could have worked

out this regulation, presented it with the bill to provide proper context, and not

have delayed any of the implementation.

[2:15 p.m.]

By their own direction at the briefing, once this passes, all the major parts of this

bill will still require months' more consultation and regulation development and a

phase-in period, for industry, of several months. I believe the term was six months

plus for that phase — again, magically, after the next provincial election. Talk about

a government that doesn't want to be judged on an actual result of any of their legislation

that they've brought forward.

Be it the delays in housing legislation, which the Premier talked about in January

of 2022 and was supposed to be in front of this House in October 2022, which is finally

in front of this chamber now but won't take effect, most of it, until after the next

provincial election, conveniently, or this legislation — where the cornerstone of

the legislation should be creating these online platform workers as actual employees

and the company as the employer — even something that basic won't take effect until

the regulation is brought into place and then phased in.

We just heard the minister rattle off what the regulations would be. In his opening

speech, he was emphatic. "It will have…." "It will be…." Yet no one in this chamber

has had to see that. We didn't have a copy of his speech in advance.

How can we reasonably debate a bill and reasonably ask questions on the ten clauses

around what the regulation may or may not be, when the minister — just as the Minister

of Citizens' Services did on FOI — will continually say: "Well, that's being left

for regulation. I can't answer that"? It doesn't matter that you point out that in

their opening speech, they actually laid out what they think the regulation will be.

Now, the minister covered off quite a few things, in his opening comments, of what

it will be or won't be — making drivers, perhaps, think that there's more to this

bill than there may be. One such thing he referenced is that customers don't even

know how much of the fare goes to the driver. This legislation does nothing to address

that.

He didn't indicate that it's going to be in regulation, yet there it is in the opening

comments, in a 38-minute opening by the minister. I do appreciate that the minister

provided a lot of detail. There are, unfortunately, government ministers that provide

35 or 40 seconds of second reading comments on a piece of legislation they purport

to be proud of.

I do give this minister full marks. When he does introduce a bill, he generally speaks

very proudly about it, at length, providing detail. The problem is that this time

he has provided all the detail about the regulations that, we're being told, are going

to take months to develop. But it sounds like he has already developed them.

I forgot to mention at the beginning that I will be our designated speaker. I apologize

for that. Oh, I know they like you to say it right at the very beginning, and certain

ministers always smile because they always seem to wind up on House duty when I wind

up being designated speaker. Now that I've got a little time, I can wander, I guess.

Back to the bill at hand. It was interesting to me that the minister, in his opening

comments, also talked about the price of fuel and how high prices of fuel are really

impacting drivers. Well, those drivers, after waiting 18 months at a minimum, really,

back to 2017, for this government to get their act together and bring forward something

like this, are now going to have to wait for the regulation, which is going to be

several months in the future.

[2:20 p.m.]

Then they're going to have to wait for several more months' worth of implementation

to see whether or not there are going to be some rules around fuel, so that they could

actually save money. I raise that because we've been asking, for well over a year

now, for the government to remove the provincial fuel tax.

If this government was actually worried about these delivery drivers' fuel costs,

they could take immediate action, as we've been calling for, as we've committed to

do. B.C. United has been very clear. We'd remove the provincial fuel tax.

The government may, and always likes to, say: "Oh, the oil and gas companies just

put it right back on the price." Well, they don't. Fuel is like anything else. There

are input costs, and there are taxes. It's like saying if they remove a tax on something

else, the price of that product goes up instantly. It doesn't.

They'll point to Alberta and say that when Alberta removed it, within ten or 12 days,

the price of fuel went up in Alberta. They're absolutely right. It did. What they

fail to also mention is that in that same period of time, the price of fuel in B.C.

went up by twice as much per litre, because the market ebbs and flows with fuel. What

they also fail to mention is that, in fact, Alberta has maintained the price differential

with B.C. with the fuel tax removed.

We're not saying that by removing fuel tax per litre, it makes gas where it's basically

free, or the good old days, where it was under $1 a litre. We understand the price

will still fluctuate. There are going to be very expensive periods of time. But it's

100 percent in the realm of the provincial government to remove that tax.

If the government was really sincere about its goal to get everyone into an electric

vehicle, there should be no fuel tax revenues to collect in short order anyway. So

why not let people save a few dollars right now, in the midst of the highest unaffordability

we've ever seen? Why not let these drivers that Bill 48 purports to support have real

and immediate savings on their fuel bills?

It was in the minister's own speech. One of the higher cost factors for the drivers

is the cost of fuel. Yet this government sits on their hands when they could provide

real relief, not just to these drivers, but to the whole taxi industry. Every driver

for hire — be it delivering food, be it taking people from an airport, be it working

for Uber, be it working for a taxi company — would see savings on their operations

immediately if this government did the right thing and removed provincial fuel tax.

But they stubbornly refuse to.

Then they stand in this chamber bringing forward a piece of enabling legislation that

has been talked about since 2017 and turn around and say: "You'll have to wait the

better part of another year to actually know what the regulation is, even though as

a minister, in my opening speech, I've laid out pretty much what I want the regulations

to be."

It's piece of legislation after piece of legislation in this chamber that keeps getting

presented like this by this government. They simply don't want the public to know

what their real agenda is. Not only has, under their watch, B.C. been deemed the most

unaffordable province in Canada; they've also been cited as the most secretive government

in Canada. Quite the record. I wonder whether they're going for the trifecta of acknowledgments.

If you look at their history of failing on pieces of legislation that don't actually

deliver what they've been promised, you have to look no further than housing. For

seven years, they had all the answers. For seven years, they had their 30-point plan.

For seven years, they were going to deliver 114,000 units in ten years. After seven

years, they're not even at 16,000 units. Suddenly, the plan gets renamed, and suddenly,

it's someone else's fault.

[2:25 p.m.]

Bill 48 is much the same. They've been government this whole time. The whole time

this was brought into effect, where the gig economy really ramped up, where Uber Eats

and SkipTheDishes and Uber have been in effect, they've been government.

I guess it was refreshing that for once, we didn't have a minister try to blame COVID

for the delays — they seem to have lost that in their speaking notes — but we actually

saw an explosion of these services through COVID. The government's response has been

to slow walk changes to the legislation, and now slow walk the regulation after this

gets passed. It will pass. They outvote us 2 to 1. I'm under no great illusions there.

It won't help drivers. It's been no help for the drivers for the last few years. It

will be no help for the drivers for the next year, despite all of the minister's well

wishes and good thoughts of what this bill will accomplish. It all gets accomplished

by regulation that he hasn't provided to us.

When you ask their staff, they say: "Well, that has to be worked out." On the one

hand, the same staff that helped the minister with his speech, undoubtedly…. We're

okay with the minister providing a heck of a lot of detail about regulation. But on

the scrambled-together, cobbled-together briefing that we had at 11 o'clock today,

they couldn't provide that. So which was it? Was the regulation developed from…? Let's

see. That briefing ended at about 11:45. Was that regulation by the minister that

he referenced in his speech developed from 11:45 to 1:30 today? Why wasn't it presented?

Why wasn't it given to the opposition party so that we could actually properly question

and scrutinize the legislation on behalf of the drivers and on behalf of the companies?

The companies need certainty as well. They need to know what's going to happen with

the rules. They need to know how to adjust their operations. Then they can look at

things, and they can make a business decision whether or not their business is still

viable in British Columbia.

That's what all businesses do with any type of government regulation and legislation.

They look at it, and they decide if they can operate or not.

In fact, there is pretty much…. It doesn't matter where you go in the world. There

are rules of one form or another around just about every type of business, and those

businesses figure out if they want to exist in that area or not. Hotels, bars, liquor

stores, corner stores. Sometimes there are official rules by government. In more corrupt

countries, it's the rules of the gang that controls that street or that industry in

a tourist area. Obviously, and thankfully, B.C. is a province of law. Rule of law.

That's a good thing.

But it would be nice if the government actually let us know what those laws actually

are, if they actually let us know what regulation they were going to have as part

of those laws — not play a guessing game. Not provide false hope for drivers in the

midst of the most expensive province in Canada, grappling with inflation and the highest

rents for apartments in the country and the highest gas prices with the highest gas

taxes in North America.

It borders on cruel to dangle out to these drivers that they're somehow going to have

a fuel savings with this legislation through regulation, without actually providing

any of that detail on what the government's thinking and writing. Then to make it

sound like as soon as we get royal assent on this bill, those fuel savings will be

immediate…. They won't be, if they even will exist in regulation.

[2:30 p.m.]

You know what could be immediate? The government, tomorrow, could say that they're

rescinding the provincial fuel tax. That would actually provide real cost savings

to those same drivers that this government purports to be concerned about.

I highly doubt the companies would object to it. It's, again, as the minister says,

the driver's responsibility to buy the gas, but this government doesn't seem to know

how to, by way of regulation or rules, put money back into somebody's pocket that

is a small business person. They just know to take it out. If they think that they're

done with one pocket, they just find another pocket and keep digging and digging and

digging.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

And just when you think they're done digging through all of your pockets for every

last cent of tax revenue, they decide to check your socks, just to see if you hit

anything, like a tourist might do on holidays.

That's this government's approach, and that's their approach on Bill 48. Dangle out

hope while still figuring out a way to reach into all of these people's pockets for

more money in the midst of an affordability crisis.

Again, this bill provides the definition for what an online platform worker is, but

not on royal assent. No, no. That will be in regulation, because apparently that's

too confusing to people. Or is it because they actually haven't figured out the other

implications of turning this in — people designated as workers, which is more likely

the reason.

Instead, we're going to rush this forward. And I say "rush" because we're back here

in February. We're back here mid-February. By the minister's own staff's admission

in the briefing, the regulations won't be ready for several months.

They could have presented this bill as an exposure bill. Yes, it would have got pulled

once the throne speech happened, but they could reintroduce it right away again but

actually introduce it with the regulation so that there could be a proper and transparent,

which is a word this government struggles with, discussion around how Bill 48 will

actually impact drivers and companies and the public.

The drivers and the companies are going to have business decisions to make around

what this does to their cost structure. At a certain point, that decision will actually

ripple down to the customer, because if it results in higher delivery fees and charges,

which it likely will, then the customers, like the minister's kids that he referenced

in his speech…. My kids use these services a lot too. Those customers are going to

have the decision to make as well.

But we're not going to have that as an open discussion dealing with Bill 48. Those

are going to be some behind-the-scenes conversations the minister is going to have,

and then the regulation will just get dropped out for people, and suddenly that's

how it's going to operate, all the while having their committee to review passenger-directed

vehicles still trying to do their work.

Sounds an awful lot, again, like the FOI bill. There was a committee actually reviewing

FOI when the government crammed through the FOI legislation while saying it was being

left to regulation that we saw ten minutes after the bill passed.

When the minister spoke on Bill 48, he had some pretty clear definitive statements

about what would be in regulation, just as the Minister of Citizens' Services had

on FOI. Yet we're being led to believe, just as the Minister of Citizens' Services

told this chamber, that that regulation actually hasn't been worked out yet and that,

in fact, we won't know what the regulation for Bill 48 is until months after it has

passed.

[2:35 p.m.]

I don't know what was left on the list from the minister's opening statements that

could still be covered off by regulation. The fact that the minister had very definitive

amounts on pieces of that policy, especially as it relates to pay, would indicate

that he has made up his mind. So I don't know what the point of consulting with industry

is.

Now, granted, he didn't reconcile how if you're operating on three or four different

platforms at the same time your time is going to work. But not looking out for the

workers seems to be what this government is good at doing. Again, they come up with

great marketing. They really do.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Yeah. We can see…. Maybe instead of the SkipTheDishes commercials on the Canucks,

we can replace the CleanBC commercials with the minister's nondescript commercials

on how they've made ride-hailing services much better in B.C. Apparently the going

rate is $700 a second. I can only imagine what it costs when they have them on the

6 o'clock news, the most expensive time spots in the province.

Again, the details on how this is going to affect those workers simply don't exist.

They only existed in the minister's opening speech — not even the courtesy of providing

them to us as the official opposition in the brief.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: The minister says they've been waiting since yesterday to provide us with the brief.

Well, how magnanimous of the government. With seven days of debate to go, they introduce

a bill and then scramble to find the time to get us an 11 a.m. brief. They were actually

going to move ahead with this bill before lunch, before we even had a brief. And the

minister seems to think that's what constitutes consultation.

It's interesting, because they had a year and a half to work on this piece of legislation,

according to the minister's staff, a year and a half to define what a worker is. That

still won't actually take effect until regulation several months from now.

The minister wants the drivers to think that they're well protected on this and that

it will be immediate. It's shameful. Drivers under this Bill 48 will have zero new

protections. Let's make that very clear to the public. The drivers and the companies

will not need to change how they operate, how they get paid, how their expenses are

covered off or not until the regulation takes effect. And according to the government,

that will take several months to finish up, and then there will be several months

of implementation.

I think it's important to be clear about that, because here's what the drivers have

been saying, even back in 2022. DoorDash drivers said: "Delivery workers on one food

delivery platform, for example, earned an average of $27 an hour while delivering,

including 100 percent of the tips. B.C. drivers overwhelmingly value their flexibility

and mostly use our platform for supplemental income. Ninety-seven percent of B.C.

drivers agree that being able to choose when, where and how they should work should

be protected if laws were to change." But we don't know what the regulations on that

are going to be, despite 97 percent of the drivers wanting that.

Fifty-six percent of drivers would stop dashing if they had less ability to choose

the days or time they worked. No detail on the regulation from the government on that

point, either. Fifty-four percent of B.C. drivers have other delivery or ride-sharing

apps open while driving, but no certainty from the government, from the minister,

on how its regulation is going to cover that and square that with being considered

on-call time or not-on-call time, with the clock ticking if your app is open.

[2:40 p.m.]

In 2022, the average Canadian driver spent fewer than three hours per week on the

delivery app. Again, that's in 2022. This is all post-COVID.

In addition to driving, 63 percent of B.C. drivers have a full- or part-time job,

run their own businesses or do other gig and freelance work. No certainty from this

government on how the regulations will address these people and these drivers. Only

13 percent rely on it as their main work.

Some 76 percent of B.C. drivers say it would be hard to make ends meet if they couldn't

get income from ride-share and delivery services, but we don't know how the government

intends for that to stay a viable option for them under regulation, and 35 percent

of B.C. drivers have Dash to make up for lost income or reduced hours at another job.

Now, why is that important — reduced hours at another job? I wonder why hours would

be reduced at another job. Could it be because the economy is slowing in British Columbia,

and people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, despite the promise

of Bill 48 solidifying their income? We won't know that for another year. We won't

know that until, magically, after the next provincial election. Government will campaign

on the promise.

They also campaigned that we would have a cancer centre in Kamloops built by 2024.

We don't even have a business plan for that yet. If they're willing to walk away from

something as critical as cancer care and come up with a way to deliver them down to

Bellingham for cancer treatment, not with an Uber at least, just imagine how easy

it'll be for this government to try to go back on their promise, through regulation,

as this gets slow-walked again. It has been slow-walked already. It has been slow-walked

since 2017.

A delivery service and a ride-hail service are very different. We don't know if the

government is going to take a one-size-fits-all approach, how they're going to regulate

the pay between those two. In the minister's speech, he was interchanging a Skip driver

with an Uber driver, a food delivery with a personal delivery.

Ride-hail comes with higher capital costs. There are higher cleaning costs, maintenance

costs. There's a different level the companies expect. Delivery drivers can use any

vehicle they want. Companies aren't as worried about that, for obvious reasons.

It'd be pretty tough to hail an Uber bicycle. Yes, I know what some members on the

other side are thinking. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one pedalling me sitting

on the back carriage seat. But you can deliver food with that bike pretty easily,

especially in the urbanized and densified cores.

How do the regulations in this bill address any of these concerns and differences?

Well, we don't know. We'll be long gone from this chamber when the minister magically

rolls out regulations that will mysteriously look very similar to the ones in his

speech. Yet at committee stage, he'll be unable to answer questions.

Now, the critic will be dealing with the bill at committee stage. I'm pretty confident,

and I'm sure the minister is pretty confident in his ability to, probably, pull up

the transcript of the minister's speech. I sure hope the minister has a lot of detail

about the regulation he announced in his speech. We've been through this song and

dance once before, with the Citizens' Services Minister, when it came to FOI.

[2:45 p.m.]

A whole lot of detail about regulation in the speech on Bill 48 by the Labour Minister.

It's reasonable to expect that you're going to get a whole lot of detail with those

questions at committee stage, then, on Bill 48. I don't think that's asking too much.

It shouldn't be, except this is a government that's always routinely deemed to be

the most secretive government in Canada.

The biggest problem with a piece of enabling legislation that's as light as this —

with the backdrop of a committee still doing work on one major portion of this type

of service, that being ride-hailing and ride-sharing services — is that we're not

sure how the government is going to meaningfully take the input from that committee.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington is the Chair; Prince George–Valemount is the Deputy

Chair; Richmond-Steveston, Burnaby North, Nanaimo–North Cowichan, and West Vancouver–Sea

to Sky. Frankly, it's a little disrespectful to that group of MLAs that are doing

hard work, across party lines, trying to get feedback from the industry and taking

their work seriously, but as we saw with FOI, that work, apparently, doesn't really

matter.

Remember, we had a committee working on the FOI modernization as well, but the bill

came in before the committee finished doing their work. In fact, I believe the committee

was still taking public feedback — almost like the Special Committee to Review Passenger

Directed Vehicles, which is still taking public feedback, except for the fact that

we're standing here debating Bill 48.

Perhaps the government members don't feel that it's disrespectful, because ultimately,

they were going to do what they've been told, by the Premier's office, for a recommendation.

Then why did the government bother with a sham of a process in the first place?

It tied up a bunch of the Clerk's office's time. It tied up a lot of time for people

that were willing to make presentations and submit, with an expectation that their

voices would be heard, that their voices might carry a little bit of weight, that

their own personal experiences could be taken into account as the government develops

regulation. That's not what we see happening.

Again, I was on the original ride-hailing committee. It was chaired by a member from

North Vancouver, the Minister of Emergency Management. I'll get her riding wrong. Congratulations to her on her new child.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: North Vancouver–Lonsdale. She chaired it.

The former Leader of the Green Party was on that committee. That's how long ago this

committee actually did work — from 2017 till the fall of 2023. Now, by my count, that's

— what? — six years. We finally see Bill 48 in front of us, with no detail. Frankly,

what's in this bill that wouldn't have been accomplished by the press release in the

first place? There will be no regulation before we sit again in February. The minister's

staff has made that very clear. I'll take the minister's staff at their word.

If the minister has other designs on the timeline for the regulation, then he should

be open to actually answering those questions at committee stage. By the time we get

to committee stage, Hansard will have published his speech, word for word. We certainly didn't see any of that

ahead of time. We didn't get any of that information in the briefing.

I said that there were only ten clauses in this bill. Only four take effect at royal

assent, which will happen, I'm assuming, next Thursday.

[2:50 p.m.]

Clause 1, which still needs to sit and wait for regulation, adds the definition of

"online platform worker."

Clause 2 provides that online platform workers are to be considered employees for

the purposes of the act and that the operators of online platforms are to be considered

employers for the purposes of the act. That needs to wait for regulation as well.

Clause 5 adds regulation-making authorities, but that waits until the regulation gets

done in a few months.

Clause 8 adds the definition of "online platform worker" to the Workers Compensation

Act. They won't actually have any workers compensation protection until the regulation

is made — despite the minister, in his speech, making it sound like once Bill 48 gets

enacted, drivers will have protections from injury. They won't.

Clause 9, Workers Compensation Act, provides that online platform workers are to be

considered workers for the purposes of the act and that the operators of online platforms

are to be considered employers for the purposes of the act, same as for the Employment

Standards Act — both of which don't take effect until regulation.

No workers compensation protection for the drivers with Bill 48. That waits for regulation.

After a year and a half of pondering, a one-sentence clause to provide workers compensation

protection needs to wait for further consultation and regulation. That's this government's

idea of fast-tracking protection for workers.

And clause 10, again to the Workers Compensation Act, adds regulation-making authorities.

Ironically enough, adding regulation-making authorities needs to wait for regulation

before it is law. They couldn't even make adding regulation-making authorities effective

with royal assent. No, if you want to make regulations, you have to wait for the regulations

to tell you how to make a regulation, and then you can have the ability to make regulations.

That's the problem with this bill. It's the false hope that's being offered for the

drivers. It's the uncertainty that's being created for industry. Yes, they are happy

that they've been consulted to this point. I understand that, but they still have

concerns on where the regulation is going to land. The drivers have concerns on how

the regulation is going to be framed up — still, after a year and a half.

The minister offers up hope around fuel savings, when his government could literally

just change the provincial fuel tax rate to zero and not just deal with the gig economy

workers. It would actually help the taxi industry, help the small-truck-delivery industry,

help all the cartage companies out there that are having a hard time, help all the

service vehicles out there that are providing air conditioning services, heating repair

services, electrical services, plumbers.

All of those fleets would benefit by the provincial fuel tax being removed, not just

the gig worker. This government doesn't seem to really worry about the cost pressures

for all those workers, but they're real. There's no getting around them. It's pretty

tough for you to go make a service call or to go deliver the order you want from your

restaurant to this person's house without having fuel.

As much as this government would hope that everyone had an electric vehicle, they

simply don't, let alone on the service-vehicle side of the equation. While this government

will dither around for several more months working on regulation to enact regulation-making

authorities, drivers' work will stay the same. Their payment model will stay the same.

Companies will operate the same. Then either right before or right after the next

election, magically, all these regulations will start to take effect.

[2:55 p.m.]

In the meantime, as all those drivers see no difference in their pay, they'll wonder

just what the heck the minister was talking about with Bill 48, because they haven't

seen any change for the driver.

The minister's staff used the driver that had the horrific incident where they were

attacked and beaten by a passenger, sustained injuries and weren't entitled to workers

compensation. Bill 48 doesn't provide that — not until regulation is made, months

from now. After waiting a year and a half, trying to decide if the government thought

providing workers compensation protection for gig employees was a good idea or not,

they're going to take several more months to decide what the regulation actually is

for the regulation-making authorities. That's how absurd rushing this in is.

Now, based on the timing of this being rushed in — remember, we were told by the Government

House Leader that all legislation would be in front of this chamber by November 8

— the cynic in me would say: "Huh, it's pretty convenient to float a piece of legislation

like this, to make sure it's out just before the NDP convention, and to make sure

it's on the floor as they have 70-plus labour delegates in the building." What a convenient

timing that is.

It does nothing for the actual worker this bill purports to help, though, because

by the government's own admission, they're not ready with the regulation. They're

simply prepared to try to say they would like to make changes. They think you should

be protected by workers compensation. They think your pay should change.

Since 2017 — in the last 18 months, specifically — they still haven't figured out

how to actually put that into a piece of law and regulation at the same time, so that

this assembly, the workers, the companies and the customers could all have a clear

understanding not only of when all these changes will take effect but of what the

changes actually are.

When the minister talks about the transparency of how much a fare is, how it's built

and what the driver gets paid out of that fare, that does not exist in Bill 48. It

only existed in this minister's speech. When the minister talks about saving money

on fuel or the impacts of fuel prices to drivers, that does not exist in Bill 48.

It might exist in regulation, but it doesn't exist in Bill 48. It only existed in

the minister's speech.

Though there'll undoubtedly be some government members finally speaking to a bill,

sadly, they're going to have probably very similar speaking points to the minister,

but the opposition doesn't have any of that detail. The public doesn't have any of

that detail.

When you're a government that's going to win a vote, 2 to 1, anyway, why hide that

detail from proper scrutiny? Why hide the ability for the company, the driver, the

public and the opposition to get a true sense of what the government is planning on

doing? The government will win the vote. Wouldn't it be a shock if they found out

that their plans maybe weren't so warmly received by the drivers, the companies and

the public, by actually having an open and transparent conversation as the legislation

moves through this chamber?

Instead, we will get a few government members standing up and speaking, parroting

exactly what the minister's office — well, actually the Premier's office — has approved

for them to speak to, adding in some detail that no one else has access to. "Just

trust us" will be the theme, but then they will not actually be able to provide any

of that detail at committee stage.

[3:00 p.m.]

I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for this minister to stand up at committee

stage and actually just put it all out on the table, get it all on the public record,

provide great detail on how exactly they consulted and came up with 120 percent of

minimum wage.

I'm sure other minimum-wage earners might be interested to find out that this government

feels that gig workers should get paid 120 percent of minimum wage and other minimum-wage

workers should just get paid minimum wage. That's an interesting concept. It's one

I'm sure we're going to want to explore at committee stage.

Unfortunately, as we've seen, after five minutes of the minister consulting with his

staff, it will probably be: "Well, I can't talk about that. It will be left up to

regulation." One would hope, just to speed things along, if that's going to be the

answer all the way through committee stage, the minister would just stop consulting

with staff and just keep standing up and saying: "That's left for regulation. I can't

talk about it, even though I talked about it in my opening speech."

That does raise a very interesting question point for this government, for a whole

lot of minimum wage workers in the province of B.C., at a time when Vancouver's living

wage is $25 an hour. In Kamloops, it's just a little under $21. In Kelowna, I think

it's very close to Vancouver, which is telling about how expensive this whole province

has become under this government.

At a time when a living wage is $25 an hour in Vancouver, this government is saying:

"If you're a gig worker, we'll make sure you have 120 percent of minimum wage protected.

But if you're the minimum-wage worker in the 7-Eleven where that driver is showing

up to get the to-go order, that worker is only entitled to minimum wage."

Doesn't that seem a little strange for the party that purports to be the party of

the working person — that they are now, by regulation, in Bill 48, going to be setting

out a different category? Wasn't this the government that complained about the server

wage all those years? And now the driver for SkipTheDishes that drives to the 7-Eleven….

Let's face it. I'll use 7-Eleven, but any type of convenience store…. I know 7-Eleven

does the delivery of their food and beverages and Slurpees and everything else. Lots

of those employees are likely minimum wage. Stereotypical, I know, but typically,

that's what happens with entry-level jobs. I know a great many that work there aren't,

especially in management and things of that nature.

But just as a for instance, the young person that just started their first job at

a 7-Eleven or some sort of takeout place like that, getting paid minimum wage, assembles

the order. The minister's kids, as he says, use these apps all the time. So the minister's

kids get their order all sent off to their favourite takeout place. The worker at

the takeout place, getting paid minimum wage, gets everything assembled, spends a

lot of time cooking and packaging and getting it all ready to go quickly so they have

a happy customer at the other end.

The skip driver shows up. That might also be an Uber Eats driver picking up for two

different orders, as often happens, with two different bags getting paid by two different

companies. They're entitled, at a minimum, according to this minister, to 120 percent

of minimum wage, compared to the person that assembled the order and cooked the order

and got it all ready to go. Plus they get their tips, which most of those takeout

places don't.

That's the logic that this minister just provided in his opening speech about where

he sees the regulation landing on this bill, and that is why it's reprehensible, frankly,

that the government hasn't provided that detail to the opposition and to the broader

public to understand the ramifications of this bill. I can get why the driver would

think this is great: 120 percent of minimum wage. Why wouldn't you think that a $20-an-hour

minimum — $20.15, I think the minister said — would be a good thing? Of course you'd

think that.

[3:05 p.m.]

You know who might want to actually start to have a conversation about that part of

the bill, though? The rest of the labour movement that always goes to bat about minimum

wage, and understandably so. They might have a few things to say about that. And the

minimum-wage employee might have a few things to say about that. Instead, it'll just

get rolled out as an order-in-council and be done.

But there are real implications. There are valid conversations around the implication

of a policy like that, a regulation like that, on the ripple effect it would do to

the pressure for other employers in other sectors and their wage structure. I'm not

saying it's a good or a bad thing, but it would be a legitimate conversation that

they would need to have in the business community around cost pressures on how they're

going to operate. But we won't know what that is.

The bottom line is this on Bill 48: it's a very thin bill. The minister has spoken

at length…. Again, I do appreciate it. I sincerely appreciate the length he spoke

because at least it gave us some insight into what the minister was thinking. That

may not have been his intention, to let the opposition know that much, but he did.

There should be no defensible reason now, by this government, to not be able to answer

questions at committee stage about what the regulations will look like.

About the timelines to finish off those regulations. About how quickly the phase-in

will happen after the regulation is set. About what it means, how the regulation will

work, for people that drive for more than one company at the same time, have multiple

apps running, as most do, as even the minister has acknowledged. About how the regulation

is going to deal with fuel, since they're unwilling to deal with the provincial fuel

tax, as B.C. United has repeatedly called for, for over a year. How quickly people

will actually have the regulation that they can be covered by workers compensation

if they have an unruly customer that beats them up.

And again, that just speaks to the differences of the two delivery models. I'm not

trying to be flippant here, but I don't think it's the cheeseburger hopping out of

the Uber Eats bag that's beating up the driver. It's the drunk customer, or the not

drunk customer, in the Uber that is a threat to the driver. But Bill 48 doesn't actually

protect that driver right now. They're going to have to wait longer.

Based on the detail of the minister's opening speech, I think it's safe to say that

he ought to be able to — and should, and for clear, transparent, democratic reasons

— actually answer with great depth of detail the questions we're going to have as

an opposition on how this functionally will work in the timelines. Anything less is

just dangling false hope out to drivers that there will be an immediate change when

this bill is passed next Thursday by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Except next Thursday the only clauses that will be taking effect are clauses 3, 4,

6 and 7. None of those deal with what the minister was talking about in his opening

comments in terms of regulation and actual, true change to both the industry as well

as the drivers.

I thank you for the time, and I do look forward to committee stage where undoubtedly,

and sadly, we will likely be told: "We can't talk about that. We're still working

on regulation." Just once I would like to see this government actually be open and

transparent and provide answers to the public that are valid and legitimate and need

to be answered.

[3:10 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I'm happy to stand up and speak to Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

While I was waiting, I did a few quick searches to get an understanding of the context

of the world that we're talking about. There was a study done by Simon Fraser University

and the Centre for Policy Alternatives on precarious work recently. Of the people

surveyed in B.C., half of the workers between the ages of 25 and 65 have permanent

full-time employers, which means half do not. So we're talking about a very significant

portion of people in B.C. who are impacted by the reality of the gig economy.

At the same time — well, a few more things — 40 percent of those precarious workers

have more than one job; 59 percent had dental coverage; 54 percent, medical; and 53

percent, vision — of the workers that were surveyed in this. But the workers in precarious

work reported having poorer mental and physical health than the people who have permanent,

stable work. That's not surprising.

We know that these working conditions can be very hard on people. It's not reliable.

You can get called in, in an unexpected way, or you can lose shifts in an unexpected

way. Overall, these working conditions don't tend to be particularly beneficial.

On the other side of the equation, we have the companies that employ these precarious

workers, these gig workers. I quickly looked up the income that these companies are

reporting. Uber's September 30th third-quarter income statement posts $1.054 billion,

with a "b," n net income. DoorDash revenue for third quarter is up 27 percent to $2.2

billion. Lyft third-quarter reportings 2023, revenue, $1.158 billion. SkipTheDishes

had some interesting data. Estimated annual revenue is currently $649.4 million, but

they also have the estimated revenue per employee. They indicate that the estimated

revenue per employee is $203,000.

That's the landscape we're talking about here, and it's a wider landscape. Yesterday's

report that came out from Oxfam: the top 1 percent is responsible for as many global

emissions of CO2 as the bottom 66 percent of the world's population — 1 percent of

the population emitting as much as 66 percent of the world's population. The people

who are driving climate change have names and faces, most of them white and male.

So it's really important to consider our conversation about Bill 48, the Labour Statutes

Amendment Act, in this wider context of the fact that companies look at their employees

as revenue generators. One of them, SkipTheDishes, tells us for each employee, each

precarious worker, they expect to make $203,000 off of that person's labour. We can

be absolutely certain that person is not making anywhere near $203,000.

[3:15 p.m.]

Yet this is the world we're in right now, where governments — even, supposedly, governments

that are on the side of workers — take a long time and do the bare minimum to actually

protect those workers. Governments aren't saying to these massive global companies

that are extracting billions of dollars from the labour of people…. Governments aren't

saying to those companies: "Hey, if you want to work in our region, here are the conditions."

We're going to protect the people who live and work here. We're going to protect our

citizens. That's our job as a government. That's the contract that we have between

the people we represent and this institution. Our job is to protect the people who

live here, yet more and more we seem to be in an exercise of protecting the profit

margins of multinational companies, not just precarious workers, not just the gig

economy companies, the resource extraction companies. We're certainly protecting the

profits of the LNG Canada consortium.

I think about this a lot — how this so-called globalized economy that we live in has

brought us to a place where governments seem to have been put into this situation

where our job is to make the conditions as favourable as we can for the multinational

companies while forsaking the well-being of the people that live here.

We're talking about an affordability crisis in this province over and over again.

Part of that affordability crisis is that people don't make enough money. We have

a growing inequality gap. We have a growing income gap, and while the shareholders

can be assured of that $203,000-per-employee return from SkipTheDishes, the people

doing that delivery might have to go to the food bank because they're not making enough

money to afford groceries.

We talk about all this affordability stuff, and we hear all the rhetoric. We very,

very, very rarely in here hear about the companies that are profiting from this affordability

crisis — very rarely. It's always: "Well, you guys should cut taxes." That's the kind

of standard response we get.

Nobody is talking about the billions upon billions of dollars that are going upward

in this economy, because the higher that ceiling goes, the lower the floor goes. And

that's what we're talking about today. We're talking about the floor being about as

low as it can possibly be. What are we going to do to just lift it slightly? We talk

about that a lot. How are we going to just lift the floor slightly?

But we don't talk about lowering the ceiling. We need to start talking about lowering

the ceiling. We need to start talking about the role that government has in lowering

the ceiling on the profits of multinational companies that are operating in B.C. and

extracting their profits out of the labour of people who live here.

Setting minimum employment standards for drivers working for ride-hailing or app-based

food delivery services is overdue, to say the least. We have to. We have a responsibility

to ensure that workers are treated fairly and that platforms do their fair share when

it comes to protecting workers' safety.

"Véronique Sioufi, researcher for racial and socioeconomic equity with the Canadian

Centre for Policy Alternatives, the B.C. office, praised this government's decision

to recognize gig workers as employees." Low bar. "Platform companies have long used

the misclassification of these workers to underpay them while burdening them with

additional costs and risks," she said.

The proposed changes are a step in the right direction, but they don't go nearly far

enough.

Many gig workers are new Canadians waiting for approval for foreign credentials, and

I think all of us can agree that new Canadians who are working, contributing to the

economy, contributing to our communities should also be eligible for sick leave, and

they should be paid for all of the time that they work.

[3:20 p.m.]

With Bill 48, the minister appears to essentially be deciding that these workers don't

deserve the same treatment as all other employees in B.C. That's going to continue

to exacerbate the racial inequality in the B.C. labour market.

Véronique Sioufi stated: "So if they deserve to be treated fairly, why are they getting

fewer protections than everyone else? They, the government, say they are offering

up basic employment standards here, but the Employment Standards Act is already our

basic. So if this is less than the Employment Standards Act, this is less than the

basic."

Sioufi believes that some aspects of the proposed changes will have a contrary effect

on workers. While they will be paid 120 percent minimum wage while working, that extra

amount will not cover their costs while waiting to accept assignments, says Sioufi.

What this does, she says, is it lets platform companies kind of flood the market with

as many workers as they want, because they're not responsible for being efficient.

They're not responsible for all the time that those workers are going to be out there

waiting for the next assignment. So there are going to be lots more competition for

those assignments, even though those assignments might be paid at a slightly higher

rate now. Translation: people might end up, for a lot of that time, waiting for an

assignment while they're not being paid — working, essentially, while they're not

being paid.

More workers fighting over fewer assignments likely means less money in their pockets.

"Their hourly wage," says Sioufi, "is most likely to go down. This is something that

the government was aware of ahead of time. Economists warned them, and government

put this out in their discussion paper. They knew that this would be a risk if they

did not pay workers for all of their work time," including waiting to accept assignments.

My question is: why did government put this forward? Sioufi thinks it's a reflection

of the strength of lobbying from the platform companies. With the profits in the hundreds

of millions or billions, they can certainly afford to pay for lobbyists to come in

here and talk with decision-makers and policy-makers and convince them that, really,

it's in the best interest of everybody to protect their interests.

Sioufi says: "I think there was a lot of thought and effort put into this, and I think

we shouldn't minimize the fact that it's really important in recognizing that these

workers are employees…. It's still a good first move." But it's only a first move.

We're years into a government that claims to be on the side of workers.

Sussanne Skidmore, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said that the proposed

measures represent some progress for ride-hail and food delivery workers but still

leave them without the same set of protections provided to every other worker in B.C.

Skidmore said: "We're especially relieved that they heard us on the need for workers'

compensation coverage…. But we are deeply concerned over where this plan falls short,

especially because it denies workers key protections under the law, like paid sick

leave."

How far we've come from just a few years ago when we were all acknowledging and recognizing

how essential it is that people have paid sick leave, all people, and that they're

not going to work sick, that they're not potentially infecting other people with illnesses.

Yet here we are, and we can't meet this basic measure for people who are working in

B.C.

[3:25 p.m.]

J. Routledge: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act. It's been

almost a year since the Premier invited me to serve as the Parliamentary Secretary

for Labour in his government — not the parliamentary secretary of labour, not the

parliamentary secretary about labour. I'm the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour.

was not his first language, probably not his second or maybe even his third language.

He introduced me as the parliamentary secretary for working people. I was touched

by that. It since then reminds me of my values, and it has served as a frame of reference

within which I do my job.

My mandate letter specifically relates to this bill. It states that I am to continue

work to develop a precarious work strategy that reflects the diverse needs and unique

situations of today's workers and workplaces; to propose employment standards and

other protections relevant to app-based, ride-hail and food delivery drivers; to review

labour policy innovations in other jurisdictions related to the emerging economy and

precarious work to identify trends that may inform the development of labour policy

in British Columbia.

This proposed bill is an important benchmark in the fulfilment of my mandate as Parliamentary

Secretary for Labour.

Earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Third Party speculated that we were probably

heavily lobbied by app-based companies. I want to tell you that I have met with and

heard from countless ride-hail and food delivery drivers, including more than 1,000

emails that I've received from them. They told me shocking and heartbreaking stories

about their working conditions.

I discovered, contrary to popular public opinion, that this is not a side hustle for

most app-based drivers. This is how they are trying to make a living, feed their families,

pay the rent or mortgage, put food on the table and make life better for themselves

and their families here in Canada. They are struggling, as are so many working families

right now.

The high cost of housing and food inflation is taking its toll on most people, but

it's particularly hard for app-based drivers to make ends meet and maintain a quality

of life. They told me that they regularly work six or seven days a week, 12 hours

a day — now, that can't be safe — and in the end are paid less than minimum wage.

Some have even been sending me screenshots of their final pay. One screenshot was

$4.05 for a 29-minute assignment, and that included the tip. They told me about mysterious

fees being deducted from their pay. They told me about tips being kept by the app

company. One driver told me that he is now driving taxi because his wife told him,

"It's me or Uber," and he chose his wife.

I heard a lot about being fired for no reason and no explanation. It's called discontinuation.

The app discontinues them. One of the top drivers for one of the ride-hail companies

told me about being discontinued. He couldn't get an explanation. He phoned. He kept

phoning the call centre. The call centre was in another country. They didn't know

why he'd been discontinued. He kept calling, and he was told to basically stop pestering

them.

Two weeks later, he was reinstated because it was a case of mistaken identity. They

meant to fire somebody else. But that didn't mean that he got his two weeks' compensation

back. He was out that income that he lost for two weeks.

Another driver told me he was discontinued because he refused to take an unaccompanied

baby, and the mother gave him a bad review, and therefore, he was discontinued.

[3:30 p.m.]

I just want to point out that the bill is informed by the experiences of the drivers

themselves. I'd like to share, in their own words, a few of the things that they've

told me.

In the words of one ride-hail driver: "I've been working as a ride-hail driver since

I came to Vancouver, and I have done more than 15,000 trips." That's a big number.

"At the beginning, I thought they were taking a 25 percent cut out of the whole amount

paid by the customer. It surprised me when I spoke with the customer and she told

me she was being charged $105 for a trip. I only received $54. Since then, I started

calculating, and it shocked me. This seemed like a scam."

They cut more than 50 percent out of every trip, if you calculate it and get all the

information. I've got lots of emails to that effect. This driver also talked about

the problem of being fired for no reason. He concludes his email by saying: "Please

help. Your people need you, because they have families to feed."

Another driver told me that he has been driving for the last three or four years,

but the standards are very low, the pay is very low, and the company keeps more than

50 percent itself — sometimes less than basic pay in B.C. "So I request that you do

something to make it a real job so people can survive on it."

I'll just read one little piece from quite a lengthy description of what their working

conditions are like. "In

summary, the current state of working for app delivery in

Canada has become increasingly challenging, with drivers facing disrespect from various

parties, inadequate compensation and unfavourable working conditions. I strongly believe

it is in the best interests of all stakeholders to address these issues promptly."

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Another driver told me in an email: "I believe that drivers who work for a whole week

deserve the option of benefits, even if the employers have to split the costs. This

should be decided by the employer, if they want to benefit or not."

"Drivers deserve a quarterly report on where the money goes. Twenty-five percent per

trip is a huge chunk of money. Since the drivers have earned it, they deserve a report

on where it goes." Another point that this driver made is that drivers only get reimbursed

for cleaning fees if it provides bodily fluids, which equals $150. Finally, they only

pay what was quoted. "If a trip was quoted 15 minutes but then takes 45 minutes during

rush hour, we're not compensated for that difference," meaning a driver takes about

$9 to $10 for that trip that now took 45 minutes.

Those are some of the examples. There are a lot of examples. Like I say, I got more

than 1,000 emails about it. But there are other examples, from some of these emails

I got, that provide the complication of what we're dealing with. For example, this

one driver said: "As a B.C. resident, I would like to have the flexibility to work

as a driver at any time and on the trips that I would like to do. I'd also like the

government to interfere and set fixed costs per each trip, pickup, drop-off, parking

charges, distance travelled. The company is not paying enough fare for the trips to

the drivers."

This is a driver, like many drivers, who made a point of saying that they want to

keep the flexibility. This driver has said: "Please keep the delivery job flexible

for when, whether or how. If the B.C. government makes changes, keep the flexibility.

Any change should not put any cap on flexibility regarding when, where or how much

time one can do the job. There should be a minimum wage too."

They're looking for both. I get that, and that's what we're trying to do.

[3:35 p.m.]

This driver has said: "I've been driving for about three years now. I love the flexibility

it gives me, and I would hate any government intervention that would remove this flexibility.

While I'm all for improving the wages and protecting gig workers through employment

standards, removing the flexibility from that would bring more negative than positive

changes. The only thing the government should review, perhaps, is whether the company

is paying the drivers and whether it's fair or not and whether or not the expenses

are accounted for."

Some drivers talked about why they need the flexibility. One driver said: "The ability

to have flexibility of income and working hours at my discretion is the only way my

wife and I are able to remain out of the grasp of bankruptcy in this province. We

are forced to live where we are so our rent does not increase. We cannot afford child

care, nor do we qualify for benefits. We need to be able to work the flexibility to

make up the difference and care for our children."

Another driver said: "I love the work as a ride-hail driver, and the main reason is

flexibility. I have a small baby. I am doing babysitting, and as well, whenever I

get the time, I drive and earn money, because there are no limitations."

Another driver said: "I'm a retired Vancouver firefighter, and I choose to work as

a driver after retiring because I want to work when, where and if I want. I have three

children in high school. My family is important, and I want to spend time with them."

Another ride-hail driver has said: "Dear madam, I am a full-time ride-hail driver.

I started driving since the very beginning when the company started here in B.C. I

enjoy the flexibility, and it's very important to all drivers so we can choose to

drive whenever we want to and accept or decline the trips we wish."

Another driver told me about having an autistic child and having to be available,

which means the flexibility offered by this kind of work is important. Another driver

said that to make ends meet, she has two other jobs, and she needs to be able to fit

this in around those jobs. It goes on and on.

Now, perhaps there's some confusion about where I'm coming from here. The point is

that the digital technology that makes it possible for a working relationship such

as this was inconceivable and unimaginable when employment standards or, for that

matter, collective agreements were first contemplated.

These kinds of jobs — ride-hail jobs, food delivery jobs, app-based jobs — are unique

and new in our economy. Some of the standards, like minimum pay, the right to keep

tips, workers compensation, pay transparency and a fair disciplinary process, are

easily transferable from the economy and the work relations we know to the new app-based

economy and new work relations.

Contrary to some of the worry and speculation that's been expressed so far, our plan

is to provide those protections as soon as possible. We know that by going out and

engaging with the workers, we have raised expectations. We have identified…. We have

invited them to tell us what their concerns are. We've raised expectations, and we

want to fix those problems as soon as possible.

But there are other standards — like leave, like benefits — that are more complicated

because they work for more than one employer at the same time. They're logged on to

more than one app at the same time. It will take a bit of study, and it will take

more information for us to figure out how to apply those rightful benefits in a work

context that does not have defined hours of work. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson

himself pointed out in his engagement in this debate what many of those complexities

are.

[3:40 p.m.]

I believe that we will get there, but I believe that those workers are suffering now,

and it's really important that we don't wait to figure out how we apply the traditional

work relations to app-based work relations. We cannot wait to get it all perfect.

We have to do what we can now, which is what is contemplated in the regulations that

the minister talked about. Then we will work on the ones that are more complex.

Ontario passed legislation. They passed their law more than a year ago, and it is

still not enforced, because they're still trying to work it out. We don't want to

do that. We want to move faster. We believe that perfection is the enemy of the good.

This legislation is a first step. It's designed to address the most egregious problems.

We will continue to engage with the drivers, the companies, the drivers advocates

to come up with standards that protect their rights and protect the flexibility that

they value.

So in conclusion, while digital technology may change the conditions of the working

relationship, it does not change the inherent power imbalance between the workers

and the companies, as the Leader of the Third Party pointed out quite dramatically

and quite eloquently. What changes that imbalance? Unions do that, and labour laws

do that.

We live in a province and in a country in which I think we can agree that workers

are not expected to subsidize the companies for which they work. I'd hope that we

can all agree that the workers nor the customers are expected to subsidize the profits

of the app-based companies.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Applause of one. All right.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 48. I also want to say to the members,

especially the one from Burnaby North, that if we wish to make a direct impact on

the cost of operating as a gig operator and improving our ability to pay for ever-rising

food costs, the first thing we can do is lower the cost of fuel.

I know we've been talking about that in this House for some time now, but maybe the

message hasn't been going through. If we lower the cost of fuel by looking at the

gas tax, I think that would go right to the bottom line of all those people working

in this industry.

I also want to thank the member for Burnaby North. She had the decency to say, "If

the legislation passes," respecting that there's a process in this House, as opposed

to the minister, who made it very clear that the legislation is passing. I've been

in this place for 15 years now. I take exception to those words. We have a job to

do. I had a job to do when I was the minister for four years.

I try to respect the members of opposition and their job. I wish that the minister

would take it to heart, to know that the legislation has not yet passed and maybe

keep that in mind when he's making his speeches. I've seen other ministers speak to

their legislation, and consistently, they always say, "Should the legislation pass,"

or "when" or "if." What I heard today was different.

If I may, I just want to go through some of the timeline that we have seen leading

up to this particular introduction of the legislation. In October 2017, Dan Hara was

hired to do a comprehensive consultation with the existing industry.

Again, the member for Burnaby North was very eloquent in talking about the stories

that she's received as the parliamentary secretary — over 1,000 letters, etc. I know

that she probably read every last one of them, as I did when I received thousands

of letters when I worked with the government over the Health Professions Act. It's

an important job that the member had, and I'm sure she took it very seriously and

read all that.

In January 2018, the province took action against illegal ride-hailing services. Drivers

were subject to $1,150 fines and possible further sanctions.

[3:45 p.m.]

In February 2018, an all-party standing committee delivered a report on ride-sharing

to the Legislature.

In July 2018, the government adopted key recommendations of the Hara report.

In November 2018, legislation was opened, and the door to ride-hailing was set for

the next year, putting safety first.

A few days later, the minister's statement on ride-hailing said that the Standing

Committee on Crown Corporations would examine and make recommendations on regulations

regarding app-based ride-hailing.

In July of 2019, the province announced regulation insurance policy for ride-hailing

— companies could apply to the passenger transportation branch starting in September

programs.

In January of 2020, the minister's statement provided a statement on ride-hailing

services decisions. It said: "We will continue to support a passenger transportation

industry that gets people safely where they need to go and ensures sustainable livelihoods

for drivers." This is going back three years.

In March of 2020: "Taxi industry to benefit from distance-based insurance product."

ICBC covered per-kilometre travel insurance to fleet and non-fleet taxis starting

in May of 2020. In March of 2022, Bill 13 was introduced to modernize passenger transportation

and improve safety.

October 26 of 2022, the gig work engagement was started. In October of 2022, Bill

40 continued the modernization of the commercial passenger vehicle industry, enabling

now made available to the public.

In May of 2023, a Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles was appointed.

This Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles reviewed passenger-directed

vehicles and transportation network services, including taxis and ride-hailing administered

impacts on public transit, traffic congestion and the environment; employment in the

industry; and availability in small, remote and rural communities.

And then finally, in November of this year, legislative changes were proposed to bring

fairness to app-based gig workers. A deadline to provide written input on consultation

by the Special Community to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles was November 20, 2023.

So with all this work having been done since October 16 of 2017, my question is: why

isn't there more detail in the legislation? The parliamentary secretary, the member

for Burnaby North, has shared the stories. She clearly understands — so does the minister

— the needs of the industry, the stories saying how people wanted to make sure….

Drivers, for example, wanted to make sure that they got properly compensated, and

other drivers said that they also wanted flexibility in choosing whether or not they

work and when they work. I imagine, lots of times, that it would be both. They want

the flexibility, but they also want to be properly compensated.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying if that's the case, and I believe it

would be, as I'm sure everybody in this House would want to be properly compensated

for their work and also have the flexibility that helps them make ends meet…. Again,

if I can quote the member for Burnaby North, she said: "We can't wait to get it all

perfect." If that's the case, then why would it not be in the legislation? Why would

a whole bunch of the details of this legislation, of Bill 48, be left to regulation?

Wouldn't it be better to provide those details up front so that the official opposition,

for example, industry and others can look at and review all those details, get some

clarity? The drivers themselves, the workers in the gig economy, as well as industry….

I know we've heard comments about the industry. But everyone needs an opportunity

to look at what the government is proposing, and I would say there's no place better

than putting those details in the legislation, especially those key details that the

minister was so quick to provide here in his second reading speech. If he's ready

to provide those details in a second reading speech, then why wouldn't they be in

the legislation to begin with?

[3:50 p.m.]

I'm just puzzled as to why we are faced once again with a piece of legislation that

is very light on details and relying so extensively on potential regulations that

may or may not come in, in the near future.

Despite prior announcements and media communications suggesting imminent changes,

we are going to be, once again, looking to defer any of the positive moves coming

from this legislation to the future, through regulations. This delay will impact diverse

groups, including young workers, Indigenous peoples, racialized individuals, people

with disabilities, women, newcomers, linguistic minorities and a range of other people

that have provided input to the government on what would work and what should not

be included in the legislation for this industry.

The decision to regulate the status and rights of online platform workers and operators

through regulation rather than direct legislative action limits the ability of House

members to effectively represent and address the issues of their constituents.

It also limits the ability of members of the opposition, including our Third and Fourth

Parties and the independent, to provide amendments to the legislation. Once the legislation

is passed, and if the legislation is passed, then the opportunity to impact any of

those details is gone, because we don't get an opportunity to provide amendments to

the regulations. They are done in a closed room in cabinet, and then they are announced

to the world without any opportunity for feedback prior to them becoming law in British

Columbia.

What does the act do? Well, it does a few things. One, it provides a definition for

online platform workers. It establishes the online platform workers as employees and

the operators of online platforms as employers. That's a very, very serious change

to what we have now. I am sure that the critic for Labour will have many questions

on how that's actually going to give the employees the flexibility that they want,

the independence that they want, if they are going to be considered full employees

of the employer.

The bill also states that the director of employment standards, who is appointed by

the Public Service Act, may take steps to investigate and adds a new circumstance

in which they can investigate. The bill also adds regulation-making authorities, as

I've discussed. The act will come into force by royal assent except for sections 1,

2, 5, 8 and 10.

What are we looking at in the section-by-section of the legislation?

Section 1 talks about an online platform worker, and this is defined as someone who

performs specified jobs that the person accepts through an online platform. Again,

it's proposed through the legislation that they become employees of the online platform.

Section 2 establishes online platform workers as employees and online platform operators

as employers for purposes of the act.

Section 3 clarifies that the circumstances in which the director of employment standards,

appointed under the Public Service Act, may take specific actions regarding the investigations

and adds a new circumstance in which the director may take those actions.

Section 5 adds a regulation-making authority regarding the prescribed work "for the

purposes of the definition of 'online platform worker'" and operator of the online

platform and "respecting online platforms and work accepted through online platforms."

There are also changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act that are being

proposed.

Section 6 expands the requirement to maintain records to all employers, including

the ones that operate online platforms. It strikes out the words "registered employer"

and substitutes it with the simple term of "employer."

Section 7 expands the period for the obligation to pay interest on amounts owing under

a determination or order.

Bill 48 also has changes proposed for the Workers Compensation Act.

[3:55 p.m.]

section 8, it adds a new definition to

section 1 of the Workers Compensation Act,

which says that an online platform worker means a person who performs specified jobs

that the person accepts through an online platform.

Section 9 establishes online platform workers as employees and online platform operators

as employers for the purposes of the act, and

section 10 adds regulation-making authorities

regarding "prescribing work for the purposes of the definition of 'online platform

worker'" and operator of the online platform, and "respecting online platforms and

work accepted through online platforms."

So the bill provides many

definitions, many changes for online workers and establishes

the online platform worker such as SkipTheDishes drivers, Uber drivers and others

as employees and the operators of online platforms as employers. I have to say that

my personal experience with ride-hailing services and the employees has been exceptional.

I've had great service from taxi drivers in my life, and I've also had great service

from these drivers as well. I wouldn't say one is better than the other. I would just

say that it's a different way of getting service.

In some cases, of course, with the extra charge for food delivery, you have to factor

that in. If you're ordering a Big Mac, you'd better make sure you really want the

Big Mac, given the price it's going to cost you to get it to your house. Some people

don't like Big Macs. I'm a personal fan of McDoubles. It has the same amount of meat

in it, but it's much smaller price-wise.

If any of the members who are talking to me with their sign language from across the

way want to provide me with a BLT or a McD.L.T. or any of the other favourites that

they have…. As they are suggesting, maybe I should look at Wendy's or some other provider.

No. Anyway, I digress. I'll speak to the bill. I'm so easily swayed to talk about

something else.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Well, come on over to my office. I'd be happy to fix something up for you. All right.

I'm not too sure if Hansard is getting all this other banter on record or just me,

but I'm sure it's just me, so I'll just move on, because it's really out of context.

It's essential that all workers are put in a position to succeed and are working under

acceptable standards, and there's nothing funny about that. I'm just carrying over

from the humour from before.

Not only does looking after workers unleash the potential of our workforce; it also

is the right thing to do. However, while we can support this goal, the official opposition

has some significant questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how

it will be enacted to benefit British Columbians.

Despite prior announcements suggesting imminent changes — and again, I describe in

detail all the years that we've been looking at this — the implementation of these

changes is largely deferred to the future. It's going to happen some day, maybe after

the next election, but some day. As such, the details on how these changes will practically

affect workers, businesses and consumers are extremely limited.

These changes will, if the bill passes, make delivery more expensive for consumers.

That would mean less business for restaurants and fewer opportunities for delivery

drivers, because it's all about supply and demand. Supply and demand are largely affected

by cost, especially when you're looking at something like having your food delivered

to you, which is not a necessity in many cases. As the cost goes up, you'll find that

demand will go down.

The delay of regulations impacts a diverse group of workers, including young people

and others. Additionally, the decision to regulate the status of rights of online

platform workers and operators through regulation rather than direct legislative action

limits the ability of MLAs, as I've said before, to effectively address concerns of

constituents.

I would say it's very difficult for constituents to articulate their concerns if they

don't know what's being proposed in the regulations. So I really hope that when the

minister gets asked questions on the regulations, he does not take the fifth and say,

well, he can't talk about that because it's in the regulations and that he actually

does like he did in the second reading debate — his speech — and give some detail

as to what the government is thinking.

For example, 120 percent of minimum wage, written notice of compensation — these are

things that I didn't find in the legislation. If somebody knows that's in there, let

me know, but I think it just came out of the speech today from the minister in second

reading. Well, these are very important things to identify upfront.

[4:00 p.m.]

Ultimately, Bill 48 defers the meat of the bill to the future, leaving us with concerns

that this might just end up resulting in more red tape and bureaucracy that sidelines

workers and raises costs for consumers. Our B.C. United caucus looks forward to scrutinizing

and debating the specifics of the legislation at committee stage.

In 2022, delivery workers on one food delivery platform, for example, earned an average

of $27 an hour while delivering, including 100 percent of tips. B.C. drivers overwhelmingly

value their flexibility, and most use our platform for supplemental income. This is

some of what we heard from DoorDash drivers. On the issue of flexibility, as the parliamentary

secretary already discussed, 97 percent of B.C. drivers agree that being able to choose

when, where and how they work should be protected if laws are to change.

Again, I was an employer before I became an MLA, and I had a direct relationship with

my staff. I would employ them. In consultation with them, of course, I would set their

hours and their conditions of pay. They had a choice on whether or not to work under

those conditions, and there was definitely an employer-employee relationship there.

Their flexibility was that if they were sick, well, they would stay home and call

in sick, and I would be responsible for finding somebody else.

With 97 percent of B.C. drivers agreeing that they should be able to choose when,

where and how they work, I'm still puzzled by how you can have a direct employer-employee

relationship under those conditions. I look forward to hearing from the minister,

in committee stage, on how that would work.

Some 56 percent of B.C., drivers would stop dashing, we were told, if they had less

ability to choose the days or time they worked, and 54 percent of B.C. drivers have

other delivery or ride-sharing apps open while they're driving. They're not working

for one specific employer but looking for many opportunities to earn their income.

Supplemental income. In 2022, the average Canadian driver spent fewer than three hours

per week on delivery on the app — three hours per week. In addition to driving, 63

percent of B.C. drivers have a full- or part-time job, run their own business or do

other gig or freelance work. Only 13 percent of B.C. drivers rely on delivery or ride-share

as their only line of work.

Again, I have no idea whether what's being proposed is that the employer-employee

relationship would apply to those 13 percent. In other words, do you have to have

a minimum of 30 hours a week, working for one specific employer, to be considered

their employee? That would be really important to know as we discuss this in committee

stage.

Some 76 percent of B.C. drivers say it would be hard to make ends meet if they couldn't

get income from ride-share and delivery. We also heard that 35 percent of B.C. drivers

have dashed to make up for lost income or reduced hours at another job.

On the issue of mileage pay, what we've heard so far is that the costs associated

with delivery and ride-hail are very different, and the government should not take

a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating pay in these two industries. Now, compared

to delivery, ride-hail comes with a higher capital cost and higher cleaning costs

and maintenance costs for workers that require higher rates of pay.

Delivery drivers can use any vehicle they want. Delivery drivers do not carry passengers,

and delivery drivers spend much less time driving. Is the government proposing to

have the same 120 percent rate of pay for both kinds of drivers? Again, this would

be something that would be worthwhile canvassing prior to the regulations actually

being made.

The last piece I'd like to talk to is the mandatory trades certification. The government

has a history of failing to look at the full scope of labour legislation — which has,

unfortunately, led to negative and unintended consequences on industries that are

vital to our economy and society, such as the mandatory trades certification program.

This program required a prescribed supervisor ratio of two apprentices per journeyman

for ten trades. There were simply not enough journeymen in the province available

to meet the 2-to-1 ratio.

The regulation as written would have likely resulted in apprentices having to be laid

off because companies could no longer meet the ratio requirements. This is an example

of the government adding red tape and regulation to an industry, with an improper

plan to mitigate the consequences.

[4:05 p.m.]

It is our concern that the legislation here, being devoid of much of the detail, may

lead to the same consequences that were not anticipated when the government decides,

in the privacy of cabinet, to review and pass regulations coming out of Bill 48.

In all, I would say that the official opposition has a lot of questions. We have a

lot of issues that we'd like to see addressed in committee stage, and we hope that

the minister will come forward and answer those questions in a strong and forthcoming

way, give us direct answers so that we can make informed judgment as to whether or

not we can support the legislation.

Again, it is my hope that at the end of the day, we'll find a win-win-win scenario

after committee stage.

M. Bernier: I'm not sure. I was waiting and stalling to see if there was anybody else from the

government side, from the NDP, that was going to stand up. Possibly they still will.

There's lots of time and opportunity for them to speak to this bill that they have.

Or possibly it's because they're as perplexed as we are with some of the stuff that

comes forward from government.

We have Bill 48 in front of us, and I know the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, before

me, I think, got everybody's appetites going when he digressed and talked about his

personal preference around burgers, which was interesting to bring forward in the

piece of legislation that we have here.

But I think, as I look at my colleague there, the reason being is that there is very

little meat in this bill.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, where's the beef? Exactly.

But seriously, I think it's important that we….

And for the people that are watching, I'm sorry that this seems to get a little strange

sometimes, I know. But the whole point is that we have a piece of legislation that

we didn't expect to have in the House here, because just a couple of weeks ago, the

House Leader for the NDP said: "We're done with our legislation. We're not bringing

any more forward. Plan accordingly."

And what do we see brought forward with seven days left of legislation time at the

end of a fall sitting? A piece of legislation from the Minister of Labour, Bill 48.

It's only 2½ pages, ten sections with very….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, ten clauses. Thank you. I'm old school when I talk about sections. Clauses now.

But very little information in this, and I'll get to that in a moment.

I think it's important to highlight, first of all, the bill that's in front of us,

trying to understand the urgency, with only a few days left in the fall session. The

minister had to put this on the floor, with no information in a piece of legislation.

As I'll get to in a moment, almost every piece of it says that it's going to be in

regulation at a later date, with no later date defined. The minister can stand up

in his speech and say, "We'll get to it sometime next year," but that doesn't give

any certainty.

That also makes me wonder why this was not something like an exposure bill to say:

"Here's our intent as government to bring forward a piece of legislation." That would

give them time to actually bring forward, rather than in regulation at a later date,

a piece of legislation that actually had the definitive parts in it that would explain

what the intentions are of this government to either fix or change something that

they see as an issue. We'll touch on that in a moment.

Another part of this that I find very hypocritical for this government is…. Once again,

not only is there no information, but they're putting the cart before the horse. This

government, the NDP government, put forward an all-party standing committee. I'll

try to remember when that was. I believe it was May of 2023, so just this year. A

special committee was struck to review passenger-directed vehicles.

I'm trying to remember what the date is today, but interestingly, on November 20,

2023…. I look to my colleague. Was that yesterday or today? It's right around now.

Yesterday was the deadline to provide written input on the consultation of that review.

[4:10 p.m.]

Once again, this government and this minister are putting forward a piece of legislation

with no information, while we have a standing committee that was asked to do the work

to collect the information which would, in essence, help form the regulations, you

would think, and inform this government