Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

28, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Wat.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: As I proudly represent a riding in Surrey, I want to acknowledge the presence today

here of the mayor of Surrey. I hope all members will make her feel welcome.

E. Sturko: I, too, would like to welcome the mayor of my community, Surrey, here to the House

today. I just want to point out that she's also a former MLA, a former city councillor.

She's done a lot not only for our city but also for our province.

Please join me again in making the mayor of Surrey, Brenda Locke, feel most welcome.

Hon. N. Sharma: I would love to introduce my communications team at the AG's office in the House.

Joining us to watch question period in real time is Tara Saracuse, Aara Ramesh, Ravi,

Reetoo, John O'Dowd, Catherine Pate and Bianca Chu.

Thank you so much for the work that you do.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have some special guests here today. Jess Smith, who plays a critically important

role in the Premier's office, has worked closely with many members on this side of

the House. Her family members are here visiting. Her in-laws are here visiting.

We have Greg Dewar and Kathleen McCallum. They're here from Selkirk, Manitoba. Kathleen

served for many years in various roles within the Manitoba NDP and now is retired

and spending time giving back in board roles and doing a lot of community service.

Greg Dewar served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Manitoba as the MLA for

Selkirk for 26 years. Included in that time was a term as the Minister of Finance.

I'm hoping the House can make both of these amazing people welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, it looks like it's "bring your communications team to work day" today, because

my communications team is joining us here in the gallery. We've got Lisanne Bowness,

Katya Slepian, Allie Moore, Margaret Wardhaugh, Emma Keeler-Dugas and Lara Hurrell.

These folks do a fabulous job.

I want all members of the House to please make them feel welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, only half of my introduction is communications today. I have two special guests

who are joining us in the gallery today.

I want to welcome and ask everyone to welcome the 2022 Conservation Officer of the

Year, Steve Petrovic. Officer Petrovic is in Victoria today to have a number of meetings

and to receive his very-well-earned reward. We're going to share more about the great

work of Officer Petrovic later.

I also want to introduce Mariah MacWilliam who's joining us in the gallery. Mariah

is a co-op student from the University of Victoria who's been working with our communications

team, including supporting the Conservation Officer Service as well as drafting several

of our recent ministry communications — for instance, the continuation of the clean

coast, clean waters initiative. Her co-op placement is coming to a close, and I wish

her well in her future work and adventures.

Will the House please join me in making Steve and Mariah very, very welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I see in the gallery today that I have a special guest, as well, from local government,

the mayor of Surrey, Brenda Locke. I was able to visit her during my first 100 days

as Municipal Affairs Minister, and I had a great conversation with her.

Would the House please make Brenda feel very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have the real pleasure to introduce four special guests today, students from the

University of Victoria's first-year political science program: Sarah Vos, Kai Doran,

Raman Hamid and Izzy Easton.

Sarah is from Sherwood Park, Alberta. She's studying political science and history

and is a member of the UVic women's soccer team.

Kai is from Kelowna. He's also studying political science and enjoys soccer and golf

in his free time.

Raman, a political science student at UVic, is originally from Pakistan and now lives

in Surrey. Her mother was the general secretary for women's affairs and instrumental

in achieving the right of women to divorce.

Izzy is from Saskatchewan, taking journalism and political science at UVic. She enjoys

beach cleanups, debate, and public speaking.

Would the House please join me in making these four guests most welcome.

M. Dykeman: I wanted to take a moment to recognize that we have joining us in the gallery today

for question period, on the precinct, representatives from the Canadian Home Builders

Association. They are in Victoria meeting with MLAs.

I was wondering if the House could please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BUY LOCAL WEEK

T. Stone: Every single person in this chamber can name a favourite local business in their community

— a boutique that stocks their favourite goods, a coffee shop that always gets their

order right, a service provider that always delivers or the store that sponsors the

local youth sports team. These businesses are vital to the fabric of our communities.

This week, as we recognize B.C. Buy Local Week, we take the opportunity to celebrate

these incredible establishments. There are countless ways to support our local businesses,

and this year B.C. Buy Local has highlighted seven ways for the seven days of this

week. The campaign encourages consumers to buy local online, to shop in store, prioritize

putting local food on the table and to give local gift cards.

As the holiday season rapidly approaches, there is no shortage of opportunity to support

our local stores while searching for the perfect gifts for our loved ones. Perhaps

there is a local experience you can give someone, whether it's a season's pass to

a local tourist attraction or cultural spot or an opportunity to try a fun, new activity

or a brand-new, fantastic restaurant.

Instead of looking elsewhere for goods and services this week and all year, let's

do our part to support the businesses that continually invest in us, whether by providing

exceptional food for us to eat, contributing to our local tax bases or donating to

local causes.

During the holidays, the average Canadian spends around $1,600 on travel, food, drinks

and gifts. If we could shift just a small percentage of that spending to our local

businesses, we could make a real difference, keeping money circulating in our communities

and good jobs here in B.C.

Let's all do our part and take the time to buy local.

MOVEMBER CAMPAIGN FOR MEN’S HEALTH

M. Starchuk: The Movember finish line is in sight, and Giving Tuesday generosity is in the air.

Movember raises awareness on men's mental health, suicide prevention, prostate cancer

and testicular cancer in a light-hearted way to raise the serious concerns of men's

health. The hairy season is almost over.

While some grew lopsided, itchy or epic 'staches, I grew this. I watered it. I shampooed

it. I even slept face down, thinking gravity would help it out. Sadly, this is all

I have to show.

[10:15 a.m.]

Hon. Speaker, I thought I'd be able to rival your 'stache, but now I see that was

just a dream. I look across the aisle, and I see the hairy season has brought out

the Sen. Ted Cruz look-alike furry face for the MLA for Kootenay East.

Thanks to all of us for joining in the fun. Whatever mo is grown in Movember, those

are the faces who will raise the funds for awareness for men's health.

Men are dying before their time. The Movember movement is close to me in a personal

way. Prostate cancer is a treatable cancer, and many men are surviving longer due

to research and awareness campaigns.

I've had many of my former colleagues being diagnosed and who are survivors of prostate

cancer, which is linked to the occupation of firefighting. I congratulate Jerry, Lowell,

Glen, Ross, Tim and Lorne on their journeys to battle this cancer, and I wish them

well as they cherish each day with family and friends.

Lastly, three out of four suicides are men, and it's the second-highest cause of death

amongst Canadian men aimed at between 55 and 45.

Unfortunately, two of my former colleagues who suffered from mental health issues

took their own lives. I'll never forget the two days that were announced when both

Kevin and Ernie had taken their own lives well before their time.

May both of these young men rest in peace.

FLOOD PROTECTION INFRASTRUCTURE

J. Sturdy: If you live or work on a floodplain in British Columbia, you're right to be concerned

and to pay close attention. It's almost inevitable that your existing flood protection

is not adequate, and it's unfortunate that it's also not likely to be improved.

Provincial policy mandates that flood protection, estimation, modelling and mitigation,

to which the Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. must design, requires that a minimum

IPCC scenario of RCP8.5 must be factored, despite an admission that this scenario

is on the "less likely" very high end.

Doesn't it make sense to be super cautious? Isn't it best to use the worst-case scenario

for modelling? After all, you can't be too careful, can you?

If unlimited resources were the reality, you would be correct. But it's becoming clear

that flood protection perfection is getting in the way of real progress. When one-in-200-year

flood protection criteria, new seismic standards, high-end climate modelling plus

freeboard requirements are factored together, the capital costs become so astronomical

that even very large centres would have difficulty funding full projects. In smaller

communities around B.C., the business case for improvement is little more than hopeless.

For example, in my community of Pemberton, the dike that protects the downtown is

14 kilometres long and badly in need of an upgrade. To achieve the shiny new standard

required by the province would move the price from $1 million a kilometre to $10 million

a kilometre. A community of 3,000 would need to fund a $140 million project, which

is so far out of reach as to be laughable and would protect only part of the community

anyway. For any lesser standard, the province won't approve or participate.

It must be recognized that many areas of the province do not even have a one-in-ten-year

flood protection structure, and it's clear that one-in-200 is simply unattainable.

Policy changes need to be considered because attaining a one-in-50-year protection

is better than no improvements at all.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

S. Chant: I'm going to start by acknowledging I'm on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people,

the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

As always, I am deeply grateful to represent the people of North Vancouver–Seymour,

situated on the unceded territory of the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

I rise today to commemorate the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, which

is observed on December 3.

This Sunday and every day let's celebrate the achievements of people with disabilities

and do our part to make our province inclusive and accessible for all. We want everyone

to have the opportunity to enjoy full and equitable participation in their communities

because everyone benefits when our communities are inclusive.

More than one million British Columbians live with a disability. We are committed

to improving the lives of each and every one of them. That is why we introduced the

Accessible B.C. Act so that we can identify, remove and prevent barriers experienced

by people with disabilities.

Currently two technical committees are working to develop standards for service delivery

about these standards.

[10:20 a.m.]

In September of 2023, as prescribed by the Accessible B.C. Regulation, more than 750

We have so much gratitude for the guidance of people with disabilities as we continue

this work. Together, we're working to make B.C. a more accessible and inclusive place

for all.

I invite all members to join me to recognize December 3 as International Day of Persons

with Disabilities.

VALUE-ADDED NATURAL GAS

PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

E. Ross: Over the years, B.C. has not fulfilled its potential to export LNG to countries that

need a clean energy source, especially when you consider that exporting raw natural

gas is like exporting raw logs. We export raw products from B.C. that get refined

at its destination, and the resulting products are sold back to us.

There are efforts to develop a natural gas value-added economy here in Canada, like

the recent McLeod Lake Band's ammonia export announcement. But they're not alone.

B.C.-based Trigon intends to ship ammonia by rail from Alberta to Prince Rupert for

export to Japan. What's remarkable is that both projects and countries like Japan

are ahead of Canada in transitioning to cleaner fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen,

produced from natural gas. Ammonia and hydrogen as fuels can reduce emissions as much

as 90 to 100 percent.

McLeod Lake and Trigon require support regarding railway transport. Insurance indemnification

of these ammonia railcars is what these projects are asking the provincial and federal

governments to resolve.

I encourage all MLAs of this Legislature to stand behind these projects, not only

for the economic benefit for communities and economic reconciliation but also to support

ammonia from natural gas, which promises a cleaner, emissions-free future for the

globe.

By supporting Trigon and McLeod Lake, we can be partners with First Nations, Alberta

and Japan in reducing global emissions. We can do this while also creating much-needed

made-in-B.C. and Canada jobs and much-needed revenue for both levels of government

by utilizing natural gas and natural gas by-products from Alberta and, hopefully,

someday from B.C.

DAN’S LEGACY AND SUPPORT FOR YOUTH

A. Singh: Dan the Man, or "Danno," as he was often called by his family and friends, lived his

life with an infectious and enthusiastic spirit. Anyone that was around him became

energized by his warm and kind nature. He had a passion for cooking, which drove him

to join a culinary college and start training to be a professional chef.

Dan's life came to a tragic end early, at the age of 19, from a drug overdose.

To remember and honour him, Dan's Legacy in New Westminster was created to provide

vulnerable youth with the necessary supports they need to not only survive, but to

thrive in life. Dan's Legacy has helped over 600 youth stabilize and begin working

towards their educational, employment and recovery goals, and they're not done yet.

They recently opened their newest social enterprise, Dan's Diner. It's more than just

a place to eat food. It's also a community that offers at-risk youth a chance to gain

valuable culinary and life skills. Under the direction of professional chefs, trainees

learn to repurpose donated surplus food into nutritious meals.

I often think of who survives and who doesn't, and how, but for fortune, some of us

have the privilege to continue to exist and some are taken away. It reminds me of

some strong and powerful words from '60s poet, activist and singer Phil Ochs, who

also suffered from alcoholism and died from that disease. "There But for Fortune"

is his song.

"Show me the alley, show me the train

Show me the hobo who sleeps out in the rain

And I'll show you a young man with so many reasons why

And there but for fortune go you or I

Show me the whiskey stains on the floor

Show me the drunkard as he stumbles out the door

And I'll show you a young man with so many reasons why

There but for fortune go you or I

Show me the country where bombs had to fall

Show me the ruins of the buildings once so tall

And I'll show you a young land with so many reasons why

And there but for fortune go you and .I"

Dan's Legacy, we wish you continued success in your journey.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO CANCER CARE SERVICES

K. Falcon: Under this Premier's watch, B.C.'s once world-leading cancer care system has dramatically

deteriorated, plummeting to some of the worst wait times in the country.

[10:25 a.m.]

It's gotten so bad that the NDP are now outsourcing cancer patients to the United

States for treatment, something we haven't seen since the last time the NDP was in

power in the 1990s.

The daily reality for cancer patients is endless waiting, deteriorating health and

lives lost because of the tragic failure to provide basic access to cancer care.

Can the Premier tell us why it is only under NDP governments that British Columbians

are forced to go to the United States to receive basic, timely cancer care?

Hon. A. Dix: The government, as you know, and as the member will know, instituted its ten-year

cancer plan earlier this year. There was and is a very significant investment in our

cancer system, one that has not been seen since the 1990s, an investment in every

aspect of our cancer system.

I just want to report to the Leader of the Opposition that since April 1, 61 doctors,

oncologists, have been hired and 29 radiation specialists have been hired. This shows

the effectiveness of a health human resources policy focused on addressing the needs

of British Columbians now and in the future.

He will know and everyone will know that we're going to go, between now and the next

ten years, from 30,000 diagnoses of cancer to 45,000. That's why we're investing now

and throughout the next ten years to ensure that British Columbia has a cancer system

it needs now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: I'm sure British Columbians feel comforted knowing that after seven years of government,

the NDP finally introduced a ten-year cancer plan.

The reality is that B.C. cancer wait times are now among the worst. New documents

reveal that the Premier's band-aid response to the crisis is grossly underdelivering

and failing to meet their own targets they set.

The opposition has acquired documents revealing that half a year in, not only has

cancer care gotten to the point where they are outsourcing patients to hospitals in

the United States, what makes it even worse is that they can't even send the number

of patients that they've contracted for. An average of 12 patients a week have been

treated in the United States. It's not even close to the over 50 patients per week

that the NDP contracted with U.S. hospitals for.

My question to the Premier: after seven years of mismanaging our health care system,

how can the Premier stand here and pretend cancer care is a priority when patients

are literally dying on wait-lists, waiting to get basic cancer care?

Hon. A. Dix: What the member is referring to is radiation therapy. And yes, we contracted with

facilities in Bellingham because while we're doing, I think, a very significant and

important investment in cancer care, we want to ensure that people who need care now

get it.

That contract, as the member will know, is for up to 50 patients a week. We wanted

to have that capacity, and patients in the hundreds have gone to the United States

and got that treatment. It just shows our determination to act in every element of

cancer care.

I might note, for example, on diagnostic care that the only PET-CT scanners that existed

when I became Minister of Health were in Vancouver. We've added in Kelowna and Victoria.

We're adding in multiple other communities as we add cancer centres in Nanaimo and

in Kamloops and in Burnaby and in Surrey.

This is building out the cancer system we need now and in the future, and we're going

to continue to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

K. Falcon: Six months into the NDP's outsourcing of B.C. cancer patients to the U.S., we're now

seeing it's a glaring failure, resulting in less than a quarter of those that it was

supposed to help actually getting the treatment.

Repeated NDP mismanagement of our cancer care system has hurt patients like Allison

Decluzeau. Diagnosed with stage 4 abdominal cancer, she faced the shocking reality

in B.C. and was told to get her affairs in order, to prepare for the end of her life,

not to get treatment. Allison, abandoned by B.C.'s cancer care system, found immediate

life-saving treatment in the United States, fortunately.

In her words, under this NDP Premier, "universal health care does not exist. It's

do-it-yourself health care and GoFundMe health care."

My question to the Premier, how many more patients like Allison must suffer before

they can get the basic access to cancer care that they deserve?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: It's my view, and it has been our direction and our policy, to add resources throughout

our cancer centre system.

As I noted to the Leader of the Opposition in response to his first question, we've

added, since April 1, on oncology alone, 61 oncologists. We continue to invest in

every aspect of our cancer centre system — adding a lung cancer screening program,

building new cancer centres, adding new diagnostic equipment. We're going to continue

to do that work together.

We know that we have a growing and an aging population, and we're responding to that

with a massive and comprehensive response. We're going to continue to do this. This

contrasts with the underinvestment in cancer that occurred for at least a decade prior

to my becoming Minister of Health.

We're going to continue to invest and continue to support people, because just the

story raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think, shows, when people need

care, the absolute need to provide it.

S. Bond: Well, one thing we know, and the minister knows, is that cancer can't wait. This minister,

this government made a promise to British Columbians, and they have failed abysmally.

In fact, the outsourcing of B.C. patients is a failure.

In fact, Interior Health has seen zero patients treated, and Northern Health 14 after

six months. Every day — it's not just Allison — we hear more heart-wrenching stories

of pain and neglect.

Let's look at the story of Kristen Logan, a stage 4 ovarian cancer patient. She was

confronted with systemic failures and delays in B.C. Kristen had no choice but to

self-fund her treatment in the United States. Here's what she said. These are her

words: "Our health care system isn't tripping over minor hurdles. It's plummeting

off a cliff. We're not dealing with occasional misses; we're grappling with neglect

that has become the norm."

To the minister, today patients like Kristen and Allison must suffer before British

Columbians get a chance to get the cancer care they need and deserve at home. What

will he do for patients like Kristen and Allison?

Hon. A. Dix: What we're doing is action at every level: a health human resources plan that is succeeding

in hiring doctors and nurses, oncologists and health sciences professionals and health

care workers. We're building out team-based care in cancer care.

The member talks about Interior Health. The reason for that, the reason why Interior

Health isn't involved in that program, is that wait times are dramatically less in

Interior Health — that is a fact — for radiation therapy, which is a specific type

of therapy which we're addressing with the Bellingham initiative.

Hundreds of people have gone to Bellingham who need care. And the hon. member…. That

just demonstrates our determination to act now and to take the steps in the future

to continue and to build out the cancer centre we need in the coming decade, when

demand for cancer care is absolutely going to increase.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, in fact, the minister was warned over and over again, including by specialists

in this province, that we are going to face a tsunami of stage 4 cancer cases. That's

under his watch.

As we look at the outsourcing of B.C. cancer patients, the system continues to collapse.

The minister can say what he will, but when we look at the failed screening numbers

for people travelling to the United States, the major reason is that they don't want

treatment in the United States. They want treatment at home. That is this minister's

responsibility.

Imagine. They actually refused treatment in the United States because they believe

they should be treated here in British Columbia.

Let's look at how Kristen reacted to what the minister said, and his answers today

are another primary example of it: "I couldn't believe how he just completely was

careless and lacking any kind of accountability. His response didn't say to me, 'Yes,

we know there's a problem, and we're working on them.' It was just kind of like, 'Yeah,

stuff happens.'"

The Health Minister has a chance today. He has a chance today to get up and speak

directly to Kristen and Allison and hundreds of other cancer patients who are suffering

and waiting for treatment in British Columbia.

[10:35 a.m.]

Will the minister get up today and acknowledge his failure when it comes to cases

like Kristen's and Allison's?

Hon. A. Dix: Cancer affects every family. It affects my own, and it affects every family in British

Columbia. That is why I think the massive actions we're taking to recruit, to train,

to provide better cancer services for people are so important.

With respect to, for example, rural British Columbia, there's never been adequate

support for people who need to travel for care. We only have, in British Columbia,

the five cancer centres, and people have to travel for care. We put in place, with

Hope Air and the Canadian Cancer Society, a program to substantially assist people

— not only them but their family members — in travelling to get cancer care in our

province.

We are adding in regions of B.C., in Nanaimo, in Kamloops, in Surrey and in Burnaby.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the Kamloops MLAs are heckling. There wasn't a cancer centre that I know of

between 2001 and 2017. No proposals at all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: There was nothing on the table when I became Minister of Health. Building out a cancer

centre….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Please.

Hon. A. Dix: It's why it's so important when I talk to people in the Interior and on Vancouver

Island. It's why people repeatedly come up and say how important it is for them to

have PET-CT scanners in their communities. Why that affects their experience of cancer

care, their ability to get diagnosis, their ability to avoid…. For many people in

the province….

Diagnosis is part of the treatment process, and it's very important. I thought that's

what the members were asking about. What we have is a ten-year cancer plan that is

comprehensive in its response to an issue that is challenging and will continue to

be challenging in the years to come. That's why we are massively investing in public

health care after, frankly, a decade of inaction.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member will conclude.

Hon. A. Dix: That's why we're taking action now with a ten-year cancer plan that will address care

for people across British Columbia.

RCMP COMMUNITY-INDUSTRY

RESPONSE GROUP FUNDING

A. Olsen: We've seen this Minister of Public Safety's response to protecting the Premier's pipelines.

He stood up a special unit called the community-industry response group. C-IRG, as

it's known as to police and Indigenous people. It has a gold commander. It was a temporary

unit, but now it's got some permanent members.

We've seen the videos of this unit violently arrest my relatives. One of my friends

and relatives was tackled to the ground. Another relative of mine, drum in hand, walking

on a public road, far, far away from potential tree cutting, also tackled by a group

of RCMP police linebackers.

Can the minister let this House know how much he's spent? Round numbers are fine.

Is it $30 million, $40 million or $50 million on his special gold commander to harass,

tackle and arrest Indigenous people in their own territory?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

The member knows, because he has asked this question before, that the C-IRG, as he

refers to it, is set up and is based to deal with the challenges that have been brought

forward in terms of the enforcement around the injunctions that have been put in place

by the court.

The money that was budgeted — I think it's around $23 million — was based on an average

that has been spent over the last three years. It is there to anticipate the expense

that's going to be required to deal with the court injunctions that have been in place

or that have been granted by the courts and the responsibility for police to do the

enforcement of those court injunctions. The amount of money that will be spent will

be dependent on the amount of activity they have to deal with.

[10:40 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

POLICE FUNDING PRIORITIES

AND ACTION ON MISSING AND MURDERED

INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND CHILDREN

A. Olsen: The reconciliation path that we're walking is an attempt to escape our colonial history,

but apparently, this B.C. NDP government just can't let it go.

We know that the Minister of Public Safety has actually spent $50 million on a special

unit led by a gold commander with a militarized emergency response team, community

liaisons. He's got the courts, injunctions, judges.

However, when it comes to missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and boys and

our children, that's where the NDP actually show where they really stand, because

that money — as paltry as it is — is buried under bureaucratic paperwork.

No gold commander. No special investigators. No team of special prosecutors. They

just want Indigenous people to join them in their pipe ceremony and make them celebrate

it as progressive. Meanwhile, the missing and murdered Indigenous babies, well, we're

on our own for that. Abandoned.

When will the Minister of Public Safety spend as much lifting our people up as he

is spending pushing them down?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll say this to the member. Every member in this House takes missing and murdered

Indigenous women and girls very seriously. That's why we've made initiatives. That's

why we are on the path of reconciliation. It's not just about ceremonial and territorial

acknowledgments. It's about real actions.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member knows that there are a number of different actions that have been taken.

The member knows that the court system are the ones who give injunctions and say that

those injunctions need to be enforced, and that's the police's responsibility.

At the same time, police do investigate. We expect them to investigate cases of murdered

and missing Indigenous women and girls.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, let the minister complete his answer please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the hon. member, because we had that meeting yesterday, that my ministry

indicated they were going to look at some of the things that we discussed in terms

of how they could be implemented, and also made it very clear, as did the Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, initiatives in his ministry in terms of

funding that would be available.

To somehow suggest that we don't care, or that we're not interested, or they're not

doing anything is just wrong, and the member knows that.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

B. Banman: Last month my daughter was admitted to the Abbotsford Hospital for several weeks due

to a sudden life-threatening medical issue. Like any father, I was deeply concerned,

and I spent as much time as I could by her side.

When I dropped by to see her at the hospital in Abbotsford, I was shocked to find

bed after bed after bed of patients lined up against the walls in the hallway of the

hospital. I was reminded of a Third World country.

I was also shocked to hear that her bathroom was being used by the very same patients

in the hallways. On another visit, there was human feces on the floor of the bathroom

in her unit and had been there for hours and hours. I was told that the bathroom wasn't

getting cleaned because there was not enough staff. I even considered cleaning the

bathroom myself.

My question to the Health Minister: should patients and their families be expected

to quite literally clean up after this NDP's government health care staffing crisis?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The first thing I would say is to express our strong feelings of sympathy to the hon.

member and to his daughter under these very difficult circumstances.

The member will know, as all members of the House know, how open my door is to people

coming and talking to me about individual issues. I won't say more about it except

to say that I know that all members of the House are affected by these things, and

many families in B.C. are affected by them.

It's why, with respect to our acute care system, we continue to take exceptional action,

especially with respect to health human resources and especially with respect, across

the communities, to supporting people who keep our hospitals clean and keep people

fed in our hospitals.

We have added 38,000 people net to our health care system since I've been Minister

of Health. I've met with people, including a day of meetings at Abbotsford Regional

General Hospital, where I've heard from people. I say that to them, and we all agree

that it doesn't feel that way and that we have to continue to take actions to do so.

It's why, particularly with respect to cleaning, to housekeeping and to food, we've

repatriated contracts, because, as the member will know, people in those sectors were

being paid poverty wages from 2002 to that time, in order to do that work.

We have to continue to do that work. I am very committed to Abbotsford Regional General

Hospital and working with the staff there. I've been there personally and engaged

with staff for a full day. We'll continue to do that work together.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

B. Banman: When I spoke with the doctors and the nurses at the hospital in Abbotsford, they expressed

their deep concern to me about the state of chaos within our current health care system.

The single thing they made me promise was not to use their names if I brought their

concerns forward to this House. They were genuinely concerned about retribution and

retaliation. Clearly, this has become a toxic work environment.

My question to the Health Minister: will he commit to starting an anonymous forum,

open for the public to see, where health care workers and the public can share honest

feedback about the problems our health care system is facing, yes or no?

Hon. A. Dix: There are systems that this House has put in place, including the previous government,

to allow people to make complaints and to have those complaints treated anonymously.

Equally, we're doing, I think, more than that. The member will know, particularly

with respect to Indigenous people, the need to make fundamental changes in institutions

across society. That was reflected in the In Plain Sight report, which is a significant report that the government received.

As we speak, there's a significant discussion that involves health care workers, Indigenous

communities and people across British Columbia around establishing principles of restorative

justice, because what people don't need — those people especially who feel that they

can't make complaint, and that's frequently and disproportionately Indigenous people

in this province — is confrontation.

What they do need are processes that will lead to better results and lead to a sense

of justice and involvement. That's precisely what the government is doing.

CLEANBC PLAN AND MINING INDUSTRY

T. Shypitka: Last week the Energy Minister's leaked confidential memo said that the Premier needed

help understanding the scale of his own cost B.C. scheme. Well, I'm here to offer

a little advice and a little help to the Premier. It's pretty simple. In order to

electrify the economy, you need mining.

Copper, nickel, graphite, lithium, rare earth elements — the list goes on. B.C. has

at least 16 of the world's 31 critical minerals and metals. We just can't get them

out of the ground.

B.C. was once regarded as the world's mining headquarters, but now we're just a shell

of our former self with no critical mineral strategy, an unbalanced carbon tax that

punishes B.C. mining exports and a cost B.C. scheme that is literally killing hundreds

of thousands of jobs, more than thousands in the mining sector alone. This all means

fewer local jobs, a shrinking economy and more global emissions.

Why is the Premier pushing a cost B.C. scheme that will destroy thousands of mining

jobs and cancel projects that are critically needed to electrify our economy?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Exploration for new mines is at a ten-year high in British Columbia. We have a critical

minerals strategy.

The Minister of Energy and Mines and I and some of our colleagues have visited and

had very exciting conversations with existing mines in British Columbia over the last

year as well as with proponents seeking to start new mines. We established the clean

energy and major projects office to attract critical minerals investment in British

Columbia.

We recently had very productive meetings with the Mining Association of British Columbia

around the new B.C. output-based pricing system to ensure that they could attract

investment and would remain competitive.

Out of the proceeds of the carbon tax, we have co-capitalized very significant emission

reduction projects in mines around British Columbia. That has led to significant emission

reductions, greater profitability as well as the ability of these mines to market

their commodities as low carbon.

We'll continue that work.

LNG PROJECTS AND

FIRST NATIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

E. Ross: Yesterday in question period, the NDP Premier said the LNG industry is worn out. This

has to be the most condescending and most disrespectful statement I've ever heard

in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's hear the question, please.

E. Ross: It was First Nations that brought LNG to this House in 2004. Do you know why? I've

repeated this many times. Because everything else we tried to do to resolve poverty

failed. Do you understand what that means? Do you understand what the violence of

poverty means, instead of laughing about it?

Unemployment. Poverty. Children going into government care. Suicide. That's what every

First Nation was trying to do, from Prince George to Kitimat, in pushing LNG exports.

And guess what. It worked. From 2004 to 2017, we resolved these issues with no government

programs. It wasn't just words like what we're seeing now.

To say that LNG is worn out…. You're talking about Haisla Cedar. You're talking about

Nisg̱a'a Ksi Lisims LNG exports. You're talking about McLeod Lake.

It's not a worn-out industry. It's uplifting B.C., and it's resolving Canada's shame,

the poverty of First Nations.

In the meantime, the cost B.C. plan by the NDP Premier would rather ignore the LNG

initiatives that were brought here by First Nations. Instead of giving them the power

they need to electrify and to export the fuel that the world needs, it's complete

and utter disregard and disrespect.

My question to the Premier: how can the Premier possibly defend a plan that will kill

the LNG initiatives instead of electrifying them?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the member opposite should know better than to misquote the Premier in the

House.

Hansard is clear. Nobody has referred….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, that's right.

I heard the members opposite. The Premier's comment was about the worn-out, ineffectual,

no results boosterism of former Premier Christy Clark.

This government….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. G. Heyman: There are some people who say we should have unlimited development, no matter the

environmental cost. There are other people who say you can't develop certain resources,

because you can't manage the environmental impacts. We say they're both wrong.

We have a climate plan. We said when we were in opposition and we said when we were

in government that LNG had to fit within that plan. It is not easy, but we have worked

with the industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: We worked with the Haisla around Cedar LNG.

[10:55 a.m.]

We are working with the industry to put in a regulatory cap on emissions to ensure

that, through electrification and other means, they fit within our emission reduction

targets, while still contributing to the economy of British Columbia. We will continue

to do that no matter what members opposite say, because we are getting results.

[End of question period.]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: It was a long question, Member. Before you say wow….

Don't be judgmental of the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Chair has decided the question period. Don't be judgmental, okay. Don't argue

with the Chair. If you want to talk to the Chair, you can come and see me. Then we

can take the next action on your disrespectful way of dealing with the Chair.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, take a seat.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General's report

Summary Financial Statements Audit: Supporting the Role of MLAs .

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Question of Privilege

R. Merrifield: Today I rise to address a matter of great concern, one that strikes at the very heart

of our democratic principles and the integrity of this esteemed House. I rise to address

the point of privilege, as I noted, on November 20.

On November 20, the Premier made statements in this chamber that not only purposefully

misconstrued my words but, more importantly, intentionally misled this House and the

people of British Columbia.

On Monday, November 20, during question period, the Premier said in response to my

question on reducing the taxes on home heating: "That very member was on a UDI panel,

where she said that the secret sauce of developers in her area, like her, was restricting

the supply of housing…. That's what she said the secret sauce of developers like her

was in her area. So if there's not enough housing in Kelowna, then she should look

in the mirror."

When I looked across the floor and asked the Premier for the receipts on this quote,

he replied: "I will send you the video, Renee."

I went searching for that video. I couldn't remember ever having said anything of

that nature. I found the video, and I posted it right next to the answer to my question

on QP.

The actual UDI panel video that he was referring to was from April 24, 2020. I remind

this House that it was right at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. We were in lockdown.

We had very little understanding of the pandemic, the effects or where things were

going to go.

In that video, the interviewer asks me:

"Is Kelowna a special case, so to speak? Is there something about the market that's

unique, that equips it or will help it or provide it with an advantage to move through

this crisis more effectively than other markets in the province or in the country?

Renee, maybe you could start us off on that."

My response was:

"Well, I would say that one of the factors is sitting on your screen. The Urban Development

Institute and the developers and suppliers and contractors and builders and consultants

that form this association have always been incredibly collaborative. I always say

that we have one of the best sandboxes in all of Canada. We work well together. We

talk to each other. We figure out who's who in the zoo. We're careful not to supply

certain markets. We share ideas, and we listen to one another. And that is unique,

you know.

"Right now Troika is existing in 13 different municipalities, and I can say that we

don't have the same collaboration in any of the other municipalities that we work

in. So this definitely is part of our secret sauce and part of our advantage, absolutely.

"I also think that really, after 2008, we started pushing more heavily into the tech

sector. Our economic and job clusters became more around aerospace and tech and really

on the education, health care, regional aspects. Those are still firing on all cylinders.

"I think economically, we'll see ourselves coming out of this a little bit better.

I think that the hardest part will be the uniqueness of our tourism industry and our

environment. It's going to be hard hit. The amount of impact that has to the people

in those jobs is yet to be seen."

The Premier accused me of advocating for restricting the supply of housing in Kelowna,

citing my participation in this UDI panel. However, his misrepresentation of my words

is not just inaccurate. It is a completely purposeful mischaracterization of the truth.

[11:00 a.m.]

The Premier's quote deliberately omits the context and the essence of my message,

which was recorded during the initial weeks of the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020.

In that discussion, I'm highlighting the collaborative spirit of the Urban Development

Institute and its members in Kelowna. My focus was on the unique synergy among developers,

suppliers and contractors, and consultants. This collaboration is indeed our secret

sauce, but it is not in any way about restricting housing supply. On the contrary,

it's about ensuring a balanced and adequate provision of all housing products. It's

about working together to address the housing needs of our community, not limiting

them.

My words and intention were the exact opposite of how the Premier purposefully mischaracterized

my statement. The Premier's statement twisted my words and the reality of our efforts

in Kelowna. It painted a picture of selfishness and manipulation,

whereas the truth

is one of cooperation and responsible development.

This misrepresentation not only undermines my credibility but also casts a shadow

over the hardworking members of the housing industry, UDI and the Kelowna community,

who have been diligently working to support the housing needs of our region.

Furthermore, the Premier looked at me and told me that he would "send me," Renee,

"the video." It was the only way that I knew where to look for what he was referring

to, as I was distraught by his character assassination and felt compelled to defend

myself. The Premier knew what I had actually said and misrepresented the truth.

In these challenging times when our province faces unprecedented challenges, including

those in our housing market and the crisis that has ensued, it is imperative that

our discussions and debates in this House are grounded in truth and integrity. Misleading

the House, whether by omission or distortion, hampers our collective ability to address

the issues facing our constituents.

This incident not only concerns my personal integrity but also raises a broader, more

crucial issue: the sanctity of our words and the standards of this esteemed institution.

As legislators, we are entrusted with a profound responsibility. Our words spoken

in this House carry the weight of our offices and the trust of the people who elect

us. Misrepresenting facts, engaging in petty attacks and twisting words for political

gain do not just harm individuals; they erode the very foundation of our democracy.

The government's actions, as demonstrated by the Premier's recent misleading statement,

are part of a troubling pattern. Such tactics aim to discredit and diminish others

in this House, undermining the collaborative and respectful environment that is essential

for effective governance.

When members of this government stoop to such levels, it reflects poorly not just

on them but on all of us as public servants. It diminishes public trust and respect

for this institution, a consequence we cannot afford in these trying times. We must

stand united against this tide of pettiness and misinformation.

It is incumbent upon us as elected officials to uphold the highest standards of integrity

and honesty. The people of British Columbia expect and deserve nothing less from their

representatives. When we allow misleading statements and personal attacks to go unchecked,

we fail in our duty to our constituents and to the principles of this parliament.

As we head into an election year, it's disheartening to witness the increasing prevalence

of vicious and misleading personal attacks in our political discourse. These tactics

threaten the very foundation of our democracy by diverting attention away from the

substantive policy debates and erodes public trust in our institutions. Instead of

focusing on the defense of policy and working diligently to represent the constituents

we serve, some have chosen the path of divisive rhetoric and character assassination.

Such tactics undermine the principles of transparency, accountability and respect

that our democracy relies upon.

[11:05 a.m.]

And women get it worse. Don't get me wrong; I am strong. I have lived and succeeded

in a male-dominated industry for the last 25 years. I have been held to a different

standard than all of my male counterparts. I've been excluded from inner circles of

cigar-smoking, Scotch-drinking backrooms and still succeeded. I have earned my way

into those places and spaces and have been the recipient of champions who have seen

me, my acumen, my intelligence and my sheer grit and determination and allowed me

in.

But this place? This place is far worse. Only as we stand up for ourselves, for the

truth of who we are and all that we have accomplished before coming to this place

and our roles, against the false accusation and purposeful misrepresentation can we

change how people are treated inside of these walls.

It is our responsibility as elected officials to uphold the values of a healthy democracy

and prioritize the needs of the people we represent over partisan theatrics. Our constituents

deserve better than the erosion of civil discourse, and we must remain steadfast in

our commitment to the democratic process.

It is high time that we, as a legislative body, reaffirm our commitment to truthfulness,

respect and decorum in our proceedings. We must resist the allure of easy political

points scored at the expense of truth and collegiality. Instead, let us focus on the

constructive debate, fact-based discussions and solutions that serve the best interests

of all British Columbians.

To the government and all members of this House: I urge you to reflect on the impact

of your words and actions. Let us not forget the honour and responsibility that come

with our roles, and let us strive always to conduct ourselves in a manner befitting

this noble institution.

And to the Premier, I call upon him to retract his misleading statements and offer

a correct representation of the facts.

Today I am standing up for myself, for the people of Kelowna and, indeed, all British

Columbians, who deserve a truthful and respectful discourse, especially within these

walls, where the highest standards of integrity and honesty should be upheld.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Members, question of privilege is a very serious matter. I will give an opportunity

for the Premier to respond and will thereafter return to the House with a ruling.

Petitions

B. Stewart: I rise today to present a petition of over 1,000 signatures collected throughout the

Okanagan by Ensuring Accessible Communication for all. "We, the undersigned British

Columbians, respectfully request that the B.C. government take immediate action to

ensure accessible communication for all residents in any and all emergencies."

I highlight that during the wildfires, this was an issue in the West Kelowna–McDougall

fire.

R. Parmar: During question period, there were members from Willway Elementary, the Willway Wolverines.

Unfortunately, just at the end of question period, they had to step back to get back

to their tour.

Mr. Speaker: Member, are you asking for leave?

R. Parmar: Sorry. My apologies. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Parmar: We'll consider that a rookie mistake, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize that during question period, we had

Ms. McIndoe's grades 4-5 class from Willway Elementary, the Willway Wolverines. I

just want to acknowledge the incredible work that Ms. McIndoe does in the Sooke school

district.

I know there'll be a second group in this afternoon. Will the House just make them

all feel very welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

Act.

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

Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act.

[11:10 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 48; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On clause 3 (continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. Let's get this committee into session.

We're looking at Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

G. Kyllo: Yesterday evening as we were just rising for lunch, the minister provided a response

with respect to what was, I guess, the minister's

interpretation of a real attempt

in order to provide notification to impacted workers.

Just as a follow-up to that, I did ask the question whether a series of emails or

phone calls that may go unanswered — if that was sufficient to satisfy this new requirement,

as the minister has indicated, to satisfy what he would identify as a real attempt,

or is there a requirement and an obligation for somebody to actually speak directly

to the individual involved and make that personal contact before making the determination

to move forward and, basically, reject the claim that was brought forward?

Can the minister provide any additional confirmation on exactly what a real attempt

would actually entail?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the way to contact or the mode of contact — emails, phone calls — would all

be part of the policy.

I am advised that the director will develop a policy so that it is consistently applied,

so that every officer who is dealing with cases such as this has a certain policy

to follow — not that somebody just sent two emails and said, "I couldn't contact them;

someone else made further attempts," and then they decided. I think there will be

a certain level of attempts and contacts by the officers to contact the person.

Again, as I said to the member yesterday, the idea behind here is…. If the officer

or the director, I think, in this case, feels that there is no evidence…. For example,

the wage is already paid. They have the evidence that the wage is already paid. Now

they see no further claim to continue on to investigate. Now they cannot contact the

person, as well, after repeated attempts. I think that's when they would have the

ability to drop it.

I made sure…. If they have evidence to show that there are wages still to be paid,

and there's a strong case there, then the officer will continue with that investigation.

Again, the intent here is…. There is no evidence, and they can't contact the person

after repeated attempts. Repeated attempts means…. There will be a certain policy

developed by the executive director or the department so that everyone can follow

that and it is consistent all across.

G. Kyllo: Does this provision not already exist within the labour standards act? Is there not

already a policy that exists with relation to the mode or means of contact for individuals

that have activated a complaint?

Hon. H. Bains: As we see, what is being proposed under this certain

section here…. This policy did

not exist. If they fail to contact a complainant, then they have the ability to drop

their claim. We are putting that in. There will be a policy developed.

[11:20 a.m.]

What does it mean by real attempts to contact? My expectation is that if they continue

to have strong evidence that the case is still there and the claim has validity behind

when originally it was filed, then the director will continue. No one should get away

with not complying with a labour law.

I think we canvassed this. It may not be in this form of conversation, but previously.

It is to the very few bad employers that we are trying to say: "Look, you cannot take

unfair advantage, economic advantage, over good employees. If you fail to obey the

law, you are going to pay."

The investigation will continue if there is strong evidence. But in this case, if

there is no evidence, and you can't contact the worker, then they have the ability

to drop the claim.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the additional clarification from the minister. Can the minister confirm

that this provision will impact all employees that are subject to, or, I guess, entitled

to, provisions under the Labour Statutes Amendment Act?

Hon. H. Bains: This is for all employees. It is an amendment to the Employment Standards Act and

applies to all employees in our province.

G. Kyllo: Great. I appreciate the response from the minister. I think it's just important to

note that this particular amendment and the amendments set out in this particular

bill, Bill 48, will not only impact just this new stream of workers that has been

the area of most of our inquiry over the last number of days, but all employees in

the province.

Having said that, as a further inquiry with the minister, can the minister confirm

that the Labour Statutes Act and the provisions that are in this bill, which are making

changes, also will have force and effect, and all employees in British Columbia would

be entitled to the provisions of that act?

I think it's important just to clarify that…. It's certainly my understanding that

all employees, once deemed and determined and defined as being an employee, would

have the ability to have access to all the provisions of the Labour Act. It's not

necessarily at the minister's prerogative to do a carve-out or to identify or establish

that only certain portions of the Labour Act would apply to a subset of employees.

I just want to confirm that the Labour Act would apply to all employees in British

Columbia.

Hon. H. Bains: I will reconfirm that this

section here…. I'm sure the member was listening word-for-word

to my second reading speech here in this House. I clarified that there are a couple

of sections in here, clause 3, and then there's another one, temporary foreign workers….

They are amendments to the Employment Standards Act, and they apply to all workers

who are covered by these acts. These sections will apply to all employees, not just

the ride-hail or the food delivery.

[11:25 a.m.]

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that, and I know it was covered under

section 2, where it is the definition

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

the online platform worker is an employee under any law."

I wanted to clarify that this new classification or the determination of the minister

that online platform workers will be determined an employee that will no longer be

determined by the minister to be considered an independent contractor…. With this

new definition of an employee, these workers would be entitled to all of the statutes

and protections that are provided under the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. H. Bains: Let me make this clear. Bill 48 largely was brought in to deal with ride-hail and

food delivery workers, to provide them the basic minimum standards and WCB coverage.

But there are also a couple of clauses in here to amend the Employment Standards Act,

which applies to all workers in this province, so that our employment standards branch

and their work can become more efficient.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. Maybe I can pose the question this way.

With the new definition that is now being established under Bill 48 for employees

that are currently subcontractors working for online platforms, largely ride-hail

and delivery service companies, this new definition that has now determined that they

will be considered an employee…. As an employee, will those workers be entitled to

all the protections and provisions as set out in the Employment Standards Act?

Hon. H. Bains: I think there were two or three times that I already answered this question.

We have clauses in this bill to deal specifically with the ride-hail and food delivery,

and we dealt with them in the previous

section that the member has referred to. This

section is just like coming in here and amending the Employment Standards Act, which

covers all workers in this province.

If you will, there are two sections to the bill. One is to deal with the ride-hail

and food delivery workers — how we provide them protection — and the others are to

amend the Employment Standards Act to make their work a bit more efficient, as is

the case in this particular clause, and also to harmonize temporary foreign workers.

In the employment standards, there are a couple of areas that were not in sync with

each other. We could talk about that when you get to the clause. That is to deal with

that. This is not specifically for ride-hail or food delivery. Those sections are

separate, and this is just to amend the Employment Standards Act, which applies to

all workers.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister confirm, then, that ride-hail and food service delivery workers as

covered and set out and defined under Bill 48 will not be entitled to all the protections

provided under the Employment Standards Act?

The Chair: I think just for clarity, 1 and 2 relate more directly to online platform workers.

No. 3 relates specifically to the Employment Standards Act.

I'll leave it there, because we're starting to go in the same path with the same questions

we've had before.

Hon. H. Bains: That's exactly what my answer was going to be — that we have dealt with ride-hail

with the earlier two sections — ride-hail and food delivery. They apply specifically

to those workers. This

section here applies to all employees in this province.

[11:30 a.m.]

There is another

section which we will be dealing with later: the Temporary Foreign

Worker Protection Act. We are bringing some of the parts of the employment standards

that cover the temporary foreign workers and other workers to make sure that they

all are harmonized and dealt with in a similar fashion.

I think we've canvassed this quite a bit. There are sections here for the ride-hail

and food delivery, but this one is for all workers.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the minister's response, but the question…. Maybe the minister feels

that he has provided the answer, but I'm still just trying to seek some clarification.

We have an Employment Standards Act, and my question is: with the definition of "employee"

under this bill, will those workers be availed of the protections under the Employment

Standards Act, or is there only a subset of those protections that are going to be

afforded this new classification of workers?

The reason, with all due respect, that I'm asking the questions…. The definition of

"employee" as set out in Bill 48 is fairly specific, but I don't see where there's

any consideration, especially in this bill, that sets out a differentiation between

a subset of workers. It was certainly my understanding that if you're an employee

in this province, you would be afforded the protection of all of the different provisions

of the Employment Standards Act.

If that's not the case, if there are only specific areas that are covered, I'd certainly

appreciate that clarification from the minister.

The Chair: I would just say that we are going backwards to more general discussion of the bill.

We are specifically on clause 3, so the Chair would appreciate questions specific

to clause 3, as opposed to more general questions about the bill, which we dealt with

under clause 1. So if there are specific questions on clause 3, that would be the

appropriate question to be asked.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

G. Kyllo: I'm sure that there will be ample opportunity in these further sections to seek the

clarification that I was looking for under

section 3.

In any event, can the minister explain why this specific clause provides power to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations regarding the Employment Standards

Act, why it will not commence until the LG-in-Council makes the regulations? I'm just

trying to better understand the timing and the implications of that.

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, this bill, if passed, when passed and royal assent is given, will

give us the ability and enable us to engage in developing regulations. That's what

this clause is talking about.

By consulting with platform companies, consulting with workers and their advocates,

then we would have the regulations to deal with the areas that I had mentioned earlier:

pay transparency, cost recovery for work-related expenses, WCB and tips protection.

Those will be developed.

[11:35 a.m.]

My expectation is that through consultation…. We've been meeting with the platform

companies and the workers and their advocates for the last number of months, so they

know what's coming. Now we want to sit down with them again and see how we can actually

gain the information that they have so that we can utilize them to develop the regulations

that hopefully will work for all parties concerned.

That's the whole process here through this clause.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister address which new employers are covered under

section 28 of the Temporary

Foreign Worker Protection Act when the word "registered" is struck out?

Hon. H. Bains: It's a bit of housekeeping, in my view.

When you say registered employer versus employer, then what challenges it raised for

us were on the recordkeeping requirements such as payroll and employment record, currently

limited to registered employers and former registered employers. Without the changes,

not requiring unregistered employers to keep records raises enforcement challenges

when the director of employment standards receives complaints from foreign workers

recruited or hired by these employers.

Those who are not registered currently — that's the challenge we face with them if

they have hired temporary foreign workers but the language says the "registered employer"

recordkeeping. So we're just cleaning up the language so it is much more clear that

all employers are now required to keep records so that the enforcement becomes a bit

more efficient.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response.

With this change…. It was my understanding that temporary foreign workers can only

work or be employed by registered employers. I appreciate the minister's comment on

making the change.

Would a registered employer still fall within the definition of this new change, which

is just an employer? Does the employer category relate to both registered employers

and employers that are not registered?

Hon. H. Bains: The foreign workers who are not considered to be temporary foreign workers are employed

by employers right now. We just want to make it a general statement that all employers

must keep the records that are needed and required to keep so that when the director

does an investigation due to a complaint, the records are available.

G. Kyllo: And that definition of "employer" includes or provides the caveat that it also applies

not just to employers but also to registered employers?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

G. Kyllo:

Section 7, which refers to

section 51(1) with this particular change, indicates, "If

a person owes an amount to another person under a determination or an order of the

tribunal, the person owing the amount must pay interest at the prescribed rate on

the amount owed from," and then it sets out a series of

definitions.

I'm just looking for some clarification from the minister. Is there an opportunity

for employers to request an appeal? Would this apply only after an appeal provision

has been concluded, or would this take place and be put in effect prior to the outcome

of an appeal?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The existing

section 51(1) of the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act requires

that interest be applied on the amount owed due to a determination that results from

a complaint but not from the amount owed when the determination resulted from an investigation

initiated by the director of employment standards. There is language in the Employment

Standards Act and regulations on how the interest is calculated and when it applies.

It could be determined at the employment standards branch that money is owed and now

the interest is owed, or it could go to appeal. If there's no appeal, that's where

it ends. But if there's an appeal to the tribunal, then it goes to the tribunal. My

understanding is that once the decision is made by the employment standards branch,

they collect money in trust. If the decision is overturned, then the money is returned.

If it's held, then the money is going to be paid to the claimant.

There is temporary foreign worker language that's different than the Employment Standards

Act, so we're trying to line them up so that they both actually work the same way.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister explain what is meant by the phrase "specified jobs" in this

section

and potentially provide some examples?

Hon. H. Bains: I would ask the member to clarify his question because I don't read "specified jobs,"

as the member was reading. He may have meant prescribed work. Maybe the member can

clarify that.

G. Kyllo: Yes, my apologies. Yeah, prescribed work.

Hon. H. Bains: We canvassed clause 1 extensively, as the member may recall. What I will say is that

clause 1 and clause 8 are almost the same. They are the same, covering two different

areas.

There we talked about the Employment Standards Act and then developing regulations

to deal with the prescribed work. Here we are talking about WCA, the Workers Compensation

Act, and developing regulations to cover these workers under the Workers Compensation

Act.

G. Kyllo: Maybe the minister can clarify for me. Will the

definitions and the regulation that

will be established, as the minister has commented on, in any way guide or inform

the WorkSafeBC compensation act?

The changes that are proposed here have impact and change to the Workers Compensation

Act. I know that we did canvass in

section 1 the definition of "prescribed work,"

but that definition will not necessarily — and I certainly stand to be corrected —

sit or reside within the Workers Compensation Act. Two separate acts that will not

necessarily be looked at in conjunction. So I think it's worthy of a bit of scrutiny

here.

[11:50 a.m.]

With respect to prescribed work, where in the Workers Compensation Act does that definition

reside, and where will the Workers Compensation Act be able to provide some clarity

with respect to what prescribed work is? Because it is

an act that is separate from

the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. H. Bains: Just like clause 1, this language will go into the Workers Compensation Act, enabling

us to develop regulations. Regulations will describe what prescribed work is, just

like we did under the Employment Standards Act.

G. Kyllo: It appears, as the minister has indicated, there will be a new set of regulations

also developed with respect to the Workers Compensation Act. It was my understanding

earlier on, and I certainly stand to be corrected, that there will be additional regulations

that will be brought forward respecting this new classification of worker in the Employment

Standards Act. But I was not aware that there will also be new regulations that will

be developed from the workers compensation branch.

I think that also kind of leads into a further question I had. The minister has provided

clarity that the definition of the online workers would relate only to those that

are involved in both ride-hail and service delivery, but the Workers Compensation

Act…. Again, being a separate act, will that definition or that clarification be undertaken

within the Workers Compensation Act?

It would be my suggestion that that very strict or finite definition would also need

to be clarified and updated in the Workers Compensation Act, unless it is the intent

of the minister that online workers, as identified and set out in the Workers Compensation

Act, will expand to include other workers other than just those that are in ride-hail

or food service delivery.

Hon. H. Bains: As we canvassed under clause 1…. Clause 1 will amend the Employment Standards Act

to include ride-hail and food delivery workers. And here it's the same thing under

the Workers Compensation Act. Food delivery and ride-hail workers will be covered

under this definition for the purpose of the Workers Compensation Act.

Now, the regulation, again, will be developed for this particular act and then the

workers compensation…. Once those employees are registered with workers compensation

by the employer, then they will be covered in the Workers Compensation Act.

The Chair: Member for Shuswap, last question. Then we'll note the hour.

G. Kyllo: Other online platform workers, like those that might be working for Indeed or others

— can the minister point to where there's the carve-out or the exclusion for the requirement

or the protection of that classification of online worker? How will companies or workers

in that space have assurance that they will not be captured under this broader definition

that will be changed within the Workers Compensation Act?

Hon. H. Bains: At this particular time, under the Workers Compensation Act, ride-hail and food delivery

workers will be included under this definition. The regulation can be amended later

on to include any others who may be excluded. But right now, this is where we are

aiming, those two areas, ride-hail workers and food delivery workers — to provide

them the workers compensation coverage.

Through regulation, the definition will be, again, crafted just like we talked about

earlier on how they will be developed through regulations for the Employment Standards

Act.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

say it again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

sit again.

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

sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada