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.

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,” net income. DoorDash revenue for third quarter is up 27 percent to $2.2 billion. Lyft third-quarter reportings 2023, revenue, $1.158 billion. SkipTheDishes had some interesting data. Estimated annual revenue is currently $649.4 million, but they also have the estimated revenue per employee. They indicate that the estimated revenue per employee is $203,000.

That’s the landscape we’re talking about here, and it’s a wider landscape. Yesterday’s report that came out from Oxfam: the top 1 percent is responsible for as many global emissions of CO₂ as the bottom 66 percent of the world’s population. One percent of the population emitting as much as 66 percent of the world’s population. The people who are driving climate change have names and faces, most of them white and male.

So it’s really important to consider our conversation about Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, in this wider context of the fact that companies look at their employees as revenue generators. One of them, Skip­The­Dishes, tells us for each employee, each precarious worker, they expect to make $203,000 off of that person’s labour. We can be absolutely certain that person is not making anywhere near $203,000.

[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 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.

A few months ago I was at an event. The emcee…. It was emceed by someone whose…. English was not his first language, probably not his second or maybe even his third language. He introduced me as the parliamentary secre­tary for working people. I was touched by that. It since then reminds me of my values, and it has served as a frame of reference within which I do my job.

My mandate letter specifically relates to this bill. It states that I am to continue work to develop a precarious work strategy that reflects the diverse needs and unique situations of today’s workers and workplaces; to propose employment standards and other protections relevant to app-based, ride-hail and food delivery drivers; to review labour policy innovations in other jurisdictions related to the emerging economy and precarious work to identify trends that may inform the development of labour policy in British Columbia.

This proposed bill is an important benchmark in the fulfilment of my mandate as Parliamentary Secretary for Labour.

Earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Third Party speculated that we were probably heavily lobbied by app-based companies. I want to tell you that I have met with and heard from countless ride-hail and food delivery drivers, including more than 1,000 emails that I’ve received from them. They told me shocking and heartbreaking stories about their working conditions.

I discovered, contrary to popular public opinion, that this is not a side hustle for most app-based drivers. This is how they are trying to make a living, feed their families, pay the rent or mortgage, put food on the table and make life better for themselves and their families here in Canada. They are struggling, as are so many working families right now.

The high cost of housing and food inflation is taking its toll on most people, but it’s particularly hard for app-based drivers to make ends meet and maintain a quality of life. They told me that they regularly work six or seven days a week, 12 hours a day — now, that can’t be safe — and in the end are paid less than minimum wage.

Some have even been sending me screenshots of their final pay. One screenshot was $4.05 for a 29-minute assignment, and that included the tip. They told me about mysterious fees being deducted from their pay. They told me about tips being kept by the app company. One driver told me that he is now driving taxi because his wife told him, “It’s me or Uber,” and he chose his wife.

I heard a lot about being fired for no reason and no explanation. It’s called discontinuation. The app discontinues them. One of the top drivers for one of the ride-hail companies told me about being discontinued. He couldn’t get an explanation. He phoned. He kept phoning the call centre. The call centre was in another country. They didn’t know why he’d been discontinued. He kept calling, and he was told to basically stop pestering them.

Two weeks later, he was reinstated because it was a case of mistaken identity. They meant to fire somebody else. But that didn’t mean that he got his two weeks’ compensation back. He was out that income that he lost for two weeks.

Another driver told me he was discontinued because he refused to take an unaccompanied baby, and the mother gave him a bad review, and therefore, he was discontinued.

[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.

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 of 2019 — and protecting accessibility with a new 30-cent-per-trip fee to fund accessibility programs.

In January of 2020, the minister’s statement provided a statement on ride-hailing services decisions. It said: “We will continue to support a passenger transportation industry that gets people safely where they need to go and ensures sustainable livelihoods for drivers.” This is going back three years.

In March of 2020: “Taxi industry to benefit from distance-based insurance product.” ICBC covered per-kilometre travel insurance to fleet and non-fleet taxis starting in May of 2020. In March of 2022, Bill 13 was introduced to modernize passenger transportation and improve safety.

October 26 of 2022, the gig work engagement was started. In October of 2022, Bill 40 continued the modernization of the commercial passenger vehicle industry, enabling accessibility programs. And in April of 2023, the gig work what-we-heard report was now made available to the public.

In May of 2023, a Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles was appointed. This Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles reviewed passenger-directed vehicles and transportation network services, including taxis and ride-hailing administered under the PT Act. This included looking at licensing and supply; safety and accessibility; impacts on public transit, traffic congestion and the environment; employment in the industry; and availability in small, remote and rural communities.

And then finally, in November of this year, legislative changes were proposed to bring fairness to app-based gig workers. A deadline to provide written input on consultation by the Special Community to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles was November 20, 2023.

So with all this work having been done since October 16 of 2017, my question is: why isn’t there more detail in the legislation? The parliamentary secretary, the member for Burnaby North, has shared the stories. She clearly understands — so does the minister — the needs of the industry, the stories saying how people wanted to make sure….

Drivers, for example, wanted to make sure that they got properly compensated, and other drivers said that they also wanted flexibility in choosing whether or not they work and when they work. I imagine, lots of times, that it would be both. They want the flexibility, but they also want to be properly compensated.

I’m not arguing against that. I’m just saying if that’s the case, and I believe it would be, as I’m sure everybody in this House would want to be properly compensated for their work and also have the flexibility that helps them make ends meet…. Again, if I can quote the member for Burnaby North, she said: “We can’t wait to get it all perfect.” If that’s the case, then why would it not be in the legislation? Why would a whole bunch of the details of this legislation, of Bill 48, be left to regulation?

Wouldn’t it be better to provide those details up front so that the official opposition, for example, industry and others can look at and review all those details, get some clarity? The drivers themselves, the workers in the gig economy, as well as industry….

I know we’ve heard comments about the industry. But everyone needs an opportunity to look at what the government is proposing, and I would say there’s no place better than putting those details in the legislation, especially those key details that the minister was so quick to provide here in his second reading speech. If he’s ready to provide those details in a second reading speech, then why wouldn’t they be in the legislation to begin with?

[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.]

In section 8, it adds a new definition to section 1 of the Workers Compensation Act, which says that an online platform worker means a person who performs specified jobs that the person accepts through an online platform.

Section 9 establishes online platform workers as employees and online platform operators as employers for the purposes of the act, and section 10 adds regulation-making authorities regarding “prescribing work for the purposes of the definition of ‘online platform worker’” and operator of the online platform, and “respecting online platforms and work accepted through online platforms.”

So the bill provides many definitions, many changes for online workers and establishes the online platform worker such as SkipTheDishes drivers, Uber drivers and others as employees and the operators of online platforms as employers. I have to say that my personal experience with ride-hailing services and the employees has been exceptional. I’ve had great service from taxi drivers in my life, and I’ve also had great service from these drivers as well. I wouldn’t say one is better than the other. I would just say that it’s a different way of getting service.

In some cases, of course, with the extra charge for food delivery, you have to factor that in. If you’re ordering a Big Mac, you’d better make sure you really want the Big Mac, given the price it’s going to cost you to get it to your house. Some people don’t like Big Macs. I’m a personal fan of McDoubles. It has the same amount of meat in it, but it’s much smaller price-wise.

If any of the members who are talking to me with their sign language from across the way want to provide me with a BLT or a McD.L.T. or any of the other favourites that they have…. As they are suggesting, maybe I should look at Wendy’s or some other provider. No. Anyway, I digress. I’ll speak to the bill. I’m so easily swayed to talk about something else.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Well, come on over to my office. I’d be happy to fix something up for you. All right.

I’m not too sure if Hansard is getting all this other banter on record or just me, but I’m sure it’s just me, so I’ll just move on, because it’s really out of context.

It’s essential that all workers are put in a position to succeed and are working under acceptable standards, and there’s nothing funny about that. I’m just carrying over from the humour from before.

Not only does looking after workers unleash the potential of our workforce; it also is the right thing to do. However, while we can support this goal, the official opposition has some significant questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how it will be enacted to benefit British Columbians.

Despite prior announcements suggesting imminent changes — and again, I describe in detail all the years that we’ve been looking at this — the implementation of these changes is largely deferred to the future. It’s going to happen some day, maybe after the next election, but some day. As such, the details on how these changes will practically affect workers, businesses and consumers are extremely limited.

These changes will, if the bill passes, make delivery more expensive for consumers. That would mean less business for restaurants and fewer opportunities for delivery drivers, because it’s all about supply and demand. Supply and demand are largely affected by cost, especially when you’re looking at something like having your food delivered to you, which is not a necessity in many cases. As the cost goes up, you’ll find that demand will go down.

The delay of regulations impacts a diverse group of workers, including young people and others. Additionally, the decision to regulate the status of rights of online platform workers and operators through regulation rather than direct legislative action limits the ability of MLAs, as I’ve said before, to effectively address concerns of constituents.

I would say it’s very difficult for constituents to articulate their concerns if they don’t know what’s being proposed in the regulations. So I really hope that when the minister gets asked questions on the regulations, he does not take the fifth and say, well, he can’t talk about that because it’s in the regulations and that he actually does like he did in the second reading debate — his speech — and give some detail as to what the government is thinking.

For example, 120 percent of minimum wage, written notice of compensation — these are things that I didn’t find in the legislation. If somebody knows that’s in there, let me know, but I think it just came out of the speech today from the minister in second reading. Well, these are very important things to identify upfront.

[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….

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 and this minister on what the legislation would look like.

Rather than waiting for the consultation to be complete, and rather than waiting for the standing committee to do its work and form a recommendation and a policy and a report to this House or to the minister, this government’s jumped ahead of it.

I’m curious, when we get to committee stage, what the minister’s commentary is going to be. What if — and I don’t have the information; I’m not on that committee — the committee’s recommendations are completely different or contrary to what this minister has put forward in this? In saying that, obviously, it doesn’t really matter, because there’s no information in here. He says he’ll do it later in regulation.

The minister has opened up the door for saying, “I can do it at a later date, after I get more information,” which is indicative of this government. To bring forward a few pages to signal there’s an issue — fair enough. A few pages to say they want to make changes — again, fair enough. But setting up false expectations for people who actually work in this sector…. There is nothing in here that is going to change anything.

Bill 48, as I mentioned, is only ten sections. Changing the Employment Standards Act — some definitions. Changing some wording around the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act — a few definitions. Workers Compensation Act — again, a few definitions. But nothing concrete that’s actually telling people who work in the gig economy or in this sector how it’s going to make their life better today. I hate to tell them, because it’s not…. There is nothing in here that will change their lifestyle or their work or the expectations that people have been talking about.

When we look at those regulations, as I mentioned…. Section 1 is adding a new definition around “online platform worker,” meaning a person who performs the work that we’re talking about. But when you read further, it says: “But we’ll define that later in regulations sometime next year, possibly.”

In section 2, it establishes online platform workers as employees and online platform operators as employers. But again, if you read later on…. You don’t have to go very far. You just flip a page, actually. You flip a page, and it says: “But that will be brought in later on, at some time, in regulation.”

Section 5. Same thing. Adds regulation-making authorities regarding prescribing work for the purposes of the definitions of online workers and operators of the online platform. They all sound very repetitive, because again, when you flip the page, it says: “But not right now. At a later date, defined by government through regulation.”

Section 6, same thing. It expands the requirement around maintaining records. But don’t worry. That one there, you get to do now. It expands the requirements to maintain records to all employers, regarding and including the ones that operate online platforms. That, I guess, has to be done now. Very little definition there.

If you go to section 8, section 9, section 10, it’s the same thing. These are adding definitions of what the expectations are in this piece of legislation, but nothing comes into force until some magical later date, as undefined in this piece of legislation. The minister, through his own acknowledgment, said: “We’re going to work on that next year, sometime.”

It’s supposedly urgent. It’s so urgent that they’ve been working on it for years. So urgent that they had to bring it forward with only a few days left in session. So urgent that there’s actually no information.

[4:15 p.m.]

On that point alone, it makes you start to wonder the intent of this government. If they want to be virtue-signalling, just do a press release, like they always do. Just do a photo op and say: “This is what we’re going to do.” That could have sufficed in this case. When you read through this piece of legislation, it’s not much different than just a press release or what they do in a photo op. There’s no information in here, which is not fair to the workers that they report to be trying to support and protect and help.

One other point I want to make. When we look at the piece of legislation, in the first section, it’s talking about the Employment Standards Act. I think it’s important to highlight the struggles that this government is already having with the employment standards branch. Back in 2017, the wait-lists used to be around two months. They have increased to 16 months now for somebody who goes to the branch. This government’s own mandate to them was to try to get the complaint process through the branch within six months, or 80 percent, but they’re only doing about 20 percent.

So we know that they failed there. Yet, again, they want to add more work rather than going to some of the challenges that are already being faced and trying to address those.

It leads me to some of the commentary we’ve heard over the last couple of weeks, of the mismanagement of this government — of bringing bills forward, like Bill 48, at the last minute, with no information, telling us there were not going to be any more bills but then presenting in the House, trying to rush things through with no information and saying, again, the whole high level: “Trust us. Trust us. We’re going to do this behind closed doors in the cabinet room at some later date. We don’t have to bring it back to this House for debate or for the opposition to do their due diligence of holding government accountable. We’re going to do it behind closed doors later and just tell you what we decided.”

Since there’s nothing in this bill of substance that actually takes effect in the next week or two, what was the rush? Why could they have not just signalled and said: “We understand. We’re in the process of consultation. We have a standing committee doing the work. Once we’ve gathered all of the appropriate information, we’re going to put forward a meaningful piece of legislation that will actually solve or accomplish what we hope to do as government.” That’s not what they’ve chosen to do.

The minister stood up in his opening remarks and actually mentioned a whole bunch of things — I won’t get into that detail; we’ll read them again later in the Blues, in Hansard — of what they will do in regulation. As we’ve heard from some of my colleagues prior, it’ll be interesting when we get to committee stage, if he’ll reiterate those or repeat those when we have some very serious questions on this.

It’s not that we don’t support the intent. The challenge is that it’s hard to support a piece of legislation when the information, as I’ve been saying, is not there, and it’s a “trust us.” Well, we’ve learned with this government that we can’t trust what they do in many circumstances.

The minister also, through his commentary, talked about how the need to bring this forward was because of the challenges that he’s been hearing from our drivers, whether it’s Uber, Lyft, whether it’s DoorDash, Skip­The­Dishes. The minister, and the parliamentary secre­tary I think referred to it too, has said: “Well, we’re doing this because we’re hearing of the struggles because of the price of gas. They’re not making as much money. The impact on their bottom line because of the price of gas…. Let’s help them out.”

Well, I hate to inform them, again, that that piece of legislation does zero to help them out right now.

It’s interesting how this government wants to continue to pick winners and losers. I think we’re hearing from everybody right now that they’re struggling in this province because of the price of gas, not just those working in the gig economy.

[4:20 p.m.]

What about those volunteering, driving people to health care appointments in small communities where we don’t have Uber or Lyft? People are volunteering or have community groups that are busing people around. They’re struggling with gas prices.

What about our seniors? They’re struggling.

What about the single mom trying to do the best she can to get to work to help raise her family? She is struggling.

Everybody right now in the province of British Columbia is struggling with affordability. Why? Because we’re the worst in the country when it comes to affordability. That’s why it’s a crisis.

The minister kind of acknowledged it by saying that, yes, these drivers are struggling because of the price of gas. The minister could have easily done what we’ve been calling for in the B.C. United group here. Get rid of the provincial portion of the tax on gasoline. That could happen today. They could make that announcement.

There’s a photo op. Hell, I’ll even stand in the picture with them. They can take credit for it. It’s our idea, but they can take credit for it because it’s going to help people today. It would help the exact people that this piece of legislation purports to be trying to support, but it doesn’t do it.

If the government really wants to put their money where their mouth is, why don’t they do that, as a quick, easy step? That can make a difference, not just for these people that we’re talking about in this piece of legislation but for everybody right now who is struggling.

The minister also failed to acknowledge, I would argue, depending on how the regulations are created and rolled out, who is paying for the changes. Well, we know who. Fees will go up. I think my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country kind of alluded to that. Whether it’s your Uber fees or the price to get food delivered to your house, if that’s what you choose to do, fees are going to go up.

It’s not to take away from the fact that people deserve to be treated fairly and equitably. We’re not saying that.

I think we also need to remember some of the statistics around this. Things have become more expensive, for sure. We have an affordability crisis, absolutely. That is why, when you actually look at the statistics….

I don’t want to contradict the member for Burnaby North, but in all fairness, she was a little bit contradictive of herself. She started off by saying that the majority of people actually do this as their sole source of income, if I heard her correctly. Then she followed on to say that, actually, a lot of people do it to try to supplement.

Statistically, about two-thirds of the people who drive in this sector that we’re talking about do it because of the affordability crisis and to supplement their already full-time job or the income that they have from other revenue sources. I know a number that I’ve spoken with have full-time jobs, whatever those might be, in communities like mine. We don’t have Uber or anything, but we do have DoorDash or SkipTheDishes.

The ones who use it as a supplement…. It’s because they’re struggling to make ends meet. They have a full-time job, and then they do this on the side.

No wonder 97 percent of the people who work in this sector want flexibility. They want that flexibility because they need it to work around the other jobs they have, to ensure they continue to have the opportunity to supplement their income, to be able to put food on the table, to hopefully be able to afford to put their children, if they have them, into sports, to be able to pay their rent or their mortgage in this affordability crisis.

In fact, only 13 percent of the drivers for one of the major — I won’t mention the name — companies, when they did their stats, use this as their main source of income. Yes, they work long hours. I’m sure they do. They have to, I’m sure, to help pay the bills. Many of them are also temporary foreign workers.

[4:25 p.m.]

I understand the concept of the minister trying to bring in regulation to ensure people are treated fairly, equitably, 100 percent. There’s no challenge or no argument here, as I’ve mentioned.

I’m trying to square the circle from this Minister of Labour when we’re talking specifically around those working in the gig economy, working in these sectors that we’re debating here today. I don’t know the answer to this. So I’m not going to say I’m right. I’m asking a question on this that will come to the minister later.

This bill, whenever it comes into effect — again, it’s through regulation — says that they will now be employees. This government has…. I almost hate to bring this up, because I hate putting ideas into government’s head if it’s going to mean adding more taxes to something.

But a question that I’ll have is: if all of these drivers around British Columbia are now employees, does that mean Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and SkipTheDishes are going to have hundreds and hundreds of employees? Does that mean they now have to pay employer health tax to the NDP?

This government forgets about the fact that when they got rid of the MSP for some, all they did was transfer it to others — to companies, to businesses — who passed that cost on. Anybody who doesn’t actually think that’s fac­tual hasn’t noticed the price of everything going up because of the downloading that happens, because of the increased cost that this government’s put on industry, businesses and others.

I’m curious, though. With the rules that this government has brought in, do they have to pay employers health tax? If I’m driving for SkipTheDishes, and I’m not feeling good one day, I’m now an employee of this company. Do I fall under the new regulations of sick time? Do I get to stay home for five days and claim sick pay? I don’t know. None of that’s in here. It’ll be interesting to hear what the minister has to say on that.

Right now these members that work in this sector…. For lack of better words for me, I call them owner-operators or private contractors, whatever terminology you want to use. The same thing that we see in our taxi sector. There are some taxi drivers that are employees of a group. There are others that choose to own a taxi, and they’re an owner-operator.

Again, I’ll ask the minister, or our critic will, maybe. My question is: under the CRA regulations, when you’re filing your taxes, there’s a difference of whether you’re an employee or an employer on how you file your taxes. I know there have been court rulings back in 2022 on this exact topic, specifically around taxi drivers.

I haven’t read the entire court disposition, the ruling on that. But I know that came up, because some taxi drivers challenged that. They said: “No, I’m filing as an independent. I’m not an employee of a company. I’m a contractor.” So does this rule apply only to these people? Maybe rules have changed in the past. Now all taxi drivers are going to be like that as well.

Here’s an interesting one. Some of the stats show that those that are driving for Uber, Lyft and others, in 2022, based on a lot of the data collected through the revenue agency and disclosures, were making, on average, $27 an hour. Plus they got to keep tips if they received them.

When this bill came forward — and I knew we were going to be talking about it today, even though it was rushed in — I tried to do as much research as I could. Through the same online portal that talked about the income of this sector, I looked up the same thing around taxis. Under the government’s own legislation, the taxi driver, if they’re an employee, must be paid at least minimum wage.

[4:30 p.m.]

Interestingly, when I looked into it, guess what. The majority of employed taxi drivers, not owner-operators or contractors, on average, last year, 2022, disclosures through CRA and others, were paid minimum wage. I only flag this because I know there was a huge controversy that this government was trying to deal with when this was coming in, Uber and Lyft and others.

I’m still a person that uses taxis. I don’t even have the app. I’m a taxi guy myself. Always have, probably always will be. I enjoy the service, enjoy the work they do, and I like supporting them. Others choose Uber, Lyft, whatever. That’s free market. I get that. Very supportive of it.

I’m always a little suspect of what the intentions are of this government, and that’s why I raised those two differentials on price comparisons and wage comparisons. Because this government always likes to…. I always wonder. They look like they’re picking winners and losers, but I always wonder in the back of my head: what’s their ulterior motive? What are they really trying to accomplish?

They’re trying to say, in this piece of legislation, what they’re trying to accomplish is protection and fairness for these workers. Fair enough. I can support that 100 percent. I wish I could support it based on the wording in this piece of legislation, but I can’t. I’d like to say I can take the minister and the government’s word for it that they’re going to do this at a later date, which is something I will 100 percent be able to support. I would like to say that I trust them on that.

I hope, for everybody involved, that the regulations, whenever we see them, will be proper, fair and something that I could support. On behalf of not only my constituents but of people of British Columbia, who expect the opposition to come in here to hold government accountable, I regret to say we are not able to do that, once again, in a holistic way because government hasn’t given us the information to be able to challenge them, to be able to hold them accountable. It’s another one of those: “We’ll wait to see, and whatever happens, happens.”

Once again, through their government’s own admission, people are struggling in the province of British Columbia in an affordability crisis. Once again, under the government’s own admission, they’re looking at trying to make sure that these people that are struggling because of everything being more expensive have more opportunities.

There’s no argument from the opposition that this government has failed. There’s no argument from the opposition that life has never been more unaffordable than it is now. We can agree on that one.

The government, every time they stand up, acknowledges how horrible things really are for people. In almost every one of their commentaries, every speech they do or every question they answer — if they ever answer one in question period — they always say: “We know how bad things are.”

That’s because after seven years of an NDP government, things have only gotten worse. Under Bill 48, they’re trying to shed some hope out there, as I’ve mentioned. I would have thought or hoped that the proper process would have been to do their due diligence and gather the information properly, after some proper consultation with those affected, through the committee that’s established right now. They have not yet filed their report, I understand, so the minister is just guessing in so many ways.

I’ll just end, because I notice that I’ve almost run out of time here. I think the intentions of government are valid in the sense that they’ve acknowledged people are struggling and they want to try to fix a problem. We’ve just never seen this government be able to actually fix those problems. It’s all virtue-signalling. It’s legislation without information. It’s press releases and photo ops.

[4:35 p.m.]

I completely understand the pressure they’re under right now. A year or less away from an election, they have to try to now signal that: “Oh, now we get it. Now we have to try to find a way to fix these problems, many of our own making.” I would hope that people realize, at the end of this, that a 2½-page bill, Bill 48, basically just signals that once again they’ve acknowledged that people are struggling but have put nothing forward substantively that is going to fix that.

We need action. We need stuff that we can point to that’s actually worked. And you know what? I’ll be the first one to stand here and applaud if they can finally do something that’ll help people in my riding. But I’ve yet to see that.

I know our critic for this is going to have a lot of questions for the minister in committee stage. My fear is the minister won’t have a lot of answers for us in committee stage and punt it down the road. Unfortunately, if he had those answers, our question would be: then why is it not in the legislation?

Thank you very much for the opportunity. I see it has now hit 0:00, and I will sit down.

C. Oakes: I am pleased to rise in the House today to continue the discussion on Bill 48. It is essential that all workers in British Columbia, all people, are put in positions to succeed and are working in equitable and fair working conditions.

I’m going to open my comments, however, with process. I think I’ve talked in this Legislature multiple times about a pattern that we have all been witnessing, especially over the last year, of an erosion of process in how bills are being brought forward and the role that…. Each of us has a responsibility to provide vigorous debate and review of legislation. What we’ve seen through this erosion, with this government, is that they’ve moved beyond the normal practice of bringing legislation forward to let’s do everything through regulation.

I will raise some alarming comments as I make further remarks.

Another example of the erosion of the process is…. Multiple members of this House have had the true privilege to sit on select standing committees in this House. I currently have the privilege of sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and I sit on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and carbon sequestration. These are an incredibly important part of the process of this parliament.

The work that is done through these select standing committees is an important function of what we do as parliamentarians and legislators. It provides an invaluable opportunity for stakeholders to come forward and share their views in a thoughtful way that has a well-articulated agenda of expectations through these select standing committees.

What we have here before us today is a bill that supersedes an all-party select standing committee on passenger-directed vehicles that was struck May 11, 2023, that’s currently in the consultation process. The consultation process ends on November 30.

Here we have a bill that supersedes, that says, “Government knows best. I’m going to bring forward a bill that supersedes an all-party select standing committee,” which builds on this experience, this erosion that all of us have experienced as MLAs. Where it’s the government knows best. “We are going to ignore the work of select standing committees. We’re going to ignore the work that is currently going on in this House. We’re just going to bring forward an outline of what we think, and then the real work is going to happen in regulation.”

[4:40 p.m.]

For members of the public and members of the gallery that are here today, thank you very much for coming and listening. The challenge becomes that when a government decides to move forward and not legislate but rather regulate, it moves all of the decision-making process into the executive council.

Now cabinet makes all the decisions. This process of us doing, and the ability for us to do, our thorough accountability checks and balances of the bills that are being brought forward is diminished, because we no longer have the ability, other than after, when we see the impacts on the ground in communities…. This is a dangerous erosion of the democratic process that we’ve seen in this House.

It’s also incredibly alarming that we’ve seen, in the same dismissal of our parliamentary duty in this House, the transparency required for a proper review of the material being…. Because again, all of it will be going, or the majority of the details will be going, through regulation. Look. We already know that this is the government that is the most secretive government in Canada. I mean, we started off, I think, the spring session with a thorough debate of yet another bill where everything was done through the executive council and cabinet.

Look. If we, as legislators and parliamentarians, are saying, “Okay. Well, cabinet, you make all the decisions,” then what is our role? What is our role if we, all of a sudden, dismiss all of the authority to cabinet to make all of the decisions without the necessary checks and balances that were set forward in our democratic processes? That’s a dangerous, slippery slope.

I’ve heard from various stakeholders. I’ve heard from the media. I’ve heard that change around the transparency around freedom of information and that secretive nature of the government — the process where there is a signi­ficant lack of transparency and the results that we’re getting. This most secretive government in Canada is having real impacts on people.

I would say that as we see a province that has now become the most expensive province to live in Canada, as we’ve seen the housing crisis worsen, as we’ve seen the challenges that we have on the streets, as we see the challenges with small business, as we see the challenges with the restaurant sector, as we see the challenges with the tourism sector, as we see the challenges with the agricultural sector, as we see the challenges with the forest sector, as we see the challenges with the mining sector…. I could go on and on and list the all of the sectors that are struggling with challenges.

I would say that the government should rethink the process that it has on bringing a legislative framework and then moving everything to regulation. Because I think that we can help support this government on actually making sure those checks and balances…. Those are critically necessary so that the types of things that the government is bringing forward don’t end up with some significant consequences on the ground.

I would just like to share a couple of stories. One of the things that I think is incredibly important…. As parliamentarians, our job is to look at policy, whether you’re in government to bring forward policy or as opposition, to critique and provide those checks and balances on things being brought forward. But I think another critical element of being a parliamentarian and being an MLA is the profound importance that each of us has in listening to constituents and stakeholders and being their voice and bringing their concerns and their dreams forward into this House.

[4:45 p.m.]

I would like to share first the story of Carol. Carol drove me from the airport on Sunday. Carol is fantastic. If anyone has had the opportunity to take Uber from the airport to Victoria…. Carol was a torch relay bearer in 2010, and she talked about that experience. She was actually on Canadians chefs. Fascinating to hear this story of her experiences.

Carol says, “I work from home, and I became an Uber driver because it’s an opportunity to again supplement” — supplement her work, get out of the house, meet people. You can tell she loves people. Right? Here is somebody that is a tourist ambassador, who is driven by that ideology of customer service and making sure that your experience is the best experience possible.

Carol says: “You know, I pick up…. I don’t work all the time.” She goes: “My husband was watching the Grey Cup game, so I thought, you know what? This is an opportunity today. I’ve got some extra time. Why don’t I drive today?” She loves the flexibility. She loves the flexibility of being able to be a driver, and she’s doing a great job.

A couple of weeks ago I met Debjit, who has a really interesting story. He moved to Victoria a couple of years ago. You know, COVID has been really challenging on so many people, and for a lot of people who have family that live internationally, it’s been hard to get back home and visit, to go home and see…. Travel is very expensive. Anyone who has travelled to India recently knows that the price of tickets is pretty expensive, so you really have to do a lot of saving.

He talked about the fact that he loves being a driver, his business, because it provides him the opportunity to work the hours necessary so that he can save with this goal in mind so that he can go back and visit his family, and then he’s going to go to Australia. He has this wonderful itinerary that is planned.

He’s got his whole goals set forward about the hours he needs to work. He’s going to work really hard for a couple of months, and then he’s going to take time off. He’s going to take time off and visit family, go and do some travels that he hadn’t had the opportunity to do because of COVID. That’s why being a driver for Uber has been very impactful for him and why the model currently, as it is, works for him.

The third story of a driver that I would like to bring forward is Talsan. He’s a single dad, and he was hurt. He works in construction, and he was hurt. He was trying to figure out what kind of job he could do that provides him the flexibility so that he could be at home with his kids and that he could have that flex be there when he needs it.

He was thinking: “Do I go back into construction? Do I go back to school? What are the decisions that I need to make?” But right now this really works for him. This ability to drive works for him.

The reason I raise those three individuals is because they have three very different experiences, and I feel that sometimes what we’re seeing with this government is this ideology that there has to be one-size-fits-all in this province. It’s the autism hubs, right? How has that been working out in our communities? One size does not fit all in British Columbia.

Electric vehicles. I mean, we’ve had that discussion in the House. Look, I come from the Cariboo and rural parts of the province where some of these opportunities just don’t exist.

It’s critical that you listen to Carol. It’s critical that you listen to Debjit. It’s critical that you listen to Talsan because they all have unique and different experiences of why they made the decision to become entrepreneurs.

[4:50 p.m.]

I want to use that word because I think it’s important. I think we’ve lost, in this conversation with the government, that drive to be an entrepreneur, that carving out your own path, that ability to have the flexibility to drive your own dream and to set your own course.

I feel that that conversation in this Legislature has been lost. I want to bring that back. I can tell you: the spirit of entrepreneurs has built this province, and I think we can do better. I think when you see legislation through regulation, where the decisions are all at the cabinet table, versus listening to the people like Carol, Debjit and Talsan…. When it’s the government knows best, when it’s the cabinet that knows best, it’s not talking to the average people — the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the risk-takers, the dreamers.

When you don’t take the time to talk to them to find out what suits them, what we have in this province is an erosion of competitiveness. Bills like this do nothing more than create uncertainty, to make people make the decision…. Look, I don’t know where this province is going.

I see these bills come forward. I thought we were supposed to be finished bills last week. Here we’re going to have another bill that we’re just going to slip in at the last minute: “We don’t actually have a bill, because we’re going to do everything at the cabinet table. We’re going to regulate it, but we’re going to make it look like we’re virtue-signalling.”

We have a two-pager that says: “Oh yeah, we’re listening to people.” No, you’re not. If you were listening to people, you would actually wait for the all-party Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles to do their work.

Here’s the shocking thing. I think this bill and this announcement came out by the Premier and this government at the exact same time as the special committee was meeting with stakeholders. That’s ludicrous. How is it that you’re skipping the fundamental reason of why, as parliamentarians, we have these processes? Rip up the books. Look, if you’re just going to make all of the rules at the cabinet table, then guess what. The cabinet takes on all of the responsibility.

Let me talk about the responsibility that this cabinet is responsible for. We’re the least affordable province in the country. We have the most expensive gas prices in North America, and it’s because we’re taxed to death. Do you wonder why we’re so unaffordable? You can say that it’s because of some global thing here; it could be that. Look at the taxes. It’s not just one tax; it’s not two taxes; it’s not three taxes. It’s not four taxes; it’s not five taxes; it’s not six taxes. I could go on and on, because I think we’re up to 29 or 30 new or increased taxes.

I’ve heard this government do the virtue-signalling about things: “Oh, well, we eliminated that tax.” Well, no, you didn’t. You just renamed it. You renamed it, and you shifted the responsibility into the employer health tax. Let’s be real. Do you want to start wondering why we’re the most expensive jurisdiction? Start looking at the policies of what the cabinet is doing. Start holding them to account.

We need to be asking tough questions of this government. As much as they try and bring these bills forward that don’t provide us the true ability to do the checks and balances on it, I’m calling on British Columbians, like the B.C. Business Council, to start saying: “We’re paying attention. We’re holding this cabinet and this Premier to account.” When you start to say, “We know best. It’s only the cabinet that makes decisions in British Columbia, and every member in this House no longer matters,” then we need to start calling out this government, this Premier and this cabinet.

[4:55 p.m.]

Let’s get back to some of the taxes. Some members have talked about the fact that costs have been going up for gas, unequivocally. For a year, B.C. United has been calling on this government, this Premier, to provide some solutions. Part of that is to get rid of the provincial fuel tax. Do you want to cut some costs and make things a little bit more affordable? There’s one solution.

There are very real solutions that this government, this cabinet, could be taking today and that they ignore. At the end of the day, they are ignoring people on the ground in communities. That’s a shame. We can, we should and we need to do better. I hear, every single day in my community, and I know every MLA in this House has heard that people are really struggling in this province. It is heartbreaking.

When I have the privilege of going on to a lot of post-secondary campuses and meeting with a lot of students, I bring them into this conversation. A lot of students are drivers and are part of this gig economy. They do an important job.

I want to make sure that they’re protected and have all the rights afforded to them, but the number one thing that comes up on every single meeting I have with students in this province, is food insecurity. The growing need for food banks on our campuses is deplorable. What I’m hearing, more and more across this province, is that many students are being turned away from community food banks.

Here we have a bill that says we’re going to protect…. Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act and Workers Compensation Act. Where’s the protection for our international students? How are we supporting them right now? Because they’re struggling.

If you, as MLAs, are not listening to your constituents and the people on the ground, shame on you. In a country and a province as wealthy as we, we should not be seeing the amount of people that are relying on food banks and the people that are really struggling and have lost hope.

I see this bill as nothing more than creating uncertainty, increasing costs, making things more unaffordable for people. If I’m wrong, then you should have brought it forward in legislation. “Trust us,” Premier Eby says. “Trust us.” Do you remember his election campaign? Do you remember the 2017 election campaign: “We’re going to make life more affordable.” That’s what they ran on.

How affordable is your life right now? Go and talk to some of the people in those food bank lines. Where are the entrepreneurial hope and dream that this province was built on? Where is the inspiration so that our kids feel that there’s hope for the future? Where are the dreams that all of us should hope that the next generation feels?

[5:00 p.m.]

I’m tired of the mismanagement of this House. I’m tired of the erosion of the parliamentary role that each of us has as MLAs. Quite frankly, I’m tired of the legislation that comes forward here, that just creates a level of uncompetitiveness and that at the end of the day is hurting everyday British Columbians.

T. Shypitka: I just want to give a special thanks to the member for Cariboo North who eloquently stated her case on Bill 48 with a sore throat. It’s quite an effort for her to have done that. I thank her for all the efforts. Perhaps there are some sore throats on the other side because I haven’t heard anyone over there yet.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Before I go into the debate, I just want to say that I’ve got something on my face. Some people refer to it as a beard. I certainly don’t. I don’t do it because my wife likes it. I don’t do it because I like it. I do it because it’s important to bring awareness to men’s health — hon. Speaker, if you allow me the two minutes — to make sure that men, especially those 50 and over, get their prostate checked, get that number, get that PSA, do the right thing. Prostate cancer is treatable if caught soon enough. I just wanted to put that out there.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Well, thank you. Somebody referred to me as Kenny Rogers earlier today. I thought that was a compliment. I’m not sure.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yes, that’s exactly what I said to her.

The member for Shuswap — I want to give him a little recognition because he has for the last six or seven years gone out and forced us MLAs on this side of the House to get Movember going, and through that, he’s successfully raised, I believe, over $100,000 for men’s health. I think that’s an honourable thing.

Getting to Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, I just want to start out and preface and say that there’s nobody on this side of the House that is opposed to ensuring that workers are treated fairly and equitably. You heard the member from the Green Party suggest that some workers sometimes get taken advantage of, and we on this side of the House certainly don’t want that.

I do appreciate getting the opportunity to speak to this amendment to the act in the hopes that it will bring that security and that safety to some workers in the province that are in the gig economy.

The reason I believe that we’re having this debate right now is because of the details or the lack thereof in this bill. The meat of this bill will be determined later, and who knows how long that will be. Some are suggesting probably, maybe, as long as a year from now, maybe after the next election. Who knows? But the fact is we’re not getting a lot of detail, and it’s hard to go into committee stage on this bill, to actually dive into what the details of this bill should include and what it doesn’t include.

The minister even said in his opening comments, in his opening statement, that it’s complex. It is complex. But what we’re getting after seven years…. This has been recognized for quite some time. I’ll go into some more details on quotes that the government has made over the years and that kind of thing. What we’re getting is ten clauses — a very, very light bill. Actually, quite honestly, a lot of it won’t come into force until regulations are set. As a matter of fact, 60 percent of this bill won’t come into force until a later time.

What we’re talking about in this bill and the things that the minister has been touting as being an effort to provide safety and clarity for workers won’t be seen for quite some time. That’s what the debate of this bill is. It’s not so much about the bill as it is the process of how this bill is being presented.

Ten clauses. It is by far not the shortest bill which, I believe, might have been Bill 32, Provincial Symbols Act, or whatever, the dinosaur act. I think it was only two clauses. I think it was a very short bill.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: It was amazing. I’ve got a lot of…. You know, when that bill actually came through, the members on the other side were talking about the elasmosaur, I think it was, as being 50 million years old. Yet I’ve got trilobites in my area that are 500 million years old.

[5:05 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: I’m sure this will relate to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act at some point.

T. Shypitka: Absolutely, hon. Speaker. There is a tie-in here, because it is the shortness of the bill. Bill 32 being only two clauses long while this being ten, but only 40 percent being recognized under royal assent brings that ten down to four. So I guess we’re getting closer to Bill 32. I don’t know. Does that work? I’m not sure that tied in very well, but it is what it is.

As the minister said, this is very complex and identifies a lot of things. He said in his opening statement that under consultation, some said this bill goes too far, and some said this bill doesn’t go far enough, but he’s confident enough to present this ten-clause bill that he’s threaded that needle perfectly but not perfectly enough that you’ll see that in the actual legislation. But that detail will have to come later down the road. I find that kind of amazing — that something that is identifiable and so concerning of public safety and cost affordability isn’t identified in this legislation.

The minister said a couple of things. He said the two things that he heard the most…. One was that the high cost of gas does not meet the acceptance rate of the pickups and delivery, which is critical. If you can’t make money at what you’re doing, why do it? So that could be a collapse of the whole system if this isn’t identified.

I understand that’s very critical, but he identified gas prices being that piece that’s a huge concern. It’s funny, because it has been this side of the House that’s been asking government over and over and over again to identify that cost pressure that people in British Columbia are facing every day, and that is the cost of gasoline.

You’ve heard it from many on this side reaffirming that we are the highest cost district in North America on the price of gasoline. There are many reasons for that. There are actually only four reasons on the price of gasoline. It’s the price of crude that makes up the cost of gas, and that’s a fairly straight level across the country. The price of crude is the price of crude.

There’s the wholesale price, or the refining price, which is something that is a little different in different jurisdictions. B.C. suffers a little by that, because our refining capacity isn’t that of Alberta, so of course there is a differential there. There’s the price of retail, which is what the gas retailers sell it for. And there’s a little disparity there, but nothing too major.

Actually, as a matter of fact, a lot of that price to the retailer is zero in places like in the Peace region and, I believe, even in regions like the southeast, because we compete heavily with Alberta on the price of gas, which is 60 cents a litre cheaper.

Then, of course, there’s the fourth piece, which is tax, and that’s where we’re seeing things. The B.C. United has been very unified on bringing that message that we need to bring that disparity a little closer, which would help out Bill 48 and would help out those delivery drivers to get some economy back into their businesses again. If they dropped the fuel tax, it could save them 15 cents a litre. That is quite significant when all you do all day is drive and deliver. That’s your number one cost.

So 15 cents a litre would go a long, long, way. If government would pick up on that, I think they’d help not only every everyday British Columbians, but they would certainly help those affected by Bill 48.

The second thing he said was on safety. He recited a couple examples. He recited one person in Abbotsford, I believe he said, that was attacked and another person that was stabbed. Once again, it has been members on this side of the House that have been calling for a review on how our public safety is being addressed, prolific offenders that are in a revolving door of crime, in and out. If we could address those things, then this bill wouldn’t be as critical as it is now.

[5:10 p.m.]

Talk about — what’s the old saying? — treating the symptom and not the cause. I think that’s specific to this bill. There are a lot of issues, and the top two that the minister stated were things that we could probably do here and now without forcing this bill through, which I believe it is…. We don’t have any detail on this bill. A lot of it, 60 percent of it, will not be brought through royal assent. It will have to wait for cabinet decisions, which is bizarre to me.

The consultation period for the select standing committee for transportation issues doesn’t end until November 30. I was on the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy standing committee. This happened once before, where the NDP government put through a piece of legislation before the recommendations came out of that select standing committee.

We’re seeing history repeat itself a couple of times here, and I think we’ve heard the member for Cariboo North and the member for Peace River South talk about the process that we’re seeing once again here in the Legislature.

Getting back to the bill and what it means…. My daughter, Allie — proud as punch of her. She’s 18 years old. She just graduated from high school last year. She’s going to the College of the Rockies, my alma mater. It used to be called the East Kootenay Community College when I went there, but now it’s College of the Rockies.

She’s taking her first couple of years to be a nurse, something, once again, that we need in this province, desperately. She’s not exactly sure what field she’s going to go into, but she’s doing really well and getting good grades, and I couldn’t be more proud.

But what she does right now to put her through college is…. She was delivering. She was doing delivery work for a chain restaurant. I won’t say which one, but it’s very recognizable. People have all been there before, and I can give you some….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Not quite. I’ll give you a hint. Their theme song is a song from Boston. “More Than a Feeling” I believe is the actual song. I think you probably could…. They sell a lot of pizza.

Anyways, she does delivery driving, and I believe she’s protected fairly well. I worry about her going out, to be quite honest, when she makes these deliveries in dead of night to places she doesn’t know. There have been a couple of conversations I’ve had with her that were a little scary, I would say. But she has been treated very well at her place of employment.

Right now what happens to her is she gets $6 for every delivery. She gets to keep 100 percent of her tips. If she has to go back because of an issue — maybe they forgot something — she gets another $5. So she actually makes pretty good money, and I want to thank her employer for giving her that opportunity. Now she’s working on the serving side of things. Now she’s on the inside, and that’s equally as good.

So what this bill, I think, hopes to do is to provide those same assurances that she has with her employer in Cranbrook and to give some clarity and stability and some assurances. I think the minister said: “Keeping those tips.” I think the minister also said, when he gave his speech, that there would be a minimum wage attached to the employer.

Now, the platform operator in section 1…. I believe it identifies the operator of the platform as the employer, and the worker of a platform is the employee. But once again, no details on that when we separate things like ride-hailing or platform delivery — two different things but the same job, and of course they would come with different nuances.

[5:15 p.m.]

Painting all this with one brush in a one-size-fits-all attempt for these workers I think is disingenuous. I don’t think it really attacks the actual nuances to what the gig economy, actually, really is.

I’m really disappointed with the legislation that’s in front of us. I’m disappointed that we are going down this unknown road, which we’ve seen time and time again with this government.

We always hear, and we always say — it’s kind of a cliché — that the devil is in the details. It’s the truth. The devil is in the details. What those details are we won’t know for quite some time.

Any of these workers that are watching here today and that are expecting this helping hand that the minister talks about…. It isn’t coming. It won’t be coming for quite some time. One could guess it might not come until, maybe, October of next year. I’m not a soothsayer. I’m not claiming to be Nostradamus. I’m guessing that might be the case with this. So I’m very disappointed in what this bill represents.

Once again, 3.1 of the bill says that an online platform worker is considered an employee, and the operator of the online platform is the employer. So what happens if somebody is working two platforms simultaneously? That does happen in the gig economy.

You’re working for, perhaps, Uber, or you’re working for SkipTheDishes. Sorry, on two platforms. Maybe you’re working for SkipTheDishes and — what’s the other one? — Uber Eats. I guess that would be the other one. They’re doing simultaneous deliveries. Who is the employer? That hasn’t been decided in this legislation.

We can’t ask those questions in the committee stage. The default answer is going to be: “We’re going to decide in regulation on that. It hasn’t been determined yet.”

What we end up with is, essentially, a couple of empty pages on a four-page…. Well, it’s not even four pages. Yeah, it’s four pages. So what we end up with is a couple of empty pages on a four-page bill. I’m not sure how many people in the general public would think that’s right. I don’t think a lot, if they actually knew what was happening here.

This is a bill that just came out of the blue, as a matter of fact. I think there was a discussion that there wouldn’t be any new legislation brought forward until after…. I can’t remember. November 8, I believe, was the discussion. Well, it’s November 21 today. We’ve got a week left of the legislation for this fall sitting, and we’re getting this bill presented to us right now, with no details. The only answer is: “We’re doing the right thing. The devil is in the details, and we’re going to tell you what it’s about later down the road.” Very concerning.

Like I said, the key sections…. I’ll just give you a couple of bullets on what it actually says in this bill and what it actually identifies. It does provide a definition of “online platform workers,” as I mentioned. It establishes the online platform workers as employees and the operators of the online platforms as employers. That’s about as basic as it gets.

The bill states that the director of employment standards, appointed under the Public Service Act, may take steps to investigate and adds a new circumstance in which they can investigate. So that’s the enforcement piece. Just hold that. I’ll come back to that in a second.

It adds regulation-making authorities. Also an enforcement piece.

Then the final thing that we know about this bill is…. The act will come into force by the date of royal assent, except for sections 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10. That’s six clauses in a ten-clause bill.

It’s interesting. The clauses that do come into force by royal assent…. Section 3 is the Employment Standards Act. That’s about the director. It clarifies the circumstances in which the director may take specified steps respecting investigations and adds a new circumstance in which the director may take those steps. So enforcement.

[5:20 p.m.]

The next one is section 4. This is the Employment Standards Act. It needs to be amended. It provides that the appeal period, under this section, ends 30 days after the date a determination is served. Once again, that goes with section 3, the director’s ability to investigate.

The next section that will come into force is section 6, and that’s the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, section 28. It expands the requirement to maintain records to all employers. This is for temporary foreign workers and the director having those records maintained for his investigation purposes — once again, investigation, enforcement.

The final piece is clause 7, again the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, section 51, that amends dates that apply in relation to the obligation to pay interest on amounts owing under a determination or order.

This bill, under royal assent, will only identify the enforcement piece of a bill that…. We don’t even know the definitions and how the workaround is going to be with the different platforms and different delivery models and those things. As the member for Peace River South said, this is really putting the cart in front of the horse.

It’s very suspect, coming this late, unannounced, no real briefing. I think we got a briefing today at 11 o’clock. I mean, it’s appreciated, but this bill was originally scheduled, when it was first thrown at us, to come in yesterday before a briefing. We weren’t even going to get the opportunity to get that.

So you’ve got to wonder, after seven years…. And I’ll see if I can find some quotes, because this has been identified for quite some time.

November 18, 2018: “Legislation Opens the Door to Ride-Hailing Next Year.” They were going to bring ride-hailing in 2019. It was identified in 2018 of putting safety first. That was a big piece back in 2018.

There were a few other announcements, but on January 23, 2020, the Minister of Transportation at the time, Claire Trevena, in a statement on ride-hailing service decisions: “We will continue to support a passenger transportation industry that gets people safely where they need to go and ensures sustainable livelihoods for drivers.” That’s four years ago. Three years ago, sorry — almost four years ago. It will be four years ago this January.

And it goes on for the next couple of years about identifying this issue. We knew that safety was an issue in the transportation sector with the gig economy and delivery, ride-hailing, all those kinds of things.

Yet here it is seven years later, after it was first identified, and we get a bill with ten clauses that only four, all surrounding enforcement, will be brought into force under royal assent. The other 60 percent of the bill is going to be decided around the cabinet table. No consultation at the cabinet table, other than the ministers themselves.

I just wanted to also stress…. I talked about my daughter, Allie, and working in the delivery sector, which is aligned with Bill 48. And to be quite honest, for the most part, the gig economy is supplemental income. There are statistics around that.

For example, in 2022, the average Canadian driver spent fewer than three hours per week on delivery on the app. In addition to driving, 63 percent of B.C. drivers have a full- or part-time job, run their own business or do other gig or freelance work. So that’s 63 percent that have other jobs. Only 13 percent of B.C. drivers rely on delivery or ride-share as their only line of work.

Now, I’m not discrediting those 13 percent. As I said at the preface when I started out, we absolutely need to ensure public safety. There’s no question about that. And we need to ensure sustainability. These folks deserve to get paid an honest dollar for their work.

[5:25 p.m.]

But with the high cost of gas, the profit model for ride-sharing needs to be on par. When we’re addressing cost pressures, like this government says they know about, we have to identify that. So how do we reduce that cost of gas? Because that gas price, as I said, does make up pretty much your entire cost, expense, for your business. How do we reduce that? Well, we’ve got a simple solution. Let’s just knock 15 cents a litre off. Let’s do what Alberta did and take the fuel tax off.

Now, there are members on the other side that have said that it doesn’t work. If we took off 15 cents a litre, the retailers would just add it back on, and people wouldn’t see a savings anyway. It would just go in the pockets of greedy gas retailers.

We know that’s not the truth. We saw it in Calgary. We saw it in Alberta. We saw the University of Calgary, I believe it was. I think it was Professor Tombe — is that the guy’s name? — who did a review on this, did a research paper on this. I’m getting smiles. I don’t know everybody’s name, but I think it’s Tombe.

He said that 97 percent of the reduction of the gas tax was passed through. That was the exact quote. Almost 100 percent passed through, meaning that the 60 cents a litre that I see in a 20-minute drive between Cranbrook and the Alberta border…. Sorry, not Cranbrook. Sparwood, let’s say, sees a 60 cent a litre difference in price.

That’s concerning, because a lot of people from my riding can just head over the line. They just buy a truckload of gas, and of course, when they’re down there, they might as well pick up some groceries, too, and maybe a couple of other items, which ties into our businesses in the Kootenays. They’re at a disadvantage, because now not only do they save the fuel tax; they save the provincial sales tax, and they get, maybe, some better goods. There’s more availability in Calgary and Lethbridge than there is in Sparwood.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring those things forward. I’ve only got a couple of minutes left. I know we’ve got a couple of other speakers here that want to get on with it. I really wish there would be some members from the other side that would talk to this piece of legislation because it is complex, and it is important. I see the Minister of Health, perhaps. He looked like he was ready to stand up there. Maybe he’s just fidgety. I’m not sure.

But I’d like to see some debate on the other side. I think it is something that we should talk about. Like I said, it’s not the bill that I’m as opposed to as the process. We all in this House want to look out for public safety. We all want to look out for sustainability with any worker in the province, not just the gig economy. Anyone in the province of British Columbia should be looked after. So we support the intent of the bill. We just are very weary of what the process is on this bill and how it’s being presented today.

So with that, I guess we’ll look forward to committee stage. I’m not too sure how robust that will be. I’m not sure how many questions we’ll actually have answered. There’s nothing much in the bill that actually you can question on, other than the default answer of: “Well, it’s going to be in regulation.” So we’ll see how that turns out.

With that, I’ll take my place.

T. Wat: I expected the Minister of Health to stand up. I was trying to wait for him to stand up and listen to his explanation about this bill.

It is always my honour to stand up in the people’s House and debate any piece of legislation that comes up for debate. Before going into…. Well, all my colleagues have been talking about the deficiency of this Bill 48. I just want to share my thoughts about this whole Legislature since the NDP government has come into place for the last seven years.

[5:30 p.m.]

I was fortunate enough to be part of the government between 2013 and 2017. I remember clearly that every time, before any spring session or fall session, the government side would come up with an agenda for that legislative session.

They would lay out, clearly, the number of bills that would be presented for debate by parties in the Legislature, so that all the elected officials — whether on the government side, the opposition side or independents — could do their homework. You could look at what bills were going to be debated, do some research and find out what the issue was about, and you could talk to your constituents about the kinds of bills that were going to be presented in the Legislature and get their input so that we could serve them well as elected officials.

I was an immigrant into this country in 1989. I think for most of the immigrants who have come from Asia, we have chosen Canada to be our second home because we really admire and respect the democratic system in Canada.

I was brought up in Hong Kong, under a colonial government. Some of the very few elected officials — it was called urban council; obviously, they didn’t deal with pieces of legislation — dealt with cleaning the streets or how to have more parks and gardens. They never had a chance, like us, as elected officials in Canada, to openly be given full information and to discuss back and forth between the government side and the opposition side.

I remember that when I was in Hong Kong as a student in journalism and, later on, working for the media and for the government, I always said how good it is for Canadians that they can have their elected representatives to represent their voices, their concerns and debate in the Legislature so that their voices can be incorporated into pieces of legislation.

In the first four years that I was blessed to be part of the government, I really felt that this was the way that elected officials’ responsibilities lay: that we represent our constituents and we present their voices to the Legislature.

Interjection.

T. Wat: Yes, I’m coming to the bill.

That’s why I’m trying to tell my constituents who are watching, and my colleagues here, why I’m disappointed at Bill 48 and disappointed at the process of this Legislature in the past few years. There’s no transparency, as several colleagues on our side have already pointed out.

First of all, I’m so disappointed that only the minister and the parliamentary secretary stood up in this House. The minister has no choice but to talk about your bill, and the parliamentary secretary has a responsibility for this portfolio. We should talk about it. How about the other MLAs? How about the other ministers? The government side should be more familiar with this bill than the opposition.

Our designated speaker for this bill, my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson, was telling the House that even this morning, we were not sure whether there would be a briefing on Bill 48. We were only told later in the morning that it would be confirmed at 11 o’clock. It was rushed together for the briefing.

[5:35 p.m.]

This is really not acceptable, when we are stretched to three Houses right now towards the last couple of weeks in this fall session, especially for our Third Party and Fourth Party, which only have two MLAs. Even for us as the official opposition party, we are stretched to the limit.

If the government side cannot have any of the elected officials coming up and debating the bill, which they should know full well, how do you expect the opposition MLAs to be doing a good job? We are given just a two-page bill, and we don’t have much information. As the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson said during the half-hour or 45-minute briefing, there’s not much information.

From the minister’s opening remarks, we got more information. How come we were not given this information during the briefing and beforehand? Isn’t this what democracy is about? We expect transparency and full information to be provided to the opposition, but we are not.

As some colleagues pointed out, it makes us remember the FOI piece of legislation, when our colleagues and all of us were trying to get more information about this FOI bill, and nothing was given to us. Lo and behold, just a few hours after royal assent was given, we found the actual fee for FOI. It meant that the government had all the information during the debate on the bill. The government just did not want to share with other elected officials.

Is this what democracy is about? I am shocked. I have emigrated to the province and decided to run for politics because I thought of becoming an elected official representing my constituents. I am an ethnic minority; I speak the same language that most, 70 percent, of my constituents are speaking. Quite a number don’t speak English. I have the responsibility to represent their voices and express them.

This bill affects a lot of immigrants, ethnic minorities. Many of my constituents, because they don’t speak English well, take on a supplemental income job as a SkipTheDishes driver or Uber driver. How am I going to explain to them after the session is over? I guess this bill definitely will be passed, even though maybe we’ll vote against it. We don’t know.

We all, on our side, support the principle of this bill, that we’ve got to provide fairness to all workers. I don’t think anybody in this House would dispute that, but how come there’s no information forthcoming? What is there to hide? Why has the regulation only been discussed around the cabinet table?

How am I going to explain to my constituents when they ask me: “Why did you support the bill when you don’t know the regulations?” I don’t know how to talk to them. Tell me. I hope the minister can provide more information.

The minister is laughing. I see you laugh. I see you, through the Chair.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, one person has the floor. That’s the current speaker. Let’s just have her have the floor and not have a back-and-forth.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Wat: When the minister was having his opening remarks, it looked like the government already had the gist of the regulations in mind. The minister even talked about the minimum wage — what percentage. Why wasn’t that information given to the whole House? Why does it have to be included in regulations after royal assent?

[5:40 p.m.]

How do you expect our MLAs in the opposition to be able to have an intelligent debate on this piece of legislation with only ten clauses and two pages? There’s nothing there for us to debate.

They only talk about it: “For the purposes of this Act, (a) an online platform worker is to be considered an employee, whether or not the online platform worker is an employee under any law, and (b) the operator of the online platform through which an online platform worker accepts prescribed work is to be considered the employer of the online platform worker.”

What are the details? How does the government expect us to have a comprehensive and intelligent debate? That’s why…. I have to stand up and debate this bill, but I’m scratching my head. How am I going to debate as somebody who is a representative who is fully informed? I’m not.

It’s not that I’m not trying to do my work, but we were told that we don’t have any pieces of legislation coming. All of a sudden, on Monday morning, the minister stood up and presented a bill. This all came as a surprise to all the opposition.

I’m sure the government MLAs all are aware of it. Then, if you are familiar, will you please stand up and let us know why you think this is a piece of good legislation and talk about the details so that we can debate back and forth?

Already with the three Houses opening and making all the opposition MLAs stretched to the limit…. I’m asking the government: do you think it’s fair to the opposition MLAs, especially the third and fourth opposition parties? They have only two MLAs. They can’t even have somebody represent them in all three Houses, not to say that they have to do research and to prepare their speeches. Is that what this House is about?

I honestly think that the government should really think about what they have done in the last few years. It just looks like the government feels that they can do whatever they want to do. You either take it or leave it.

Is that what democracy is about? I’m sometimes wondering whether I’ve emigrated to a western democratic country. When I talk to my constituents, when I tell them what’s happening — the closure bill, the last-minute decisions of late-night debate…. They were wondering. They asked me: why didn’t you debate and convey your concern? I have no choice but to say that there’s no use. The government is not listening.

Well, I guess I already expressed my concern as a three-term elected official, as an immigrant to this country, as somebody who ran for politics because I wanted to encourage more immigrants to get involved in politics, to get involved with the government, to try to express their voices. Don’t keep quiet. Don’t be silent. Speak out. But what’s the point of speaking out when you are not given full information?

Getting back to this Bill 48, this bill provides a definition for online workers and establishes online platform workers — SkipTheDishes drivers, Uber drivers — as employees and the operators of the online platform as employers.

[5:45 p.m.]

We all agree, every MLA in our caucus agrees, that it’s essential that all workers are put in a position to succeed and to be treated fairly and also are working under acceptable standards. Not only does looking after workers unleash the potential of our workers, it’s also the right thing to do. That’s why I keep saying that we support the principle of the bill.

But shame on the government for not giving us detail. If they are so proud of this bill, why hide the details? It doesn’t make sense at all. As I keep saying, as all my colleagues are talking about, we definitely support this goal. But the B.C. United caucus has some significant questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how it will be enacted to benefit British Columbians.

Despite prior announcements and the news release last week suggesting imminent changes, unfortunately, the implementation of these changes is largely deferred to future regulation, just as many of the bills this government presented in the past were. Now, it seems to be typical of this government to have regulation just decided in the privacy of the cabinet table and not for the elected officials in opposition to discuss through debate. It just helps us wonder. There must be something to hide.

Also, since the spirit of this bill is quite commendable, why do we have to wait several months, even way past the election, for the bill, for all the regulation to be effective? Well, whatever details that will come out after the cabinet table decides on whatever they think is fit for the online platform workers, the changes will affect workers, business and consumers. If the regulations are something to be desired, there’s no opportunity for us, as elected officials, to convey our voices in the Legislature, because it’s all decided. The bill has been passed.

Even my constituents…. The concerns of my colleagues conveyed to them that they are not happy with the regulation. But our hands are tied. We are tied. We cannot make any changes because the bill has been put into legislation. Truly, I don’t understand why, after seven years that we’ve have this online platform industry, we still have to take, maybe, at least a year or even longer for the regulations to come about.

This regulation impacts a diverse group of workers, including young people, Indigenous people, racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, women, newcomers, linguistic minorities and, of course, a lot of immigrants. That’s why I’m really upset: because, as I said, most of my constituents are immigrants. Many of them are linguistic minorities.

[5:50 p.m.]

The decision by this NDP government to regulate the status and rights of online platform workers and operators through regulation rather than direct legislative action limits the ability of us MLAs to effectively address the concerns of our constituents.

Ultimately, Bill 48 defers the meat of the bill to future regulations, leaving us with concern that this might end up resulting in more NDP red tape and bureaucracy that sideline workers and raise costs for consumers. Already we are the most unaffordable province in the whole of North America. It is the result of this incapable government and all the secrecy. No wonder this government has been branded as the most secretive government.

The online platform workers described in this bill — Uber drivers, food delivery drivers — all depend on their vehicle to do the job, spending hundreds of dollars a month on fuel. Even the minister has rightly pointed out that the price of gas in B.C. is astronomical. In fact, and I’m sure everybody knows it, our province is home to the highest gas prices and taxes in North America.

That’s why the B.C. United caucus has advocated for the scrapping of the fuel tax. If this government truly, as they say, cares for British Columbians, they should support the B.C. United caucus in scrapping the fuel tax now.

Yet we just heard them criticizing the B.C. United for putting up this idea. By not scrapping the fuel tax, we have put additional strain on British Columbians, continuing to make B.C. the most unaffordable province.

This bill is meant to help all these online platform workers who depend on gas-powered vehicles to get to work, for their jobs. I’m sure even my colleagues on the other side of this hallway also agree that if they want to support these drivers, to make life more affordable for them, we have to eliminate the provincial gas tax. But sadly enough, nobody in the government side has the guts or the courage to say it, to represent the voices of their constituents.

Our B.C. United caucus have been calling for this for months, and we have committed to taking action. That’s what we will do when we are in the government. We will end the pain at the pumps by permanently eliminating the provincial gas tax, providing immediate relief for so many British Columbians.

Eliminating the gas tax will save drivers up to 15 cents per litre on gas and diesel. For the average family minivan in Vancouver, that will equal to $14 in savings per trip to the gas station. This measure will make a real difference in the lives of people like online platform workers, which this Bill 48 is supposed to be helping.

[5:55 p.m.]

Most people, most families, have a family car. They are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of fuel. In 2022, delivery workers on one food delivery platform, for example, earned an average of $27 an hour while delivering, including 100 percent of tips. Just imagine how much more they can earn if we eliminate the fuel tax.

Well, 97 percent of B.C. drivers agree that being able to choose when, where and how they work should be protected. If laws were to change, 56 percent of B.C. drivers would stop dashing if they have less ability to choose the days or times they work, and 54 percent of B.C. drivers have other delivery or ride-sharing apps open while driving. These are all the details about these online platform workers.

Unfortunately, my time is running out. I have to stress once again that without giving this House any details about such an important bill, and at the last minute of the fall session, only having a week to go, and without having seen any of the government MLAs standing up and supporting this bill…. Give the opposition MLAs more information so that we know this is truly a bill that benefits the online platform workers.

Instead, our critic and many of us have to go to the committee stage and try to squeeze every ounce of information from the minister. Well, lo and behold, maybe after royal assent is given to Bill 48…. I don’t know whether we will see some of the regulation, but I don’t think so. During the briefing, even the staff was saying that it will take months for regulations to come out.

To conclude, I hope that this is the last act by this government to try to catch the opposition by surprise and the last piece of legislation, the last bill, that is without any meat for this House to debate.

M. Lee: I rise to speak to Bill 48 and want to say that the bill, of course, starts to address what has been a process. As the member for Kamloops–North Thompson has pointed out, the work started, actually, back in 2017. So over the last 6½ years, we’ve been waiting on this government to bring forward and address the kind of measures that the Minister of Labour spoke to in a second reading speech.

The question is: what took so long? Recognizing that of the ten clauses of this bill, only four will take effect at royal assent, which, as anticipated by this government, would take place next Thursday, we presume….

[6:00 p.m.]

The other clauses will still be subject to significant consultation that we’ve heard other members here in the B.C. United caucus speak to, for the end of this month, the ongoing discussions and consultations that are necessary, the regulation-making that will be important to understand the operation of this bill and its applications.

The Minister of Labour spoke to the important changes to the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. The new economy has been going on for many, many years. In terms of those workers here in British Columbia who work in the gig economy, the online platform that this bill addresses, it’s been something that’s been operating in our province for many, many years.

I must say there has been significant focus in the Minister of Labour’s comments and the ministry’s communications around app-based, ride-hail and food delivery workers in B.C. But certainly, we know that even in the news release that was put out by the Ministry of Labour, there’s recognition that they’re not the only gig economy workers in our province.

When we look at the understanding and the interpretation of “online platform,” I know that the member for Shuswap and other members here on the B.C. United caucus will want to understand more thoroughly what the online platform refers to. As far as I see, in Bill 48, it’s actually not defined.

I’m sure the Minister of Labour will answer in a way that suggests that there may be a common understanding of online platform for gig economy types of workers. But I think it’s important, as we understand this legislation, which workers of our province are being covered in this act beyond those who are food delivery workers and ride-hail workers.

I will say again, when we look at the application of Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act and the Employment Standards Act, that the jurisdiction and recognition of workers who work in online platforms will be important to understand, including where they work, what jurisdictions they work and live in, certainly their hours of work and the requirements by their employer on their shifts.

We know that when this government made promises before the 2017 election, they made assurances to those in the transportation industry. And the Minister of Labour and the ministers of this government understand that despite the assurances by the party on the other side in terms of the taxi industry, there had to be, as I’ve said many times, a fair and level playing field. Even when it talks about costs of transportation, whether it’s insurance, safety standards, there has been an unlevel playing field for the ride-hailing industry in our province, whether it’s Uber or Lyft or other applications.

We have here a government that made promises to the taxi industry, which they broke. And 6½ years later, they’re now imposing the kind of employment standards, even if I were just to focus on the ride-hailing industry, that they ought to have brought forward much sooner.

[6:05 p.m.]

When we’re talking about employment standards for those who are working in the ride-hailing industry, those drivers that are just trying to make ends meet, who have the ability to earn some income in a way that fits with their family situations…. As far as it went in terms of the impact on the taxi industry, those small business owners, those drivers, those families that depended on the investment, the lines of credit, the debt that they took out to invest in their taxi licences….

The impact of this government breaking their promises to the industry and then delaying in bringing forward the types of fair and level playing field requirements has led to an unfair advantage for at least 6½ years under this government.

Dare I say, when the minister…. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson, as a member of that committee back in the day, back in 2017, asked the fair question: “What took so long?” They’ve just added more insult to injury for those workers in the taxi industry, in the transportation industry.

They have been harmed by the unlevel playing field and the delays of this government, this Minister of Labour, in bringing forward the types of minimum employment standards, the types of requirements for employers of ride-hailing platforms, the types of employer responsibilities, in the words of this Minister of Labour, under the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, the need to register for coverage and pay premiums for workers compensation to WorkSafeBC on their workers’ behalf.

This is just an example of the cost that this government is requiring of those employers using these ride-hailing online platforms that should have been in place 6½ years ago. This government has dragged its feet to ensure that fair and level playing field and brought forward a bill that is not clearly defined. Much of the details will be still left to regulation.

We know that it will be important, with the delay in the regulations…. It has an impact on what are, of course, many individuals that work in the industry, young people, Indigenous people, racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, women, new Canadians and other ethnocultural linguistic minorities.

We’ve seen time and time again the reliance and the decision by this government to bring forward legislation without a clear understanding of the legislative framework, in this case, for online platform workers and operators. Deferring all of the details to the regulation-making stages, rather than through direct legislative action, limits the ability of members of the B.C. United caucus and opposition to effectively address the concerns of our constituents.

I would say, though, the points that I’ve made to date in my remarks here certainly address an ongoing concern for my constituents in Vancouver-Langara, in Vancouver-Fraserview, in South Vancouver, in Richmond, in Surrey, across the Lower Mainland. I hear time and time again the disappointment from those who work in the taxi industry, the owner-operators, the drivers and the families who were misled by this government.

Deputy Speaker: Be careful with your words. I’d ask you to please be careful with your words.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the guidance.

These family members, the workers in the taxi industry, to say the least, are disappointed in this government.

[6:10 p.m.]

I know that when we talk about representing our constituents…. The member for Surrey–White Rock; the member for Surrey South; the member for Richmond North Centre; and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the Leader of the Official Opposition, clearly understand and appreciate the impact, by this government, that has led to a very unfair and unlevel playing field.

Now we are seeing this government come forward with little details around what they’re going to be imposing on these online operation type of businesses. Despite the prior announcements that were suggesting imminent changes, the implementation of these changes is largely deferred to the future.

We know as well, as has been pointed out time and time again by my colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock, that when we’re talking about the impact on food delivery, when we’re talking about the online platform for gig workers working in food delivery, the changes could make delivery more expensive for customers, for consumers. That may mean less business for restaurants and fewer opportunities for delivery drivers.

This is just another example of the reason why, when we bring forward legislation of this importance, we have the opportunities to debate and review that legislation. But because those details, including for online platforms that are involved in food delivery…. We don’t have those details here, and it really constrains the ability to understand the impacts and costs.

We know that where the concern may lie is that in deferring the substance of the impact of the bill to future regulation, it may just result in these online platforms being caught up in more NDP red tape and bureaucracy that will effectively sideline workers and raise costs for consumers.

I know that the Minister of Labour made comments in a second reading speech, talking about the challenge for online platform workers, including ride-hail drivers and food delivery drivers. As we’ve seen with the taxi industry, the truckers, those who are involved in getting our goods to market, who are sitting in traffic day after day, with the lack of a replacement for the George Massey Tunnel, for example…. So 88,000 residents of British Columbia are burning up gas, and all the emissions are coming to our environment because of that.

But we know the concerns around families and affordability. If this minister is concerned around the impact of fuel costs…. We know that our province is the jurisdiction with the highest prices and taxes on fuel and gas in North America. This does put an additional strain on those who depend on gas-powered vehicles to get to work or for their jobs.

So Mr. Speaker, as you know, with the Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, we’ve been calling for months and months for this government to take action to end the pain at the pump by permanently eliminating the provincial gas tax so that we can provide relief for so many British Columbians.

This would make a real difference to the lives of people and to those online platform workers, which this Minister of Labour recognizes are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of fuel. We know that with DoorDash drivers, we’ve seen the impact on the online food delivery platform.

[6:15 p.m.]

We know that B.C. drivers are requiring additional flexibility to use this platform for supplemental income, that 56 percent of B.C. drivers would stop dashing for DoorDash if they had less ability to choose the days or times they worked, and that 54 percent of B.C. drivers have other delivery or ride-sharing apps open while driving. So the impact of where this framework is going will have an impact for sure on the ability of those B.C. drivers.

The costs associated with delivery and ride-hail are very different. When we talk about using the one-size approach that this government likes to use, the government-knows-best approach, even not seeing the end of the consultation process for the matters that are dealt with this bill….

The government needs to understand and appreciate that that one-size-fits-all approach to regulating pay in these two industries — the ride-hailing and the food delivery industry — does not work.

Compared to delivery, ride-hailing comes with higher capital costs, cleaning costs and maintenance costs for workers that require higher rates of pay. Delivery drivers, in contrast, can use any vehicle they want. We know that delivery drivers wouldn’t be carrying passengers, not for their job, and they’re spending much less time driving.

These are just examples of the kinds of concerns and considerations around this bill.

Recognizing, as we bring into place online platform workers under the Employment Standards Act, that under this government we continue to see delays and challenges…. Even in dealing, for workers, with the employment standards branch, wait-lists have increased from two months in 2017 to 16 months. And the employment standards branch only achieves a 20 percent success rate in finalizing claims within six months. Their mandate is 80 percent.

As we add more workers in the province of British Columbia to be able to deal with their employers and the Employment Standards Act, we need, certainly, assurances from this government and this Minister of Labour that the challenges and the delays that we continue to see with the employment standards branch are addressed.

The bloated public sector that we’ve seen under this government, which has only added 137 workers at a cost of $17 billion annually, has not led to improved performance at the employment standards branch. As we continue to see a growth in the bureaucracy, that’s actually leading to lower and lower performance when it talks about workers getting through their claims with the employment standards branch.

We know that the failure to continue, from this government’s point of view, to create private sector employment has only declined year after year. And we know, when we talk about workers and the prejudicial, unfair treatment of workers under community benefits agreements, the preference to only certain unions to work on community infrastructure projects…

Deputy Speaker: Can the member…?

M. Lee: …that these are just other examples of the unfair treatment of workers in our province.

As we talk about members of the transportation industry and the taxi industry, we know, again, that there needs to be a level playing field. This government is addressing part of those considerations now, under the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act and the temporary foreign workers act. I hope that we will continue to see this government ensure that there is a fair and level playing field between all workers in the taxi and transportation sectors of our province.

As we look at the opportunities, the way forward…. We need to ensure, certainly, that all workers in our province have that safe workplace, that they are getting the kinds of supports they need from WorkSafeBC and the employment standards branch.

[6:20 p.m.]

Despite the increase in the number of government workers under this government’s watch, we’re actually not seeing improved performance and results. As we add more online platform workers to that, we should expect to see better performance and protection for workers that we aren’t seeing under this government.

As we look at this bill and support the understanding of how this will impact on online platform workers, we recognize the continued need and change from a regulatory point of view of the gig economy that this government seems to have some real challenge in catching up with.

Despite having that transportation committee for ride-hailing back in 2017, it has been a 6½ year delay, where we’re now finally seeing legislation come forward. This is just an example of this government’s inability to bring forward what British Columbians need to ensure a fair and level playing field but also to ensure that those gig workers are being properly protected in their workplace.

I know that as we look forward to the committee debate on the four clauses that will receive royal assent, such as it is, we’ll want to have the full opportunity to walk through the clause-by-clause discussion with the Minister of Labour on the bill itself.

We know that when we’re talking about online platform workers, we’ll want to have a clear understanding of which type of workers and online platforms are to be considered as part of this bill and whether online platforms that involve workers in other jurisdictions are actually captured within this bill.

We know that with call centres and other applications, whether it’s part-time or otherwise, and other hours of work, that there is a significant amount of workers in other jurisdictions that are being employed at online platforms in our province. So we will want to understand how this bill will attempt to deal with those employees.

Recognizing that the scope of the identified purposes under clause 2 of Bill 48 extends to online platforms, whether or not the online platform and its employee under any law…. Those words as to whether an online platform worker is an employee under any law need to be understood. Are we talking about laws of this jurisdiction, laws of other jurisdictions that are outside of Canada? That will be an important one to understand.

Of course, in terms of the work and the timelines that are contemplated under both the appeal processes, as well as the determination and investigation processes, we’ll want to understand clearly those measures as to those periods that are contemplated under the act that is being amended here.

As well, under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, when we’re talking about expanding, in effect, the application by striking out “registered employer” with the term “employer,” that broadens, of course, the general reference and consideration of the application of the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

To understand what the government’s intent is by broadening that term beyond just an employer who is a registered employer under that act, these will be considerations for the committee stage of this bill. We will look at how we continue to support workers in growing our economy. We know that even with the expansion of the public sector, there has been a failure of this government to continue to support the growth of our economy through a private jobs creation effort.

[6:25 p.m.]

With the impact of mandatory trade certification, we’ve seen a government that has had a history of failing to look at the full scope of labour legislation. This is the reason why I’m giving other examples of how this government struggles with bringing forward a legislative framework for online platform workers and not appreciating what might be the unintended consequences on other industries that are vital to our economy and our society.

We’ve seen the challenges of this government adding more regulation and more red tape to industries that are looking at those mandatory trade certification processes and requirements that lead to regulation that doesn’t have a proper plan to mitigate the consequences.

Time and time again in the labour legislative effort by this government, as it makes changes to our labour laws of this province, we’ve seen the shortsightedness and the narrowness of this.

Deputy Speaker: Speaking of time, Member. Might the member note the hour.

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 48, and I look forward to the committee review on the points that I’ve spoken to here.

Deputy Speaker: I acknowledge the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and I guess you’ll reserve your place in the debate.

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise to Bill 48, but I guess I reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

J. Sturdy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2023

Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Deputy Speaker: This House will be adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.