Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 59.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 59 — EXTENSION OF SITTING HOURS

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

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1), the adjournment time of the sittings of the House commencing at 1.30 p.m. on

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

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

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

And further, that this modified time of adjournment extend to the application of Standing Order 3 and to the interpretation of the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House in the Sessional Order adopted by the House on October 5, 2023, enabling certain proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections.]

T. Stone: I just wanted to weigh in again on this motion today. I would start off by just saying that it would be refreshing if the Government House Leader actually, when he stood up to move a motion that changes the calendar, the hours of sitting in this place, said more than just: “I move the motion.”

A rationale for why, a justification for why this is necessary, in his opinion, would, I think, be the least that he could do for all members, if there was truly respect for every member in this place. All members are elected, first and foremost, as MLAs. If there was true respect there, the Government House Leader would give us a reason, a rationale, for this constant changing of the parliamentary sitting hours for this particular session.

He has done this three times in the past week — three times. Last Monday the Government House Leader moved a motion to move to a late-night sitting for a couple of hours. He then, a couple of days later, moved a second motion to provide for a few more hours of sitting time. Now here we are today with a third motion saying that, in his opinion, another hour and a half of time is required tonight and tomorrow and two hours on Wednesday of this week, without providing any background or context or rationale for why this is necessary.

This matters because the urgency around the need for these changes certainly hasn’t come from the official opposition. For the official opposition, the best that can be done in our situation is to actually respond to the legislative agenda that the government brings forward within the time parameters, the allocations of time that we have in this place.

[2:35 p.m.]

There certainly haven’t been any efforts on the part of the official opposition that should be interpreted by the Government House Leader as being anything but cooperative in terms of wanting to make this place work and wanting to ensure that there is a balance between the government, which is its right, being able to bring forward a legislative agenda and that there be adequate debate time on that said agenda, balanced with the opposition doing what it is predominantly here to do, and that is to ask those tough questions, query, hold the government’s feet to the fire, ensure that there’s accountability on the legislation.

Frankly, as I pointed out in my intervention not once but twice last week on previous motions to change the hours of this place, I’ve said to the Government House Leader that it’s not the opposition that’s bringing forward bills that require amending because they’re sloppy. It’s not the opposition’s prerogative to bring forward legislation that must be debated in this place. We bring forward private members’ bills. They don’t ever get called. It’s the government’s job to manage this place and bring forward their legislation.

This latest piece today is egregious at a whole other level, in the sense of this. There are five bills that are still before this House — five — four of which involve housing and substantive changes to housing legislation in this province. Whether you support the changes or you don’t support the changes, there are a lot of changes being made.

In many respects, this collection of housing legislation is creating a tremendous amount of activity, a flurry of concern, and many stakeholders and the public, obviously, as well, are wanting certain questions answered about the government’s intentions around the package of housing changes that the government has opted to bring forward.

Bill 44, the Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act. These are some pretty significant changes that are being roundly criticized in some quarters and not so in other quarters. These are big changes to public hearings for rezoning applications, the permits for accessory dwelling units provincewide, upzoning changes, a whole bunch of new rules that are going to apply in the housing market.

There’s a whole wide range of questions that need to be asked about this legislation. While this bill has been before the House and some questions have been asked, the official opposition hasn’t yet put forth all of its questions, and we intend to. That’s called doing your job. That’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Bill 45, the miscellaneous statutes bill. Again, in my previous two interventions on these similar motions last week, I said that one of the erosions of this place is the increasing reliance on miscellaneous statutes bills, not just for what they were originally intended, which is to provide for generally minor changes across a whole range of bills. You do it all in one bill. That, arguably, when applied in that manner, is good housekeeping.

To embed in a miscellaneous stats bill very significant changes that impact shelters and encampments in this province and impose some very severe, frankly egregious, limitations on the autonomy of local governments to take action within the parameters of the constitution and previous court decisions…. Some pretty fundamental changes that need to be properly debated in this place. You bet we have a lot to ask of this legislation with questions we intend on posing to the government.

Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act. This creates a whole new tax scheme on new development with respect to amenity cost charges and development cost charges. Again, hugely significant in the sense of just what the scope and scale of this change actually looks like it. It warrants proper debate in this place and a good amount of time for the opposition to ask those questions on behalf of local governments and the public and stakeholders.

Bill 47, the transit-oriented development piece of legislation. This bill is one that also makes fundamental changes. We haven’t even got to this one yet. There is undoubtedly a whole wide range of accountability re­quired on it.

[2:40 p.m.]

Last but certainly not least is Bill 48, which is the one non-housing piece of legislation. It’s the Labour Statutes Amendment Act that creates some pretty significant changes for the regulatory scheme with respect to gig workers.

I would point out that each of these bills was introduced in November. Not when we started sitting in October; they were introduced in November. In fact, the labour statutes bill was only introduced on November 20. The other bill is being introduced in the late second week of November.

The housing legislation, as I said, is a significant change, a change that we know and the public knows this government has been contemplating and has been working on for at least the 18 months that the Premier has been the Premier. Yet this legislation wasn’t brought forward in the last legislative session.

They didn’t publicly announce the specifics of what they were doing at any point after that last session. They didn’t put it on the table at the beginning of this session so that there could be that much more opportunity for the public but also the legislators in this place to actually dive into the legislation and make sure that it’s receiving the scrutiny that it deserves. We find ourselves instead, here, with four days left.

I said in both my previous interventions on the previous motions that this is not about an extra hour here or an unwillingness on the part of the official opposition to be here for an extra hour one night or two hours another night or whatever. I actually said both previous times, and I’ll say it again, that we’d be quite happy to extend the hours of a session.

But it should be done at the front end of a session. It should be done with some consultation and engagement with the House Leaders of the other caucuses, not done on a piecemeal basis where, basically, the government, through the Government House Leader — it’s really the Premier’s office through the Government House Leader — dictates not just the legislation that comes in front of this place, which, as I said, is the government’s prerogative….

The government is now in the business, through the Government House Leader, of dictating exactly how many hours they will allow for there to be debate on each piece of legislation and jam us, as an official opposition, by introducing these major pieces of legislation with only a matter of weeks to properly scrutinize them.

I can predict what the theme of the next couple of days is going to be. Instead of the government looking inward and going: “You know, perhaps we could have done this better and managed this place a little better. Perhaps it would have been better if we’d have actually brought this legislation forward in a timely fashion, maybe doing it last session or making it exposure legislation so that the opposition and the public have a chance to look at it. Maybe there are ways that we could improve that….”

What’s going to happen here is…. The narrative that the government is going to try to drive is the suggestion that the opposition somehow is dragging its heels, that the opposition is somehow filibustering or not being willing to actually ask, in a timely fashion, the questions and impose limits on ourselves as to how much time and how many questions we’re going to ask on each particular piece of legislation. That is nonsense.

The official opposition and, in fact, all opposition members have a role, a very important role. That is to properly scrutinize legislation and to actually identify flaws, suggest improvements and compliment legislation in areas where we actually can find some common agreement.

The transit-oriented development bill, Bill 47 — we’ve already said that this is a bill we have a lot of questions about. We’re going to canvass hard in committee. But this is a bill that we can generally get behind and support. Why? It’s a piece of legislation that embodies concepts and ideas around transit-oriented development that the Leader of the Opposition and our caucus have been talking about for quite some time. So we will support that bill.

But we’re not going to support this motion again today, just as we haven’t supported the last two. It’s not about the extra hour and a half on a day with a half-hour dinner break and whatnot, as ridiculous as that is. This is on the principle of — and, actually, our request to the government, through the Government House Leader — managing this place better.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’re here for four days. There is a very important session coming up in the spring, assuming the Premier lives up to his word, and we’re actually here for that entire session.

But surely to goodness, the government already knows at this point what their legislative priorities are likely going to be for that spring session. Let’s work together on mapping out the hours required in the calendar and so forth and come into this place at the front end of a session with certainty for everyone. Certainty for all the legislators in this place, for all the staff that work in our caucuses and in this building. Certainty for the public. Let’s put the critical legislation on the table much earlier in the session so that there’s appropriate debate.

We’re hearing from legislators, by the way, in other parts of the Commonwealth that when you express to them this package of housing bills that I just walked us through, and when you say that, basically, we have to finish these four housing bills in the next four days — not a heck of a lot of hours, of time, on top of, maybe, the last two weeks of session, time on and off, when the bills have come up — people think you’re actually trying to pull a fast one on them. That’s not possible, they say.

In our jurisdiction, speaking as the other individuals here, this type of sweeping amendment or significant changes to the legislation actually are done over weeks, if not months of time. Sometimes, it can span a year or two. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the ideal either, but the point is we surely have to be able to do better than this.

As the government says pretty much every other day now, we’re actually going to restrict the debate to…. We’re going to add two more hours tonight, and we want to get done 44 and 47, and then we’re going to do this tomorrow. No. Lay out your legislative agenda earlier. Let us ask our questions and get to all the accountability that we need to on this legislation and ensure that there is a balance to and fro on this.

The last thing I’ll say is this. What is the government’s intention? We’re sure as heck not going to skip over critical components of these bills. With the hours remaining, notwithstanding an hour here or an extra two hours there, what is the government going to do when they find themselves, inevitably, again, in this place on Thursday morning, going: “Oh, my gosh, we still have two bills that aren’t done yet, and it’s Thursday”? What’s the government’s plan then?

Is it to add another day onto the calendar? Is it to require all members to come back next week, or is it more likely going to be another session of the imposed time allocation and closure on top of all of the fiddling around with the hours of this calendar. It’s just not a place that we should be. It’s no way to run a Legislative Assembly.

Again, as I said twice now in the last week, we implore the Government House Leader — and through him, the government — to do much, much better on this and stop jamming the opposition. Let’s make sure that this legislation gets the critical analysis that’s required. That requires the government to actually get its act together in terms of how they manage the legislative agenda that they bring forward on the front end of every single legislative session.

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

I just want to say that now this is the third time we’ve changed the timing of this legislative sitting. I suspect we’ll probably be back here again later in this week to extend this sitting, because I can’t imagine that the single largest package of housing policy that government has brought forward, spread out over about a half-dozen bills, would warrant anything other than the amount of air that it takes in order to get through each clause.

[2:50 p.m.]

I have, as I expressed last week, a growing concern for the management of this House, the growing blurring of the lines between the different roles, the diminishment of the role of the Legislative Assembly as all of the members together, recognizing the different roles that each of us plays.

Government brings forward their legislative agenda, if you can call it an agenda. They bring forward their legislation, and we in the official opposition have to ensure that there’s sufficient amount of air given to these initiatives.

If the government doesn’t provide the members of this Legislative Assembly, if they don’t provide the members of the public, if they don’t provide the media the time to actually be able to know what’s going on…. Not only have we not had the benefit of time to understand the potential impact of these legislations; we’ve not been given the information that’s needed — the data, the modelling and the analysis that’s behind the various initiatives. And we learned that we’re not going to get that information until after the initiative has been passed by this House.

We are moving in a very, very dangerous direction as we undermine the various roles that we have celebrated throughout history as being the balance that the public requires of their Legislative Assembly, the people that are elected here.

The Government House Leader arbitrarily sets the calendar. The Government House Leader also is responsible for the legislative agenda. Then there is this culture in here that if the members of the opposition want to stand up…. How dare we want to stand up and speak using the allotted time that each member, elected from their communities, wants to use and is entitled to use to have their voice heard on the pieces of legislation? How dare we take up more time than the Government House Leader has arbitrarily set for us?

Again, yet another indication of the dangerous direction that this supposed democratic institution is tracking on, where the government uses the agenda, the calendar, to limit the debate of legislation.

We have a member who works in our caucus, who came from the New Zealand Parliament, absolutely taken aback that the scale of changes in the housing legislation would be introduced and passed in three weeks. You know, when we say it should take time — six months, 12 months — we say: “Well, we need to respond to a housing crisis, a housing affordability crisis. We can’t take six to 12 months to do that.”

But you know, an organized government with an actual agenda, working towards a goal, is much more coordinated and has a far greater detail of planning than what is being demonstrated here, which actually calls into question and brings into question the quality of the legislative initiatives that they’re bringing forward.

This government does not want us to debate this legislation. There’s this constant tension around whether or not we’re taking up too much time, as members of the opposition, asking questions. It’s like there’s an offence taken that the opposition would be questioning the supreme intelligence of the other side or something. That’s the impression that’s left. It’s like there’s an offence.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been talking to members of the public about their knowledge of the proposed housing legislation, and I’m shocked at the lack of awareness of the legislative initiatives that are before this House that are going to impact the people that I’m talking to, whether property owners or renters and non-homeowners. It will impact both of those.

I’m just going to say this. We set these artificial deadlines. We create this fake tension around those artificial deadlines to try to harry the debate, to make it feel like there is some offence taken to actually wanting to stand up and speak to it, which is the right of every member that’s elected to this democratic institution.

I and my colleague from the B.C. Green caucus are prepared to stay here until this legislation has had the full benefit of the debate, every clause to the end. We’re prepared to do the work until it’s done.

[2:55 p.m.]

A. Walker: I’ll be brief. I just want to begin by thanking the B.C. NDP House Leader. The previous vote that just took place, well, maybe it went quickly, but it fixed an issue that for two months, as an independent member, I wasn’t even allowed voting when a division was called.

That meant that on amendments that I brought forward…. Depending on who was in the room, it would mean that I wasn’t able to vote for my community. I want to thank the House Leader and his staff for getting that resolved.

I want to thank the House Leader as well for providing notice for this motion. This is not a surprise to anyone. It’s been in the order paper for a while now. I think that clarity is useful for all members in this House.

I see this as a desire not to invoke closure. I think that is something that should be applauded. Yes, we’re going to be here late at night. Yes, it means that we’re going to change our schedule. But to ensure that all members of the opposition are able to speak, as the previous speaker said, to every clause in every bill that’s before us and truly represent our community, I give credit to government for that.

There is still the issue with the way this is structured in that I can’t be in two places at once. The result is that we have legislation moving forward in two different chambers. I have to decide, as do all members of opposition if they want to speak to a bill, which they’re going to speak to.

I found myself in a situation where I want to hold government to account for the changes in housing in our community. I’ve been sitting in on Bill 44, as has the minister. Those are long times, but we’ve got employment changes coming to the gig economy. This is work that I spent a considerable amount of time on. I heard from hundreds of workers across the province, and I haven’t once had an opportunity to speak in public in this chamber about some of the concerns I have with that legislation.

It is broken when a member of this Legislative Assembly is prohibited by rules of government to not be able to speak to legislation that is still not being addressed by this.

In wrapping up quickly, I want to thank the Speaker for the clarity of the ruling in the small chambers as far as motions and amendments on committee. The Clerks and Chairs, I think, are all on alignment there. I do want to thank the House Leader and government for…. We’re in the circumstance where we’ve got a lot of legislation. We’re at the end of session. I believe that the government is doing the best it can to create space for everyone to speak. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this as well.

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

Division has been called.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 50
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Banman
Beare	Begg	Chandra Herbert
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Greene	Heyman	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Malcolmson	Mercier	Parmar
Phillip	Popham	Rankin
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Rustad	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
Walker		Yao
NAYS — 25
Bernier	Bond	Clovechok
Davies	de Jong	Doerkson
Furstenau	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Olsen	Paton
Ross	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturko	Tegart
	Wat

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

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, housing statutes amendment act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 48; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued).

The Chair: I call the committee to order.

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

G. Kyllo: It is great to be back.

Last week we finished off with a series of questions around the additional 20 percent premium that the minister and his staff have concluded is the appropriate amount to offset some of the waiting time for those that are involved in the ride-hail and delivery service industry. I did ask: what was it that the minister relied on in identifying and coming up with the 20 percent as the appropriate number? The minister did provide some anecdotal information, but I certainly feel that it’s worthy of some additional inquiry.

I do appreciate that many of those individuals that are working in this industry work multiple apps at different times. One of the items that the minister did allude to was…. For some individuals, they may have to wait a series of minutes, maybe even up to 20 minutes or so, before accepting another ride.

The very important piece…. One of the most important aspects of individuals working in this sector is to have the opportunity and the flexibility to determine which different service requests they choose to take. In many instances, it’s up to the driver. They set the standard or set the determination on whether they’re going to take that immediate, next available ride or delivery opportunity or not, as well as with different individuals saying they might work on different apps all at the same time.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide a bit more light into how it was determined that 20 percent was the appropriate level to provide as a premium above the minimum wage rate. Then also, for individuals that are working multiple apps at the same time…. How on earth will the delivery service provider in any way, shape or form be able to determine what the actual earnings were over a set period if that driver is engaged in multiple apps at different times?

I know there’s a lot there. Maybe if the minister could just start by providing a bit more context on how they came up with the determination that 20 percent was the appropriate level.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, it is good to be back.

When we decided 120 percent of B.C.’s minimum wage, it was recognized that the workers do wait, between the assignments and waiting for the assignments, and they are not being paid for that period.

When you look at traditional work out there, whether a customer comes or not, you’re at the job, and you are getting paid. There was a recognition by the companies and by the workers that that period somehow needed to be covered.

We looked at other jurisdictions. California — they came up with 120 percent of their minimum wage. UFCW, which is one of the leading unions in Canada, and Uber jointly approached us and said 120 percent makes sense in recognition of the workers who are having to wait for the assignments. We believe that that is a good compromise, and it is a good start.

I have said in media before, and I said publicly, that we will monitor. We need to have more data. Once we have the data — how the workers are being paid over a period of time…. Is there a way to tell how much, actually, is the wait between assignments and wait for the assignment? What does that look like? And considering all of that, are they being paid at least minimum wage? So we will monitor going forward.

Then, again, we will sit down with the companies and workers and their representatives and see if there are still some gaps. But this is a good start, looking at other jurisdictions, setting a level playing field for all companies and making sure that everyone has the same level for competing. I think that is the right thing to do.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

There are a few points there. I’ll start with just a comment on one of the responses the minister had indicated, and that was the need for additional data. I think that is something that I’ve posed a number of questions on, that in a lot of the consultative work that was undertaken both by the minister and his staff was the absence or the lack of a robust method to actually capture and segregate the data.

With specific reference to the amount of potential time that drivers or food delivery individuals may be waiting between assignments, was any effort undertaken to reach out to those involved in the industry to actually ask for any raw data or information that would establish the amount of time and the pay that may be paid out to different contractors that are engaged in either the food delivery or the ride-hail business?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: When we met with the platform companies, met with drivers in person, online, and their representatives, it was recognized that there is a legitimate waiting period when the drivers are actually waiting. They’re on, but they are waiting for the next assignment or to get to the assignment. That’s why the companies believe that 120 percent would represent and compensate some of that period. They recognize that the drivers need to have that period covered. So that’s why 120 percent. Otherwise, it’ll be just a minimum wage.

I think that’s how the companies…. They recognize, the drivers told us this, and that’s why this 120 percent is to pay for the period that they legitimately are waiting for the next assignment or going to an assignment.

G. Kyllo: Obviously, just to be clear, there is no recognition of the additional time with respect to the time allotment. It is the anticipation…. The minister has indicated that this extra lift, the 20 percent above minimum wage, is intended to compensate for the potential wait time. I don’t know that it’s been established that either ride-hail or food delivery service individuals working the space now are actually earning the minimum wage rate. I don’t think that’s been actually established.

[3:30 p.m.]

Most of the companies that have provided information have suggested that the actual wage rate earned by ride-hailing and food delivery service providers is significantly higher than minimum wage, but I do appreciate the minister’s indicating that the 20 percent is intended to look after that wait period.

The challenge I have…. I think I’ll just go back to the question. Was there any effort undertaken by the minister or the ministry staff to reach out to the different ride-hailing or food delivery service companies to get a sense or even to request any data, empirical data, that they obviously must be accumulating over the last number of years to determine what the actual wait time is, on average, for those that are working in a specific space or in this sector?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

If that effort was undertaken to determine from the ride-hail companies and if they provided any information whatsoever with respect to, from their perspective, what they felt that wait period or wait time was between assignments…?

Hon. H. Bains: That information would be very useful, and we did ask for it. I think the member will appreciate the complexities in this type of work. The workers could have three apps open, and they are waiting for the assignment. Each three of those companies could record that as they’re waiting, so that will complicate it in calculating for each company.

Because of some of those complexities, the companies advised us that they are not able to give us correct information about waiting, but it was recognized that there is waiting. How much, the average — that piece of information hopefully we’ll get, going forward.

But Uber and UFCW, like I said, came to us and suggested that 120 percent is the right amount to compensate the waiting that the drivers are having to incur between assignments.

[3:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: I don’t know that I quite heard an answer. The minister did reference that there was consultation, both with, obviously, those working in the sector and the platform operators. Did the platform operators refuse to provide any information? Or did they provide information that maybe was not as telling as what the minister may have been looking for?

I’m just trying to get a sense of if there was that direct engagement with the platform operators and if there was a refusal of the platform operators to provide any empirical data with respect to the number of drivers on the system and what the estimated wait time may be of those that are currently using their apps.

Hon. H. Bains: The companies did not refuse. The conversation was there between the ministry and app-based companies or platform companies. But they did advise us that because of the complexity that I just mentioned, they may not be able to give us a credible number because a driver may be on one, two or more apps at a time, so who are they waiting for?

That is the kind of complexity. That’s just one example. There may be a number of other complexities the companies face. They could not come up with a credible number for us to take, and they would say: “How would you justify the numbers that we may use?” So I think it was the complexity behind the question and what their ability was to collect that information.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

Can the minister confirm, is it the intention that the additional 20 percent is to cover the estimation of the entirety of the wait time that an individual working in this sector may have between assignments, or is the 20 percent intended to represent and offset a portion of that potential time that they’re waiting between assignments?

Hon. H. Bains: Because of the complexity that I said, no one was there to say that this is exactly what the waiting period is, this is exactly what 20 percent will compensate for. But the recognition was there that there is a waiting period. Legitimately, drivers are waiting.

In recognition of that, Uber and UFCW believe 20 percent would cover all of it or part of it, but we will not know until we have the entire data available to us. Like I said before, we will monitor and see what data is available, and then we will see if there are gaps still.

Again, to this House, 120 percent is the floor. I mean, if the drivers are making more money, good for them. The idea here is that, over the pay period, if their earnings are less than 120 percent, then the platform companies will make up the difference by topping it up.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that. The minister has been clear, and I would agree that there are many complexities. I did hear, in a previous answer, the minister indicating that the 20 percent was intended to cover a portion of the wait time, maybe not in its entirety.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think for those who are listening at home, if the base wage rate, minimum wage in the province, is $16.75 an hour, the 20 percent roughly reflects a little over $3 an hour, an additional premium that would be reflective on account of this 20 percent increase.

Now, I think it is important, and I appreciate the minister has engaged and now recognized the complexity of individuals that may be working with multiple apps open at the same time. Obviously, with private contractors as they currently are, having the ability to refuse the next job, not being required to take the next job, which would increase the waiting time that an individual may have….

As I’ve heard from both ride-hailers and food delivery service apps, they may choose, for a varying number of personal reasons, why they may not take that next delivery. They may be looking for a ride that’s going into another jurisdiction or another area.

But having said that, I think it is important for us to have a better understanding from the minister and this government if it is the intention for this premium, which I appreciate is now currently 20 percent…. The Minister has indicated that that would be subject to review, likely, as they start to monitor the amount of data they can collect over the maybe months or years ahead. But I think it is important to have an understanding.

Is it the intention that the premium would be to offset the entirety of the average wait time that you may see between individuals working in the sector, between job assignments, or if it is only intended to provide a portion thereof? If the minister could just provide some clarity on that.

Hon. H. Bains: I think I answered the question last time. Not knowing exactly what the wait time is and at least one company agreeing to pay 120 percent along with one of the unions, I recognize that there is a waiting period. How much waiting period? Will 20 percent cover the entirety of it or a portion of it? We’ll find out, I guess, when we monitor and collect the data.

That’s the best answer that I could give you. It is to recognize that there is a waiting period. It may not cover the entire waiting period. It may be a portion of it. But until we have that data for us to compare, it’s hard to know what portion of this 20 percent will cover, if it’s the entirety or not.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the candour of the minister, and I certainly appreciate where we’re at. The challenge is because the detail is not here in the legislation. That’s why I think it’s really important to get on the record what the intention is.

I’ll pose the question this way. If there was empirical data that determined that the average wait time of drivers between assignments was 30 percent, would the minister be recognizing or recommending a 30 percent increase at this point in time?

Hon. H. Bains: At this time, we have made a decision that 120 percent is the number to go with. Then, like I said before, we will monitor the next six months to a year to see what data is available to us. Based on that data, we will sit down with the companies again.

Again, there is no intention by me or this government to make a decision behind closed doors and just come up with a number.

The idea is…. Like we did before, we will meet with and engage with the platform companies and the workers and their advocates and see what numbers are actually provided by the data. If there are still some gaps, then we will engage with them, and we’ll make that decision at that time.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that, but the situation that the minister has referenced is exactly what has happened. The minister has made an arbitrary decision, not based on empirical data or fact. The minister has indicated that “When we decided….”

The “we” — maybe the minister can share specifically who that is. My suggestion is that “we” is likely that this minister and his government have made the determination. Based on the reference that the minister has shared, it was the rate that’s been applied in California and a rate that a union organization has actually suggested and recommended to the minister.

[3:45 p.m.]

A couple of questions come to mind. One is: can the minister confirm, on the record, when the minister references “We have decided,” specifically who “we” is? Then also, as that empirical data is determined and collected over the next number of months or years, if that number….

I have suggested that if the minister was provided with data that showed that 30 percent was the average wait time, would that number be 30 percent? Likewise, if that data in the future shows that it’s only 15 percent, would ride-hail delivery drivers and service delivery drivers potentially expect a 5 percent reduction, or is 20 percent the floor, and we will only, potentially, see incremental increases above that?

Again, none of the details are in the legislation. We have to take the minister and this government at their word, going forward. So I’m hoping the minister can provide just a bit more comment on those two specific areas.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member is moving about a year ahead of himself. I have said that we will monitor, and we will make those decisions at that time.

G. Kyllo: Well, look. The details are not in the legislation. The minister is sharing with us that, largely, he and his ministry have not undertaken the effort to clearly identify and determine what that wait period time is now. He’s indicating and trying to, I guess, provide some comfort that that work is going to be done. I appreciate that work will likely be done in the next month or, if the minister says I’m a year ahead of myself….

A year from now, when the minister is armed with all of the information, the empirical data that he’s referencing today, if that number is higher than 20 percent or lower than 20 percent, will the minister undertake to implement an adjustment?

Nothing in this legislation sets out the 20 percent the minister or this government…. It could be 50 percent next year, for all we know. The minister has certainly indicated it will be 20 percent, but there’s nothing that actually would require the government to only put forward a 20 percent increase next year.

I certainly take the minister at his word. He has done some work as far as listening to UFCW, I believe it is, a union organization, and maybe looking to California state for some recommendation. But that 20 percent number — my guess is that the data will clearly show it different a year from now. Could be higher; could be lower.

Is the minister indicating that he would undertake an adjustment of that rate, based on the data that is actually uncovered within the next year?

Hon. H. Bains: Difficult to decide today what will happen six months, a year down the road — what data is available. Even today there were some who were going for higher numbers. They believe that they have done some work, and it should be 167 percent. Others say it should be lower.

But we looked at California. We talked to Uber. We talked to UFCW — not just UFCW; Uber as well — who believe 120 percent reflects a reasonable amount to deal with the wait times. So that is a beginning.

I may add that we’re the only jurisdiction in Canada that is going through this and going to implement this. No one has done this. Ontario has brought the legislation, but it’s not implemented. It is sitting there.

I think I can say very proudly that these workers needed protection, and we are providing that protection as a first step. We will monitor, and then we will see if gaps are still there. So 120 percent is the amount, after discussing with the platform companies and others to see what is the reasonable amount. We came up with 120 percent — that this is the right start.

Again, more data comes as more data comes. And if it shows that we need to make a decision at that time, we will leave it at that time and make that decision at that time — not today for something that may happen six months, a year down the road.

[3:50 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Lookit, I appreciate the response from the minister, but there’s nothing in the legislation that indi­cates it actually will be 20 percent.

Can the minister comment? Does this government not have the ability, when they actually implement the premium, for it to be a number other than 120 percent?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I have assured the member that after consultation, listening to all sides, we believe the 120 percent is the right amount, and we will implement 120 percent through regulations.

There’s no other number right now.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the minister confirming that.

Both ride-hail, delivery-service providers, those working in the sector — can they have the assurance of this government that should the empirical data a year from now indicate that there’s either an increase in the average wait time or a decrease in the average wait time, that there would be an adjustment, or as I had proposed earlier, is it the anticipation of the minister and his government that the baseline would be 120 percent, and there would only be adjustments if it was going to be increasing, not decreasing?

Hon. H. Bains: I have answered the question more than once. I will repeat that one last time again. Once we have the data available to us, those decisions will be made at that time.

G. Kyllo: The minister, in his response, has referenced a couple of times the complexity of trying to determine what the average wait time for a driver may be.

Anticipate a driver might be working for company X, Y or Z. They may have three different apps open on their phone. They may choose to engage with one or multiple at the same time. How does the minister believe there will be the ability of properly identifying the wait time that’s associated with the time that an individual is engaged with a single company when they may be working over multiple platforms?

Certainly, I gave this some thought. The three different companies are not going to be sharing in any way, shape or form or identifying which individual may be working on their apps at a different time. So the challenge that I, certainly, believe exists…. Maybe the minister has thought of this, and maybe staff have come up with a creative way.

If I’m an employee working for company X and I choose to take two rides over a one-hour period…. I can show that I started my shift at 10 a.m. My first delivery was dropped off at 10:20. I took another ride until, say, 10:40. I was finished that ride at 10:50. I only booked 30 minutes of work in a one-hour period. On face value, it would look like I have over a 50 percent wait time. But what would not show on that record is the fact that with another company that same individual may have worked two different or three different small lifts within that same period.

I think the real challenge will be…. The minister has indicated to us today that that data will be collected, and rest assured we’ll have more information. Can the minister share how he or staff have determined the ability to actually carve out the raw data, where individuals have that choice, that very important choice, one of the most important choices they have in undertaking this type of work — the flexibility of choosing which ride or which delivery they’re going to take at a given time?

As the minister has indicated the importance and the necessity of tabulating and collecting this data, how is it that government has made the determination of being able to pull out that raw data in its aggregate so that it’s not necessarily skewed by individuals working on multiple apps, as the minister himself has recognized is extremely complex?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member answered some of his earlier questions with this last question, recognizing the complexity. The platform companies also, when we were engaging with them, told us the same thing — those challenges. That’s why 120 percent for the engaged time was proposed.

If they are able to provide us better, more succinct data, then we will look at it at that time. Again, it all depends on what kind of data we are able to collect and what they are able to collect that can identify what exactly the waiting time is. That’s why the 120 percent formula, I think, was created rather than they’re waiting 20 percent and now there should be extra money for that. Or they’re waiting 10 percent, there should be extra….

That is the complexity that I talked about earlier, and the member repeated in his question. The 120 percent formula offered by one company, by one of the unions — we believe that is the right amount at this time. Going forward, let’s see what kind of data is available. Those decisions will be made at that time.

G. Kyllo: Well, look, the 20 percent number that is being proposed today by the minister…. Of course, it’s not in the legislation, so we have to trust government and the minister at his word, and I have every intention to do that. But that is an arbitrary number. That is not a number that is based on any empirical data, any formulation, any review of even 50 or 100 different drivers.

This is a number that government has picked up based on a number that was determined in California. Who knows how they arrived at that number? Unless we can see what empirical data they actually derive from that, it’s kind of anecdotal. It’s just a number that California used.

The recommendation, apparently, of Uber, supported by UFCW, a union, is 20 percent. Haven’t heard from Lyft or maybe DoorDash or some of the other food delivery companies that are in this space. Fair enough. I’m okay with 20 percent. But for those listening, 20 percent is an arbitrary number that has been selected by this government without any basis in fact.

The minister has indicated that there will be future adjustments after they can collect the data, but the minister, from his own admission, has indicated it’s very complex. I proposed…. As we know, a significant number of drivers work multiple platforms at the same time, and the minister has yet to be able to provide any confidence that there’s even the mechanism by which they can collect the data in such a way that it would be useful.

I gave an example of a driver that may only book 30 minutes in a one-hour period with a specific company. Now, that on its face value would reflect up to a 50 percent wait time. But what’s unknown and that there will be no ability for government, from what I can see, to be able to determine is that that same individual worked over those same time periods for different companies.

Now, if the minister and his staff have come up with a clever way of doing that and ensuring that individuals working in this space, if they are working for multiple apps at the same time, which we know is customary in this space…. If the minister can share that his staff have found a way to ensure that the data that’s coming in is going to provide the basis for future evaluations, I would certainly appreciate hearing that now.

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: I think we are starting to get a little bit repetitive, just as a caution. I think we’ve travelled this route a few times. I will certainly, if the minister wants to address this…. But I think I’ve heard this question a few times now.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate your advice. It’s not through a desire of wanting to be repetitive. It’s from a lack of concise answers from the minister, which is creating the opportunity, I guess, to continue to seek out how it is that the minister is going to be able to determine what the appropriate percentage is going to be, to reflect the wait time between assignments in the future, when the minister’s own admission has indicated, it appears, the inability to actually determine what that is.

Now, I’m looking at a document, the backgrounder that the minister has provided, which I think will kind of set, largely, some of the work that will be undertaken in regulation. This comes right back to this 20 percent number. With respect to the minimum wage piece, it references platform companies. I would anticipate that as: platform companies shall, going forward, top up the difference when the earnings paid in a pay period do not meet the minimum earning standard for the engaged time worked.

Can the minister just confirm, with respect to the engaged work time, how that calculation will be determined? What is the requirement for the reporting of that information from these different companies to government? Is this something that will be a mandatory requirement for reporting? Or is this something that these ride app-based companies will only have to make available to either employees or to government?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The platform companies will be re­quired to provide a statement of earnings every pay period, at least biweekly, showing their earnings, their deductions and tips. So if, during this pay period, their earnings are less than 120 percent of the B.C. minimum wage, then the platform company will be required to top up the difference to make up the gap.

G. Kyllo: Just to clarify, it is the intention that for the engaged time…. The engaged time, as identified in the actual minister’s release, is the time from which an order or a ride is accepted until that ride is concluded.

Maybe just for clarity…. Actually, for my purposes…. Maybe the minister already has asked this question, but is the ride deemed to be concluded when the ride-hail company arrives at their destination to drop off, or is it determined once the passenger is out of the vehicle and luggage is all removed from the vehicle and then the driver is back in the vehicle? Just to get a bit better understanding of where that measurement starts and where it stops.

Hon. H. Bains: So we know exactly what “engaged time” means, it would be that the engaged time begins when a worker accepts an assignment through its completion.

G. Kyllo: I’m just looking to the minister for a bit of clarity. Completion. Do the ride-hail companies determine completion when the car arrives at the destination? Is there an allotment for individuals to get out of the vehicle and unload the luggage?

I think this is important. If you’ve got a twenty-minute trip, it can easily take two to three minutes for getting somebody out of the vehicle, which could be like a 15 percent increase in time. We’ve established a minimum wage rate based on 20 percent based on an arbitrary number.

I just want to get a bit more clarity, if the minister can. When is it determined that the assignment is complete? That “assignment complete” could be different based on the number of passengers, the age or maybe complexity of the riders that might be with somebody. I just think it would be important, I think, for ride-hail companies to have a clear understanding. Does the minister’s interpretation of the end of assignment match up with what is currently tracked by the ride-hail companies?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member wants to get into very, very fine details.

The driver reached the destination. Now, is the passenger completely out of the car? The luggage is in the trunk, now the trunk is open, they’ve taken it out, put it down. Does that end there? I mean, these people work out there every day. Taxis work out there every day.

They know when the meter stops. They know when the meter starts. I mean, let’s give them some credit, because these are all credible people. The driver will turn the app on soon. Soon they receive the assignment, and then soon that assignment is completed.

[4:10 p.m.]

If I was a driver, I would deliver the person to the address. The person is out. The luggage is out. The passenger has got the luggage. I’m back in my car and turned the app off. I don’t know what the other drivers do. I guess the driver will advise the company that the assignment is completed.

Half a minute here. Two minutes on one side. I can’t answer all those questions.

We will leave it to the director, if it goes to the employment standards branch for a complaint, when the assignment actually began and when it was completed. That’s the language that we’re proposing.

I will read that one more time. The engagement time begins “when a worker accepts an assignment through its completion.”

G. Kyllo: Look, I’m certainly not trying to be cute. I think it is incredibly important to establish clearly what is intended by the completion of the assignment.

Now, I don’t know…. I have not asked the ride-hail companies. I’m assuming, with all of the work that the minister and staff have undertaken with the consultation and the engagement with the industries….

Can the minister share with us how the ride-hail companies currently determine the completion of an assignment? Is it when the car actually rolls up at the destination and puts the vehicle into park? Is that when the assignment is deemed completed and measured by the ride-hail companies? That would be my suggestion, likely, on how they determine when the ride is complete.

The minister suggested…. Maybe it’s up to the driver to make their own determination on how long it takes them to get the passengers out and get the luggage moved to curbside, which I’m assuming could be two to three minutes quite easily. It is important, and I think that there’s a lack of clarity.

The minister has provided the definition, but I think we need some clarity on the definition. When is the end of an assignment? Does that include the time it takes to get the individuals and the luggage out of the vehicle? Or is it only when the vehicle actually arrives at the site? That would be my suggestion on how ride-hail companies are, likely, currently tracking the data.

I’ll leave it to the minister to provide that clarity. I’m sure that he has undertaken to get that clarity directly from the ride-hail companies.

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I could go by…. That work goes on now. Workers are being paid.

At least one company gave us the same definition that I’m repeating here. They said that engaged time consists of the time from when a worker accepts a request for services to when the worker fulfils that request. The companies understand what that means, and workers know what that means. So I’ll leave it with them.

We will be developing regulations. We will be engaging platform companies and drivers again to make sure that they all understand what this actually means.

G. Kyllo: Hon. Chair, I think you can appreciate, maybe, the repetitiveness.

The question is…. I certainly hope that the minister and staff have actually made the determination. When ride-hail companies currently track the time frame of a specific ride…. Is the end time that’s currently calculated by ride-hail companies when the car arrives at the destination, or is it a time later than that, when the driver makes their own determination to hit the screen and indicate that the work is complete?

The Chair: I do caution the member again. We are starting to get very repetitive in asking, basically, the same question a few times. If the member is able to look for other questions that might achieve the same result that he’s looking for, the table certainly would appreciate it.

Next question, Member.

[4:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, that is unfortunate.

I can only imagine the amount of staff time and effort that was undertaken as part of this consultation process. Something as imperative, I think, as a clear understanding of what this time frame is for engaged time….

The minister and his staff either are unwilling or unable to provide some clarity with respect to how ride-hail service companies currently track the end time of when a work assignment is complete. However, in the absence of an answer….

The minister had referenced earlier, with respect to the 20 percent, and these were the minister’s words: “When we decided on the 20 percent.” Can the minister clarify, when he references “we,” who specifically we is? Was we the minister, with advice from staff, or was this a deter­mination that actually went up for discussion at cabinet?

Hon. H. Bains: We here means our government.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you. I think that’s important.

I do appreciate that the minister is a senior member of his government. I assumed that was the case. It wasn’t the minister acting alone when he says “we.” It was he along with his entire government, which would be the executive council.

Now, with respect to the challenge around multiple employers…. The minister has indicated, and I think we all recognize, that a large part of the desire of individuals that work in this specific space or this sector is the opportunity to work for multiple employers at different times.

Last week on Thursday, before we left this House, the leader of the Green Party raised a number of questions around paid sick leave and how that may apply to this specific set of workers. The minister had provided some indi­cation that paid sick leave would be a benefit that would be eligible to workers in the space.

I did not have a chance to ask that question. Can the minister just confirm if paid sick leave will be an entitlement that would flow to this subset of workers that are covered under this bill?

The Chair: Of course, if questions have been asked and answered on the record…. I would refer members to those questions, just to benefit the House and not repeat the same questions which have already been asked and answered, as the member identified.

If there is a change to the question or something more he needs help with, that’s great. Otherwise, I would refer him to the Hansard record, as he himself did.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, as always, hon. Chair.

With respect to paid sick leave…. We have talked about multiple employers. Should paid sick leave benefits flow to this subset of workers…. Would the current legislation covering paid sick leave equally apply where an individual working for three different companies ultimately would be eligible for up to five paid sick days for each of those three individual employers?

Hon. H. Bains: This question was asked and was debated. It took some time. They were very good questions by the member at that time, the Leader of the Third Party.

I suggest that the member should look at that. If he had had the opportunity to listen to the questions and answers provided, he probably wouldn’t be asking this question right now.

G. Kyllo: Well, okay, with all due respect, I don’t know that I heard a concise answer from the minister with respect to that. We do know that paid sick leave, I believe, is based on an average day of pay.

[4:20 p.m.]

I know that this particular area of inquiry was not covered last week. So I do hope that the minister will engage with a response.

With respect to this subset of workers, would paid sick leave be based on the average pay rate excluding tips, or would an average day of paid sick leave include both the base wage rate at the 120 percent and the tips that might be earned by a driver or delivery service provider during the same shift?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member could go back to Thursday’s discussion at 4:30. This question was answered, but I will explain it to the member one more time.

Standards in the following areas will not be established at this time under the ESA for ride-hailing and food delivery workers, but government will continue to monitor these areas: hours of work and overtime, statutory holidays, paid leaves and annual vacations.

So these areas do not apply to the workers that we are talking about here under this bill.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that clarification.

It was my understanding that paid sick leave would apply to this set of workers. Can the minister indicate or reflect on why it was the minister’s decision to deny this subset of workers paid sick leave?

Hon. H. Bains: That question was asked, and at 4:30 on Thursday, it was answered.

G. Kyllo: With respect to this category of workers that has been identified, the minister, in his previous answer, had indicated that one of the requirements for the Lyft or food service delivery companies will be to track and to report out, at least biweekly, to the workers their earnings, deductions and tips.

When the minister referenced deductions, can the minister provide some clarity on what specifically those deductions may or may not be?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: When we met with the workers, they identified that one of the key concerns was the lack of pay transparency. So this will require companies now to show what their total earnings were and then whatever the deductions are. So now the driver will know.

What those deductions are, I think, depends on the company. There could be some fees. If they’re a member of the union, usually, union dues are deducted. Whatever else — I have no clue what would be deducted, but at least drivers will know what their earnings were, what the company’s fees were, what their pay is and what the tip was.

That’s what they were asking us, and that’s what the platform company will be required to do now.

G. Kyllo: Through the consultation process, can the minister confirm if there was a request to the different companies, or even from some of the different subcontractors that might have participated in the consultation…? Did they provide any copies of what they currently are receiving from their employer to identify how they’re tracking the work engagement, the assignment time, the pay-per-ride tip function? Was there an effort undertaken by the minister and his staff to assess and actually look at the current information that is being provided by these app-based companies to their subcontractors?

Hon. H. Bains: The staff engaged with the platform companies, and there was no consistency across. Some would show that they provide some information to the drivers; others do a different way of reaching the drivers. And drivers — sometimes they see some deductions; sometimes they don’t, depending on where they are, who the company is.

That’s why they all said that there has to be pay transparency. They need to know what their total earnings were, and they need to know what deductions are and the reason for those deductions, and what the tip was. They need to know how much tip was paid and how much was actually deposited in their account.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I think those are the questions that were raised. The companies recognized, and they agreed that that’s the kind of direction that they could go and that they will work with us. So I think that’s what we are trying to achieve here so that the workers will know what their earnings were, what the deductions are, what the reasons are for those deductions and what their net pay is.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister provide an overview or maybe two or three of the deductions that drivers could currently be incurring from ride-hail companies? I think the minister referenced a couple. One could be, potentially, a union due. The other — the minister referenced a fee.

I’m not familiar with the actual pay rate and how Uber or food delivery service drivers engage with the app.

[4:30 p.m.]

Can the minister set out…? Is there an already accepted level of fees or a number of different fees that are currently deducted or charged to these drivers, that the minister would feel would be right or just and will not be changing at all, associated with the new legislation?

I think the reason it’s important for that clarity is, for example, the minister has referenced the eligibility of workers for WorkSafeBC coverage. That will be an additional cost, but I think that we can appreciate — certainly it would be my understanding — that that cost would not flow back to the employees.

Maybe that is an approved fee. If there’s a 2 percent fee associated with WorkSafeBC coverage protection for workers, as long as the app-based company is paying these employees a rate which exceeds the minimum wage rate, does that ability for those companies to charge that premium back to the worker…?

I just wanted to see if the minister has given that some thought and if he can just clarify what would be understood or recognized as approved fees that ride-hail or food-delivery companies could pass on to their subcontractors, which now, under this legislation, are going to be deemed to be employees.

Hon. H. Bains: Let’s be clear. The companies have a different formula for how they calculate drivers’ earnings from any given assignment. What we are doing here is establishing a minimum standard of 120 percent of the minimum wage over a payroll period. That’s all we are doing here. We’re not determining how companies pay, what percentage they pay, what they keep. That’s not part of this bill. It’s 120 percent of minimum wage.

As far as the WCB is concerned, just like other employers, they will register their employees with WorkSafeBC, pay premiums on their behalf and work it out with WorkSafeBC, and drivers will not pay into the WCB for their own protection.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much. I appreciate the clarification from the minister.

I think it is important that we’re having this time to clearly identify what some of these additional fees are and, also, the expectation that WorkSafeBC-related premiums would not be charged back to this new classification of subcontractors now being determined to be employees.

Now, I know that for most employers, if you pay a subcontractor, you can pay that subcontractor whatever their fee-for-service is, maybe plus GST, and that’s the end of it. However, as soon as a subcontractor is deemed to be an employee, there’s an entirely different shift of responsibility when it comes to employee source deductions — employment insurance benefits, Canada Pension Plan contributions.

Can the minister confirm and clarify that although these subcontractors are now going to be deemed to be employees, there would not be the requirement of the employers to deduct source deductions for federal or provincial taxes, CPP contributions or employment insurance benefits?

Hon. H. Bains: The member keeps on talking about contractors and subcontractors. So that we are clear here, for the purpose of the Employment Standards Act and for the Workers Compensation Act, they are considered employees. That’s what we are doing through this bill. It’s clearly listed here.

[4:35 p.m.]

When it comes to WCB coverage, they will be treated just like any other company and their employees, how they are covered. The employer pays the premium.

We talked about employment standards. There is a minimum standard of 120 percent of the minimum wage during the engaged time. That’s what we are doing here. What the other deductions are is up to the CRA or whatever other statutory authorities are out there.

If they determine to engage with these companies and they wish to do that, they can do that, but that’s outside of my jurisdiction. We are only talking about the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act. For those two acts’ purpose, they are considered employees, and they will be treated as employees for the area that we are trying to address here.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the clarity. Although the minister is trying to clarify and answer, it actually opens up a whole bunch of additional lines of inquiry.

The minister indicated that it was his government that actually made the determination of the 120 percent. I also appreciate that it likely was his government in its entirety that made the determination that this is appropriate legislation. Did the minister engage with the Minister of Finance in any way, shape or form to ask or request a determination in changing the reference of a subcontractor, deemed to be now an employee under this legislation? Will that also entail a change, in the view of the Minister of Finance, with respect to a subcontractor or an employee?

That relationship with an employer is very, very different. An employer does not have the choice of choosing to not do source deductions. That’s provincial tax. That’s federal income tax. That’s CPP or EI. Did the minister engage with the Minister of Finance to ensure clarity that the bill that’s before us will not negatively change the current relationship with the employers and the subcontractors, app drivers, with respect to source deductions?

Hon. H. Bains: The Ministry of Finance makes their own decisions as far as their relationship with the employers of this province.

What we are doing through this bill is changing two acts — one is the Employment Standards Act, and the other one is the Workers Compensation Act — and providing minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act and coverage through the Workers Compensation Act. But the relationship with the Minister of Finance and this company or that company or other companies, that’s the decision they make.

[4:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: I’m absolutely amazed. The fundamental change the minister is bringing forward, to change the relationship of ride-hail subcontractors, for those that are also participating in the food delivery business, that identification of a subcontractor…. Changing that relationship with the employer to an employee relationship is a fundamental shift.

I appreciate that the minister is concerned about those workers having access to WorkSafeBC coverage, which I agree with. The minister is also engaged to identify and establish a minimum wage rate that is 20 percent higher than the current minimum wage, which I’m sure that most ride-hail delivery subcontractors currently would see as an increase or an improvement.

But if the minister has not even undertaken any dialogue or inquiry with the Minister of Finance to make a determination if this employer-employee relationship will now put the onus or responsibility and requirement on the ride app companies or delivery app companies to undertake source deductions….

Look, even at $10,000 a year in income, you’re paying a minimum 18 percent provincial tax, let alone CPP, EI contributions, all those other factors. Individuals working in this space, I’m sure, will be livid if they only find out six or 12 months from now that the efforts undertaken by this legislation and by this government are going to require the employer to undertake source deductions on their behalf.

I hope that the minister can provide a letter or clarity that he is engaged directly with another member of his cabinet to ensure that the current relationship and the requirement, or the lack of requirement, for employers to withhold source deductions — that that will not happen.

With all due respect to the minister, to hear that the minister hasn’t engaged with the Minister of Finance and is somehow thinking that, “Well, that’s a decision, maybe, down the road,” I’ll tell you what. If these individuals working in this space find out six or 12 months from now that they’re going to be nailed with source deductions, this minister is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

This is why it is so important that we provide this opportunity to ask questions in this Legislature. I hope the minister can provide the clarity that I believe workers in this space are going to be looking for.

Hon. H. Bains: Let’s make one thing clear. We’re making changes to the Employment Standards Act and to the Workers Compensation Act. Under these two, they are considered employees for the purpose of this bill. What their status is under any other law doesn’t get changed.

G. Kyllo: We hear, frequently, the unintended consequences of legislation. This legislation has not been well thought out.

Maybe I’ll pose the question this way: when the minister and his staff engaged with individuals working in this space, was there a conversation in any way, shape or form to the workers that are working in this space to indicate that these changes potentially may change that employer-subcontractor relationship and actually result, potentially, in source deductions having to be undertaken by their employers on their behalf?

Hon. H. Bains: I answered this question, but I will do that one more time.

Under this bill, the platform-based employees, for the purpose of the Employment Standards Act, which we are amending here, and for the purpose of the Workers Compensation Act, which we are amending here, will be considered employees. Their status in any other law doesn’t get changed by what we are doing here. So there was no need for me to engage anybody else.

[4:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated that these specific changes will not change…. From what I’m hearing from the minister, it will not change the current relationship between the ride-hail companies or the food service delivery companies and the subcontractors when it comes to the requirement of source deductions.

This is a very important issue, so can the minister confirm that payments from these ride-hail service delivery companies to the current subcontractors who, under this legislation, will, in the future, be employees — that there will not be a requirement for source deductions to be undertaken by those app-based companies on behalf of this new classification of worker?

Hon. H. Bains: Let’s try one more time.

Workers will be considered employees for the purpose of this bill, the Employment Standards Act and for the Workers Compensation Act. That’s one thing clear. Whether they are considered contractors, subcontractors or employees under any other law doesn’t get changed by this bill. The CRA makes their own decisions. The Ministry of Finance makes their own decisions.

What we are doing here is setting minimum standards and pay transparency under the Employment Standards Act, a minimum standard of 120 percent of minimum wage over a pay period. What their earnings will be and what their deductions will be, as is happening today, will be now consistent. There will be a standard practice now, among the companies, for what their earnings are and what their deductions are. Now the workers will know, and if their earnings are less than 120 percent over a pay period, then platform companies will be required to top up and make the difference.

That’s what we are doing here with this bill.

G. Kyllo: I believe that the change in classifications that is reflected in this legislation will change the interpretation and the decision of the Minister of Finance and CRA when it comes to the responsibility of employers to withhold source deductions for employees, employees that are covered under the employment standards branch.

Now, unless the minister is willing to provide a different response or confirm that they will not be, it certainly would be my understanding, based on this legislation and the response from the minister, that this new classification of employee will be subject to source deductions from these ride-based companies, which will fundamentally change, in a large, large way, the relationship that these individuals have and the amount of pay remuneration that they get in the gross total.

If these ride-based companies now have to undertake source deductions for provincial and federal income tax, CPP, EI — you don’t get to opt out of these things — employer health tax, all of those costs…. This small number the minister has referenced about a 20 percent increase in the minimum wage rate will be far surpassed by the amount of source deductions, and this classification of worker will end up with a huge pay cut or a haircut at the end of the day.

Can the minister confirm that these workers now identified under this legislation will not be subject to source deductions with respect to either CRA or the Minister of Finance?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I answered this question more than once, and he could just read the answer to his last question.

G. Kyllo: Well, there has been no clarity provided from the minister. It is unfortunate that the minister is unable to confirm or provide any confidence to the 50,000-odd-plus workers working in the space that they will not be now subject to source deductions based on their gross aggregate pay — costs associated with CPP, EI, employer health tax.

The minister has not provided any clarification or confidence to these workers that their relationship with their employer is now not going to be fundamentally changed. Both the Minister of Finance or CRA will now deem this new classification of workers as an employee, in which case they would be subject to source deductions. It’s incredibly concerning.

I’ll give the minister one more time to hopefully provide some confirmation to the significant number of workers. The minister talks about these efforts being undertaken to improve working conditions. I commend that. However, the unintended consequence I can certainly see from this legislation is it’ll now oppose a significant change in that relationship and also result in a significant increase in deductions that are taken by their employer on their behalf, resulting in a significant decrease in the net pay that these workers are receiving on a biweekly basis.

Hon. H. Bains: I answered this question more than once.

The Chair: Thank you. I would remind the member that the minister has indicated he feels he’s answered the question. If we could move along.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I always appreciate your very sage advice. However, the minister has yet to provide any clarification. Maybe I’ll pose the question this way.

Would the minister agree or commit, and maybe even just agree, that it’s a good idea to maybe reach out both to his Minister of Finance, who he probably sits with on a daily basis, and CRA to get their interpretation of the implications of this change in legislation and how it may impact that employer-subcontractor relationship, now to be employer-employee relationship?

Hon. H. Bains: Madam Chair, the question has been answered.

G. Kyllo: How very unfortunate. Not only does the minister not have the answer, he’s not even willing to undertake the request to provide that certainty, that clarity, for a classification of workers that he has advised and indicated he’s out to help.

If this classification of workers find out that they’re going to be subject to source deductions that result in a 20 or 25 percent reduction in net pay into their bank account every two weeks, I think this minister is going to be creating more enemies than friends in the sector.

Having said that, I’ll certainly do what I can to try and find out from CRA. If this minister is unwilling to do the work on behalf of this sector of workers, I’ll even send a letter to the Minister of Finance to seek that clarity, because it is incredibly important.

These workers will be looking for some confidence, some clarity. That’s the whole purpose of this opportunity for the opposition to ask questions, to find out what the unintended consequences are: what has government not thought of?

Here, either the minister has the number and finds it’s going to be very uncomfortable so is not sharing, which I hope is not the case, or he just hasn’t even thought about it.

[4:55 p.m.]

Well, how could you undertake months and months of consultation with workers, not undertake the very important effort to segregate the data of the different classifications of workers, the different input that was provided, and then to come forward with a piece of legislation with this lack of ability to provide clarity to a subset of workers that this bill is intended to support?

Moving on, the minister had referenced some of, they would be, I think, maybe, determined costs or discretionary costs. I think we have identified the different cost structure that may affect those that might be doing restaurant deliveries, which could be on a bicycle or maybe an e-bike or maybe in a small, beat-up vehicle where there’s no requirement for luxury, and those that might be driving for some of the ride-hail companies that have a different standard of the level of cost associated with the vehicle that would be acceptable for that line of work as well as the ongoing maintenance, fuel costs and otherwise.

I believe the minister’s second reading remarks referenced the high cost of fuel as an example of one of the things that individuals in this sector may have to pay.

The minister has referenced the need or necessity for these workers to be able to levy some form of expense against these app-based companies. Can the minister lay out what are some of the expenses that have been identified through their consultation process with the 1,000-plus individuals that responded? Just thinking off the top of my head, I think of insurance, maybe vehicle maintenance, tires, oil changes. And then insurance is likely a fairly large cost as well.

Has the minister and his staff turned their mind to those expenses and what the different line items are that may form part of that evaluation? And has the minister or his staff at this time looked to other jurisdictions to determine what they believe to be fair or representative as far as a charge, whether that’s based on an hour of engagement time or if it’s based on kilometres driven? Or what might be the different mechanisms to be employed in other jurisdictions around the globe?

Hon. H. Bains: So that we all are clear, this question also was asked on Thursday, and I answered it thoroughly. But for the purpose of this, I could say that right now, drivers do not get paid for their expenses to drive their car or e-bike or their bike to deliver food.

There is no pay transparency — what their total earnings were, what tip was paid; and there is no itemized information available to them, not in a standardized way. There’s no way for a driver, in case their app is deactivated, to put their case forward. There’s no standardized approach there either. There is WCB coverage. Sometimes some companies provide it through a private insurance company. In two cases, they went to WCB. One was accepted; the other one was not accepted.

We are now fixing all those areas, because those are the areas that the drivers brought to our attention, that are areas of concern. That’s what we’re doing here.

This question was asked, and I answered last Thursday that now it will be the regulation development time after we receive royal assent. That’s when this discussion will take place. We will consider the costs, e-bike versus pedal bike versus car, and what the formula should be.

[5:00 p.m.]

That’s what will take place between royal assent and when we finalize the regulations, in consultation with companies and the workers. That work will start after this week. I tried to explain that last week, and once again I will explain.

Yes, food delivery companies and food delivery workers use different means. Ride-hail almost all the time is cars. We need to learn more from the companies and from the drivers what the costs are in different models and in different modes of transportation. Then we will come up with a formula that hopefully will be acceptable to all parties.

G. Kyllo: Look, I appreciate the response from the minister, but because there is such little information in the legislation, everything will be left to government, to the minister and his staff and government to determine at a later date.

The 120 percent based on the minimum wage that we have been canvassing and having a significant amount of consultation and discussion on is not part of the legislation, but that has not prevented us from having that very important dialogue. The minister has been quite clear, obviously, and came out with this press release to let individuals know that this will be the amount that he has arrived at — 120 percent.

Yet when it comes to this other component, there’s been some general conversation, but this legislation will allow that opportunity for further regulatory change. As the minister has indicated in his backgrounder, when it comes to…. This is the Ministry of Labour backgrounder, under “Expenses,” bullet 1: “Establish an additional compensation standard to recognize the costs that workers incur when using a personal vehicle for work.”

I do believe that, currently, under the Employment Standards Act, there’s already a determination on what that might be. But apparently, it appears from this backgrounder that there’s going to be additional work to uncover or determine what that might be. Maybe that’s going to be similar or maybe different.

Then the other bullet point indicates: “The Ministry of Labour will be consulting with workers, platform companies and others to determine an appropriate compensation standard.” I appreciate we may not know what that may be. It would likely be different, I’m quite sure, with somebody riding a bicycle versus an old car that would be used for delivering meals versus what might be determined for somebody that’s driving for Uber or Lyft, as an example.

Has ministry staff had a look across different service provider areas or different jurisdictions around the globe to determine how they have been challenged and how they have, maybe, found resolution to addressing the vehicle maintenance or bicycle maintenance costs associated with workers in this particular sector?

Hon. H. Bains: All that work will be conducted during the consultation when we are developing regulations. There are different modes of transportation provided by these drivers. We will look at other jurisdictions. My staff has looked at other models. There are different models in different places.

[5:05 p.m.]

We need to sit down with the platform companies and come up with a formula that works for us here in British Columbia. Then we will engage the drivers, as well, and come up with a formula that, like I said, hopefully will work for the drivers and for the platform companies.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the efforts the minister and his staff may have undertaken to have a look at different jurisdictions, I can only assume that the majority would have had a look at a per kilometre driven-type formula.

However, because these individuals are now being deemed to be employees and the engagement time is based on hours, can the minister share if there are jurisdictions that choose to use it based on kilometers driven or those that might make the determination based on hours worked and if there’s any information that the minister might be able to share as far as which direction he and his staff may be considering at this point?

Hon. H. Bains: Those are different…. Recommendations come from different sides and different jurisdictions, and we will consider all of that and sit down with the platform companies and drivers and make sure we have a formula that will work for us here.

G. Kyllo: Has staff undertaken engagement with other jurisdictions or had a look even, at this point, to have a better understanding of how different jurisdictions have dealt with the expenses? I appreciate it’s a valid and a real expense. I appreciate the minister has indicated he’s yet to do that direct consultation with industry.

Has the minister or staff undertaken a cross-jurisdictional scan to have a look at how other jurisdictions are handling it, in order to get a bit better sense, before they undertake that consultation with industry?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, there are different models available in different jurisdictions — United States, Europe. Even within the United States, there are a number of different models. Some are kilometre-based. Others are built in their wages. So they are all over.

What we are looking at is engaging with the platform companies and the workers, looking at other jurisdictions, see if there’s one model, or we will develop our own. I think that’s the whole purpose, what works for us here in British Columbia.

That work will take place after the royal assent, during the development of regulations, and we will hopefully, by the new year…. Or early next year, I should say, we should have the regulations ready, and all that information will be available at that time.

G. Kyllo: I know that the minister indicated through the consultative process that the cost burden of insurance and vehicle expenses was certainly, I believe the minister indicated, one of the major areas of concern that were addressed or identified during the consultative process.

Does the minister or staff have any sense on what would be kind of the magnitude or the vehicle expenses say for Uber and Lyft and other drivers…? I don’t want to just indicate those specifically, but for the ride-hail companies that are active in the space, those workers that engage and express concerns about vehicle fuel, maintenance, insurance, was there any indication on what they estimated their daily cost was?

As a percentage of their income, did they feel that there was a requirement for an additional X percent in order to offset or cover those costs? Or was there just a recognition that those costs are increasing, and it’s actually starting to erode their gross dollars that they’re achieving on their current subcontractor relationship with these app-based companies?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said, through our engagement going forward, we would be collecting all that information, talking to drivers, talking to the platform companies, and then we will have sufficient information, hopefully. Then we will put those regulations together, and early next year, we would be having those regulations finalized, and drivers will know and platform companies will know what formula we are talking about.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

One of the other items that the minister has expressed and referenced is pay transparency. One of the items for the backgrounder for future engagement would be around what the minister has identified as tip protections. There’s a specific reference that says: “Prohibit platform companies from withholding tips or making deductions from tips.”

Does the minister have any examples where that has actually been the case, where platform companies have withheld tips or made deductions from tips?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: That was one of the areas of lack of pay transparency. Drivers, many of them, during those consultation sessions, told us they didn’t know how much tip was paid by the customer. They would know how much they received, but they did not know what the driver left for them.

We have a law in British Columbia that the employer cannot share tips with their employees unless they are working like a worker. Sometimes in mom-and-pop smaller restaurants and other places, the owners are working just side by side with the workers, and if the tips are there, they are shared in that situation. But if the employees are doing the employee work and the management is doing management work, then tips are to be protected, and they belong to the worker.

Same thing here. We are ensuring that our employment standard laws are there and that they are complied with. We want to make sure that the tip left for the driver goes to the driver in its entirety.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response. The minister gave the reference to or example of the restaurant industry, and I think that in the restaurant industry, many of them might have different protocols.

Some organizations or franchises might take the tip, and a certain percentage may go to the cooks. A certain percentage may go to maybe the other folks that are waiting on tables and doing the cleanup and the clear-up. I don’t know that the legislation is so specific that it indicates that 100 percent of any tip left must go to only that one server that dropped the tip on the table.

When it comes to ride-hail, is it the minister’s expectation that for any tips that are left, associated with either a delivery of food or a ride-hail, 100 percent of that tip would reside with the driver and that would be without deduction, or is there an acknowledgment that the service of the company in its entirety may be such that they may be eligible for a percentage?

I think that although the service provided by the driver is one thing…. But I know, for myself — I’ve been waiting in the rain — a car that arrives within two minutes is certainly going to get a bit bigger tip than a car that may be 20 minutes later.

It’s a bit of a nuance, but I want to get a bit of a sense, from the minister’s perspective: is it the expectation or anticipation that 100 percent of the tips would reside with the driver or the food service delivery driver?

Hon. H. Bains: There is language in the Employment Standards Act dealing with tips, and in this particular case, the tip that is left for the driver will go to the driver in its entirety.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate it. I assumed that was likely the case, but I thought it was worthwhile just to get it on the record.

With respect to destination transparency, the backgrounder references that platform companies would be required to provide all pickup and delivery locations for each assignment. And it notes that this will allow workers to assess the desirability and safety of assignments before accepting them.

I certainly appreciate that the current arrangement with the subcontractor relationship does provide the autonomy or the ability for a subcontractor to choose which rides they may or may not take.

[5:20 p.m.]

When it comes to this fundamental change in the employer-employee relationship, I’m wondering. Has the minister given consideration to how these different app-based companies or platforms are going to be able to manage individuals that are now deemed to be employees that might choose to refuse work?

I appreciate, maybe delivering into a certain location after hours, some people may perceive that as more dangerous than others. But who makes that determination? Because I know there is very strict language in the Employment Standards Act about refusal of work. Now, the reference here is that the refusal would be on a perceived concern. But I think….

I harken back to a time when I was in San Francisco years ago with one of my daughters at a boat show, and I could not get a taxicab to come into the Cow Palace after dark. I was stuck outside, in a very unsavoury neighbourhood, with my nine-year-old daughter, and nobody would come and pick us up.

I know that that is not the intention of this, but I just think that this fundamental change in the relationship between a subcontractor that can choose to do whatever they want…. But if these individuals are now deemed to be employees under this act….

Has there been any contemplation about those employees that may refuse work and what that opportunity or…? It’s a change in relationship. So if an employer asks an employee to go and pick up passenger Y at location X, do they have that right, and that ability, to refuse it? Does that potentially change?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, they’re considered employees for the purpose of these two acts: the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act.

As far as the pay transparency and destination transparency…. We talked about pay transparency; we’re now talking about the destination transparency. It is, again…. It exists now, but on and off. Some know what the destination is. Others don’t.

[5:25 p.m.]

We want to make sure that all drivers, when there’s an offer of assignment, will know what this assignment is, and they will have a choice, just like now. They will have a choice to take it, or there may be another driver who may feel that it’s more suitable for that driver. I think that’s what we are trying to do — make sure that they have the destination transparency, that they know the beginning and the end and the pay they are offered, as well, for that assignment. So they have a choice to accept or not to accept.

G. Kyllo: I would agree with the minister. I think it is important for individuals engaging in work to have a clear understanding of, obviously, where the pickup location is, but then also where the drop-off or destination is. I would agree with that.

The fundamental element of this bill, though, is changing that relationship between the subcontractor and the employer or the company. And, you know, a subcontractor can choose to take the work or refuse the work. There’s really no fundamental change with respect to the ongoing relationship now.

But as an employee, with this new classification of workers being determined as or identified as employees and being subject to the Employment Standards Act, there is a provision in the Employment Standards Act for refusal to accept work. In our opening discussions, there was a brief exchange or conversation about some of the fundamental changes.

If you think about a ride-hail company that may, potentially, have to do a top-up for a driver’s pay, should they choose to decline or have too much wait time before their next active assignment, I think you might see a change with those app-based companies, saying: “Well, hang on. If you want to wait 20 or 30 minutes and not take those next three or four rides and reduce your earnings over an hour period….” If that’s going to result in an increased incremental cost to the app-based company and the platform, you’ll likely see it shift.

The opportunity or, I guess, the opening that this legislative change has provided is that now, if these workers are indeed deemed to be employees, I don’t know…. Maybe the minister can clarify it for me. But I think the concern that I would certainly have is that if that ride-hail operator is now deemed to be an employee, and if I have a client in a certain pickup, and I’m saying, “Lookit, you need to go and pick that individual up,” and if that employee decides to refuse it, well, is that just cause for termination?

I do know that under the employment standards branch, refusal of work is cause. It’s deemed to be just cause for termination. I hope that the minister has given consideration to that. I hope he has. If not, what assurance can the minister provide the workers in this sector that this fundamental change won’t negatively impact their ability, currently, to deny and to not accept different rides without any retribution from the employer?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member may be confused. The right to refuse is not under the employment standard…. Maybe the member was talking about worker’s compensation, the worker’s right to refuse unsafe work.

What we are talking about here is that when the assignment appears on your phone app, it goes to everybody. Drivers are not assigned to a task by the employer, as compared to the regular employer-employee relationship.

[5:30 p.m.]

So here, that’s what the employer companies have told us. Then the drivers told us that they need that flexibility. That is built in here. The drivers will choose which assignments they want to take. But now we want to ensure that all platform companies will include that information — where the assignment starts, where the assignment ends and what the pay is.

Different drivers may pick different assignments, but they are not assigned for anything. That’s the flexibility that comes with this type of work. That’s why it’s different. That’s why there are different rules being developed here compared to the traditional employer-employee relationship.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister’s response. I am familiar with, under WorkSafeBC, the opportunity and ability for a worker to decline what they may see as unsafe work. But I think that where this draws…. And it’s worthy of some further inquiry.

The fact is that when you have a company that now will potentially have to provide a top-up should it be that a worker has not had enough income in an hourly period. Or let’s say over a four-hour period, if there’s not enough income generated in a four-hour period to establish and meet the requirement of the minimum wage plus 20 percent, there’s an expectation, as the minister has indicated, for that company to be on the hook to actually provide a top-up benefit to those employees to ensure that, at the very minimum, minimum wage plus 20 percent has been achieved over that four-hour period.

What is outside of the control of the current ride-hailing platform or delivery service company is how many orders or how many rides are actually accepted by that individual.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I can only imagine that there may be an individual who might sign on to an app, and they may take a ride, and then choose, for a whole slew of reasons, to maybe not take that next available ride. They may have 20 or 30 minutes of waiting time. If it turns out that that individual, over a four-hour period, is generating less income than is required to meet the minimum standard, the company then has to provide a top-up.

I can quite easily see where this relationship will change, and we’ll end up with ride-hail companies indicating that, “Look, you can’t continue to not accept the next available ride within your proximity,” and the employer will start potentially having to look to assign projects to some of the different individuals that have signed on. In which case…. I hope the minister can appreciate that this is a reality.

If the income generated by an individual over four hours is less than required to meet the minimum wage plus 20 percent and the company has to provide an additional top-up, at some point in time, those companies are going to be saying: “Hold on a second. These individuals are actually costing the company additional dollars, and there’s a lot of downtime.” As the employer, I certainly believe that they would have the opportunity of looking at making a change and actually requiring certain drivers to accept certain rides.

Now, I hope the minister has given some consideration to that. If he has, I would certainly appreciate any information that he may be able to share that would alleviate that concern. But I think that that’s a very real concern that might present itself as this legislation comes into effect.

Hon. H. Bains: To make it clear, the minimum 120 percent is for the engaged time, Member.

[5:35 p.m.]

The companies and the workers agree that that type of flexibility is needed, and it is available. That part has not changed. Workers will decide to work two hours or ten hours. They will decide which assignments to engage in, which assignments not to engage in. But again, the top-up applies to engaged time only.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that clarification.

We were speaking earlier….

Welcome back to the chair, Mr. Chair.

I was making some inquiries with respect to the potential for source deductions on pay to individuals. One of the other areas that I didn’t canvass was with respect to tips. Now, we did speak about tips, and the minister did confirm that tips that were applied would go to the driver involved in either the service delivery or dropping off the passengers.

When we look to the potential, which I certainly believe would be the case for source deductions, would source deductions also apply to any tips that were pro­vided to drivers?

Hon. H. Bains: The tips are paid now, and tips are transferred over. That part isn’t changed through this exercise that we are going through, this bill. They will continue with the process that they have today. The only thing this bill does is transparency. Now the driver will know what amount of tip was left and how much came to them.

G. Kyllo: I guess I wanted to add to the record that it’s not just the base remuneration rate that is paid to the drivers. It also is likely going to be subject to source deductions. The minister has been unable or unwilling to provide certainty that that is not the case so I will assume that source deductions will apply.

I know that what is important, for the record, for individuals who may be looking at this debate, is that source deductions would not just apply to the remuneration provided directly from the app-based company for the service but also the tip function.

I know that workers that are working in the space right now certainly appreciate the opportunity of getting that income into their pocket, net of deduction, and it is up to them to make their own determination, when they do their annual tax filings, as far as what expenses might be deducted and what their net income is that’s actually reported to Revenue Canada and the Minister of Finance.

However, I certainly believe that this is a fundamental shift and that workers in this space will now see not just their gross pay or remuneration, but also the tips suddenly be subject to source deductions: CPP, employment insurance benefits, provincial tax, federal tax.

[5:40 p.m.]

I guess on the other side of that would be the employer’s obligation to pay CPP, which I believe is now like about 1.5 times the employee portion; EI, at a similar rate; and then, also the employer health tax, because I would assume that most of these app-based companies are going to be over $500,000 or more in payroll.

Considerable expense is being put on the backs of the ride-app companies, which I’m sure will result in increased rates for those that are utilizing these services in the province. But I think, more importantly, if we’re back focused on the workers that are working in this space, it’s a significant reduction in actual net pay that they would receive while working on any of these platforms.

Hon. H. Bains: For the purpose of this, the member kept on talking about source deductions and whatnot. But let me read this to the member again. “This legislation does not change the relationship between the online platform companies and the workers. It simply requires the companies to provide the appropriate employment standards and other protections to the workers without changing the existing relationship.”

The relationship that they have today…. Peer transparency means what their earnings are. Now their drivers will know. The destination transparency means now they know what the destination is and what the pay will be. The pay transparency also means that they will now know what tips are left and what tips are paid to them — make sure that the entire amount is paid to them. These are the transparency pieces. The relationship doesn’t change. None of that gets changed, except that the workers now will have that information available to them.

For the purpose of the Employment Standards Act and for the WCB, which we have canvassed many times now, they are considered employees only for those purposes. Whether they are considered contractors or employees under any other law, it doesn’t change that.

G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated that a few times. But, also, the minister has been unable to undertake the clarification, either with the Minister of Finance or Revenue Canada, to confirm that their own independent determination will not subject these fees and remunerations from source deductions.

I appreciate the response from the minister. The minister has indicated that there’s a fundamental change, where these subcontractors are now deemed to be employees under both WorkSafeBC and employment standards. It’s my interpretation, and I certainly stand to be corrected, that it will be up to the Minister of Finance and Revenue Canada to make their own determination on the requirement of the employers of these workers or these employees for source deductions. It’s a very important piece.

The minister has indicated that he’s unwilling to seek that clarification, and I certainly will undertake to send letters out looking for that clarification myself. But the fact that the minister in their work up to this legislation being tabled hasn’t seen that as a potential risk or potential concern is definitely concerning to me.

With that, as we look to the implications of the changes that are brought forward, has the minister or ministry staff undertaken any kind of evaluation to determine what additional cost may be borne by the app-based companies that are operating in this space? Has there been any consideration at all to the potential impact of increases in cost or inflationary pressures?

We’ve certainly seen around the province that many British Columbians are struggling. I just wanted to get a bit of a sense if, as part of the consideration of this bill, there was any, I guess, evaluation undertaken to determine what, if any, increase in fees might be associated or passed on to the end consumer associated with this legislation?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Two things. When we were engaging with the platform companies, they appreciated our en­gage­ment with them, trying to understand their business, understand the model of how they operate here, both in the ride-hail and the food delivery side of it.

They also recognize that there is a need for minimum employment standards and other protection for workers. So we need to understand that part.

The feedback we also received is that British Columbians are willing to pay, if they have to, additional fees, provided that those workers are receiving basic minimum standards that all other workers receive, because British Columbians know that you cannot have workers who are not even paid minimum wage so that their cost is lower.

We have had that dialogue, and we are advised that British Colombians, I’m sure, all agree that no worker should be paying out of their pocket for our comfort. They are willing to make sure that the minimum standards, minimum wage, WCB protection, their health and safety, are protected — those who deliver food to our door, those who take us to our destination. I think that part is clear. Costs will go up.

I think platform companies have advised that they are willing to work with these changes. That work will start after this week. We will engage them again to develop those regulations, make sure that the rules are clear for the platform companies and the minimum standards are provided to the workers, that jobs are preserved and that, at the same time, the workers receive the minimum standards of protection that they deserve.

G. Kyllo: The absolute bulk of our conversation has been around ride-hail and food delivery service companies. But I’m just wondering: can the minister indicate or advise whether the definition of online platform worker would include individuals who accept remote work through online platforms, such as Indeed?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The new legislative provisions on the online platform workers and any related regulations will apply only to workers in the ride-hail and the food delivery sector. Workers who perform work through an online platform, but who are not ride-hail or food delivery, are not covered by that right now.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

G. Kyllo: Does the classification under two suggest that online platform workers will enjoy all of the benefits that other employees enjoy in B.C. under the Employment Standards Act?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The regulations we’re talking about will exempt ride-hail and food delivery workers from specified provisions of the Employment Standards Act while also prescribing alternate standards unique to this sector. That needs to be understood, and I hope the member will take that to answer his question.

Also, allowing for alternate employment standards that are unique to this sector facilitates a tailored approach that reflects the fact that app-based ride-hail and food delivery work is fundamentally different from the traditional work, including that the workers in these sectors are able to decide for themselves when to start or stop work and, once logged on to the app, whether to accept or decline a particular assignment. They can also be logged on to accept work on multiple apps at the same time.

Our intent, again, is to take a phased approach, as I said before, initially focusing on employment standards that address the priority concerns that the ride-hail and food delivery workers identified through the engagement. We talked about all that.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide a sense of a timeline on when that work will be undertaken and when there will be, I guess, a conclusion to which portions of the Employment Standards Act would apply? Who makes that determination? What opportunities are there for engagement or otherwise? I guess, for the most part, when will we see this particular bill come into effect?

I believe the minister — maybe it was in one of those news briefings — suggested it may take upwards of six months for developing the different regulations and then potentially another six months for implementation. I’m just trying to get a bit of a sense on the work that the minister has reflected on, when that would actually be undertaken and when the provisions of this bill might actually come into effect for the benefit of the workers covered under this section.

Hon. H. Bains: The member canvassed this question on Thursday, and I provided the answer thoroughly. Again, I can advise the member, and I think we talked about it today as well, that after the royal assent, hopefully….

You know, I can’t prejudge the House here, but if we receive royal assent, or this bill is passed, then the engagement will start to develop regulations. My expectation is we want to do it as quickly as possible. I’m looking at, as a timeline, early next year.

G. Kyllo: The other provision of section 2 indicates that “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.” The minister has indicated that individuals might have multiple employers under the new definition, under this act at the same time.

I guess, as the minister is looking to develop the employment standards platform, if a worker is engaged in two or three different apps at the same time, how is the minister making the determination on which is the actual employer? Would it only be the employer that the worker was engaged with on that particular day?

I’m just thinking that things like fatigue or muscle strain and those sort of things that might be covered under WorkSafeBC…. They are cumulative. They may not be associated with a specific employer. Would it be the interpretation of the minister that for a WorkSafeBC claim associated with strain, it may not be associated with a specific company?

[6:00 p.m.]

Would there be the intention that it may result in maybe a proportionate share for the different employers that that individual has worked for or with for a number of months?

I know it’s a bit of a nuance, but just wondering if the minister can provide a bit of a sense…. It’s not normal where you’d have this employer-employee relationship, and the minister has indicated that it is certainly a new sector of work. I’m just wondering if he has given consideration, with respect to WorkSafeBC claims, on the allotment of responsibility.

Hon. H. Bains: I think there were two, probably, questions in one. One was: who is the employer to calculate the wages? Because their 120 percent is paid during the engaged time, so you’re engaged with the employer at that time, that’s your employer. That’s how it will be calculated.

Then on the WCB, WCB will make those decisions on whether it’s a work-related injury or illness and who the employer responsibility is. That happens today, and it will continue to happen. I will leave that with the worker’s compensation. They’re quite capable of dealing with these types of situations. It will be their responsibility to determine whether it’s a work-related injury, illness and who the employer is responsible for that particular injury or illness.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the WorkSafeBC coverage, it certainly would be my understanding that drivers in this space, currently, if they’re in a motor vehicle accident, in the absence of WorkSafeBC, would be reaching out to ICBC for potential coverage with respect to injuries.

With these workers now covered under WorkSafeBC, in the case of an accident, can the minister confirm where the hierarchy would apply? Would the worker have the choice of choosing to pursue, maybe, satisfaction through ICBC, or would it be WorkSafeBC? Who would make that determination on who would be providing coverage for that injured worker?

Hon. H. Bains: That happens now. WorkSafeBC and ICBC have a system in place, as I understand, to determine who is responsible and where the claim should go.

[6:05 p.m.]

There are those situations today, so it will be handled through the same system.

G. Kyllo: With respect to a claim arising during the course of work, if an individual is, indeed, covered by WorkSafeBC…. As we know, many of these drivers work for multiple platforms.

As an example, if an individual might be a welder working for a company, if they’re injured on the job site, they are paid WorkSafeBC premiums or, I guess, disability relief based on, I believe, an average day’s pay. They go back historically and have a look at what the average earnings are over a certain amount of time, and that’s what the individual is provided.

In the case of a worker that might be injured in the course of their duties as an app-based driver working for three or four different employers, would the wage remuneration eligibility or disability benefit be based only on the income with that app-based company they’re working for at that given time?

The reason I think it’s important is that the worker may only log two or three hours a day with a specific company. If they’re injured, of course, it’s not only impacting their ability to earn income with that one company. It’s also the others. I’m just trying to get a bit of a sense on that WorkSafeBC disability coverage.

Would it be based on the average day’s pay with only the employer by which they are engaged with at the time of the accident or injury?

Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC already has a system in place, I’m advised right now, because there are workers that are covered under WorkSafeBC, but they have multiple employers.

There’s a system. They look at their past earnings, and they take the average, and that’s how the decisions are made. I’ll leave it to the WCB to make those decisions, but understand there is a system in place right now.

G. Kyllo: I hope the Minister of Labour is able to provide a bit of clarity.

If an individual is working for company A and is injured on the job, is their remuneration that they’re eligible for, their disability benefit at WorkSafeBC, limited to their income that’s earned with that said employer at the time of injury, or is there an aggregate look of the total earnings of that individual across multiple companies in order to establish what we deem to be that average day’s pay?

Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC, now, looks at their earnings from all employers at the time of the injury. Generally, they go back about 12 months. But again, the details are best to be left with WCB. They make those decisions all the time.

G. Kyllo: I think it’s important. I think that there could be those that might deem that an average day’s pay may only result or reflect the income that might be generated with that one employer.

I’m certainly happy to hear, as the minister has indicated, that they’ll have a look at the gross income, across multiple employers, that individual has earned. I think we’d all appreciate that just because you’ve lost the employment with one company doesn’t mean you’ve also lost the opportunity for the other. I’m happy to hear that that is the case.

[6:10 p.m.]

One other point that I think it’s probably worthy to note. Would WorkSafeBC disability benefits that might flow to an injured worker…? Are those based only on what’s deemed to be wages under the purposes of this act and not reflect any additional remuneration that might flow under tips, as an example, or would the remuneration generated or eligible for that worker include both the wages and the tips?

Hon. H. Bains: My suggestion is…. I think the member can ask this question if he chooses to, but those clauses are further down in the act. We could canvass them at that time if he chooses to. But if he wants to continue on with clauses 1 and 2 and pass, then I think there will be much more clarity.

G. Kyllo: No, we can certainly…. I’ll raise those questions as we get a little bit further on into the meat of the bill.

That concludes my comments on section 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

G. Kyllo: Regarding the addition of a paragraph in section 3(b), can the minister expand on the phrase “the director’s attempt”? Then could the minister explain what would be considered a failure on the part of the complainant regarding participation, or more specifically, how many times will the director attempt to arrange for the complainant’s participation?

Hon. H. Bains: This provision gives the authority under the Employment Standards Act for the director of employment standards to stop an investigation of a complaint where the complainant is not participating in the investigation or providing information.

Paragraph (e.1) gives the director of employment author­ity to stop an investigation, close off a file, if a complainant is not participating despite steps taken by the director to engage the complainant’s participation.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think the member’s question is a good one. What does that mean by “attempt”? My expectation is that the provision requires the director to attempt to arrange for the complainant to participate before stopping a review or investigation where the complainant is not participating.

It says the purpose of the act and the complaint process is to protect workers’ entitlement. This is important. It is expected that the director will make a real attempt to arrange the complainant’s participation before exercising this discretion. That’s one thing: real attempt.

I will add this amendment’s intent, however, is to give employment standards a clear authority to close off an investigation where a complainant fails to participate. The director will not have the authority to stop an investigation where the employee continues to participate in the process and where, for example, wages remain outstanding or there is clear evidence the complainant has evidence left in there to support continuing with the complaint, because there could be a reason for a complainant not to participate, for fear of whatever. But if the director has clear evidence, they will continue with the investigation.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the clarification the minister provided. The minister referenced what’s considered to be a real attempt. I’m just wondering if the minister might be able to provide a bit more context. Is that an email that goes unanswered, three emails that go unanswered? Is it four phone calls that go unanswered? Or is there an ac­tual obligation for the director to actually have a direct communication with the individual?

I just wanted to get a bit better understanding. Is there a requirement that the director actually has a direct engagement with the complainant? Or would just a series of emails that go unanswered or a series of phone calls that go unanswered reflect a real attempt, as the minister has referenced?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, there will be policy developed on what a real attempt means. If the evidence is clear and the director knows there is evidence to support the complaint, they will continue on, regardless of a complainant’s participation or not, because there may be reasons why the complainant refuses to participate or fails to participate. But a real attempt will be made by the director to engage with the complainant.

Also, if the director has clear evidence that wages are owed, for example, they will continue to proceed with the complaint.

Looking at the time on the clock, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess until 7 p.m.

The House recessed from 6:19 p.m. to 7:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Calling the House to order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Bill 44, Housing Statutes Residential Development Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES
(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 44; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 7:05 p.m.

On clause 14 (continued).

The Chair: Good evening. I’ll call the committee to order.

We are on clause 14, and I believe the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is asking a question.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is just a small follow-up to my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson, when we’re talking about parking not being required.

The minister said that some parking would still get built, but I disagree that parking is going to get built if parking isn’t necessary. I think that there will be a significant reduction of required parking. I know that we’re trying to move to a place where we’re driving less and we’ve got more active transportation, but the reality is we’re not there yet.

Is there a concern and have there been any studies done in terms of the impact of illegal street parking, street parking that is going to be flowing over into existing surrounding homes, single family homes, smaller developments…? If there is going to be an issue, what will be done about that and what could communities anticipate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, it is our belief that parking will still get built, but I would take the member’s point that we expect that there will be less than perhaps what has historically been built. There’s lots of studies on this topic. This is something that’s been studied a lot.

I’ll give just local examples. City of Vancouver just changed their rules to eliminate parking minimums in the West End on the new Broadway line. Metro Vancouver has done lots of studies on this. CRD has done studies on this. There is a lot of research on this topic, and yes, there will be likely less parking than what we’ve traditionally seen, but parking still will get built.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that from the minister.

I was just looking at a study here that talks about when this is done quickly, it can actually result in an increase not only in challenges in communities with parking but also in increasing traffic jams, slowing down traffic, people driving around and around trying to find some place to park. Is there a concern that that, as it has been studied in other communities, is an issue?

Hon. R. Kahlon: These new rules are just around transit, so this isn’t community large. It isn’t, in every area, community large.

Of course we’re talking about, right now, SSMU: six units. Of course, with TOD, there’s different abilities, and we’ll talk about it at that legislation, but, again, we believe that eliminating minimum parking requirements will enable more housing to be built closer to transit, which essentially will be cheaper units as well for those that don’t have a car. We know there’s a huge demand for it.

As I highlighted earlier, I just met with a homebuilder who told me that he has a massive waiting list on one of his projects that doesn’t have parking requirements, because I know the city of Victoria has some of those areas now.

[7:10 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m done on this clause. Thank you very much.

A. Olsen: The minister has used the city of Vancouver a lot in this example. In fact, I think the vast majority of municipalities or local governments that the minister has used have had fairly high density with fairly robust transit.

I’m thinking about the definitions that were being used by Kamloops–North Thompson earlier. If those were applied to municipalities on the Saanich Peninsula, maybe not the entirety, there will certainly be parts that are impacted by this, perhaps on the highway. I think it’s important to recognize the difference between Vancouver and Central Saanich.

How is the minister going to be accommodating communities that are much more rural? While transit, access to transit or the distance from your transit provider may help with getting your commute to and from work — it works fine for me; I can commute to and from work — the rest of life requires alternative modes of transportation. I’m just wondering how the minister has anticipated and dealt with this issue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I mentioned Vancouver in my previous answer. I know the CRD also did a study recently that showed that, I believe, 25 percent of households don’t have a car. That’s up from 20 percent in the two periods that they were assessing it, partly because the infrastructure for people to be able to travel in this area without cars is quite good.

I know that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson took the B.C. Transit example of 15 to 30 minutes and said, “What does that mean?” in his answer to me previously. As the member for Saanich North and the Islands knows, I did say in the House on Tuesday and Wednesday, when these questions were asked, that it would be closer to 15 minutes. The exact details will come in, in regs.

We know that the majority of that type of transit service is in larger cities and not in the smaller communities, but if there is transit coming that often, we want to see housing being built close to that as well.

A. Olsen: Does the minister know: what is the percentage of people that live in the higher-density areas of greater Victoria where this policy works fine? When the minister uses that example of the statistic, the reality is that Sidney is not the same as James Bay. Sidney is not the same as Uptown. It’s further down the line.

We’ve been advocating, very strongly with the Minister of Transportation, to create a rapid bus line, which would create these 400-metre and 800-metre corridors down the Pat Bay Highway. We’re talking about the impact of the parking, here in clause 14. It would create this corridor where, the hope is, there is a robust transit service that is servicing that corridor.

However, the neighbourhoods and the street infrastructure…. The member from Kamloops–North Thompson again, I think, illustrated the issue that local governments have. It’s not built to have people parking all over the streets everywhere. They’re narrow roads; many of them are old.

In addition to that, it is not yet simple to get around this region on transit. It takes a long period of time, and it doesn’t provide the level of convenience that people need in order to have transit as their primary or only source of transportation. I’m asking the minister to distinguish between the more densely urban area that’s very well supported by B.C. Transit and the more rural areas or the rurban areas, which will be adjacent to one line that provides access but doesn’t necessarily provide the access needed around the region.

[7:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Anywhere where we’re investing in that type of transit, we believe that housing should be built around that transit. Now, on a high level, I said in this House that around a 15-minute service is what we believe it’ll be around frequent transit areas, broadly speaking. We’re saying “broadly,” because it still has to go through regulation.

I can share with the member that Sidney would not have a frequent transit area that’s considered, Central Saanich wouldn’t, and Salt Spring Island wouldn’t have that either.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the clarity. I think about all of the communities and all of the neighbourhoods around the province that, due to the process that has been undertaken by this minister, don’t have clarity. If we attempted to try to go neighbourhood by neighbourhood…. Part of this is that I get to bring up this instance. There has been some sort of complaint that has been lodged. We could go through each of the instances.

The reality is that, without the guidelines, without the regulations, without the documentation that the minister is going to deliver after this bill is done, there are communities that are wondering exactly how this is going to impact them, and if their member isn’t in here asking this question, then they’re not going to be able to do it.

In the tone of this conversation, I’m not saying that that isn’t where density should be built. That is exactly where density is going to be built. I’m looking for clarity on how the minister is going to be handling these more disparate situations in communities, because he hasn’t provided documentation for us to be able to understand it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’ve said this multiple times, but where these types of frequent-transit areas exist, we believe the infrastructure is there for up to six units being built. It’s going on the basis of where we believe the infrastructure exists.

A. Walker: I just have two questions. Now, I shouldn’t do this; the minister had mentioned previously that this transit-oriented community…. Sorry, a different bill.

First, the minister had previously said that this, the six units, will not apply to my community. The definition changed from TransLink to B.C. Transit. Am I still to understand that it doesn’t apply to the area? I’ve got a nod from the minister. That’s great.

The second question. I’ve heard the minister mention, throughout this clause, multiple times, the site standards guidelines and how they will be flexible. I’m trying to think of different guidelines in local government. Whether it’s zoning or policies, they are by nature very inflexible. I’m just wondering if the minister could expand on that flexibility. I don’t need the specific details, but what could that look like as far as flexibility?

Hon. R. Kahlon: An example would be: let’s say we set, in the site recommendations, setbacks, and there’s a slope in the community. That’s the type of thing we’re talking about: where there’s flexibility for them to make decisions according to the terrain and different things that they deal with.

A. Walker: In coming up with this large, encompassing regulation for the entire province, how will local governments have the ability to provide input to that and, potentially, work with government to create that regulation as new circumstances come up that require a change?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The site standards document needs to be finalized once regulations are done. That’ll be made available to communities, and they’ll be able to see that and make decisions accordingly.

[7:20 p.m.]

A. Walker: Just wondering, though. If a community finds something in their region that should be included in that…. The regulation is going to come out, and then some local government is going to say: “Well, that doesn’t work here, because….” Will there be an avenue where local governments can advocate for changes to those general regulations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. We’re going to continue to engage with local governments. If things come up, then we’ll adjust accordingly.

The Chair: That’s quite a few more than two, Member.

A. Walker: I thank you, Chair, for the flexibility in asking many second questions.

However, there’s a time requirement for local governments to be able to do these rezonings, so they have a very limited window to do that.

Is there going to be capacity in the ministry to be able to get back to local governments when they point out these…? Whether they’re shortcomings or just oversights or just circumstances in communities, how can that be done in a timely way?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have been engaging extensively on these site standards. We believe most of the scenarios will be covered. If, for some reason, it’s not, then we’re saying we’re open to having a conversation.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

K. Kirkpatrick: Clause 15. We’re talking about those policy guidelines, and I just would like to follow up on the last answer that the minister provided to the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

There was community engagement, or there was some kind of engagement, around actually coming up with policy guidelines and the site specifications.

Can the minister clarify what he meant by that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff are just pulling together a list of the communities we engaged as an advisory group that helped with scenarios for the site centres document. When they’ve got that, I’ll share that with everyone.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Last Thursday a colleague and I were invited to View Royal. It was a community town hall. They had a lot of people from the community of View Royal, but there were people there from Sooke and all over the CRD.

There’s a lot of confusion, and a lot of people are very worried about these policy guidelines. Without having these policy guidelines known up front, while we’re dealing with the legislation — you’ve heard this multiple times, but we can’t say it enough because it is so true — it’s so hard to ask appropriate questions about what this legislation is going to do, because we don’t know what the setbacks are. We don’t know what the height restrictions are. We don’t know what the parking or lot coverage is. These are really big challenges.

When I was at this town hall — I was just in the audience listening, as I had been invited to do so — there was such anxiety in community members. Most of it was around these things that will be in the policy guidelines.

I think this is another example of where this government has…. If I can attach this to the autism funding, it’s same kind of thing where there’s an announcement made that people know, “This is going to have a huge impact on me, but I don’t know what that impact is going to be,” because all the stuff that’s really important to inform that impact is actually going to be done after the legislation passes. Then we’re dealing with regulations or policy guidelines.

[7:25 p.m.]

This is a real challenge. I think that this is one of the most problematic pieces of this legislation. Will the minister let us know what the standards will look like for fourplexes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I said, the site standards will come out when regulations are passed. I can share with the member that the advisory group had staff from the city of Victoria, city of Coquitlam, city of Vancouver, city of Quesnel, district of Saanich, district of North Cowichan, village of Pemberton, Columbia Shuswap regional district and regional district of North Okanagan.

K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, thank you for that list. It’s still concerning to communities, again, not really understanding this. I won’t ask you about setbacks and height restrictions and those things because we don’t know about them, but can the minister explain…?

These are policy guidelines. Are these meant to, then, simply inform municipal councils in zoning so that they can then have flexibility to make their own determinations on these, or are these policy guidelines going to be kind of the law in terms of what municipalities have to allow in each community, and will they be the same or different in different communities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments must consider our site standards when making decisions. As I answered in a previous question, there are different types of scenarios that have come forward through our advisory group and the planners that have been putting the work into setting the site standards, a fair bit of knowledge coming together on different scenarios. That document will lay out different scenarios so that local governments can make decisions accordingly.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister just said municipalities must consider these policy guidelines. What does he mean by “they must consider”?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The proposed s. 582.1 creates the authority to establish the policy guidelines necessary for this consideration. The intention of this policy guideline is to set provincial technical expectations for the implementation of legislative requirements and provide information on planning best practices to successfully enable SSMU development.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The ministry has announced that it’s going to standardize up to ten housing designs for the SSMU housing. Are we to understand that these are the only designs that will be feasibly permitted under this program?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No.

K. Kirkpatrick: What’s the total cost of designing these standardized housing designs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: With all due respect, we’re getting way outside of the legislation. I’m happy to talk about the legislation, but getting into matters beyond that is probably not appropriate for this discussion now.

K. Kirkpatrick: With all due respect to the minister, it is this piece of legislation that is actually allowing and moving us into a place where we are designing these standardized housing designs. I understand what he’s saying. I can move along to some things here, but I do think that there are relevant questions to be asked about those standardized housing designs.

There is a concern, with the rollout of this legislation, that there will be a homogeneous kind of approach to communities. How do we make sure that we are still keeping the true fabric and nature of a community without losing that when things are going to be this really kind of one-size-fits-all approach to this?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, we’re going to see lots of different types of designs. Communities that have a lot of this already…. This type of housing fits in perfectly with communities, so I don’t have any expectations that it’s not going to look and make the community feel vibrant and healthy.

Anything can happen with designs. I know in my community, I have some single-family homes that I cringe every time I drive by. So whether it’s a small-scale SSMU or whether it’s a single-family home, there are going to be, I think, different types of designs that will come forward.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Minister, I would like to go back to the standardized housing designs. This piece, clause 15, is dealing with the policy guidelines around the small-scale multifamily housing, and these housing designs are a piece of that.

Again, I think with not understanding the design and how we’re approaching things, there’s more confusion in people’s minds, so I would appreciate moving on a couple of questions with respect to this.

Will there be public feedback to the minister on the ten standard housing designs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are going to be lots of folks weighing in on the different designs. When we have the RFP decided, whoever gets hired, I suspect, is going to go out and talk to a range of people on what this may look like.

Certainly, my hope is that over the years, the design catalogue will increase from ten, 20, 30. In the end, we’re trying to provide options for people.

Many people are going to design it the way they want it for their own needs, so this isn’t going to be the only way they’re going to be built. There are going to be tons of different ways of getting built, but this is just another tool to enable housing to be able to be built much faster.

K. Kirkpatrick: How did the minister or the legislation come up with ten?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The legislation didn’t come up with ten. That was a pilot that we’ve launched that’s beyond this, that’s separate from this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m still really struggling with this. What I’m understanding the minister to say….

Now, there was an announcement about these standardized homes. There were renderings I saw in the media. It’s a significant…. It’s an announcement that was made at the same time that all of this housing legislation is going through. And what I’ve just heard the minister say is that there’s been no RFP. There aren’t any actual designs ready at this point, so I don’t know what the renderings were of.

I’m confused. Maybe the minister can explain to me why this work wasn’t done in order to then inform policy guidelines and what the legislation is trying to do.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The announcement, which was a press release, signalled that we are opening up the RFP process for consultants to come forward, to move towards set designs for small-scale, multi-units.

We put out a press release because we want to ensure that the architect community would come forward, that there’d be lots of interest in people applying. We want the best talent to be part of this project, and our expectation is that next year, we’ll have the first set of ten designs.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Have there been accessibility studies done, or will they be? I ask if things are done, and the answer is always that they haven’t happened yet. But when we’re looking at the setbacks, the height standards, parking and all of these issues, how much attention is being paid to accessibility in a particular community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course, the building code is an im­por­tant piece of addressing accessibility. We’re not touching the building code here.

[7:35 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister give some examples that…?

Here’s a question that came up when I was at View Royal. Somebody has got a single-family house, or there’s duplex on a lot. The house next door is sold. Somebody is putting up a multiplex. There is the fear that…. Setbacks are a pretty significant issue.

What can the minister say to people who are concerned about this to assure them that setbacks will be appropriate, and they will still be respectful of the design and feel of the community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that that’s an important piece for some in the community. That’s why we’ve got an advisory group of local government officials to give us advice on what’s happening in different sizes of communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m feeling his frustration. I’m finding it’s difficult on this clause, which is probably one of the most significant clauses, to really have any information on what this is going to look like, moving forward.

I’m sure the minister can appreciate that this is a big frustration for communities and for British Columbians. This is the piece that’s going to tell them what their communities are going to look like in the future.

I am going to end my questions at this point, but I may well come back to additional questions on clause 15.

A. Olsen: I’m just wanting to make an amendment here to clause 15. The amendment that I’m proposing is to add to the clause (1)(b.1), and then, as well, to add to the clause a section (2).

The idea behind this motion is to limit the availability of real estate investment trusts to be able to purchase these units.

The Chair: We are going to recess to distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 7:37 p.m. to 7:42 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. The amendment is in order, and I’ll turn it over to the House Leader of the Third Party to begin the debate.

A. Olsen: We’ve canvassed the minister extensively with respect to the potential affordability measures that are in this bill. The minister has been very clear that there won’t be any affordability measures that will be required through this bill. Nor is the minister interested in entertaining any ideas for how, perhaps, affordability could be found within this market housing that is being debated here.

It’s pretty clear that there’s a heavy lean on the real estate market and on the financialized, profit-making side of the real estate market. One of the things that we can do in order to ensure that there isn’t a situation where an aggressive real estate investment trust begins to buy up these units and then put them on the market for what they expect to get from it, rather than for what, perhaps, the market can bear — really, what people can pay, actually….

We’ve decided to move this motion:

[CLAUSE 15, by adding the underlined text as shown:

15 The following section is added:

Provincial policy guidelines related to small-scale multi-family housing

582.1 (1) The minister may, after consulting with the minister responsible for the administration of the Community Charter, establish policy guidelines regarding the following:

(a) the process of developing and adopting, by a municipality or regional district, a zoning bylaw for the purpose of permitting the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing] of this Act;

(b) the process of developing and adopting, by a municipality, a bylaw under section 525 [off-street parking and loading space requirements] of this Act to the extent that the bylaw relates to the residential use of housing units required to be permitted under section 481.3 (5) of this Act;

(b.1) prohibitions on the ownership of housing units by Real Estate Investment Trusts;

(c) the content of a bylaw referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.

(2) In this section, “Real Estate Investment Trust” has the same meaning as in section 122.1 of the Income Tax Act (Canada).]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: The reality is that we started to ask this government a few years back about the impact that real estate investment trusts are having in our housing market. Both the Housing Minister and the Premier, at least I believe both of them have….

Certainly, the Premier has talked about the impact real estate investment trusts are having on buying up the market housing, specifically the impact that real estate investment trusts are having in buying older buildings that are fairly reasonable and then doing everything they can to try to see a turnover in the people that are renting those and increasing the rents.

[7:45 p.m.]

We saw The Fifth Estate do an investigative story on this recently. I also just saw another story came out of some news sources in Florida about a Canadian REIT that is down there buying up properties in the single-family home marketplace. This is quite close to that.

So we see it doesn’t take much. Just go online and take a look at the news stories around REITs — the investment advisors advising people that REITs are a great business to get into or to invest in. Really, what that means is that those units that they own are profitable and are not providing the affordable housing that the minister is suggesting is going to be achieved by building a whole bunch of market units. We’re not achieving the affordability.

I think one of the ways…. I’ve offered a couple of different ways that the minister could see some affordability come out of this initiative. All of them have been turned down. In this case, I think by limiting the accessibility of real estate investment trusts to be purchasing these units, it would keep them from being overly financialized or basically just turned into purely economic units.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member bringing this amendment forward.

The challenge we’ve seen with REITs — the member kind of referred to it — is that we have we’ve seen REITs come in, buy older housing rental units, kick out people, put the rents higher, and then they get positive cash flow. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

The member referred to a situation in the US. That was investment firms buying up homes for Airbnb, which now, with our changes, is not something that we’ll see here.

When we launched the rental protection fund I met with REITs, because they felt that we were targeting them with the rental protection fund. After meeting with them, what I heard from some of the largest REITs was that they no longer want to invest in British Columbia to buy up older housing stock. They are considering building purpose-built rentals in British Columbia, but they were interested in partnering with the rental protection fund because they felt that this was not a market they wanted to be in, here in British Columbia.

Although I share a concern around what can happen with REITs, there is no indication that REITs are looking to purchase fourplexes or threeplexes in British Columbia. If we see that issue arise, we’ll consider that in the future, but at this time, there’s no indication that that’s an issue.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak in support of the amendment by the House Leader of the Third Party, my colleague.

I think there’s a bigger picture here, and I’m quite surprised to hear the minister’s response that he’s not concerned about REITs entering into this market. I know that the minister was at the housing conference recently, and I would expect that he would have seen some data that was presented there about acquisitions by REITs in Vancouver and Surrey.

In the case of Vancouver, it’s nearly 40 percent of sales by landlords are being acquired by REITs. In Surrey, it’s apparently close to 59 percent. I think this is a problem that we should be very concerned about in British Columbia and that the further financialization of our housing market is going to make the affordability crisis even worse.

To not want to put in safeguards against this deepening financialization, when we have investment bodies — REITs; real estate investment trusts — that have, apparently, it seems, unlimited capital to be able to purchase what should be housing but what is treated as a commodity, treated as an investment; when you have the conditions where, basically, unlimited capital can be at play in housing in British Columbia, there is no way that building more supply, as the minister is proposing with this legislation…. There’s no way that that contributes to affordability.

[7:50 p.m.]

The measure that’s being proposed by my colleague is a way for the minister to actually take one measure that would help contribute to the thing that he says he wants to achieve with all of this housing legislation, which is affordability.

As long as REITs are allowed unlimited access to houses in British Columbia…. I can picture a scenario where a REIT is looking at a collection of maybe a couple of blocks, maybe ten houses in a row that can be torn down and then rebuilt. You put six units on each of those, and suddenly that REIT owns an entire block. All of the people living in there — maybe, if they can afford it — have a landlord without a name, just a company number.

This is happening more and more and more, and I would like to see a minister who would take that threat seriously.

A. Olsen: The REIT model is basically not just a developer that has access to the capital in order to be able to build and to develop. There’s also an encouragement for people to invest in them. They get this flow of capital that comes into them not only from their ability to borrow but also as an investment.

But the promise that’s made, of course, is that there’s going to be some profitability for the investor at the end of it, which means that really, the definition of REITs is exploitation in housing. They’re exploiting the people that are paying the rent. They’re exploiting the people that are being kept out of the real estate market that this minister consistently turns to for the solutions of housing affordability.

I went through a very long-winded way of explaining to the minister that, actually, our core housing needs are what we need, not more market housing. But nonetheless, we’re going to produce more market housing, at least in the communities that I demonstrated. The reality is that the minister is not going to put some basic protections in place in order to ensure that that housing doesn’t turn into an exploitive situation.

In closing this debate, I’ll just say this. It’s disappointing that the government agrees…. As we’ve heard oftentimes in question period, the government is willing to pressure the federal government to do something on REITs. They’re willing to shuffle the responsibility off to the federal government to regulate REITs, or however the federal government’s going to do it. But there’s one measure in here that says: “Look, we’re not going to allow….”

You know what’s interesting about all of this is that the letters have already gone out. I know people who have already received letters saying: “We’re going to give you twice what your house is worth. We’re going to assemble all this land, and we’re going to give you twice what this house is worth.” The letters have gone out. It’s already happening. The speculation on this bill is already happening. We get into a further exploitive situation, putting vulnerable people more vulnerable.

I think it just makes sense for this government to support this. They clearly don’t support it. They’re advocating with the federal government to stop REITs. Why not just put it in this bill and make it so that this isn’t going to be one of the things that we have to worry about in the host of all of the things that we have to worry about with this bill?

The Chair: The motion is the amendment.

Division has been called.

[7:55 p.m. - 8:05 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: The question is on the proposed amendment to Bill 44 moved by the Third Party House Leader to clause 15.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25
Ashton	Bernier	Bond
Clovechok	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Furstenau	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Merrifield
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Olsen	Paton	Ross
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturko	Tegart	Walker
	Wat
NAYS — 46
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Banman
Beare	Begg	Chant
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Malcolmson	Paddon
Parmar	Phillip	Ralston
Rankin	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Russell	Rustad
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
	Yao

[8:10 p.m.]

A. Walker: Looking through clause 15 here, 582.1 provides the opportunity for the minister to create these guidelines. The question was asked from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, but I didn’t get a clear answer.

These guidelines — is it a requirement that local governments follow those, or do they just have to receive those as they move forward with their rezoning process?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The intention of the policy guidelines is to set provincial technical expectations for the implementation of legislated requirements and to provide information on planning best practices to successfully enable SSMU development.

A. Walker: I recognize that. Is this a requirement that local governments will follow these technical guidelines or not?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m going to say the same answer because it’s the same question. The intention of the policy guideline is to set provincial technical expectations for the implementation of legislated requirements and to provide information on planning best practices to successfully enable SSMU development.

A. Walker: Is there any consequence if a local government does not follow the guidelines as provided and outlined here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If local governments don’t put in the bylaws by the date that we prescribe, our site standards will be their standards until such time as they’ve made those changes. If they decide to do something dramatically different than what’s in our site standards, then they could have someone come forward with a judicial review. I won’t go through the definition of that again because we did this at great length.

A. Walker: Yes. Hansard will have that definition, I think more than once. That’s appreciated.

The guidelines are specifically for the process for developing and adopting the rezoning for these SSMUs. I’m just thinking that as a town council now has this requirement…. Yes, I appreciate the date. I think the date that this has to be in by is in a clause coming up here. Government will put together a guideline on how that process is supposed to take place.

The question is: what happens if a local government doesn’t follow the process that’s outlined in these guide­lines?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they don’t meet the timeline, then our site standards will be theirs, de facto, until such time as they’ve made their changes. If they do something different, then they could be taken to judicial review. Again, I won’t repeat the description of that.

A. Walker: Further in the act, it has the timelines al­ready outlined. Is the purpose of this, for sub (a) specifically, to establish timelines and not the actual process that they will undertake as they go through that rezoning?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is to establish the authority to set the guidelines.

A. Walker: As these types of guidelines come through, this establishes the authority for two specific guidelines. Is it common practice for the minister to have the power to be able to set these guidelines with consultation of one other minister?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s because the minister is responsible for the Community Charter.

A. Walker: Is there…? Through that process, will there be engagement by the Minister of Housing with groups like the Union of B.C. Municipalities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve been consulting them all the way through. On top of that, we have an advisory group. I shared the names of all the communities that are a part of that. It has been ongoing.

A. Walker: Specifically, though, on these policy guide­lines, has there been consultation, and will there be consultation, with that entire group?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The site standards have been consulted on with UBCM, as well as ongoing with that advisory group that we’ve mentioned.

A. Olsen: Just for clarification, has the Union of B.C. Municipalities seen the site standards?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The actual document has not been shared with them but will be very soon, under an NDA.

A. Olsen: The consultation, then, would be that the government has gone to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and asked for feedback on what they would like to seek? Or maybe, if that’s not the case, how can the minister describe what that consultation looked like?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s the entire legislation package. The site standards document has been developed with that advisory group through the consultant, and that advisory group has been providing ongoing feedback.

A. Olsen: Has this advisory group seen the draft site standards document?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that advisory group has seen it.

A. Olsen: Can any other mayor or council or administrator have access to that advisory group?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Everyone will have it publicly very soon. They haven’t seen the actual document; they’ve just seen draft forms of it.

A. Olsen: If a mayor or a councillor…. The minister outlined several select municipalities that will be consulted on this. There didn’t appear to be any sort of science behind those municipalities that were selected.

Presumably, if another mayor, councillor or someone who’s going to be having to live with the site standards wanted to be involved, could they put themselves forward and be a part of that advisory group?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The consultants chose the representation of regional governments or local governments by various things — size, urban, rural — to get a good mix of different communities on aspects of the changes. The draft is now just waiting for finalization of regulations, and they’ll be made public to everyone.

A. Olsen: Just confirming with the minister. The opening line of this clause says: “The minister may, after consulting with the minister responsible for the administration of the Community Charter, establish policy guidelines regarding the following,” (a), (b),(c).

Can the minister consult with the minister responsible, any minister, in the future? Can any Minister of Housing that’s responsible for this file just simply consult with the minister responsible for the Community Charter? It could be, as was the case previously, that that would be the same minister. Anyway, in this case, it’s not the same minister.

In the future, if it were a minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, they could just do a quick consultation with themselves and then go about establishing policy guide­lines regarding the following (a), (b) and (c).

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that is correct.

A. Olsen: Just to be clear, this section here, 582.1, as amended, the way the minister wants it to be amended, is simply giving the minister or two ministers the ability to unilaterally change all of these policy guidelines without any further consultation with an advisory group, hand-selected or not.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Ministers have the ability to change policy guidelines. That’s the case with a lot of legislation.

A. Olsen: Is that power available to the minister or the ministers in the cases currently existing — currently?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t understand the question. Maybe he can rephrase it?

A. Olsen: The minister suggested that ministers have the power to do things and to set policy guidelines. What I’m asking is: do the Minister of Housing and his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs currently have the power that’s outlined in 582.1?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, there is currently those abilities within the LGA.

A. Olsen: Can the minister explain what the point of clause 15 is, then?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Because this is specific to the authorities.

A. Olsen: That’s specifically the question that I’ve been asking. Is the power that’s specifically related to the authorities already a power that the minister has with his colleague or, maybe in a different formation in a different government, simply a consultation that they would undertake with themselves?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Before, the powers were for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Now, with this, it gives it to the Minister of Housing.

A. Olsen: To be clear, then, the Minister of Municipal Affairs could, before, basically establish policy guidelines that could just unilaterally change “(a) the process of developing and adopting, by a municipality or regional district, a zoning bylaw for the purpose of permitting the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3” and (b), which is talking about “developing and adopting, by a municipality, a bylaw under section 525” and (c), the content of a bylaw referred to in (a) and (b).

Hon. R. Kahlon: The minister has a responsibility and the ability to set policy guidelines for other authorities. But because the zoning, the small-scale, multi-unit is new, it’s now giving the authority to do so.

A. Olsen: So there is no section in the Local Government Act that gives this specific power to the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s correct.

A. Olsen: Where does the accountability lie, then, on the minister…? The current minister is asking for this House to give them the powers to be able to basically rewrite the site standards that govern at least 85 communities in this province.

[8:25 p.m.]

I say “at least” because if the province expects communities to grow, then that list is going to expand. There are going to be more communities that are going to be involved in this.

Where does the accountability lie for the minister that they don’t just…? The way that the minister has described this is that there has been this advisory committee that the minister has then consulted, and that is the only thing that really made this thing legitimate, other than just the minister drafting up site standards as they see fit or as is advised by their own minister.

So what we’re doing is we’re basically saying this will be the last advisory committee that will exist to inform this. We are giving the power…. So there are no accountability measures in this — unless the minister can point to them.

What accountability measures are in this that control and restrain this Housing Minister and all future Housing Ministers?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The legislation speaks for itself. The regulations will come through cabinet, and the policy guidelines will be released after the regulations are done.

The policy standards must be considered by local governments as they move forward. As I highlighted, the policy standards are going to provide local governments the ability to be able to adjust, considering different scenarios within their community.

A. Olsen: The minister described a group of governments that had been pulled together by the consultant based on a variety of different metrics. He described a process that didn’t appear to be open. I asked the question: “It wasn’t open for other local elected officials to participate in, should they be interested in doing it?” At least, when I asked the question, the minister didn’t suggest that they were.

That process has been used to develop site-specific guidelines. It has provided a level of resilience for the minister up until this point, which is suggesting that: “Okay, good. This minister has been informed.” This policy, clause 15, the addition….

Again, this isn’t an amending clause; this is an addition. We’re adding this power, 582.1, to give this minister the power to unilaterally change the process by “developing and adopting, by a municipality or regional district, a zoning bylaw for the purpose of permitting the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale…family housing] of this Act.”

And: “the process of developing and adopting, by a municipality, a bylaw under section 525 [off-street parking and loading space requirements] of this Act to the extent that the….”

We are, basically, in agreement, then, that this is the last time that a minister will be required to consult on these specific site guidelines.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just want to correct the member. When I laid out the communities that are part of the advisory, it wasn’t elected officials. It was engineers and technical officials within those communities that gave us technical and engineering experience on the rules that were coming in place, and the site standards, the guidelines, will be released in a few weeks.

There will be options within that to ensure communities can successfully see SSMUs come forward but also be able to meet the different conditions within their community.

A. Olsen: I mean, I think what the minister is successfully skating with the puck into the corner on is that I’ve been asking the question of the minister as to whether or not there’s any restraint that can be administered here, whether or not there are any checks or balances. But, essentially, what the minister has described is, no, there isn’t.

[8:30 p.m.]

Once this power is in place, the minister can basically either consult directly with their colleague that’s responsible for the Community Charter, or if that person is one and the same, they can wake up one morning and simply just make the change. There are no checks and balances. There’s no requirement to even talk to an engineer after that.

Aside from the fact that they didn’t talk to the local elected officials who are going to have to speak to this, in the future, the minister will not need to talk to an engineer. They’ll not need to talk to a planner. They’ll not need to get any information about the potential traffic implications of this.

There will be no requirements around this other than the fact that perhaps maybe a single individual in a government that the current government has absolutely no alignment with…. It’s giving them the power to just basically make these unilateral changes. Is that a correct framing of what clause 15 in this bill is doing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This mirrors the ability that the Minister of Municipal Affairs already has under LGA 582. That’s why this is 582.1. The ability to bring in policy — the power already exists. What this does is bring it specifically for this legislation.

P. Milobar: Maybe we’ll try it this way, instead, if I’m understanding my colleague correctly, and I think I am understanding his concerns. We have a piece of legislation in front of us, Bill 44. Again, it was January 2022 that the now Premier, then Housing Minister, talked about this exact concept and committed to British Columbians that it would be in front of this House by October of 2022.

One can only assume, in the middle of what is supposed to be a housing crisis — and is a housing crisis — prioritizing political expediency instead and delaying bringing this bill forward by a year…. We’re now dealing with it in October of 2023. The guts of which likely won’t really be implemented till after the next provincial election, at the timelines this government is talking about, and we can’t get site standards clarified by this minister because those are still under development, despite all of these delays.

We know that there is now the requirement in this to not require parking. We know there’s a minimum lot size. The minister has indicated it’s 280 square metres, 3,000 square feet. We know you have to be close to transit. We know cities have to allow that to happen. What exactly, of any of those, is the minister willing to still have those conversations and change, when it comes to site standards? If it’s none of those, what other significant pieces could possibly still be under consideration in site standards?

We’ve heard the concerns around empowering the minister with this new piece of ability to enact rules with or without that consultation. It seems like any significant piece has already been decided by the government, regardless of what the site standards might be. So is anything negotiable still? Are all of those things set in stone? If they’re all set in stone, what else is the minister willing to at least have conversations with municipalities around the site standards on?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I answered this last week a couple of times. I’ll do it again. The site standards document is contingent on regulations, so we have to go to cabinet and get the regulations okayed, and then we’re able to release the site standards document.

A. Olsen: Can the minister maybe provide the wisdom in splitting the powers between the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs? The Minister of Municipal Affairs, under 582.1, as the Minister of Housing just said, has these powers. But in this bill, we’re giving this specific power, 582.1, and only this specific power to the Minister of Housing. What’s the rationale?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Because now there’s a Ministry of Housing, and the policy teams are over here now. That’s why we need the ability to have that for the Ministry of Housing as well.

A. Olsen: What if there’s no Ministry of Housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Then it would be the minister responsible for Housing.

A. Olsen: Can the minister point to another example within the Local Government Act that allows another minister in another ministry to have control over one set of policy guidelines relating to one specific form of housing tenure?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Under section 481.1 and 551 to 553, they are all with Agriculture.

A. Olsen: Those are policies specifically related to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission, are they?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah. So that would be…. First off, staff tell me this is not uncommon, and that specific laws would be around farming bylaws.

A. Olsen: Housing bylaws?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Farming bylaws.

[8:40 p.m.]

A. Olsen: That’s great. Thank you.

I think there’s a difference between farming bylaws and different tenures of housing. And if we’re conflating the two, then this is getting into a pretty wild and bizarre lack of understanding of what local government people have to do.

Local government people zone land, and in respect to what’s happening here, there is one specific type of housing — the SSMUs, I think they were called — that, now, a Minister of Housing has the control over the policy guidelines on. Not single families. No, that’s the….

What is the rationale of leaving that particular type of housing or that particular zone that is being created here to the Minister of Housing while leaving the rest of the Local Government Act to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing where, frankly, this power should reside?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have a Ministry of Housing now, where all the policy teams are, and that’s why this power is enabling for the Ministry of Housing.

A. Olsen: Is the minister suggesting, then, that we could see in the spring a misc stats and amendment act that would then move all of the policy guidelines for housing, because we have a Minister of Housing, to the Minister of Housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have no plans to do that at this moment.

A. Walker: I have a proposed amendment here that provides clarity, based on the conversations that we’re hearing here, about which minister is responsible. But also, when we look at the requirement for policy guidelines that already exist in the Local Government Act under section 582, there’s a requirement there that everything within that section requires consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

We are now adding a new section that allows for new policy guidelines, and it would become the only policy guideline section in this part of the act that does not require consultation with Union of B.C. Municipalities, so I’m proposing this amendment to remedy both of these issues.

[CLAUSE 15, by adding the text shown as underlined:

Provincial policy guidelines related to small-scale multi-family housing

582.1 The minister responsible for housing may, after consulting with the minister responsible for the administration of the Community Charter and with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, establish policy guidelines regarding the following:

(a) the process of developing and adopting, by a municipality or regional district, a zoning bylaw for the purpose of permitting the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing] of this Act;

(b) the process of developing and adopting, by a municipality, a bylaw under section 525 [off-street parking and loading space requirements] of this Act to the extent that the bylaw relates to the residential use of housing units required to be permitted under section 481.3 (5) of this Act;

(c) the content of a bylaw referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.]

The Chair: Has the member moved the amendment?

A. Walker: I move the amendment.

The Chair: Okay. Now we will take a short recess to ensure that all members who may not have seen or heard the proposed amendment get a chance to. So this committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 8:42 p.m. to 8:46 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I will call this committee back into session. There is an amendment on the floor, moved by the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

Did the member have more that he wished to say?

A. Walker: No.

The Chair: No? Okay.

Other speakers?

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Just to add, you know, following the rationale of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, there is a general requirement that the minister responsible for the Community Charter be engaging the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We’re now giving this power to a different minister, and it would seem consistent to ensure that they are also engaging with the communities that are responsible for these new housing units that are going to be created.

P. Milobar: Frankly, you know, it seems like a bit of a splitting hairs amendment, if I’m being honest on this one. I would be more than happy…. I’m not sure of the proce­dure. I do recognize we are pushing up on the nine. I saw the Speaker come in just a minute ago. I’m just looking for some guidance here. I’ve been known to maybe speak at length. I could probably filibuster for a few minutes to note the hour. But I’m just suggesting in the….

The simple reality is I think we know what’s going to happen here. If we call the vote right now, we’re going to be ringing the bells, and we’re going to be here until quarter after nine, or we could note the hour and ring the bells tomorrow morning. I’m comfortable doing either — the direction of the Chair. I’m just pointing out the obvious to everyone else in the room and in this chamber.

I look for a little…. If we can note the hour now and the Speaker wants to come in, I’m more than happy to do that, or I’ll just take my place, and we can all go through the motions here for the rest of this evening.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’m not entirely sure why this amendment is brought forward. At this point, we don’t support the amendment as it is written. Again, the site standards were designed by engineers, planners, technical officials, people who have experience with these types of matters, and that’s why it came forward. I appreciate the member trying to bring an amendment forward, but it doesn’t make sense at this point.

S. Furstenau: I think it’s interesting that the minister indicates that he doesn’t understand why there would be a need for the amendment. I recognize that he might not see the need for there to be any consultation with the people elected at local government level or even those who represent the people that are elected at local government level at the UBCM.

But the changes in this legislation are significant, and really, in this clause, as has been debated for the last 20 minutes or so, it’s handing over of a pretty significant amount of power and authority to the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

[8:50 p.m.]

As my colleague has pointed out, that might be the same person to make changes that affect all municipalities, that make changes that affect local governments, that make changes that locally elected representatives would then need to, probably, go out and explain to their constituents.

I think that in democracies, fundamentally, processes are meant to be slowed down. They’re meant to have some checks and balances built in. When we have legislation that is systematically removing checks and balances, an amendment being proposed that adds at least a little bit of a check and balance…. I think, as representatives of democracy in here, we can get behind that kind of amendment. That’s why I would support it.

A. Walker: The minister said he was unsure why this was brought forward. I think our province is blessed to have 161 municipalities. Every one of those councils is working incredibly hard to represent their communities. It’s not just…. We talked about parking a lot in the last few hours here.

When you are on a town council, it is a beautiful thing. You’re working with your community to represent the part of government that impacts them most. It’s where your community is going to be, not in five years or ten years but a generation later. That’s what people tend to think about when they first get elected to council. And the good ones continue to have that vision. They continue to consider what their community…. Not what it is or what it’s been but where it could go, what it could be.

We have a very strong UBCM executive, and we’ve all recently come back from UBCM, the convention in Vancouver, energized. We talked to our local government reps, and they’re proud of the work that they do.

The idea that the minister — in this case, the Minister of Municipal Affairs — has these policy-making powers under section 582 has been debated and understood, and we all agree with that. It’s in the Local Government Act. It’s been there, I’m sure, for a long, long time. But clause 4 under that section says specifically that guidelines under this section may be established only after consultation by the minister with representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Here we are. We’re adding a new clause, a new section that grants new powers. The way it’s worded right now, to be frank, it says “the minister may.” Most of the other references in the Local Government Act that refer to a minister that is not the Minister of Municipal Affairs do say “the minister responsible for,” whether it’s the farm act or whatever other clarifying messages there are there. So this adds that clarity.

The fact that we would add a new power to government that allows them to come up with these policy guidelines and specifically exclude the requirement to consult with the Union of B.C. Municipalities is wrong. These people in local government are working hard every single day, and when we as government pass this new Bill 44 and it becomes law, and the other housing changes, some will light their hair on fire.

Others will say this is exactly what we needed. But they’ll get the job done. They will do everything they can to make sure that the work of local government continues and that the housing that we need in our communities gets delivered.

This act will, in some communities, spur that along. I’ve explained that in others, it’ll slow that down. But the idea of coming out with these new policy guidelines and explicitly not requiring government to consult with these experts, these local government experts….

Some of these people at UBCM have been at the job for 20 years or more. That’s a tremendous wealth of experience that we should be relying on. We should be taking the time to make sure that the direction that we’re doing in this chamber is reflected in all the far-flung communities across this province.

It’s a big province. It’s a great place to live, but not all of these communities are the same. This is a resource that we should be taking advantage of. And so….

Interjections.

A. Walker: No, I really don’t want to call division right at nine o’clock, but….

Interjections.

A. Walker: Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.

The Chair: We still have some time for debate, if the member wanted to continue. If he’s done speaking, are there other members?

[8:55 p.m.]

I see no further speakers to the proposed amendment, so all those in favour of the proposed amendment moved by the member for Parksville-Qualicum, please indicate.

Division has been called.

[9:00 p.m. - 9:05 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 27
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Furstenau
Halford	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Olsen	Paton
Ross	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturko
Tegart	Walker	Wat
NAYS — 47
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Beare
Begg	Brar	Chant
Chen	Chow	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Malcolmson
Paddon	Parmar	Phillip
Ralston	Rankin	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
Whiteside		Yao

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:09 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:10 p.m.