Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 138

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Orders of the Day

Personal Statements

Clarification of Public Comments

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Steve Kooner

Darlene Rotchford

Gavin Dew

Hon. Diana Gibson

Bruce Banman

Lynne Block

Misty Van Popta

Jody Toor

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Peter Milobar

Donegal Wilson

Ian Paton

Korky Neufeld

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

David Williams

Susie Chant

Anna Kindy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act (continued)

Lawrence Mok

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Korky Neufeld

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Ward Stamer

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (continued)

Tony Luck

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Christine Boyle

Linda Hepner

Misty Van Popta

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Personal Statements

Clarification of Public Comments

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I wish to stand on a point of clarification.

I want to correct an error that was made this morning outside of this place. I want

to be clear that I am not presuming that Bill 2 will become law. That is for this

House to decide. I want to be unequivocal in my respect for the authority of this

House and that any public communication has been immediately corrected.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 10, Labour Statutes

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 7, international

education bill.

Then in

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Housing.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Steve Kooner : I’ll be speaking to Bill 10. We’re talking about the Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

Although I highlighted that the changes are welcome in regard to protecting workers,

as I was stating earlier, these changes don’t go far enough.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

There are some flaws in the system that’s designed to protect workers. Because there

are flaws in the system, these changes may not go far enough to actually protect workers.

I was also, earlier, starting to talk about consultation. There were various groups

that had stated that they were not consulted. As I highlighted earlier, in order to

have a strong implementation of legislation, there needs to be proper resources, there

needs to be proper enforcement and people need to be served. That’s why it’s absolutely

crucial that proper consultation should have been had on this particular bill.

When governments move ahead without meaningful consultation, the result can be unintended

consequences that create new challenges rather than solving existing ones. If there

had been proper consultation, maybe there could have been more mechanisms set in this

legislation to actually make sure workers are protected in regard to complaints that

they make under the employment standards branch.

[1:35 p.m.]

Maybe their grievances could have been dealt with in a more efficient manner. Rather

than having only 32 percent of the complaints being dealt with in a six-month period,

maybe all those complaints could have been dealt with in an expedient manner.

Good labour legislation should bring stakeholders together, should build consensus

where possible and should reflect the realities faced by workers and businesses across

the province. Earlier I touched upon workers and small businesses. I was touching

upon small businesses because small businesses also are the backbone of our economy

in this province. They are made up of families, everyday British Columbians, that

try to pursue entrepreneurism to put food on the table, across this province, in their

homes.

Small businesses, like I said, form the backbone of our economy. Across British Columbia,

small businesses employ hundreds of thousands of workers. We are here talking about

protecting workers. Part of that equation is looking at the conditions or the environment

for workers and making sure that workers also have employment moving forward.

Many of the small businesses operate with small margins and limited administrative

capacity. Unlike large corporations, they often do not have dedicated human resources

departments or in-house legal teams. When new regulatory requirements are introduced,

those burdens fall directly on small business owners, who are already juggling many

responsibilities. That’s why it’s essential that labour legislation carefully consider

the impact on small business employers.

We want to have a robust system that’s not flawed, that actually protects workers.

If there are some grievances, if there are some complaints, those complaints need

to be dealt with expediently. In order to have a proper, functioning system, you need

to bring all parties together to figure out how we enforce these mechanisms.

How do we deal with these complaints in an efficient manner? That can only be done

when you bring all the parties together to figure it out. When you have an issue,

it’s not just one person or one party. It’s another person and another party right

across from them. It’s absolutely crucial to look at the whole environment, especially

when you’re looking at.…

There are issues within the system. The provincial government is stating that they

recognize some of those problems, and 32 percent of complaints being dealt with in

180 days is not good enough. They recognize that. They’re saying that they want to

get the target up to 80 percent within six months. I’m saying that even 80 percent

is not good enough. You should have 100 percent of those complaints dealt with.

It’s not even good enough for people to have to wait six months. Those complaints

should be dealt with expediently, especially when a lot of the workers that are accessing

employment standards branch dispute mechanisms are living paycheque to paycheque.

People may not be able to afford or they may not have the conditions to wait six months

when they actually need that paycheque to pay the bills, to put food on the table.

Just to get a little bit more into this legislation, since I have a few more minutes

here, one of the most significant changes proposed in this bill relates to the appeal

process for determinations made by the director under the Employment Standards Act.

Under the amendments in this legislation, an employer wishing to appeal a determination

would be required to deposit the full amount of money owed before the appeal can proceed.

The funds would be held and would accrue interest during the appeal process. The tribunal

would have the ability to allow a smaller deposit on a case-by-case basis.

[1:40 p.m.]

I understand the rationale behind this proposal of putting down the full deposit.

I understand it. You want to protect, to make sure. If there’s any money owing or

there’s any paycheque owing, you want to have it on hold.

But there are circumstances where there are employers involved, and there’s a bit

of a due process for them. They may have some legitimate concerns. On the most part,

there may be legitimate reasons to actually have that deposit. But there may be also

circumstances where employers also have legitimate reasons to actually state why their

claims are valid.

When this legislation says that a complete deposit needs to be deposited of a full

amount that’s in dispute, that may not be taking into consideration where there are

legitimate employers that are legitimately disputing the claim amount. It doesn’t

take that into consideration.

That’s a little bit of an issue because we’re going through bad economic times. We’ve

got the worst deficit in history. We haven’t seen a worse deficit than we have seen

in this province, than the one that we have seen brought forward by this government.

We have the worst debt. The private sector is struggling to just keep afloat. Private

sector is struggling to keep the jobs going so workers can have the work.

If there are some legitimate concerns or complaints that employers have and they are

operating just on a month-to-month basis, that may jeopardize certain work that workers

need to have. So it’s absolutely crucial that when you do a form of consultation,

you need to look at all angles. You need to look at all the parties because when there’s

a dispute, it’s not just one-dimensional. It’s multi-dimensional. If you want a solution,

a proper solution to fix the system, you have to listen to all the parties involved.

So some angles of the legislation could be a little bit difficult for employers that

have some legitimate concerns or legitimate disputes.

In justice, appeals exist for a reason. It’s due process. It’s part of justice. We

often see, when appeals are made, sometimes the decision that was rendered against

a party gets reversed because it was a wrong decision. That’s how our justice system

works. There’s an appeal mechanism that’s there, so it needs to be fair to everyone.

In terms of consultation, the process should have included everyone, especially when

we are dealing with a system that has major issues and especially when workers’ complaints

are essentially at only 30 percent in terms of being dealt with in a six-month period.

I’m just going to summarize now, since we have another couple of minutes left on the

clock here. The broader issue is making the system work. Legislation like this often

focuses on procedural adjustments — how complaints are filed, how investigations are

conducted and how appeals are handled.

But the broader question remains whether the system is working effectively, and that’s

been the theme of my speech today. We’ve got to make sure that the broader system

is working for workers. It’s not enough just talking about the issue. It’s not enough

just merely tinkering with certain pieces of legislation. The broader system needs

to be fixed.

[1:45 p.m.]

If workers must wait months or even years to resolve complaints, that’s the problem.

That’s the flawed system. If small businesses struggle to navigate complex procedures,

that is also a problem. If the employment standards branch lacks sufficient resources

to meet its responsibilities, that is a problem as well.

Ultimately, the goal should be a system that delivers timely, fair and accessible

justice for everyone involved. Workers should receive their wages quickly. Employers

should have clear rules and a fair opportunity to respond. The government should ensure

that enforcement mechanisms are properly resourced.

The intent, the goal, of the legislation is good here, but we are still dealing with

a flawed system, and that system needs to be fixed so workers rights are protected.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker : Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Diana Gibson : We have some young people in the House today. We have St. Patrick’s Elementary School

and teacher Sophie Lund.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Darlene Rotchford : I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’m on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, known as the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations. I also am grateful to have my constituency office on their lands as well.

I rise to speak in support of Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment, legislation

enforcement in British Columbia.

As people in this House know, I come from and have a fairly extensive labour background

in the broader labour movement, standing up for workers rights as well as: “How do

employers and workers work together in fairness?”

This bill does something simple but profoundly important. When people have a problem

at work and believe their employment standards are not being represented, they deserve

to be heard. They deserve to be taken seriously, and they deserve a system that works

for them.

For many workers across British Columbia, the employment standards branch is a place

they turn to when they have nowhere else to go. It is where they can seek help if

they have not been paid what they are owed, if they have been denied their basic workplace

rights or if they feel they have been treated unfairly. The bill strengthens the system

so it can work better for everyone involved.

The employment standards branch — or ESB, as I’ll refer to it — plays a critical role

in protecting workers throughout our province. It receives and investigates complaints

under the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

It helps ensure that employees receive minimum standards of compensation and working

conditions they are entitled to under the law.

At the same time, the branch provides guidance and support for employers who want

to understand and comply with those laws. In other words, the branch exists not only

to resolve disputes but also to promote fairness, predictability and accountability

in workplaces across B.C.

Bill 10 introduces targeted amendments that will improve the complaint and dispute

resolution process at the employment standards branch. These changes are practical,

thoughtful and focus on helping people reach fair resolutions more quickly.

I will say that, during my time as the president of the Victoria Labour Council and

recording secretary, the self-help toolkit that was utilized under the employment

standards program was very clearly not working. We had workers who would email or

call our labour organization quite regularly asking for help and support because they

couldn’t get the support they needed because of the toolkit.

As well, it put those workers in a really hard place. For those who don’t know how

that toolkit worked, it required employees to attempt to resolve their issues directly

with their employer before the branch would accept that complaint at all. How are

you supposed…? If you have a dispute with your employer and you’re supposed to go

talk to the employer at the time…. It put people in a really precarious place.

It was one of the reasons our organization at the time supported the Together Against

Poverty Society’s employment standards organization, or ESOP, as we called it. That

organization was actually supporting those workers because they felt they had no one

else to turn to.

One of the most important elements of the legislation is improving service timelines.

Anyone who has ever been involved in a workplace dispute knows that time matters.

When a worker believes that they have not been paid properly, they cannot always afford

to wait months or years for answers, because that means their bills aren’t getting

paid, they’re not able to keep a roof over their head, and they’re not able to put

food on their table.

[1:50 p.m.]

When an employer faces a complaint, they also deserve clarity and certainty about

that outcome. Delays actually help nobody.

The amendments before this House streamline several steps within the complaint system

while preserving the protections already established under the law. These changes

will allow the employment standards branch to resolve straightforward issues earlier

in the process and reduce administrative delays. The results can be significant.

When the branch facilitates a resolution meeting between parties, approximately 75

percent of those meetings resolve involuntary resolutions within 30 to 45 days after

a file is first assigned to an officer. That statistic demonstrates something important.

When people are given the opportunity to communicate and resolve issues in a structured

and fair environment, many disputes can actually be settled quickly and effectively.

In my previous role, when I was with my union of BCGEU in the community health sector,

quite frankly, one of my favourite meetings was actually my labour management committee.

People used to think I was crazy, absolutely crazy. They were like: “Why would you

want to sit with the employer and the unions?” Because I believed through collaboration

that we could get to a common place because we had common goals, which were: how do

we keep the worksite going, and how do we work together to better the lives of the

people who work for us?

Bill 10 builds on that success. Requiring participation in resolution means, in cases

that are clear and straightforward, the legislation will help more workers and employers

reach solutions sooner.

Another improvement in this bill is to address an issue that may surprise many people:

unclaimed wages. Every year in British Columbia there are workers who are owed money

but cannot be located when those funds actually become available. Sometimes they’ve

moved. Sometimes their contact information has changed. And sometimes they simply

do not know that a payment has been ordered in their favour.

Bill 10 will allow the employment standards branch to transfer those funds more effectively

to B.C. Unclaimed, the provincial organization responsible for safeguarding unclaimed

money and locating its rightful owner. Those workers went to work. Those workers earned

all those wages. We want to make sure that we can take every effort they’re compensated.

This change increases the likelihood that workers will eventually receive those wages

that they are owed.

Wages are not just numbers on a page. They represent groceries on a table, rent payments,

child care costs and the ability to support themselves or their loved ones. Ensuring

those wages reach workers who earn them is a matter of fairness.

It is also important to address concerns that are sometimes raised about impartiality

in the employment service process. The ESB is committed to a fair and balanced process

that supports both workers and employers. Investigators contact all parties involved

in a complaint. They invite submissions and gather facts from both sides. They examine

evidence carefully before making any determination, and when a decision is made, it

can still be appealed.

Appeals are heard by the Employment Standards Tribunal, an independent body that reviews

decisions to ensure they are consistent with the law. These safeguards ensure administrative

justice is respected through the process. Bill 10 does not change that fundamental

principle. Instead, it improves the procedure that allows the system to function more

effectively.

One change included in this legislation involves the appeal process for employers.

Under the proposed amendments, employers who wish to appeal a determination on the

owed wages will be required to deposit the amount owed in trust before the appeal

process.

It is important to clarify what this requirement means. It applies only in the situation

where the ESB has already determined the wages are owed, the employer has chosen not

to comply with the order to pay those wages and the employer wishes to appeal that

determination. If the appeal overturns the decision, the deposit will be returned.

However, if the determination is upheld, that fund will already be available for the

worker who was rightfully owed that money.

This approach is consistent with practices in many other jurisdictions across Canada.

Its purpose is straightforward, ensuring that workers are not left waiting indefinitely

for wages that have already been determined to be owed.

Before entering this House, like I said, I spent many years in the labour movement.

During that time, I saw firsthand how important employment standards protections are

for working people. For many people who do not know, as a trade unionist and as a

proud union member, one of our other goals is to lift everybody up. It was to represent

and support workers who did not have the same protections that I had under my collective

agreement.

[1:55 p.m.]

I like to believe most employers in B.C. do the right thing. They treat their employees

fairly and comply with the law. In some cases, those same owners and businesses treat

their employees like family. They truly care.

However, when problems arise, though, and there are some bad apples, workers must

have confidence that the system designated to protect them is functioning efficiently.

Responsible employers also deserve a system that resolves dispute quickly and predictably

so they can focus on running their business. I can appreciate that sometimes these

processes take up a lot of time, and if you are a small business owner, time is money.

Bill 10 helps achieve that balance.

In my current role as Parliamentary Secretary for Armed Forces Development and Veterans

Affairs, I wanted to speak briefly about how strong employment standards benefit members

of our CAF and their families. Members often relocate across the country as part of

their service, with spouses getting new jobs in unfamiliar communities while supporting

deployments and postings.

I’m quite proud. I don’t know if people on both sides of the House heard. On Friday,

we actually made a really good announcement for military families, for job postings.

It’s very exciting. I can send you the link.

If you’re a military spouse now coming to British Columbia, the day you receive your

posting message you can actually start looking for employment opportunity. We want

to ensure that we’re getting those skilled workers that are military spouses across

the province jobs before they put their foot on the ground. Not only will that help

keep the family unit stronger but it will help the businesses here. It will also ensure

that financial stability is there for housing and other options.

That labour mobility for those people can sometimes make them a little more vulnerable

in our labour market. Ensuring that employment standard protections are accessible

and effectively enforced is a part of supporting those families. When workers know

there is a reliable system in place to address workplace concerns, it creates greater

confidence in the labour market for everybody, including those families in my community

of Esquimalt.

Since the test of time, it’s been very clear. You go to work; you get paid. People

should know that they can rely on that system from when it started until today.

It’s also important to emphasize that these amendments do not weaken protection for

vulnerable workers. The changes are designed to improve efficiency in the

interpretation

and administration and enforcement of the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign

Worker Protection Act without compromising the rights those laws provide.

Investigators will continue to assess whether resolution meetings are appropriate

in each case. They will consider language barriers, health and safety concerns, relationships

between the parties involved and any other factors that may affect someone’s ability

to participate. If a resolution meeting is not appropriate, the branch will continue

to investigate complaints using existing processes.

I recognize that this system may not be for everyone. However, I can say that, again,

for anyone who’s ever sat down at a table to work collaboratively through that kind

of mediation process, it is such a valuable tool to get ahead. The goal is not to

force resolution where it is not possible. The goal is to create more opportunities

for fair and timely solutions where they are appropriate.

British Columbia’s economy depends on strong workplaces built on fairness and respect.

Workers deserve to know their rights will be protected, and our government has a long

track record of doing that. Workers deserve a system that is clear, predictable and

efficient. Government has a responsibility to ensure that the institutions responsible

for enforcing those laws are equipped to do their job effectively with the tools necessary.

Bill 10 reflects that responsibility. It strengthens the tools — that were not there

before our government came into effect — for the employment standards branch to streamline

processes that currently slow down resolutions and help ensure that workers receive

the wages they are owed as quickly as possible. Again, that is the food on someone’s

plate, the rent over their head or the child care they may need.

Behind every complaint file is a real person — a worker trying to make ends meet,

a family relying on a paycheque or an employer trying to resolve a dispute and move

forward. This legislation ensures that when those situations arise, the system works

the way it should. For those reasons, I am proud to support the Labour Statutes Amendment

Act, and I encourage all members of this House to support Bill 10 as well.

[2:00 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu : May I be excused to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker : Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Harman Bhangu : Today we have Adam Jr. Steffanick in the chamber here and Miss Lund’s class at St.

Patrick’s School. His father is a good friend of mine, and I just wanted to say Adam

actually put his name forward for class president. Didn’t succeed, but you know what?

He put his name on the ballot, and that shows a lot of courage. I also want to let

him know I lost the first time too.

So keep ahead, and this is how democracy is.

Would the House really make him feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew : Before I begin my speech, I would just like to say to Adam: you know what? You keep

on going.

The first time I ran for something, I got 9 percent of the vote. And here I am, here

in this Legislative Assembly.

You keep on running. You keep competing. You keep on leading. And one day, you’ll

be sitting down here, Adam.

Thanks, guys, appreciate you visiting.

I rise to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. At one level,

this is a technical bill. It deals with complaint handling, dispute resolution, appeals

and enforcement under the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker

Protection Act. But as is often the case in this place, technical does not mean unimportant.

This bill goes to the heart of whether our employment standards system is actually

working for the people who depend on it, and the test of that should be pretty simple.

If a worker is owed wages, can they get them in a fair and timely way? If an employer

is wrongly hit with a determination, can they get a fair hearing without being crushed

by process and cost before they can even get out of the gate? And does the system

actually work in the real world, not just on paper and in ministers’ speaking notes?

That is the lens we should bring to this bill, because I think everyone in this House

agrees on the basic principle. Workers deserve to be paid what they’re owed. That

should not be controversial.

Employment standards laws exist for a reason. They exist because wages earned should

be wages paid. They exist because vulnerable workers need protection. And they exist

because a race to the bottom helps nobody except the worst actors.

Healthy workplaces also require something this government too often forgets: balance.

Responsible employers need rules that are clear, fair and workable. That matters,

especially for small businesses because unlike government, they cannot just absorb

every new process, every delay, every administrative requirement and every upfront

cost as though cash flow is just some minor detail. For a small business, cash flow

is not a detail. Cash flow is survival. There’s a reason they say cash is king.

That is exactly why government needs to think harder about the cumulative pressure

it is putting on small employers. This issue and this policy do not exist in a vacuum.

British Columbia has had some of the weakest small business confidence in the country.

We have what some have called an entrepreneurial drought.

At a time when we should be making it easier to start, grow and sustain a business,

too many people are looking at the landscape and deciding it’s just not worth the

risk. Small businesses are already being squeezed from every direction. They’re dealing

with higher insurance costs; higher borrowing costs; higher wages; higher lease costs;

and in too many communities, higher public safety costs as well — particularly in

our storefront small business downtown areas.

When disorder rises, when theft rises, when vandalism rises, when staff do not feel

safe opening or closing a business, that is not some abstract social problem. It lands

on the balance sheet of a small business. It means more spending on security systems,

more spending on private security, more losses from theft, more damage from vandalism,

more staff turnover, more time spent managing crises that have nothing to do with

serving customers or growing the business. That is a cash flow hit.

[2:05 p.m.]

Then government adds the PST to professional services that small businesses rely on

to operate responsibly: accounting, bookkeeping, other outside expertise that many

small businesses need because they do not have in-house specialists. These are not

luxuries. These are not optional extras. These are basic operating supports.

When government taxes those inputs, it’s not taxing access. It’s taxing the machinery

of compliance and basic business administration, and it is squeezing margins to the

breaking point for many small businesses. That is another cash flow hit.

For a large company, maybe those hits are absorbable. For a small business, they stack.

They compound. They arrive before the revenue does. They arrive whether the month

is good or bad. They arrive whether or not the owner has paid themselves. That is

why this bill deserves closer scrutiny than the government may want to give it.

Now, one of the big questions here is whether this system is delivering timely justice

now. On the government’s own numbers, it clearly is not. The ministry’s service plan

shows that over the past four years, only about 32 percent of complaints were resolved

within 180 days. Think about that. That means about two-thirds of workers filing complaints

are waiting more than six months to recover wages they may need for rent, groceries,

gas, child care and basic life.

Then the government pats itself on the back for setting a future target of 80 percent

within 180 days. But let us stop and think about that target for a second. Even if

they hit it, and they’re nowhere close right now, that still means one in five workers

could wait more than six months. That is the definition of a system that is not working

well enough.

There’s another problem here. Government is measuring how quickly files are closed,

not necessarily whether justice is done. A file can be closed because it is dismissed.

It can be closed because it is withdrawn. It can be closed because somebody, under

pressure, takes a settlement.

File closure is not the same thing as a fair outcome, so before the government congratulates

itself for procedural reform, maybe it should first explain why the existing system

is still so slow. This is, unfortunately, the pattern with this government. They under-resource

the system, let it drift and then come back with process changes and hope nobody notices

the capacity problem underneath. And there is a capacity problem underneath.

The ministry’s own budget shows labour program funding basically flat at about $22.3

million over the next three years. In fact, it is slightly below last year’s restated

estimate. So here is the obvious question. How exactly is the employment standards

branch supposed to improve performance dramatically with no meaningful increase in

resources? That is not a serious plan. That is wishful thinking with a press release

attached.

If the branch is expected to investigate better, resolve faster, protect vulnerable

workers and enforce the law more effectively, then it needs the staff and capacity

to do the work. Otherwise, what happens? Investigators get pressured to move files.

Timelines become the priority, and the temptation becomes to close complaints rather

than fully resolve them. That is not fair to workers, and it’s not fair to good employers

either.

Now, Bill 10 absolutely does contain some ideas that sound very reasonable at first

glance. A more formal complaint resolution process could help resolve straightforward

matters faster. In principle, that’s absolutely fine. Nobody benefits from disputes

lingering forever. But we do need to think clearly about incentives and power imbalances

here.

Where there is a vulnerable worker facing an employer with more resources, a settlement

process can become a pressure process. It can become a mechanism for resolving the

file rather than delivering the full justice the worker is owed. So yes, resolution

can be useful, but only if it is genuinely fair and proportionate.

On the other side of the equation, government also needs to understand that what looks

like a modest procedural step from Victoria can feel very different on the ground

for a small business owner in Kelowna, Prince George, Surrey, Nanaimo, Richmond or

Abbotsford. I wouldn’t want to leave out the member for Abbotsford South.

[2:10 p.m.]

A large corporation may have HR staff, legal counsel, payroll staff and compliance

people. A small business owner has none of that. They are the HR department. They

are the operations department. They are the one trying to make payroll on Friday and

still unlock the door on Monday morning. Sometimes that means they can’t afford to

have a beer on a Friday night, buy groceries on Saturday or put 20 bucks in the collection

plate at church on Sunday.

So when government adds a mandatory resolution process — another set of forms, another

appearance, another time-consuming step — it’s not free and it’s not no-impact. It

costs time. It costs money. It costs attention. And for small businesses, those costs

are often front-loaded. That matters.

It matters because large organizations can usually absorb front-loaded compliance

costs. Small businesses often can’t. Some are operating on such thin margins that

a broken window is not a nuisance; it’s a serious blow. One unexpected cost, one expense

that has to be paid immediately can throw everything off. It can mean the difference

between getting a cheque from your small business that month and writing a cheque

to your small business.

That is why front-loaded costs matter so much, especially when this bill may require

a small employer to put money up front before they can even access an appeal.

That brings me to the appeal deposit requirement, which is probably the sharpest issue

in this bill. Bill 10 would require an employer appealing a wage determination to

deposit the amount owing or a smaller amount set by the tribunal before the appeal

can proceed. Government will say this is about stopping frivolous appeals and making

sure workers are protected from delay tactics. Those are laudable goals. Fair enough.

There is logic there.

But logic only takes you halfway. Then you have to ask what happens in the real world.

What happens when a small business believes the determination is wrong but does not

have the cash to post the full amount up front? What happens when the appeal may be

legitimate but the cost of access to the appeal process is itself prohibitive? That

is not a theoretical problem. That is a real access-to-justice problem.

Appeals exist because decision-makers can be wrong. Systems need checks. Facts can

be disputed. Errors can happen. But if the price of entry is too high, especially

in upfront cash terms, then for some employers, the right to appeal becomes mostly

fictional.

Again, it is the front-loaded nature of the cost that matters. A small business might

survive an eventual liability. What it cannot survive is having a large amount of

cash tied up immediately while also covering payroll, rent, supplier invoices, taxes

and everything else government keeps piling on, including a public safety crisis.

This government consistently underestimates how damaging front-loaded costs can be.

It’s not just the amount. It’s the timing and the inflexibility. The timing is what

can kill you. Yes, the tribunal can reduce the deposit amount, but how that discretion

will actually work matters a great deal. Is it clear? Is it predictable? Is it accessible,

or does a small employer have to incur yet more cost hiring a lawyer just to ask for

relief from a rule that is already choking them to death? Those are questions this

House should not just hand wave through.

There’s also a consultation issue here. Employer groups have indicated they were not

aware these changes were coming and were not meaningfully consulted in advance. That’s

consistent with a lot of the changes that we see from this government, and it’s not

a small point. Labour law works best when government actually bothers to talk to the

people who have to live under it, both workers and employers and advocates — people

on the ground.

Instead, this government often behaves as though consultation is optional and as though

whatever good intention they claim at the front end automatically guarantees a good

result at the back end. Intentions versus effects. That’s not how good policy-making

works. Good intentions are nice. Incentives, implementation and consequences matter

more. The fine print matters.

[2:15 p.m.]

We should also keep in mind the broader cost environment small businesses are operating

in right now. They’re already dealing with higher costs, weak confidence and more

government-imposed burden, including a public safety crisis exacerbated by this government’s

reckless drug decriminalization experiment and exacerbated even further by their tone-deaf,

poorly timed addition of PST to the security services that people are being forced

to pay for because police can’t keep up with the vandalism and violence created by

this government’s failed policies.

When government piles on another procedural cost, another compliance hurdle, another

upfront financial barrier, it should not act surprised when small business owners

say: “Enough.”

Temporary foreign workers also deserve real attention in this bill. They are often

among the most vulnerable people in our labour market. If government is serious about

protecting them, then enforcement has to be real, timely and accessible. It cannot

just be theoretical.

That means not only having rules on the books but having a system that actually works

for people. That is really the larger question hanging over Bill 10. Is this government

truly fixing the system or just rearranging it? Is it improving justice or just changing

process? Is it building something more credible, or is it trying to paper over weak

performance with technical amendments?

Those are fair questions. Yes, workers absolutely deserve strong protections. Yes,

bad actors should not be allowed to game the system. Yes, temporary foreign workers

deserve meaningful enforcement of their rights. But employers — especially small businesses,

especially good actors who play by the rules — also deserve a system that is fair,

understandable and grounded in the economic reality they live with every single day.

That means government has to think seriously about the cash flow implications of this

policy for businesses that are struggling just to get by; for businesses who are seeing

a rising cost of living as individuals and have no more money they can take out of

their companies; for businesses that are seeing their margins compressed; for businesses

who are seeing weak consumer confidence result in lower consumer discretionary spending,

affecting their businesses; for businesses who are seeing the effect of tariffs diminish

their revenues; for businesses that are struggling in a weak economy brought on by

nine years of failed economic and fiscal policies.

Government has to think seriously about the front-loaded costs of this bill. It has

to think about administrative burden. It has to stop pretending that a small business

with two or three or ten employees is in the same position as a large corporation

with an HR department and outside counsel on speed-dial.

Bill 10 raises real questions about balance, fairness, consultation, cost and capacity.

Those questions deserve careful examination in this House and in committee.

We look forward to that next step.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I rise in this House today to speak to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act as MLA for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head, a community that I’m very proud to represent here in the House

today.

Just a moment to thank those who I represent in our community for their ongoing support.

The ability to engage across our community with them is a huge privilege.

Speaking today to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act is also a huge privilege for me

as someone who worked closely in the labour movement. I’ve been a union member. I’ve

been a union staff person. And I’ve also been a labour educator.

One of the things I did was…. As a young person, I was able to develop a course for

young people on their rights in the workplace. This included employment standards.

I heard firsthand from young people who were having challenges accessing their rights,

including just the basic one of getting paid for their work.

For that reason, it’s a real privilege for me today to speak to the ongoing work that

our government has been doing to ensure we’re protecting workers. Part of that is

the broad context of the different reforms we’ve made to protect workers.

[2:20 p.m.]

This bill sits within a set of changes we’ve been making to protect worker health

and safety, to promote fair workplaces, to strengthen protections for vulnerable workers

and to drive economic growth. Our government is ensuring that B.C.’s strong economy

that we’re building is built together with the workers that we rely on to do the work,

that they can benefit from an economy that lifts up everyone. That’s what the bill

today is about.

Some of the changes that we’ve made, as a part of the broader context that this bill

sits in, include changes that help protect women, that help protect young people and

young workers, that help protect vulnerable workers and that ensure we have safer

workplaces.

I’m going to speak a little bit to some of those changes. It’s really important to

understand the broader context that this bill sits in.

Because we’re hard on the heels of International Women’s Day, I wanted to speak to

some of the important work our government has done to protect women workers, starting

with job-protected leaves. We provided longer, more flexible, job-protected pregnancy

and parental leave and leaves for people caring for terminally ill loved ones or coping

with the death or disappearance of a child.

Of course, raising the minimum wage is about women workers because they are disproportionately

represented in low-wage and minimum-wage jobs.

Also the Fair Wages Commission, which was important for elevating all workers…. It

was a report received in 2018, where we had a review to ensure fair wages and working

conditions across British Columbia. It laid out a path to things like increasing our

minimum wage; examining other minimum wage rates in the Employment Standards Act,

such as liquor servers, live-in home support workers, resident caretakers, live-in

camp leaders and piece rates for hand-harvested crops; and examining the gap between

minimum and living wages.

Our labour code review is also key to fair laws in B.C. and part of this context of

raising the standards for workers across the province. In our labour code review,

we were working to ensure B.C. workplaces are governed by fair laws consistent with

the labour rights and protections enjoyed by other British Columbians.

Another area of vulnerable workers that it has been important that we’ve been protecting

is young workers. Employment standards are critical for young workers, whose rights

need to be protected. Some of the changes we’ve already made include looking at hazardous

work for youth — so based on public and stakeholder input, new regulations to define

jobs that are considered hazardous and unsuitable for young workers — in January 2023.

We also strengthened employment standards to better protect young workers by raising

the general working age from 12 to 16 so that we can protect them from child labour,

ensure that they’re in school and being children while they can.

Another area where we’ve been working is to protect health and safety in the workplace.

Many changes that we’ve made in the Workers Compensation Act…. Looking at hazardous

work for young people, looking at presumptive health and cancer for firefighters.

I had the opportunity to meet with firefighters from across my community just last

week, and we talked about the incredible difference it makes for them, as they put

their lives on the line for us in their job, to know that those protections are there

for them when they need them.

Some of the other things this bill talks to is temporary foreign workers. We’ve done

work already as a government to better protect temporary foreign workers in the Temporary

Foreign Worker Protection Act, which has a requirement for recruiters to be licensed

in order to bring in vulnerable workers from other countries.

The work that we’re doing in this bill is building on a foundation of work we’ve done

to protect workers and it is critical to continuing to ensure that those protections

are there.

Another area where we’ve made reforms is around the ability to unionize, as part of

our labour code review and our ongoing reforms, to ensure that the ability to unionize

isn’t impeded by unfair practices. And single-step certification is one of the things

we’ve done to ensure that we amended the Labour Relations Code to improve the fairness

of the unionization process, enhancing workers rights to have a say in workplace safety,

workers compensation and benefits.

[2:25 p.m.]

That work is ongoing as we continue to do work like our recent changes in crane safety;

our changes in job-protected medical leave, where we have brought B.C. from lower

in the bottom to at the top, in our tenure in government, of job-protected medical

leave; and our work to take B.C. from the bottom for minimum wages, where it was under

the previous Liberal government, to the top, where it is today. That’s the work we

are doing in an ongoing way.

This bill is part of that work. With this bill, when people have a problem at work,

we know they shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not employment standards protections

will be there for them. We know that worry, right now, is there for employment standards.

That’s why we’re making the reforms here, to ensure that they have the employment

standards being met and the ability to be heard and helped.

These new amendments to the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign Worker

Protection Act will improve the complaint and dispute resolution process at the employment

standards branch.

The employment standards branch ensures that employees in B.C. receive minimum standards

of compensation and conditions of employment to help protect workers from exploitation.

The employment standards branch is an important resource for both workers and employers,

The proposed changes are steps towards improving the process, helping people get resolution

sooner. The changes will maintain access to important rights and protections provided

by the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act to all

British Columbians. The amendments to the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign

Worker Protection Act will help clarify and improve the complaint and dispute resolution

process for employers and workers.

The employment standards branch receives and investigates complaints of contraventions

of the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act for

non-unionized employees and temporary foreign workers and facilitates voluntary compliance

or issues decisions and levies penalties for contraventions under the two acts.

The amendments being discussed today improve several parts of the complaint system

by increasing opportunities for resolving complaints on issues that are clear and

straightforward and by helping match workers with their unclaimed wages more efficiently.

The proposed changes are intended to improve the complaint process without compromising

access to the rights and protections that the Employment Standards Act and Temporary

Foreign Worker Act provide to all workers in B.C.

Together, the two acts provide more than two million workers in B.C. with critical

rights and protections when it comes to employment, including specific protections

for foreign workers working in B.C. The standards set by these acts promote open communication;

work-life balance; and, especially, the fair treatment of employees.

Workers who believe they have not received the rights and protections they’re entitled

to under the Employment Standards Act or the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

may file a complaint with the employment standards branch. The complaint process at

the branch offers valuable support to vulnerable workers. These workers often lack

the power to advocate for themselves when employers or foreign worker recruiters do

not meet their obligations under the act.

A typical complaint received by the branch is that of an employer that has not paid

wages they owe to an employee. Another common complaint is that an employee has not

received an entitlement such as paid sick leave or overtime pay.

We know there are many vulnerable workers in our province who rely on the timely payment

of wages to ensure that their basic needs are met, that they can pay their rent, that

they can put food on their table. Because of this, it’s imperative that the branch’s

complaint process is structured to offer workers quick resolution of complaints.

Employers also benefit from the certainty that timely and efficient complaint resolution

provides. Between 2018 and 2025, the number of employment standards complaints received

annually at the branch increased by 95 percent. That is, complaints almost doubled,

from just under 5,000 to more than 9,600 complaints per year.

Our government has worked hard in the past eight years to bring back basic rights

and protections that were gutted under the old government. We’ve worked hard to restore

the employment standards branch’s ability to uphold minimum employment standards in

our province and protect workers from exploitation.

The B.C. Liberal government eliminated the requirement to investigate complaints,

cut staffing levels and closed employment standards branch offices. In just one year,

the B.C. Liberals closed 47 percent of branch offices in the province — from 17 to

9 — and within four years, they reduced the number of employment standards branch

officers by one-third. They let the act fall behind the changing needs of workers

and workplaces in our province.

[2:30 p.m.]

Prior to the 2019 amendments that our government brought in, the act had not been

updated for 15 years. It meant that less and less workers were provided with the important,

basic protections around wages and working conditions and that more and more of them,

including children as young as 12, as a direct result of decisions made by the B.C.

Liberal government, were put at greater risk of exploitation and serious injury at

work.

In recent years, the branch has undergone transformation to provide workers with easier

access to services. Previously under the Liberal government, there was a mandatory

self-help kit which required employees to attempt to resolve their issues with their

employer before proceeding. Ultimately, that kit was a barrier and that process was

a barrier to vulnerable workers filing complaints. We eliminated that self-help kit

and made other modernizations, such as extending the period for which the branch can

recover wages for an employee from six months to one year.

In 2019, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act was implemented to ensure protections

for foreign workers. In 2024, additional legislation and regulatory changes were made

to provide employment standard protection for gig workers. We’re continuing to work

to ensure that we’re protecting vulnerable workers wherever they are.

These changes, when taken together along with increasing worker awareness about their

entitlements and supports available through the employment standards branch, have

led to an increase in the number of complaints submitted to the branch and a bigger

demand on its services.

In addition to resolving complaints, the branch oversees the licensing and registration

of foreign worker recruiters and employers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection

Act. The addition of this important protection for foreign workers in B.C. is another

factor contributing to significant increases in demands on the branch services in

recent years.

We know that many people are facing longer than expected wait times for the complaints

to be resolved, and that’s why we’re taking action. Since forming government, we’ve

already taken action, adding staff resources to address increased requests and streamlining

intake and triage processes to provide better outcomes for workers. We’ve made technology

improvements along with enhancements to information-gathering to support more efficient

and effective investigations. We’re making progress, but we know there’s a lot more

to do.

As part of the ongoing efforts to improve efficiency, this legislation and the changes

proposed will help streamline operations in the branch while maintaining the rights

and protections workers rely on. There are five key amendments that I’d like to highlight.

First, the amendment proposed providing the branch clearer discretion to require worker

and employer participation in complaint resolution meetings, as appropriate, to help

resolve complaints more quickly and effectively. Eighty percent of all resolution

meetings of the branch already result in voluntary resolution of the dispute within

45 days of the file being assigned.

The second area that we’re working on in this bill is removing the requirement for

a formal written report to be served to the parties after early investigation but

before final determination. Removing this requirement will help to resolve complaints

more quickly and efficiently. It’s important to note that the branch is currently

required to provide the parties with a final written determination at the conclusion

of every complaint. This requirement will not change.

Additionally, the third area that we are working on….

The fourth amendment that we would like to highlight involves the branch closing a

complaint when all parties agree no wages are owing. This, again, will free up branch

staff to resolve other complaints while waiting in the queue.

Apologies, I missed the third. The third key amendment is assisting with matching

workers with their unclaimed wages. I saw firsthand young workers impacted by a business

that closed without paying wages. Young workers rely on those wages. They work to

feed themselves that day and that month, to pay their rent. The impact of a business

not paying the wages to young workers is something…. If you see firsthand, you know

that helping to receive unclaimed wages is a critical part of protecting and supporting

our workers.

This change will ensure that unclaimed wages are more quickly processed through B.C.

Unclaimed Property Society, also known as B.C. Unclaimed — another way we can better

serve workers while using employment standard branch resources more efficiently.

[2:35 p.m.]

Sometimes when a worker quits or otherwise has their employment terminated, employers

cannot locate the worker to pay the wages that are owing. In that case, the employer

must provide unpaid wages to the branch. Currently the branch must hold the funds

while they attempt to locate the employee. If the employee has not been located after

one year, the branch must transfer the funds to B.C. Unclaimed.

B.C. Unclaimed is a non-profit society dedicated to quickly connecting British Columbians

with their unclaimed money left behind in courts, insurance payments, credit union

accounts and other types of accounts. It’s best placed to do the important work of

uniting employees with their unclaimed wages.

This amendment will remove the requirement for the branch to hold the unpaid wages

for a year when they are unable to locate a worker. Enabling the branch to transfer

unclaimed wages to B.C. Unclaimed sooner will better support the efficient and timely

matching of unclaimed wages to their rightful owners.

Speaking a little more to the fourth amendment, I’d like to highlight that this involves

the branch closing a complaint when all parties agree that no wages are owing. Sometimes

when a worker files a complaint seeking unpaid wages, the employer pays the amount

they owe before the branch begins an investigation. When this happens, the branch

considers the complaint resolved and the file is usually closed with the consent of

both parties.

Currently the Employment Standards Act provides that the branch may refuse to investigate

a complaint in certain circumstances, including where the branch is satisfied that

the complaint has been resolved. However, there’s some confusion, particularly among

complainants, about what it means for the complaint to be resolved.

These amendments will provide much-needed clarity that the branch’s authority to close

complaints when they’re resolved includes when unclaimed wages claimed by a complainant

have been paid. This will improve understanding of the legislation and reduce disputes

around the complaint process in those situations, providing clarity for both the employee

and the employer.

Fifth and finally, the amendments will require employers to deposit any wages that

are owed before appealing a decision with the Employment Standards Tribunal. Ultimately,

this means more workers will receive the wages owed to them and fewer branch resources

will be required to enforce wage payment orders.

Employers are already required to comply with orders made by the branch in the determination

of a complaint, regardless of whether they appeal the termination. In other words,

there is currently no legal avenue for employers to avoid paying wages and other amounts

owed to workers while they appeal a determination.

However, on occasion, some employers simply choose to remain non-compliant while their

appeal proceeds. The collections process is very resource-intensive, and the branch

would need to dedicate significant resources to prioritize pursuing these non-compliant

employers while their appeal is in process.

In one example, the employment standards branch issued a determination awarding a

worker over $100,000 in unpaid wages and accrued interest. The employer made an appeal

of this decision shortly after, and the appeal was dismissed. In this case, the employer’s

decision to remain non-compliant and to appeal the determination added another six

months to this process. Six months later, the worker is still waiting for their former

employer to pay the wages rightfully owed to them.

The actions of these few employers create great unfairness to the workers in their

employ, and they disproportionately take up resources of the branch to the detriment

of other workers and to the majority of employers who do abide by the law. To address

this, the proposed change adjusts the appeal process so that employers must pay to

the branch the money they owe before the appeal can proceed. Most other jurisdictions

require employers to make such a deposit in employment standards, so this is levelling

us up to be aligned with other jurisdictions.

Then the money will be held in trust by the branch, and of course, the money will

be returned to the employer with interest if the employer is successful in their appeal.

Employers who cannot pay the full amount they owe under a determination may request

the tribunal’s permission to deposit a smaller amount with the branch.

As I’ve indicated today, the amendments of this bill are collectively intended to

create administrative efficiency and allocate staff resources more efficiently at

the branch. More fundamentally, the changes today are part of a package of changes

we’ve made since taking government to protect women workers; to protect young workers;

to ensure health and safety of all workers; to ensure that we’re protecting vulnerable

workers, like temporary foreign workers; to ensure everyone has access to the rights

they have under employment standards.

This process is about ensuring streamlining of the complaint process, maintaining

important rights and protections for workers and employers — and will generate overall

positive impacts for workers, positive impacts for businesses and positive impacts

for the economy.

We are committed to continually improving and addressing barriers people have when

needing help at times where they need it most. These amendments add to this. These

are part of our focus on building an economy that lifts up everyone.

[2:40 p.m.]

Bruce Banman : In my riding of Abbotsford South, temporary foreign workers are a huge component

of what goes on in Abbotsford South because of its large agricultural base. Quite

frankly, I don’t know that the work that needs to be done could be done without them.

While I’m speaking on Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, I think it’s important

that we pay tribute to the temporary foreign workers that come up and help feed us.

Some of these workers…. I believe the longest case that I have heard is the same worker

had been returning for over 30 years to work on the same farm. I’ve talked with the

farmers, and they become family. Their birthdates are celebrated. There are events

that happen, and they become not just employees but trusted members that really are

part of the farm itself. Most of the farmers that I would speak to would say that,

absolutely, the rights of temporary foreign workers need to be protected.

Like in most things in life, there are good employees, there are good employers, and

then there are those that are not so good. The vast majority, however, are employers

that want to do the right thing. If you’re going to bring someone back for 30 years

running, clearly you value that work ethic that comes with that — the fact that that

employee literally becomes a vital part of how your operation works. And that’s just

on a farm.

We also know that we have temporary foreign workers that do other jobs, whether that

be in seasonal…. We take a look at here in Victoria. We’ve gone out for lunch or dinner

and it’s been a temporary foreign worker that’s looked after us.

Sometimes they bring other languages with them, which are particularly important when

you get into resorts such as Whistler-Blackcomb or other areas. Sometimes they have

some distinct advantages. For instance, if they come from the wine industry themselves,

we’ll see them sometimes in areas of the Okanagan.

They’re not always low-paid jobs either. Some of them are brought in because of the

high skills that they possess. We have a tendency to think of temporary foreign workers

as those that somehow fulfil a need that nobody else really wants to do. In some cases,

it’s because of the very skills that they have that they’re brought in to fill a niche

here in British Columbia that would otherwise go unfilled. They are an incredibly

important part of our economy.

This side of the House, for the most part, celebrates the strengthening of those to

make sure that those very few bad actors that either purposely take advantage of someone

or, more often, I would say, inadvertently…. There should be a dispute mechanism for

both the temporary foreign workers — and workers, for that matter — and employers

so that justice is actually served.

We want to make sure that the employees have timely access to being paid for what

they did, the labour that they put in. They deserve to be paid and compensated for

what they did, and it needs to happen in a timely manner.

[2:45 p.m.]

Employers also deserve to have, in a dispute — quite often there can be disputes for

many different reasons — a timely manner in which that dispute is settled. I think

both sides of the House would agree that if there is a claim, especially if you are

— and we have heard stories — a worker that needs to pay your rent, needs to send

money home or needs to buy food or whatever it is you need, time is of the essence

to make sure that happens.

Sadly, that has not been happening. Shame on this government for not figuring that

out. It takes — what was it? — 180 days for…. So 32 percent of the cases take more

than six months. That is a failure by this House to ensure that those disputes are

settled in a timely manner.

I applaud the ability to try and speed this up. However, there are some issues. One

of the issues is that this budget freezes the labour program’s funding at $22.3 million

for the next three years. That’s actually a decrease if you include inflation over

the next three years. It’s actually lower than last year’s budget of $22.85 million.

That was in the estimates.

This is NDP logic or NDP math. They somehow expect to get better results and not actually

fund it to be able to get the results. They’re actually lowering the funding and somehow

magically expecting that this process is going to speed up. It defies logic. It defies

common sense, and it defies what is most likely going to be possible. I would suspect

that things are going to get worse, not better. It’s kind of like the budget itself.

It got worse, not better.

I also heard that there has been a 95 percent rise in complaints. Well, let’s just

absorb that for a minute. There’s been a rise in complaints. We’re going to spend

less money and expect better results. They want a target rate of 80 percent. It just

doesn’t add up. It just doesn’t seem to work if you take and apply the logic.

Results are not made on wishes and best hopes. Good results are made on good planning.

What this side of the House will say to you is there is a lack of good planning to

get the desired results that are wanted. It does not make sense, and it doesn’t add

up, because it just plain doesn’t. It’s totally illogical, and wishes don’t necessarily

make things happen.

There are a few other things. Let’s start off with that. I believe that this particular

vehicle that they want to use has already got a gas tank that’s pretty much empty.

We’re not going to get to the destination that we want because we have not bothered

to put in what is required to actually make it work. I believe it’s destined to fail,

with the best of intentions. But the best of intentions don’t get the job done, sadly,

much of the time.

In the event that an employer owes an employee wages and they’re unable to locate

that employee, the director may now, then, take possession of the wages after attempting

to locate them themselves. Previously, the director could only take the wages after

a year of attempting to locate them.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have already heard this economy is in dire straits. The vast majority of this will

be small businesses, for one reason or another, because small businesses make up the

vast majority of businesses. It makes logic that the number one complaint is going

to be through small businesses.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Small businesses are struggling

right now for a number of reasons, whether that be, as we have heard, theft through

shoplifting….

We had London Drugs recently close down its Vancouver location because the amount

of theft that was going on has forced them to close a location. They are not alone.

We have had places like Williams Lake announce a state of emergency. I believe it

was Williams Lake. It could be a number of small towns, actually, things are so bad.

This government has not managed to fix that. As a matter of fact, under its watch,

it’s gotten much, much worse.

For small businesses…. To then increase this and say, “You know what? You have to

buck this up now,” actually, could put an unintended consequence on a business. It’s

not that the business doesn’t want to pay them. Sometimes it’s an inability to do

it at that particular moment. I think that what it does is that it makes it a little

bit too rigid on some small businesses, as we have heard by other speakers.

I’m not so sure that I agree with the director being able to immediately go while

the employer themselves is looking for that particular employee. I don’t know that

we need to go to that drastic step. I have not heard evidence that that was a particular

problem.

I’m not so sure why this particular piece of legislation was put in at a time when

businesses are already under hardships. We’ve heard the term “death by a thousand

cuts.” Is this just one more paper cut, one more cut that’s going to put a burden

unnecessarily on some small businesses? Right now losing one is one too many.

Employees deserve to be paid. This side of the House is in 100 percent agreement on

that. But where is the latitude for businesses that are clinging on? It may or may

not happen in a particular case, but what in the case that it is? Is there any latitude

at all so that a business could, say, throughout the year, as an example, pay up for

that if they’re having hard times?

And then you also don’t understand sometimes why an employee will necessarily disappear,

never to come back. For that money to just vanish into, basically, government coffers….

It’s a hidden tax, in a way. It’s actually never going to get to the intended person

that it was supposed to benefit.

What is government going to do with all that money? Is it going to just go into general

revenue so that it can go towards gift cards the government was passing around to

employees? If it’s general revenue, it potentially could go towards that. So I think

that that particular one is probably a little bit too rigid.

The other one that is, is that if an employer…. Not all employees will necessarily

file a claim that is necessarily accurate. Yet in this particular case, if an employer

wants to actually appeal the case, they have to put up the entire amount up front.

Now, if this is a low-wage issue and it’s a few hundred dollars, well, that’s not

a big deal.

But what if it goes to one of those high-profile, highly educated individuals that

I was just talking about? Some of them are making hundreds of thousands of dollars,

because there is no niche for them. There is no place for them within…. There is a

lack of an educated, skilled employee to take that particular issue.

[2:55 p.m.]

Now, there could be a case where that could be a huge amount of money that now the

business has to put up front just to appeal it. In those cases, it could very well

cause that business to go: “We can’t afford to fight this. We’re just going to have

to take it. We’re just going to have to put up with it, because we do not…. Because

we’ve got to put the money up front, we just do not have the cash flow right now to

be able to dispute this.”

It puts an unnecessary burden. I would much prefer to see some kind of amount…. A

maximum a threshold of some kind, I think, would be perhaps in better keeping with

the spirit of this law. Again, the spirit of the law is to make sure that those that

are owed wages get them.

The spirit of the law is not…. Where I go with this is, if the appeal is successful,

that business has now had to put up a considerable amount of money, perhaps, depending

on the case. Like I said, it’s not always minimum-wage jobs that we’re talking about.

And that could put that business at an unnecessary hardship.

What requires in this, as in many things in life…. What I’ve seen as a trend within

this government is a lack of balance, a lack of fairness. We have a tendency to treat

employers, of which the vast majority are good employers, as if somehow they are nefarious

and that they are always trying to find a way to mess somebody over and not have to

pay what they agreed to.

In some cases, there’s that balancing act required where there are also employees

who, either intentionally or unintentionally, think that they are owed money. That’s

why we have a tribunal of this sort. It’s why we have a director to make these decisions

in these particular cases. It is not always in favour of the employee. Sometimes the

decision is in favour of the employer.

We want to make sure that it is balanced and fair and lightning-speed in cases like

this — especially, as I said, if it is about an employee that has payments of some

kind due. And we don’t know what those payments are.

Waiting six months to get paid is not timely under anyone’s standards. We can do better

than that. It needs to be quicker. It needs to be faster. As I said, reducing the

budget, not accounting for inflation, with a 95 percent increase in complaints, according

to the minister that just spoke…. There just doesn’t seem any way that we can go from

A to Z to get that and speed it up.

Now, even if that target that government has laid out is achieved, it still means

approximately one in five workers, based on what I’ve heard, could still wait longer

than six months to see a resolution. How is that protecting vulnerable workers? It

isn’t. It’s an epic failure. We have to do better than that.

[3:00 p.m.]

You have to ask yourself: “Is this remotely just or acceptable?” And as was mentioned,

if now the pressure comes on — “You’ve got to solve this; you have to have a decision”

— will you then have a director or an adjudicator that is now making decisions based

on a timeline versus on what’s actual and required? We look forward to digging deeper

into this as this bill moves forward.

The vast majority of employers not only follow the rules but want to follow the rules.

I believe that good legislation supports both employers and employees yet holds the

few bad apples or bad actors accountable, be they employers or employees.

Now, the other thing that seems to happen an awful lot with this particular government

is they come up with a great idea — at least, they think it’s a great idea — and they

forget to do that one vital thing, which is to get stakeholders in a room and actually

consult, actually say: “Okay, if we do this, what’s the downside? What are we missing?

Is this even a good idea at all? Who are we going to hurt if we…? This is the goal

we want. How do we get there, and how do we do it without some unintended consequences?”

The smartest individual I ever worked for always used to say, “The devil is always

in the details,” and the best way to get those details is by having meaningful, wholesome

discussion. It’s partly why we do what we do here.

This side of the House’s job, while negative in nature, is to say: “Look, we see some

shortcomings with this particular legislation, and has government thought about this?”

Has government, for instance, thought about the unnecessary burden it’s going to put

on employers if they have to pay money up front? Has it thought about the horrific

burden it’s putting on an employee if they’ve got to wait over six months to get their

money?

Consultation would go to both parties and say: “How do we speed this process up, and

what’s the best way to achieve the results we want?” Something that happens within

60 days, let’s say. Sometimes, even that’s too long for some employees. “How can we

get the desired results?” Yet what’s missing, once again, is consultation.

Part of that consultation could have been when they were talking to small businesses,

who may struggle with the new appeal deposit requirement and having to pay the entire

amount up front just to appeal it, versus…. Perhaps a portion of it up front would

be a much better way. Perhaps there could have been a scaling, depending on what that

amount is.

Again, I think the assumption in this is that this is going to be minimum-wage-type

stuff. As I said before, there are temporary foreign workers that are highly skilled

and, actually, their remuneration is quite…. They’re well-paid for what they do.

So we would like to see, on this side of the House, a way to make this legislation,

actually, better. We are most likely going to put forward a few amendments, and we

hope that that side of the House sees in the nature in which it is.

We value, as I said before…. In my riding of Abbotsford, we could not survive without

temporary foreign workers. Crops would literally rot and would not get harvested;

cows would not get milked; and the feather industry would also be in trouble as well,

in some cases.

It is a vital component of the backbone of my riding, which is agriculture. We want

to make sure that these temporary foreign workers are well-compensated for what they

do and that they want to come back, as I mentioned.

[3:05 p.m.]

My example of 30 years, actually, is not unusual. I have heard, time and time again,

when I talk to some of the temporary foreign workers when I go out in the fields….

“How long have you been here?” Ten-plus years is not uncommon. It’s not like they

come here for one year and then never come back.

So these employers want them. They want those valuable skills, because they know that

the crops are in good hands with the people that actually know what they’re doing,

familiar with the operation, and they want to keep them here. They do not want to

see a case where, for whatever reason, they fail to come back because they felt as

if they were dealt with unfairly.

Making sure these temporary workers have decent standards, have decent pay and are

compensated for what was the agreement — both sides of the House have no argument

with that.

Again, I think that there are, just to surmise, a few things…. We need to make sure

that this is timely in manner. Six months is not okay, in anybody’s world. It’s not

okay to employer. It’s not okay to employee. We want to make sure that it does not

put an unnecessary burden on the employer. There are cases in this where…. You don’t

want to see any cracks, and it could do that. We want to make sure that we speed the

process up and that, most importantly, it’s just and it’s fair.

This side of the House wants to support this. We will probably make some recommendations

that go forward to improve upon it, and I hope that that side of the House takes it

in the true spirit in which it will be intended, which is to make sure that it’s fair

to both sides of this party. From that, you actually get true justice and you get

good legislation.

It’s always a pleasure to speak in this House. Thank you very much for your time.

Lynne Block : First of all, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today and represent my riding

and the constituents of my riding, West Vancouver–Capilano. It really is an honour.

I have many small businesses in my riding. In fact, there are no huge industrial complexes

or anything like that. For me, this bill was intriguing because I looked at it very

closely in the context of people I know — the wonderful little restaurant that has

patisserie, then you’ve got the hardware store and you’ve got the pub — all doing

their very, very best to make a living. So I have a few comments.

I’m rising today to speak to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, introduced by

the hon. Minister of Labour. At its core, this legislation amends two important laws

in British Columbia: the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker

Protection Act.

As the words of Martin Luther King Jr. remind us: “No work is insignificant. All labour

that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance.”

These statutes that we are discussing today govern some of the most fundamental aspects

of work in our province — how employees are paid, how disputes are handled and how

vulnerable workers are protected. That principle is exactly why employment standards

exist — to ensure that when work is done, wages are paid.

Every member of this House understands that employment standards are not theoretical

ideas. They affect real people. They affect the single parent waiting for a final

paycheque. They affect the small business owner trying to navigate a complex system.

And they affect temporary foreign workers who may be thousands of kilometres from

home and dependent on the fairness of our laws.

Healthy workplaces require balance. Workers must have strong protections. Employers

must have rules that are fair, predictable and workable. That balance is the standard

by which we must measure this bill. While this legislation contains provisions that

aim to improve efficiency and ensure workers receive wages owed, there are several

significant concerns that deserve scrutiny.

[3:10 p.m.]

The purpose of the bill. It introduces three main policy changes. First, it changes

how unpaid wages are handled when an employee cannot be located. Second, it creates

a new complaint resolution process that can require parties to participate in mediation

during investigation. Third, and perhaps most significantly, it requires employers

to deposit the full amount of a monetary determination in order to appeal it, unless

a tribunal allows a smaller amount.

Each of these provisions carries implications not only for employees but also for

businesses and the administrative capacity of government.

Let me begin with something every member in this House should agree on. Workers deserve

to be paid the wages they earn — simple. Employment standards laws exist for a reason.

They establish the minimum floor of fairness in the workplace so that when wages are

not paid, the consequences are not abstract. For many workers, missing wages mean

missed rent payments, missed grocery purchases and missed paying of bills.

Investigations across Canada have repeatedly shown that wage theft remains a real

issue in the labour market. In British Columbia alone, thousands of complaints are

filed with the employment standards branch each year.

For example, in Whistler, several workers at a local Domino’s franchise filed complaints

after discovering they had been underpaid. After investigation, the employment standards

branch ruled in their favour and ordered more than $10,000 in unpaid wages returned

to the employees, along with penalties against the employer. Cases like that illustrate

why enforcement matters.

Across Canada and here in British Columbia, migrant worker organizations have documented

cases where workers were charged illegal recruitment fees, denied overtime pay or

threatened with job loss if they complained. That is precisely why the Temporary Foreign

Worker Protection Act exists, and it is why any legislative change affecting enforcement

must be considered carefully.

Let us start with clause 2. Currently if wages are owed to an employee who cannot

be located, there must be an attempt to locate that employee for one year before transferring

the money to the provincial administrator. Bill 10 removes that one-year requirement.

Under the amendment, wages could be transferred immediately after reasonable attempts

to locate the worker.

Now, on its face, this may seem like an administrative improvement. After all, the

government argues that it will allow funds to be held safely by the administrator

rather than remaining with employers. But there are important questions regarding

this. What constitutes a sufficient attempt to locate the employee? Who decides that?

Where’s the scale? How quickly will funds be transferred? Again, who decides that?

What process is in place? How easily will workers be able to reclaim those wages afterward?

This issue matters because employment mobility is extremely high in some cases. Workers

often change jobs, move cities or return to other countries. As we’ve heard, in sectors

such as agriculture and tourism, many workers leave the province at the end of a season.

I know many people who come from Australia to ski here in Canada, particularly in

British Columbia, and after the ski season is finished here, off they go — back down

to Australia and New Zealand to ski and take jobs down there.

If the recovery process becomes too complex, workers may simply never reclaim money

they earned.

[3:15 p.m.]

Another significant change appears in clause 4, which introduces

section 76.1. This

creates a complaint resolution process during an investigation. The director may require

both parties to participate in that process and can specify how they must participate.

Now, I have been in a lot of mediation processes and early dispute resolution, and

they can be valuable tools. But it depends on what kind of mediation and what kind

of early dispute resolution. Unless they’re very clear and the steps very clear, they

don’t work as well as they should or could.

In many legal systems, mediation allows disputes to be resolved faster and with less

cost than formal litigation. But the language in this bill raises concerns. If a party

fails to participate in the process, the director may continue the investigation or

stop investigating and proceed directly to a determination. That is a significant

power.

For large organizations with human resource departments and legal counsel, participating

in mediation may be straightforward. Not a big deal. However, for small businesses,

it can be a very different time. A small restaurant owner, a contractor or a family-run

retail store may not have dedicated staff to handle these proceedings. In fact, I

would suspect that probably 95 percent of the small businesses do not. Requiring mandatory

participation in a formal resolution process could create additional administrative

burdens. We know disputes in the system can be complicated.

In one recent case before the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal, a worker alleged

he had been paid $16 per hour instead of the $22.50 per hour agreed to in his contract,

eventually resulting in a dispute worth more than $40,000 in unpaid wages. That’s

a huge amount. Cases like this demonstrate that employment disputes can involve complex

evidence and competing claims which may not always be easily resolved through a quick

mediation process. If the consequences for non-participation include losing the opportunity

to fully present a case during investigation, that raises fairness concerns.

Another issue raised by employer groups is the question of consultation. Many employer

associations have indicated they were not consulted before these changes were introduced.

That is indeed really troubling. If you really are sincere in making a new process

work or something that supposedly benefits all sides, then should you not consult

all sides beforehand and reach agreement? That’s the best way to move forward on any

process.

Labour policy works best when both workers and employers are part of the conversation

equally. When governments legislate without adequate consultation, they risk creating

unintended consequences. Good labour policy should bring people together. It should

not deepen divisions between employers and employees.

Perhaps the most consequential provision in this bill is found in clause 9. It amends

section 112 of the Employment Standards Act to require that anyone appealing a determination

involving money must deposit the full amount owed with the director. The tribunal

may approve a small amount but only at its discretion.

[3:20 p.m.]

Now, let me be clear about this. This provision is intended to prevent bad actors

from using appeals to delay payment, and that goal is understandable. There have been

cases where employers used very lengthy appeals just to postpone paying wages, and

they could afford to do that.

But the question we must ask is this: does requiring a full deposit up front create

barriers to legitimate appeals? For large corporations, the answer may be no. For

small businesses, however, the answer may be quite different.

We have seen situations in British Columbia where employment disputes involve significant

amounts of money. In one Okanagan case, a security company was ordered to pay more

than $80,000 in unpaid wages and compensation to ten former employees after a tribunal

dismissed the owner’s appeal.

Imagine a smaller business facing a determination of that magnitude. They wouldn’t

survive. Even if they believed the ruling was incorrect, they might not have the financial

capacity to deposit tens of thousands of dollars immediately to pursue an appeal.

In effect, the right to appeal could become conditional on the ability to pay.

That raises fundamental questions about access to justice. Appeals exist precisely

because administrative decisions can sometimes be wrong. Heavens to Betsy. Wrong sometimes.

They allow errors to be corrected. There’s an opportunity there. If the cost of appealing

becomes too high, we risk undermining that safeguard.

Another concern relates to the capacity of the employment standards branch, and we’ve

heard a lot about that today. According to government service plans and research into

the system, many workers wait long periods before receiving decisions or payment.

Advocacy groups report that, in some cases, complaint investigations can take many

months or even years to fully resolve.

When you have only 32 percent of the complaints completed within six months, how does

that affect the workers? How does it affect the employers? That is an absolutely abysmal

data statistic because that delay can be devastating for workers who rely on those

wages to pay rent, who rely on those wages to buy groceries, who rely on those wages

to support their families.

As we know, in British Columbia right now, many more families are using food banks

because they cannot afford housing. They can’t afford to put food on the table or

cannot afford to pay their bills. We’re in dire circumstances.

The government has set a goal of resolving 80 percent of complaints within 180 days

by 2027-2028. Now, 80 percent, as a teacher, is mastery. Eighty percent and above

is called mastery. So that’s a great goal to aspire to. It is an ambitious goal too.

But it raises an important question. How will it be achieved?

There is a word for it, when you keep doing the same thing over and over again and

expecting different results. If you continue to process things exactly the same way

and expect yourself to get 80 percent or better mastery, we’ve got an issue here.

According to this provincial budget, funding for labour programs is frozen at approximately

$22.3 million for the next three years. In other words, the government expects complaint

resolution times to improve dramatically while resources remain essentially unchanged.

[3:25 p.m.]

I don’t understand how that will be done. It’s a great goal — it truly is — but it’s

the how it will be achieved. How will this goal of 80 percent or better be achieved?

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Has this government or will this government be hiring a specialist, an external company

to review what’s happened in the past, to point out the discrepancies or the flaws

in the present process so that they can analyze the holdups, where the glitches are,

where the obstacles are? Is that what they can do? Or are they going to continue the

same process on and on and just say, “We’re going to go for 80 percent,” when they’re

only reaching 32 percent right now?

Are there suggestions right now as to how to fix this system, or are they just going

to continue to repeat exactly the same processes again and again expecting different

results, expecting 80 percent or better? Unless this government knows why and where

and how these impediments are arising so that they’re only achieving 32 percent, how

can they fix this flawed process and achieve their 80 percent goal?

Well, I have a thought. I do love reading. I love reading fiction and non-fiction.

One particular area which I really find fascinating is about leadership. I know government

processes have been around for years because I keep getting told: “Well, that’s how

we’ve done it for years.” Yes, I get that. But perhaps there are some new ways that

are better, more efficient, that can help you get to the 80 percent.

I just wanted to probably give an idea of, perhaps, how they can improve with the

80 percent because improving enforcement typically requires more investigators, more

adjudicators and more administrative support. Without those resources, the risk is

that legislative changes alone will not deliver the improvements workers need.

I propose for the government, moving forward, so they can achieve their 80 percent

goal, something called the TASC approach. It’s new, so maybe it’s not old enough,

but it’s T-A-S-C.

It’s called the accountability and success checklist. I found it really relevant for

this process. “T” is who owns the task. That’s No. 1 step. “A” is the person or persons

who own the task or tasks — do they have the authority to be held accountable for

that task? “S” is: do they all agree that they are set up for success? Do they have

the time or the resources or the clarity about the task? And the last part, the “C”

is: is there a checklist of what needs to happen to accomplish the task?

The last

part is an interesting one. If they say, “Done,” what does done look like?

What does that finished task look like? They do “something” — another term which I

really enjoy. It says: “Paint ‘done’ for me.” In other words, colour in the dots.

Tell me what “paint done” looks like.

I would offer that to this government moving forward. If they really do want to attain

the goal of 80 percent, I would suggest that they look at other processes like TASC

because that would fit perfectly into that little niche.

Without TASC or any resources to change the system the way it is right now, the risk

is that legislative changes alone will not deliver the improvements workers need or

the 80 percent goal that they have.

Bill 10 also amends the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. Temporary foreign

workers, as we’ve heard, are among the most vulnerable participants in the labour

market. Many arrive in Canada under employer-specific permits. That means their legal

right to work is tied to a single employer.

[3:30 p.m.]

If problems arise — unpaid wages, unsafe conditions or unlawful deductions — they

may fear retaliation or even deportation. I do know of circumstances where passports

have been taken away. This is why strong protections are essential. But it also means

that the enforcement system must be accessible and responsive. If complaints take

months or years to resolve, the workers affected may already have returned to their

home countries. That makes recovery of wages far more difficult.

Returning to the new complaint resolution process, it is important to consider the

balance between mediation and investigation. Mediation can be effective when both

parties have relatively equal bargaining power. But when there is a significant imbalance,

such as between an employer and a vulnerable worker, mediation may not always produce

fair outcomes.

In some situations, workers may feel pressured to accept settlements below what they

are owed simply to resolve the dispute quickly. That is why any mediation process

must be carefully designed and monitored.

What mediation process and what model is to be used? If the goal of this legislation

is to resolve complaints faster and recover wages more effectively, then one conclusion

becomes clear. The employment standards branch must have the resources necessary to

do its job. Investigators must be able to conduct thorough investigations. Tribunals

must be able to hear appeals without long delays. Workers must have access to clear

information about their rights. Without those elements, legislative amendments alone

will not fix the system.

In closing, employment standards laws exist to protect the integrity of our labour

market. They ensure that honest employers are not undercut by those who break the

rules. They ensure that workers receive the wages they have earned. They ensure that

disputes are resolved fairly.

The challenge before us, however, is to ensure that the Labour Statutes Amendment

Act, 2026, achieves those goals without creating new barriers or unintended consequences.

Legislation must not only be well-intentioned; it must also be well-designed. That

requires listening to workers, employers and the experts who operate within the system

every day.

At the end of the day, the success of our labour laws will be measured not by the

words written in statutes but by the fairness experienced in workplaces across British

Columbia.

Misty Van Popta : I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak at second reading of Bill 10, the

Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. This legislation proposes a series of amendments

to both the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

On its face, the bill appears procedural and technical in nature. Indeed, several

of the clauses are described by the government itself as housekeeping amendments.

However, in this House, it is our responsibility to examine even technical changes

carefully because changes to process often shape our outcomes.

The provisions in Bill 10 primarily alter how complaints are investigated, how disputes

are resolved and how appeals are handled under British Columbia’s employment standards

regime. These are not trivial matters. The framework that governs employment disputes

affects workers, employers, our small businesses and the overall climate for investment

in job creation in this province.

We must evaluate this bill through several key principles: fairness, accountability,

efficiency in government administration and the protection of economic competitiveness

for employers while maintaining basic protections for workers.

[3:35 p.m.]

Bill 10 introduces several major procedural changes.

First, it revises the complaint intake and investigation process under the Employment

Standards Act.

Section 76 is replaced with a more detailed framework governing when

the director must accept a complaint and when the director may refuse or discontinue

an investigation.

Second, the bill creates a formal complaint resolution process during investigations,

allowing the director to require parties to participate in a resolution process before

determination is issued.

Third, the bill allows the director to prepare a written investigative report prior

to issuing a determination, giving parties the opportunity to respond.

Fourth, the bill introduces a deposit requirement for appeals, where a determination

requires payment of wages or money. The employer must deposit the amount owing or

an amount the tribunal considers adequate before the appeal proceeds.

Finally, parallel changes are applied to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act,

particularly regarding appeals of determinations and deposit requirements.

At first, these changes may seem administrative, but they reshape the balance between

workers, employers and the enforcement authority of the state.

There are some elements of this bill where you can understand why these changes are

proposed. It allows for a greater screening of complaints. The revised

section 76

provides clearer authority for the director to refuse or stop investigating complaints

that are frivolous, fictitious or lacking evidence. Government enforcement agencies

must focus their limited resources on legitimate cases, not waste time and taxpayer

dollars pursuing complaints that are clearly unsupported or made in bad faith.

Small businesses, in particular, often lack the legal resources to defend themselves

against prolonged investigations triggered by weak complaints. Even if a complaint

is eventually dismissed, the process itself can impose heavy administrative costs

and reputational damage.

By clarifying the director’s discretion to stop investigations where there is insufficient

evidence or lack of participation by the complainant, this bill could help ensure

that enforcement resources are directed where they are most needed. That is fairly

common sense.

This bill also encourages early resolution of disputes. Under the new

section 76.1,

the director may require both parties to participate in a resolution process and specify

how they must participate.

Encouraging dispute resolution before formal determinations are made has some advantages.

First, it can lead to faster outcomes for workers seeking unpaid wages. Second, it

can reduce litigation costs for employers. Third, it can reduce the backlog within

the employment standards branch.

In many labour disputes, the parties are not actually far apart. Miscommunication,

documentation errors or misunderstandings about statutory obligations are common.

Facilitated resolution can correct these problems quickly.

There is also improved transparency through investigative reports. Bill 10 allows

the director to prepare and serve a written report before issuing a determination,

giving the parties an opportunity to respond. This step introduces an element of procedural

fairness. By allowing the parties to review the findings of an investigation before

a final determination is made, the process can become more transparent. Parties may

identify factual errors, provide additional documentation or clarify misunderstandings.

[3:40 p.m.]

From a rule-of-law perspective, this is a good improvement. Administrative decision-making

should not occur behind closed doors.

Another provision is the deposit requirement for appeals. If a determination requires

payment to employees, the party appealing must deposit the amount ordered or a lesser

amount deemed adequate by the tribunal. That provision, for me, opens up the conversation

about what is fair. I do struggle with that piece of this bill, but this reform addresses

a long-standing problem.

There are some bad actors out there that have abused the system. In some cases, employers

have filed appeals primarily to delay payment of wages. Workers who have already gone

through a lengthy investigation process then face months or even years of additional

delays.

Requiring a deposit discourages frivolous or strategic appeals and ensures that funds

are available if the determination is upheld. For workers who rely on timely payment

of wages, this is an important safeguard. My concern is just that it could be arbitrarily

left to the tribunal, in terms of the amount that is deposited.

While the bill contains some steps forward, it also raises several concerns that deserve

serious consideration. It expands bureaucratic discretion.

One of the most significant issues is the expansion of discretionary authority granted

to the director. The new framework allows a director to refuse to investigate a complaint,

stop an investigation, broaden the scope of an investigation to other employees, require

participation in a resolution process and determine whether complaints are sufficiently

resolved.

While discretion is sometimes necessary, excessive discretion risks inconsistent decision-making.

Small businesses and workers alike need predictable rules, not a system where outcomes

depend heavily on administrative

interpretation. When government officials hold broad

discretionary powers without clear guidelines, the result can be uneven enforcement

across cases or even regions. The rule of law requires clear standards, not open-ended

administrative authority.

There’s also risk of mandatory mediation becoming coercive. The new complaint resolution

process also raises a potential concern. The director can require parties to participate

and specify how they must participate. In principle, dispute resolution is positive,

but when participation becomes mandatory and directed by the same authority responsible

for the investigation, the process could become coercive rather than voluntary. A

worker may feel pressured to settle for less than they are entitled to. Conversely,

a small business may feel compelled to settle simply to end a costly investigation.

Effective mediation works best when it is voluntary and neutral. We should be careful

not to create a system where the administrative authority effectively pressures parties

towards settlement, simply to reduce its own caseload. Every government agency seems

to be under heavy caseloads right now.

The appeal deposit requirement, while addressing frivolous appeals, also raises concerns

for small businesses facing legitimate disputes. Not all employers appealing a determination

are acting in bad faith. In fact, most small businesses are acting in a way that treats

workers with respect.

[3:45 p.m.]

Sometimes determinations are based on incomplete evidence or misunderstandings of

employment arrangements — particularly in industries with complex compensation structures,

such as agriculture, hospitality or construction. For a small business operating with

tight cash flow, depositing the full amount of a determination before an appeal may

create significant financial strain.

Even though the tribunal may reduce the required deposit amount, this discretion again

creates uncertainty. We believe in accountability but also in ensuring that appeal

rights remain meaningful and accessible. Justice should not depend on the size of

one’s bank account.

Another provision allows a director to broaden an investigation if the complaint may

relate to other employees. On the one hand, this could uncover systemic violations

and protect vulnerable workers. But on the other hand, it may transform a single complaint

into a wide-ranging workplace investigation, significantly increasing regulatory burdens

on businesses.

To put it in different terms, one small claim by one worker could open a can of worms

that ties up the one worker’s rights to compensation. Small businesses already struggle

with regulatory complexity. Expanding investigations beyond the initial complaint

could increase administrative demands, legal costs and uncertainty for employers who

believed they were addressing a single issue. If such authority is used excessively,

it could discourage entrepreneurship and investment in the province.

Finally, while Bill 10 modifies enforcement procedures, it does not address deeper

issues in the employment standards system. For years, employers and workers alike

have raised concerns about long complaint processing times, inconsistent enforcement,

limited education and compliance support for small businesses. Procedural amendments

alone will not solve these systemic challenges. We should be trying to prevent disputes

before they occur — through clearer guidance, better compliance tools and faster administrative

processes.

From a business perspective, the bill has mixed implications. Positive aspects include

stronger filtering of weak complaints and increased opportunities for early dispute

resolution. However, businesses may face greater regulatory exposure through expanded

investigations and mandatory dispute processes.

For small businesses, which form the backbone of British Columbia and the economy,

predictability and simplicity in labour regulation are essential. The small business

of one of my closest and dearest friends recently closed. The economic situation made

a very good, once thriving business become undone in these times.

When we have bills that come through that could increase financial burden through

situations that may have arisen from misunderstandings in contracts and otherwise,

it just further really impacts a community. The loss of this business was a huge hit

in my community. It was kind of that death by a thousand cuts.

I look at bills that affect small businesses through a slightly different, more personal

lens now — taking my friend’s situation and trying to see how this may or may not

have affected that business.

[3:50 p.m.]

There are some things in here that are trying to fix a situation, but there are still

some things that could have unintended consequences. At a time when our province faces

economic challenges, labour policy should support and not hinder the ability of businesses

to create jobs — especially jobs that, in my past, were the part-time jobs that I

held outside of my career as a single mom, keeping food on the table for my kids.

But workers also stand to gain certain benefits from this legislation. Faster dispute

resolution, stronger protections against delayed appeals and the potential for broader

investigations into systemic violations could improve enforcement of employment standards.

For vulnerable workers, including temporary foreign workers, these protections are

particularly important.

Quite frankly, in Langley, we have a lot of temporary foreign workers, a lot of agricultural

workers, a lot of migrant workers from Mexico, the same faces that I see come back

on routine contracts and go back to their home in the off-season.

However, there is also a risk that mandatory resolution processes could pressure workers

into accepting settlements below their legal entitlements. Ensuring fairness requires

safeguards to ensure workers understand their rights and are not disadvantaged during

negotiations.

Ultimately, the challenge in labour policy is achieving the right balance. Workers

deserve protection against wage theft and exploitation. At the same time, employers

deserve a regulatory system that is clear, efficient and fair. When labour policy

becomes overly bureaucratic or unpredictable, it discourages job creation and undermines

economic growth. Conversely, when enforcement is too weak, bad actors can exploit

workers and undercut responsible employers. The goal must be balanced regulation that

protects workers while supporting economic vitality.

In conclusion, Bill 10 represents a series of procedural reforms to the enforcement

of employment standards in British Columbia. It contains several positive elements,

like stronger screening of weak complaints, expanded opportunities for early dispute

resolution, greater transparency investigations and measures to discourage frivolous

appeals. But at the same time, this bill raises important concerns — expanded administrative

discretion; potential coercion in mandatory resolution processes; financial barriers

to legitimate appeals; and increased regulatory exposure for small businesses, the

backbone of B.C.’s economy.

The ultimate question is whether these amendments improve fairness while maintaining

a predictable and efficient regulatory environment. Some are clearly moving in the

right direction. Others require careful scrutiny to ensure that they do not unintentionally

increase bureaucracy or undermine the rights of either workers or employers.

Second reading is the appropriate stage to examine the principles of this bill. It

is our responsibility not simply to pass legislation but to ensure that it strengthens

the institutions that support both fair workplaces and a thriving economy in British

Columbia.

Jody Toor : I rise today to speak on Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, on behalf of the

residents of Langley-Willowbrook.

As a member of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, it is always a pleasure

to stand in this chamber and speak on bills that will shape the rules governing workplaces

across British Columbia. The laws we pass here affect the daily lives of millions

of workers and employees throughout our province. They influence how businesses operate,

how employees are treated and how disputes are resolved when things go wrong.

[3:55 p.m.]

At the outset, I want to be very clear about something that should unite all members

of this House. Workers deserve to be paid what they are owed. The entire purpose of

employment standards law is to ensure that wages earned are wages paid. Those principles

are fundamental to the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia. They are principles

that every member of this chamber should support.

When someone works hard, shows up for their shift, gives their time and energy and

fulfils their responsibilities, they should have confidence that they will receive

the wages they have earned. That is not a dispute statement. It is a basic requirement

in any fair and functioning economy.

At the same time, we must recognize that healthy workplaces require balance. Workers

need strong protections, and they deserve clear mechanisms to recover wages or resolve

disputes. When problems arise, employers also need rules that are fair, predictable

and workable.

Across British Columbia, and especially in the communities I represent in Langley-Willowbrook,

small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the local economy. These businesses

are often family owned. They are the restaurants, construction companies, retail shops,

restaurants and service providers that create jobs and help communities thrive.

Most of these employers want to do the right thing. They want to treat their employees

fairly. They want to follow the law. They want to maintain positive relationships

with the people who work for them, especially the foreign workers as they become their

families here. Our labour laws must recognize that reality. They must hold bad actors

accountable, but they must also support the vast majority of responsible employers

who are trying to follow the rules.

The bill before us today proposes a number of changes to the Employment Standards

Act as well as the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, B.C. Some of these changes

are administrative or technical in nature. Others introduce new processes or modify

existing enforcement. As legislators, it is our responsibility to carefully examine

these changes; understand their implications; and ensure they serve the best interests

of workers, employers and the broader economy.

One of the changes included in this bill relates to the handling of wages owed to

employees who cannot be located. Under the previous rules, the director was required

to attempt to locate the employee for a period of one year before taking possession

of those wages. Bill 10 removes that one-year waiting period. Under the proposed changes,

if reasonable efforts have been made to locate the employee and those efforts are

unsuccessful, the wages may be transferred to the administrator sooner.

The goal here appears to be administrative effectiveness. Unclaimed wages can be secured

and managed rather than remaining in limbo for an extended period of time. In principle,

ensuring that money owed to workers is safeguarded makes sense. Workers should always

be able to claim the wages they have earned, hardly.

However, the more major and potential dispute aspects of this bill relate to the appeals

process in the introduction of new requirements for employers who wish to challenge

demonstrations made under the Employment Standards Act. Under the proposed changes,

if an employer wishes to file an appeal of a determination that requires payment of

wages or other fiscal amounts, they must deposit the amount owed with the director

before the appeal can be processed. In other words, the money must be paid up front

simply to access the appeal process.

The legislation does provide some flexibility. The panel may, on a case-by-case basis,

determine that a lesser deposit amount is appropriate, but the default requirement

remains that the full amount must be deposited before the appeal can move forward.

On the surface, this may appear reasonable. After all, if wages are owed to workers,

it makes sense that the funds should be secured while the appeal process unfolds.

But we must consider the practical suggestion of this requirement, particularly for

small businesses.

[4:00 p.m.]

Larger corporations may have the financial resources to deposit major sums of money

while pursuing an appeal, but small and medium-sized businesses operate on tight margins.

Cash flow can be unpredictable. Unexpected expenses can have serious consequences.

For a small business owner who believes a determination is incorrect, requiring the

full amount to be deposited up front may effectively prevent them from exercising

their right to appeal. This raises an important question about access to justice within

our employment standards system.

Appeals exist for a reason. They allow decisions to be reviewed and corrected if errors

have occurred. They provide an important safeguard within a regulated framework. If

the financial barriers to filing an appeal become too high, some employers may simply

be unable to challenge decisions they believe are wrong. Fairness in the system must

apply to everyone involved. Workers deserve fair treatment and timely solution of

their complaints, but employers must also have fair opportunity to present their case

and seek review when necessary.

Another aspect of Bill 10 introduces a new complaint resolution process during investigations.

The director may require parties to take

part in this process while the investigation

continues. The intent appears to be encouraging early solutions of disputes, potentially

reducing the need for lengthy investigations or formal determinations.

In theory, alternate dispute solutions such as mediation can be beneficial. They can

provide opportunities for parties to reach mutual acceptance solutions without prolonged

legal processes, which can also be very expensive. However, we must again consider

the practical realities faced by many small business owners.

Large organizations often have dedicated human resources departments and legal counsel

who can manage complex employment disputes, but small business owners rarely have

those resources. For many small business owners, navigating an employment standards

complaint is already a challenging and time-consuming process. Adding mandatory mediation

or additional procedural steps may increase administration burdens and create further

complications. If these processes are implemented without accurate support or guidance,

they could place additional strain on employers who are already trying to comply with

complex regulated requirements.

Perhaps the most major concern surrounding this bill relates not only to the specific

changes being proposed but also to the broader