Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 17, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 72

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

R. Leonard

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Hon. S. Robinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Solidarity for Asian and LGBTQ2S+ human rights

H. Yao

Local government

D. Ashton

Take a Hike program for vulnerable youth

B. Bailey

International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

S. Cadieux

Local government

F. Donnelly

Education of health care workers

L. Doerkson

Oral Questions

Policy on declaration of COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term-care facilities

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

R. Merrifield

S. Furstenau

Climate action revenue incentive program

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. J. Osborne

T. Stone

COVID-19 relief grant eligibility for Royal Canadian Legion branches

B. Banman

Hon. J. Horgan

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Hon. J. Osborne

D. Ashton

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

Hon. G. Heyman

E. Ross

M. Lee

T. Shypitka

M. Bernier

P. Milobar

B. Stewart

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to rise in this House today to acknowledge two very special

birthdays in my life. Thirty-six years ago Sandra and Gary Robinson welcomed

me into their family because I happened to be in love with their oldest son,

Dan.

[1:35 p.m.]

They are the most amazing and loving in-laws that anyone could ever

ask for, and yesterday was their birthday. They share a birthday. Because of

COVID, we couldn’t get together. I couldn’t give them a present, so this

rising in the House, acknowledging them and inviting all of you to join with

me to wish them a happy birthday, is my present to Sandra and Gary

Robinson.

B. Anderson: Today — well, yesterday — was actually a big celebration for my

family. My grandma Shirley turned 90. We were hoping to all be together, go

up to Whitehorse and have a big party, but unfortunately, we were unable to

due to COVID.

Grandma, I love you. Happy birthday. You’re an amazing woman. From

being in the air force to being a miner, you’ve led an incredible life, and

I can’t wait till I get to sit down and hear more of your stories again

soon.

Love you, Grandma.

A. Mercier: I’d like to introduce a friend and constituent, Jim Paquette. Jim is

the business manager of Sheet Metal Local 280, and after a long career in

the labour movement, spanning the Solidarity protest and the Pennyfarthing

dispute, Jim is finally retiring at the end of June. Will the House please

join me in thanking Jim for his contributions to improving the lives of

construction workers and wish him well in retirement.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will now recognize the member for Courtenay-Comox for a

statement she would like to make, or comments.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

R. Leonard: This morning, the member for Abbotsford West raised a point of

order during private members’ time, and if he is offended, I would like

to withdraw my comment.

Introductions by Members

K. Paddon: Yesterday we celebrated my daughter Aur­aora’s 14th birthday. It

was her second COVID birthday, as she put it — and counted down the two

weeks leading up to it. I just want to say happy birthday to my daughter,

who we call Rory, and we’re looking forward to her 15th birthday next

year.

T. Shypitka: Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today I was the best man for my best friend

at a great little wedding in Dublin, in the Killiney region. It was quite an

event. Lots of great landscapes and waterscapes in Ireland, but I’ll never

forget the pub crawls that we had there before his wedding.

I just wanted to

wish John and Orla Cullen a great 25th wedding anniversary.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2021

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2021.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2021. Companies, societies, credit unions and cooperative

associations have dealt with unique challenges this past year. Last

spring, this government took steps to support them by issuing

ministerial orders removing legislative barriers to meet electronically.

Today’s proposed amendments will permanently remove the legislative

barriers giving companies, societies, credit unions and cooperative

associations the flexibility to meet virtually when it is preferred or

when it is necessary.

We’ve been mindful of the requirements of the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as we have developed this legislation.

We have done an assessment of the legislation as it relates to aligning

with the declaration. These proposed amendments will not have unique

impacts on Indigenous Peoples. We’ve consulted with Indigenous partners

to seek their input and their perspectives. We have notified treaty

First Nations of the proposed amendments.

[1:40 p.m.]

In crafting the proposed amendments, we have consulted with

relevant stakeholders, including corporate and legal counsel for

businesses, societies, cooperative associations, credit unions, the B.C.

Financial Services Authority and Indigenous partners.

Mr. Speaker, there is considerable support for these

am­endments and their potential to support businesses and

communities in economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SOLIDARITY FOR

ASIAN AND LGBTQ2S+ HUMAN

RIGHTS

H. Yao: In 2018, I attended the Richmond SOGI 123 public consultation as a

member of the public. In front of me were a group of youths joking and

chatting. I was impressed that they were talking and taking interest in

the consultation. However, their enthusiasm died once the consultation

started.

Several of the members of the public, in the name of family

values, fanatically attempted to outperform one another by sharing their

homophobic, transphobic and biphobic views while demonizing the

community. The youths sat in front of me held each other, shivered and

broke down and cried. My heart was deeply broken by their pain. I cannot

imagine what they were going through.

When COVID-19 first arrived in B.C., hate crime against Asian

people rose exponentially. Many Asian Can­adians have been victims

of despicable and unprovoked violence. Many British Columbians and

community leaders have stood up and spoken out against this hate. On the

tenth of May, I joined allies and advocates across the nation, and

together we made a public stance against anti-Asian hate crimes and

racism. I’m genuinely grateful for all those who bravely stood with us

in our time of need.

Several people who I have seen speaking out against anti-Asian

racism are the same people who, in the past, attacked and demonized

cannot be selective. No matter how one addresses it, hate is hate. When

one oppresses another’s right to embrace who they are, a little bit of

humanity dies within the oppressor.

May 17 is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia

and Biphobia. Today I’m humbly asking everyone who is an ally against

anti-Asian hate crimes to please continue to stand in solidarity with

the LGBTQ2S+ community to fight against hate, violence and

discrimination. Let us bring a banner to defend our neighbours, friends

and families.

Everyone should be able to be who they are and love who they love

without fear. Together in solidarity, we can overcome hate with

acceptance, appreciation and love.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

D. Ashton: May 16 to 22 is recognized here in British Columbia as Local

Government Awareness Week, an on­going initiative to generate

awareness and education to the public about the roles and

responsibilities of local government and encourage the public to

participate in local government processes.

Every day British Columbians and Canadians experience the benefits

our local governments bring to our communities, yet many are still too

unfamiliar with the key role that local government plays in our everyday

lives. Local governments ensure that services are del­ivered

quickly and efficiently, play a key role in building essential

infrastructure — including streets, sidewalks, water systems, local

transportation, schools, public safe­ty, recreational facilities —

and help British Columbians thrive and grow.

While our local MLAs and MPs play an integral part of the

political system, it is our municipal councillors and the elected

officials who truly live and advocate for their communities that they

share with their citizens. They encourage local participation, and they

drive the fundamental changes that make the places we call home

better.

Our local governments are also where many of us began our careers

and built our passion for politics. Many of our colleagues who we share

in the House today started as local city councillors, mayors and a wide

variety of positions in our local governments. I look back on my time as

a Penticton city councillor, a mayor and a member of the regional

district fondly. The insight and community connections I developed

during that time have been invaluable to me an MLA. I’m proud to

continue to serve many of the same citizens today.

Today let’s honour and recognize the 162 municipalities and the 27

regional districts in British Columbia and the amazing work that they do

both to urban and rural populations in all corners of our province every

day. Let’s do our best to continually work together with our peers in

local government for all the citizens of British Columbia.

[1:45 p.m.]

TAKE A HIKE PROGRAM

FOR VULNERABLE

YOUTH

B. Bailey: When I first met Jesse, she came across as a poised, well-spoken,

together young woman with big ambitions and the chops to pull it off.

She’d just done a TEDx talk and was highly engaged in her post-secondary

studies. She exuded confidence. I was really surprised when she shared

with me that that was not always the case.

Jesse was a kid whose teen years were beyond rough. Her mom was

struggling with addictions, and Jesse bounced from foster home to foster

home, got very involved in drugs and alcohol and was close to dropping

out of high school for good. Lucky for Jesse and the hundreds of kids

like her who have found their way to this program, she got connected

with Take a Hike, and it was life-altering.

Take a Hike engages vulnerable youth by simultaneously focusing on

four things — clinical counselling, outdoor adventure, academics and

community. Youth go through a process of gaining self-understanding and

come to see the need for personal change. This leads to incredible

growth. Youth are re-engaged in school and community, and on average, 90

percent of Take a Hike youth graduate from high school. In fact, in

2019, that number was as high as 97 percent compared with the provincial

graduation rate of 84 percent.

Through Take a Hike, Jesse became a serious outdoorswoman. When

Jesse’s mom died, she had been invited to join a group of youth to climb

Mount Kilimanjaro. Instead of cancelling, Jesse did go, and she took her

mother’s ashes with her, releasing her and her grief into the African

sky.

The support Jesse experienced at Take a Hike helped her develop

social and emotional skills and improve her physical and mental

well-being. She attributes much of her current success to this excellent

program. While Take a Hike is located in my riding, they have

programming in Burnaby, North Delta and Nanaimo, with further plans to

expand.

Please join me in this House today in recognizing the excellent

work of Take a Hike.

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST

HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA

AND BIPHOBIA

S. Cadieux: No one should ever feel afraid to be their true and authentic

self, yet the persistence of homophobia, transphobia and biphobia in our

communities can force individuals to hide who they are or have them fear

for their safety, actions and situations no one should face.

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and

Biphobia, and I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting

the important efforts of the LGBTQ2S+ community to eliminate hate and to

commit to the fight to have a more inclusive British Columbia, Canada

and the world.

It’s undeniable that there has been a long history of homophobia,

transphobia and biphobia here in B.C., and too many members of the

LGBTQ2S+ community continue to face hate, discrimination and, sadly, in

some cases, violence just for being themselves.

Basic human rights are non-negotiable. Whether someone is queer,

transgender, gender non-conforming, gay, bi­sexual, two-spirit,

none of this should impact somebody’s ability to feel and to be welcome

in British Columbia to find employment, access education, to have the

right to a high quality of life free from discrimination.

The theme for this year’s International Day Against Homophobia,

Transphobia and Biphobia is “Together: resisting, supporting, healing.”

It’s a powerful statement that by standing together, we can combat fear

and discrimination. By working together and committing to inclusion and

acceptance, we can ensure all members of the LGBTQ2S+ community feel

safe to be themselves, to express their gender identities and to love

who they love.

To those members of this House who have faced this discrimination

and felt fear, I stand with you.

On this day, we highlight — and for every day, we ask — that

members of this House stand as allies against homophobia, transphobia

and biphobia.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

F. Donnelly: This week has been proclaimed Local Government Awareness Week in

the province of British Columbia. That means it’s time to recognize and

raise awareness about local governments and the critical role they have

in building healthy, resilient communities through­out British

Columbia.

Local governments have direct impact on the day-to-day lives of

people and communities by providing good governance and public services

and by fostering economic, social and environmental well-being. They

deliver the services people depend on in their daily lives, everything

that’s essential — fire and police services, garbage collection,

recycling, road works, development permits and city parks.

[1:50 p.m.]

I know how important cities are to residents. I served on

Coquitlam city council from 2002 to 2009. I saw firsthand how hard city

staff work delivering the services we all rely on every day. Local

government is noted for being accountable and accessible to its citizens

and for being fiscally prudent.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments have been on

the front lines, delivering those services, keeping communities healthy

and safe, supporting economic recovery and providing leadership and

guidance.

Local Government Awareness Week is sponsored and supported by the

Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government partners and the province

of British Columbia. This year, Local Government Awareness Week includes

Asset Management Awareness Day on May 19 to recognize sound asset

management practices and ensure that community needs are secure today

and for future generations.

I want to extend a heartfelt thanks to all local governments. We

know how hard the pandemic has been on your communities. Your leadership

and the work of your staff matters.

I encourage everyone to reach out to your community leaders during

Local Government Awareness Week and thank them for their hard work,

perseverance and guidance.

EDUCATION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS

L. Doerkson: Today I wanted to take a moment to celebrate four or five years of

very hard work and to recognize a very committed group of people,

committed enough that many of them not only attend school and complete

hours of homework and assignments but also very much committed to

performing hours of practicum work, which is an important part of their

education.

I’m extremely grateful to all graduates of all the programs that

have had to go through these challenging times. These programs are very

well reputed for developing incredible groups of nurses, care aides and

caregivers that will be welcome to facilities all over this

province.

I’m sure that the challenges under normal circumstan­ces are

daunting, but I can only imagine the challenges of learning to become a

nurse or a care aide in the midst of this COVID-19 pandemic. I’ve

watched one individual work very hard over the past years, and I’ve

watched her and her fellow classmates meet each challenge with vigour

and unstoppable enthusiasm every single step of the way.

I have also watched these future nurses and care aide workers grow

and work closer to their goal of providing quality health care in our

province. We’re talking about a group of very dedicated people that are

finally graduating this year. This year’s grad class will be

distinguished forever, for having lived and learned throughout one of

the worst public health crises of all times.

These soon-to-be graduates should be admired for their

determination to pursue a medical profession, especially with all the

risks it carries during this pandemic.

May I request a warm congratulations to one graduate in particular

— my daughter Miranda Doerkson, one of the province’s newest RNs and one

of the latest graduates of the UNBC nursing class of 2021 — and further

ask all members to join me in congratulating Miranda’s classmates at

UNBC and, of course, all the nurses and care aides graduating in

Oral Questions

POLICY ON DECLARATION OF

COVID-19 OUTBREAKS IN

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

S. Bond: Last week British Columbians were appalled to learn from the media

details of a policy decision to deliberately delay the declaration of

COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term-care homes. Today 192 families are

asking questions about whether more could have been done to prevent

their family members from dying of COVID-19. These families deserve

answers.

Will the Premier tell these 192 families why this policy change

was implemented and families were left in the dark?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, to all of those families and to all of those in

long-term care who have lost their lives or been affected by the

COVID-19 pandemic — and there is not a single person living in long-term

care who hasn’t been so affected: you are always in our thoughts. And

those people, that group of people are who inspire our medical health

officers every day to do the work that they do.

With respect to our medical health officers, they receive — with

respect to determining whether an outbreak has occurred or not — years

of training, and we put in their hands those important judgments. I

think, and most peo­ple would agree, they’ve done an excellent

job.

[1:55 p.m.]

In every case where an outbreak occurs, our health care workers

moved towards the outbreak in order to support people living in those

circumstances and the staff dealing with it. With respect to the

enhanced surveillance protocols that were put in place, these measures

were to ensure immediate action took place, when even there was a

suggestion of an exposure. This did not change the fact that public

health leaders and medical health officers would declare an outbreak

where appropriate, but it ensured that action was taken immediately.

That was the intention of it. That is what occurred.

Obviously, we learn every day — every day — about the COVID-19

pandemic and what to do better. But I think our public health teams, in

terms of long-term care, have repeatedly made changes to try and keep

people as safe as possible while ensuring the highest possible quality

of life. I’m very proud of our medical health teams and all the work

that they do.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: To be perfectly clear, this isn’t about health care workers. It’s

not about how hard everyone has been trying. It is about a specific

policy direction that was given. So while I appreciate the minister’s

answer, it’s not good enough. It’s simply not good enough. Families

deserve a full public accounting about what happened.

Media reports show that policy direction was given to not make

infections public. In fact, attempts were made to keep them secret from

residents, from families and even fellow workers. To the minister’s

comments, on average, it’s reported that it took almost five days — five

days — before facilities across health authorities realized the disease

had spread beyond the first infected worker and they belatedly imposed

outbreak lockdowns.

This is the government that buried a long-term-care report during

an unnecessary pandemic election. And now this. This is a pattern of

behaviour. It’s about delay, distract and, ultimately, deny. Today there

is no denying that there are many heartbroken families. They have

questions. They are legitimate, and they deserve an answer.

Will the Premier get up today, and will he explain exactly what

his government knew, when they knew it and why on earth it was kept, and

families were kept, in the dark?

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I have family in long-term care. I can tell you that

families are not kept in the dark. These moments when outbreaks occur

are some of the worst moments. They are for medical health officers.

They are for those working in care homes, and most importantly, they are

for residents and for their families. They are very challenging moments,

and measures are taken immediately. Those measures have increased and

improved since the beginning of the pandemic.

When I became Minister of Health, 87 percent of care homes were

below standard in terms of staffing. We’ve taken action to change that.

When I became Minister of Health, employees in care homes were treated

worse than almost all other employees in B.C. We took action together,

unanimously, and changed that. We brought in a single-site order. We put

in some of the best infection control in the country.

The losses, still, in spite of all the efforts of medical health

officers, all the efforts of our health care teams, have been so deep.

There’s not a day that goes by that anyone involved, from family members

to staff to residents, doesn’t mourn those losses. We do every single

day. That’s why such significant efforts were made.

And yes, changes were made in the measures that were taken during

the pandemic. For example, on June 30, we restored social visits. In the

beginning of March, we restored, much more significantly, visits to

long-term care. We’ve made changes along the way in terms of infection

control as we learned more about the pandemic.

That’s what our trained medical health officers do. They make

decisions on outbreaks based on the evidence, and they fight every

single day to ensure that residents are protected. I’m proud of them.

And at the same time, I recognize the profound loss that so many people

feel in B.C.

R. Merrifield: With all due respect to the minister, measures were not taken

immediately. Outbreaks were hidden.

[2:00 p.m.]

One hundred and ninety-two — that’s how many seniors passed away

from COVID-19 under this government’s policy to deliberately delay the

declaration of an outbreak in long-term-care homes. More than 1,000 —

that’s how many people were infected, and the government’s

ap­proach was to cover it up. The only reason we know about this

today is because the government was forced to turn over documents

through FOI.

Will the Premier please explain why the government concealed the

policies that cost lives in long-term-care homes?

Hon. A. Dix: I think with, as the member says, all due respect, the suggestion

that the efforts, the immediate ef­forts of our medical health

teams, of our provincial health officer, of our public health system in

responding to these situations — to COVID-19 in long-term care and to

outbreaks in long-term care — caused this loss of life is not supported

by the evidence.

I think it’s important for us, of course, to have these

discussions seriously. Of course, it’s important that we be held

accountable. It’s also important that people not make statements and

accusations about people who move towards the crisis when it occurs —

not away from it, but towards it — who make very challenging decisions

to protect and respect people living in long-term care, in their homes,

and, as well, to ensure that, to a maximum degree, infection controls

are put in place — that we deal with this debate in a respectful and a

thoughtful way.

From the beginning of the pandemic, that’s precisely what our

medical health officers have done across B.C. I think, with great

respect, as the member says, more respect is due to them for those

considerable efforts.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

R. Merrifield: This isn’t about the public health officers. I am actually talking

about the actions of this Health Minister, the Health Minister who now

says that he will “look into this important matter.”

Well, I believe he should have been looking into it when this

policy was developed last October, but instead, he was campaigning

because of the Premier’s pandemic election. Some facilities waited up to

two weeks between the first staff case and declaring an outbreak. In the

worst case, at Little Mountain care home, 41 seniors lost their

lives.

Will the Premier tell these families why the government concealed

the risk these seniors were facing?

Hon. A. Dix: With the greatest of respect, I could not disagree more with the

member’s really extraordinary criticism and attack on our public health

teams and our public health professionals.

The actions that have been taken with respect to protecting people

in long-term care — actions that have meant that our record, when

compared virtually to anywhere else in Canada and across North America

and, indeed, where long-term-care systems exist — have led to lower

mortality rates than anywhere else. Those actions, I think, are worthy

of respect. To conflate issues in this way when the stakes are so high,

when so many people lost their lives, when the impact was so great on

everyone involved but especially residents and their families, is, I

think, the wrong approach.

I take a pretty serious approach. Not a day goes by, not an hour

goes by when Dr. Bonnie Henry, when our teams in the health authorities,

myself as Minister of Health — I know members of this House and members

of the opposition, as well — don’t think about long-term care and what

more we can do in long-term care. That’s why such extraordinary measures

were taken before the pandemic and why such extraordinary measures have

been taken during the pandemic here in British Columbia.

It is a tragic situation, indeed, when anyone passes away from

COVID-19. But I think our teams have done…. The balance of events shows

this. In difficult circumstances, when the declaration of outbreaks had

profound effects on people, as well, and their health, they’ve done a

very, very good job.

[2:05 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m listening very closely to the questions and the responses,

because I think this is something that British Columbians are very

concerned with. The report that came out by Ian Young for the South

China Morning Post found that from November to February, 192

British Columbians died in long-term-care homes in Vancouver Coastal and

Fraser Health under a change in policy where authorities did not declare

outbreaks when an employee first tested positive for

COVID-19.

These are important questions to be asking. I think that they

merit a response from the minister that acknowledges that British

Columbians — citizens — do have a right to know and understand these

decisions and that government is recognizing the seriousness of the

implications of these decisions.

As has been identified by the official opposition, the

investigation found that it took, on average, 4.7 days between when an

employee tested positive and when care homes found that the case had

spread beyond the first individual and into the wider community. It’s

challenging to hear the term “enhanced surveillance” being used to

describe less communication and less monitoring and testing during a

pandemic.

My question is to the Minister of Health. What was the goal of

this strategy, and was that goal met?

Hon. A. Dix: I absolutely agree with the member that a serious debate is

required. With respect to outbreaks in long-term care, from the

beginning of the pandemic, our medical health officers took a rigorous

and disciplined approach throughout the pandemic. That was reflected in

the declaration of outbreaks — frequently where there was only one case

and only ever one case.

With respect to those health care facilities that were subject to

the enhanced protocols or the enhanced surveillance — they had different

names in the two health authorities — many, many of those cases, in

fact, 80 percent of those where such a technique was applied, resulted

in no outbreaks. Others resulted in outbreaks. This is what occurred.

But when the member says that no action was taken, in fact, very

significant action was taken immediately. Then more action was taken as

they went forward.

These were the judgments made by the people that we put in these

positions: medical health officers with five years of training and deep

experience who make very difficult decisions about outbreaks, decisions

that have implications in every sense, implications for the people who

live in long-term care and for whom it’s their home, on the one hand,

and the need to keep people protected.

I think our approach in British Columbia has been the right

approach. That means that from time to time, medical health officers

made changes in their approach to it — for example, with respect to

recommendations about visitors in B.C. These are the decisions we would

expect them to make in order to help keep people safe but also to

recognize the profound impact of the pandemic on everyone in long-term

care, in every way, even those ways beyond COVID-19.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I think that it’s important to note that there were 42 outbreaks

during this period in long-term-care homes; 1,000 cases; and, as has

been pointed out, over 190 deaths.

Before November 9, 2020, Fraser Health was directing its

long-term-care homes to treat one positive COVID-19 case as an outbreak

and to impose tight restrictions on its staff and residents. After

November 9, the directive was relaxed. In the week before this decision,

B.C.’s seven-day average for cases was growing exponentially. The

government made a choice to relax outbreak standards in long-term-care

homes in the middle of the growing second wave of COVID-19.

[2:10 p.m.]

That choice was questioned at the time by both B.C. seniors

advocate Isobel Mackenzie and Terry Lake, the chief executive of the

B.C. Care Providers Association. Both advocated at the time for more

testing and brought their concerns about the repercussions of this

policy change to the Minister of Health.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why were the rules

relaxed for long-term-care homes in a growing second wave, who made the

choice, and was it approved by the minister?

Hon. A. Dix: The decisions around whether an outbreak is declared are

statutorily the responsibility of medical health officers under the

direction of the provincial health officer. I support the provincial

health officer, and I support medical health officers. I will continue

to do so.

With respect to Isobel Mackenzie, during this period, she was —

and she was not wrong or right to do that — strongly advocating for more

visitation in long-term care and, in effect, a relaxation of some of the

measures that were in place in order to deal with the social

consequences of COVID-19. The idea that Isobel Mackenzie, and I don’t

think this has been suggested by either Ms. Mackenzie or by Terry Lake,

that they came to me and talked to me about this in particular is just

not correct. I don’t have any recollection of it, and I don’t think it’s

true. I think they were arguing for different things, and that’s a

different discussion.

We shouldn’t conflate these issues. These issues are very serious.

The provincial health officer consistently has taken a strong position

in B.C. with respect to the declaration of outbreaks in long-term care

and will continue to do so.

CLIMATE ACTION

REVENUE INCENTIVE

PROGRAM

K. Kirkpatrick: Last week, without warning, the government cut the climate action

revenue incentive program, gutting support for local action to fight

climate change. UBCM president Brian Frenkel says that not only are

communities puzzled but that there was absolutely no consultation at all

before this decision.

To the Premier, can he explain why he didn’t even bother to

consult before cutting local climate action?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite for the question and enabling us

to have a discussion in this House about the very critical and important

role that local governments play in climate action.

We all should be very proud of what local governments are doing to

tackle climate change, and we know that communities are on the front

lines of climate change. CARIP was introduced over a decade ago to

encourage and incentivize local governments to sign on to B.C.’s climate

action charter and to begin reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the last ten years, CARIP has done that heavy lifting, and now we

have 187 of B.C.’s communities, out of 190 local governments, that have

signed on to the climate action charter.

As a former mayor and a long-time advocate for climate change and

climate action, I can tell you that much has changed in that past

decade, so now we want to build on our record investments into CleanBC

and in climate action and work with local governments to support other

pillars of the climate action charter.

We know that local governments want to take action on creating

more compact, efficient communities, so in Budget 2021, we have set

aside $11 million to do that work and to work with local governments.

I’m really looking forward to working with local governments on that,

and I hope to have much more to say soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano on a

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: The timing of this is unusual, as emissions have gone up every

year under the NDP government.

This is Local Government Awareness Week. The minister tweeted

about it and hypocritically claimed that she is proud to work with

B.C.’s local governments but then ignores them and cuts important

funding that they need.

This defines hypocrisy. She should listen to the Climate Caucus

and the UBCM committee on climate action, who are saying that funding

that she cut was foundational to their efforts. Seven months ago she was

part of the leadership of that committee.

The district of Saanich has written to the minister and the

Premier to say that this was “extremely unexpected and it is clear that

local governments have not been engaged.”

Why is this Premier betraying local governments on climate

action?

Mr. Speaker: Member, be careful about the language we use in asking the

question.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, I’m absolutely proud of the work that I’ve done as a former

local government leader and on a number of different climate solutions,

panels or committees. The work that local governments are doing to this

effect is absolutely extraordinary.

This is about listening to and working with local governments and

communities of all sizes across B.C. But there is one more year of CARIP

funding coming, so this decision gives us the months to come to renew

and to transition our relationship and support for local governments as

we all work together to tackle climate change.

We should be very proud of what local governments do. I’m

certainly very proud to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to work

with a government that listens to communities and is working with them

to tackle climate change.

T. Stone: I would suggest to the minister that listening to and working with

local governments is not about slashing programs, which local

governments have been embracing for over ten years, without any

consultation.

Before the minister crows too much about the NDP’s record on

climate, she might want to be advised that emissions have gone up every

single year under the NDP. Their plan has a 44 percent gap in actually

achieving their 2030 emissions reduction target, and they ended revenue

neutrality on the carbon tax. Not a record that they should be too proud

of.

Here we go again. Last week it was the fruit and vegetable

program. This week, again without consultation, this government is

cutting a successful program that is doing good environmental work at

the local level. Communities across B.C. have embraced this program, and

they’ve counted on it for its steady annual funding to fight climate

change.

Even in the letter the minister wrote to municipalities about her

decision to cut the program, she boasted about its success saying:

“Fifty local governments reported achieving carbon neutrality.” As New

Westminster councillor Patrick Johnstone says: “It’s the only data

source we have for how cities are doing on their greenhouse reduction.

You can’t manage what you don’t count.”

Again, last week it was fruit and vegetables. This week why is the

Premier betraying local communities by eliminating this very successful

and very important local climate action program?

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, the CARIP program is winding down this year, and we have

the coming year to talk to local governments about other ways and

additional ways to support them in the climate action charter, including

the creation of compact, complete communities — a pillar of the climate

action charter — that we have set aside $11 million in funding in this

year’s budget to develop and deliver and work with and support local

governments.

But CARIP is not the only way that we’ve been funding local

governments and supporting them in their work. Over the last decade,

much has changed. It is time to renew, to transition, to work with local

governments in ways that suit today, not just a decade ago. So over the

last decade, we have created the B.C. Climate Action Toolkit.

We have invested, just recently, over $63 million in partnership

with the federal government through the CleanBC communities program to

support local governments in their efforts to create more energy

efficiency and switch to clean energy.

We’ve boosted active transportation infrastructure with an $18

million investment, and the list goes on. We know how important it is to

work with our partners, local governments. I’m absolutely committed to

doing that, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Seven months ago, as the mayor of Tofino, her community benefited

from this local climate action program. But the first thing she does as

minister is she goes and cuts it. She was a mayor, and she was part of

the leadership of the UBCM committee on climate action. She knows how

important this program is, but she’s cutting it.

Now Doug Smith is the director of sustainability at the city of

Vancouver, and his team has lost half its operating budget because the

minister has cut this successful and critical program. As Doug Smith

points out: “This was a surprise for the city of Vancouver,” and “The

difference with this…money is it’s not something you apply for and you

hope you get. When you’re talking climate change, that’s not

viable.”

The question again is to the Premier. Will the Premier admit that

he has misfired yet again, and will he direct his Minister of Municipal

Affairs to not proceed with can­celling this important and

successful local climate action program today?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Let me reiterate just how important local governments are in

tackling climate change and the battle that we have before us as all

orders of government. So much has changed over the past decade. I’ve

heard from a number of different local governments over the past week —

and a real range of responses. We know we need to listen to local

governments, and we know we need to know just how to support them and

the actions that they want to take. Sometimes that does mean renewal and

transition and change.

I’m so committed to sitting down and having those conversations

with local governments. I think the member opposite knows that. He knows

where I’m coming from, and he knows just how passionate and committed I

am to this file. That’s exactly what I’m going to do with my colleagues

in this government. So proud during this week, Local Government

Awareness Week, to continue and renew that commitment to working with

local governments.

COVID-19 RELIEF GRANT ELIGIBILITY

FOR ROYAL CANADIAN

LEGION BRANCHES

B. Banman: The Legion is dedicated to service, members who have served by

protecting our country but also by providing service to our communities.

The Legion is looking for assistance through the circuit breaker

program, but the province has said no.

I have learned that they are not the only veterans that do not

qualify. The Army, Navy and Air Force organization also does not

qualify. They wrote to the Premier: “We find that the legions of B.C.

are being discriminated against by our exclusion from the same grants

that are available to our industry association colleagues in B.C.’s

beleaguered hospitality industry.”

The first time we asked the government to fix it, all we got was a

condescending response that the Premier really likes the legions. Well,

that doesn’t pay the bills.

Question to the Premier: will he do the right thing and fix his

bungling so legions and ANAVETS can qualify for the assistance they need

to survive?

Hon. J. Horgan: I do like legions, so that was a fair comment. I joined the Legion

in 1979, and I defy anyone in here to match that, except, perhaps, the

member for Ab­botsford West.

But the member puts the question forward in good faith, and I

appreciate that. I also understand the challen­ges that the Legion

is facing as a result of COVID-19. It’s dropped off all of the

activities, whether it’s renting halls for weddings, for dances, for the

regular gatherings; whether it be Battle of the Atlantic, Remembrance

Day. Last Remembrance Day was not like any other we’ve ever

had.

I appreciate the intent with which the member has asked the

question. I’ve been working with ministers on this side of the House and

the federal government to try and find ways for not-for-profits to

benefit from the myriad programs that we have in place.

I appreciate that you’re going to ask me a supplemental question,

so I’m going to sit down so you can do that. But our commitment on this

side of the House is to make sure we are working with everyone in the

community — not-for-profits, businesses, communities, individuals — so

that we can get through this pandemic together. We’re very, very, very

close to seeing the end of it. I hope it happens soon, before the next

question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford South, supplemental question.

B. Banman: Thank you to the Premier for actually standing up and answering a

question today. I appreciate it.

It seems to be that maybe the Premier has not bothered to read the

letter. Here’s another quote: “The legions of B.C. are facing the same

threat of closure, laying off of staff, inability to pay for utilities

and to pay for property taxes.”

These veterans, who have sacrificed so much, aren’t asking for

anything extra. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else.

There are 141 legions and 18 ANA­VETS in B.C. that are asking for

the Premier’s respect and help.

Again to the Premier: will you do the right thing and show these

veterans the respect they deserve and allow them to apply to the circuit

breaker program?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the intent of the question. We have been working with

the not-for-profit sector from the beginning of the pandemic.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Economic Recovery Task Force included representatives from the

not-for-profit sector because of the profound impact mostly volunteers

have had as a result of COVID-19 — mostly aged volunteers, particularly

when it comes to legions right across British Columbia.

Protecting those individuals is a very high priority. Making sure

that they will be sustained throughout and beyond the pandemic is why

the e-commerce program was put in place. The emergency rent subsidy was

put in place. They can access that. The emergency wage subsidy — they

can access that.

With respect to the circuit breaker and the impact on food and

beverage, which I think is the intent of the question, I know that’s a

core business for the Legion to make sure that they get the dollars in

the door so that they can pay for all the important programs they put in

place to make sure our veterans live in the dignity and the respect that

they deserve. I will take it up — the question — to my colleagues and

bring it back to this House at an early opportunity.

What I don’t like, and what I’m confident that the member, as a

new member, did not intend…. To denigrate anyone’s respect for those who

have put their lives on the line to protect liberty so that we can sit

in this House is a little bit off the line. If he doesn’t mind, I’d ask

him to withdraw that comment.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, question period is over.

Members will come to order. All members will come to

order.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Members, during this morning’s sitting, the member for Abbotsford West

raised a point of order regarding comments that the member for

Courtenay-Comox made during debate on the private member’s motion. Under

consideration by the House, the comments in question relate to the

Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia. The member

for Abbotsford West drew the Chair’s attention to Standing Order 40 and the

sub judice convention. The Chair took the matter under

advisement.

I have reviewed this morning’s transcript of proceedings and wish to

provide further guidance to all members on the sub judice

convention and its application to proceedings of the House.

Strictly speaking, sub judice is a Latin term that means

“under judicial consideration.” As noted in Parliamentary Practice in

British Columbia , fifth edition, page 176: “The sub judice

convention is a self-imposed restraint exercised by the Legislative Assembly

that provides that the assem­bly does not debate on matters before a

court of law in order to refrain from prejudicing, in any manner,

proceedings not before the assembly.”

Our procedural authority also outlines, from pages 179 to 181, the

application of the sub judice convention to administrative

tribunals, royal commissions and commissions of inquiry. The precedents

established in this House through Speakers’ rulings dating as far back as

1956 have been ones where caution is encouraged. In a ruling delivered on

January 26, 1977, Speaker Smith noted, “A matter referred to a royal

commission is not subject to a question on the floor of the House,” and

further noted: “The same rule is applicable to a matter referred to a

commission of inquiry.”

More recently, in 2010, the President of the National Assembly of

Quebec ruled that “a member may, in a general manner, refer to a matter that

is the subject of an inquiry. However, when approaching the heart of the

matter, a member may not make remarks that could be prejudicial to any

person or party.”

I encourage all members of this House to adhere to the same guidance.

I thank the member for Abbotsford West for raising a point of order on this

matter. His point is now taken.

I urge all members of this House to be mindful of the sub

judice convention and to impose restraint in debate on matters

before the Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia

until such time that the work of the commission has concluded.

P. Milobar: Further to a point of order earlier today, when the member for

Abbotsford West raised this and the member for Courtenay-Comox addressed

the assembly at the beginning, the point of order raised was also not

seeking an apology. It was seeking a withdrawal of the comments that

were 100 percent non-factual around the release of documents to the

commission.

[2:30 p.m.]

That still remains outstanding from the member for

Courtenay-Comox. I would like to rise to bring that to the Chair’s

attention.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Chair has made the ruling. The Chair is going to adhere

to the statement that we have made. I urge all members to follow those

comments, that guidance that the Chair has provided.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal

privilege.

Mr. Speaker: So noted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee on Bill 13, Employment

Standards Amendment Act.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates

for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the

estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. de Jong: When we left off, I had asked the minister a question about

whether or not the new public policy enshrined in the bill, in the

sections, had been reviewed by Treasury Board. Whilst he gave a very

flattering commentary about my time in this place, what he unfortunately

did not do was answer the question. Here’s a chance for him to do

so.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think I tried to answer the question for the member the last

time we were in the House. I take the same position that it is…. I’m not

able to provide information about cabinet deliberations or materials

used in those deliberations, nor any of its committees, except to say

that all appropriate processes are being followed when we develop this

legislation.

The Chair: I’m hearing some other voices, so if the minister can make

sure that they’re able to communicate not onto the feed, that would

be appropriate, as they would have to be called strangers for this

moment. They are not in this room.

M. de Jong: Last day the member indicated that usual procedures were followed.

What we’re seeking to ascertain is, in the context of this government,

particularly since its re-election in October of last year, what “usual

procedure” actually represents. I am well acquainted with the

conventions and the rules around this place and would not seek to

inquire as to the nature of discussion or debate that would have

happened at the cabinet table or at the table of the Treasury

Board.

My question, though, is very specific. In the case of public

policy that the minister has confirmed, in these debates, would, at a

minimum, add an additional cost over the next seven months of $320

million — whether that policy was reviewed by Treasury Board.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member acknowledged, and he understands, what kind of

information I’m able to divulge. But I can assure him that the ministry

developed not only this piece of legislation; any legislation using

government processes — and undertake appropriate steps that are needed

to draft and advance any bill, including this particular

bill.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s still not an answer to the question. I can ask an

even more general question, then. What is the threshold by which

programs of expenditure in this government that the minister serves in

as a member of cabinet…? What is the threshold at which review by

Treasury Board is required for a program of expenditure?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member asked the same question in a different form. I

have answered the question. He knows the process. Any time a bill comes

before this House, it follows the processes of cabinet and all of the

other government processes that are needed to go through. All the

appropriate steps that are needed to advance the bill to this particular

stage — we’ve done all of that.

M. de Jong: Well, candidly, I’m becoming increasingly suspicious. I know what

the processes were. That is certainly the case. I know this: that under

a previous administration, an expenditure of this magnitude would have

required analysis and approval by the Treasury Board. I know that there

is a Treasury Board for this government. What the minister seems to be

saying to this committee is: “It’s none of your business.”

I grant the minister this. The committee is not entitled to know

the nature of the advice received, if any. It is not entitled to know

the details of any discussion that took place. But the committee is

entitled to know whether or not an expenditure of this magnitude was

examined, reviewed and approved by the Treasury Board of the government

of British Columbia. Was it or wasn’t it?

Hon. H. Bains: The member is asking something, and I have answered that question.

Cabinet processes and materials are subject to cabinet privilege. We

followed the processes that are required to draft a bill and come to the

House. That’s what I’m advising this member.

M. de Jong: The minister has done no such thing and is beginning to look

ridiculous. If the answer is no, if the public policy that has given

rise to Bill 13, the bill itself, the provisions and the costs that are

accruing to government….

[2:45 p.m.]

We are, by the minister’s own admission, talking about significant

costs accruing to the Crown. If all of this has come about without

analysis and approval by Treasury Board, that’s a simple question to

answer and an entirely appropriate question to answer.

The minister keeps talking about these magical processes. Well, we

don’t know what those processes are. The minister has to enlighten us.

That’s why we have a committee.

I know what the processes were. But I have no idea what the

threshold for public expenditures is for involvement of Treasury Board.

I’ll ask again. Is there a threshold? Can the minister simply decide to

enact policy, in this government, that will cost the Crown hundreds of

millions of dollars, without the approval of Treasury Board? Is that the

process?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member wants me to answer this question a certain way.

But I’m advising this House that the ministry developed this important

legislation us­ing government processes and has undertaken

appropriate steps to draft and advance this bill. That’s why this bill

is before us. We follow those processes that are required for government

to draft a bill and bring it to the House.

Processes have not changed since the last time they were in

government.

M. de Jong: And does that process include a review and approval by Treasury

Board?

Hon. H. Bains: This member, from all, knows what those processes were. I’m

advised those processes have not changed.

M. de Jong: I am assuming, therefore, that Treasury Board reviewed and

approved this policy. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: As the member said, he knows what the processes were. I am advised

those processes remain in place in order to draft a piece of legislation

and government expenditure. That’s the process we used.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, look, I have known the minister for some time, Mr. Chair. I

say this respectfully, but he sounds ridiculous. I think people are….

Not I think; I know people are entitled to know that the Treasury Board

is a statutorily created body charged with the task of approving public

expenditures.

The minister’s refusal to state clearly, one way or another,

whether the officials, the talented individuals and analysts — never

mind the political membership on the Treasury Board, but the talented

group of analysts that populate the Treasury Board secretariat…. The

minister’s refusal to indicate to this committee and, through this

committee, to the public whether or not that group of individuals’

analysis was involved in reviewing this proposal and assisting with the

quantification of its costs makes the minister look ridiculous and, by

the way, also casts doubt on much of the information he has provided to

this committee.

He gives the committee a number. And by the way, these numbers are

not insignificant. For the moment, they relate to costs accruing to

government, but for reasons that my colleague and the Leader of the

Third Party are going to explore a little later, they are entirely

relevant, going forward, to the private sector, which may end up bearing

the brunt of those costs, because the bill is silent on those

matters.

The minister’s refusal to answer a basic question about fiscal

safeguards leaves this committee wondering just how reliable any of this

information is. The minister quantifies the cost over the next seven

months at $320 million — about $45.7 million, as we talked about, per

month. We talked about how he came up with that figure. Was that figure

reviewed at all by Treasury Board?

Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, the member knows that the material that goes to the

cabinet committee, the Treasury Board, is not what I have the ability to

divulge. He knows the reasons: these are cabinet privileges. We, as a

government, picked $320 million, based on what this will

provide.

[2:55 p.m.]

We know, based on the average wage in British Columbia, that that

would cover the majority of the workers that we are trying to cover here

who don’t have a sick leave provision at workplaces. The cost that would

be to the treasury is what I was advised, and we are going with that.

That is their position to take. That is a balanced approach to take. It

will cover the majority of the workers we want to cover: those who are

at the lower end of the wage scale and don’t have any sick leave

provisions. So that’s how we came up with those numbers.

M. de Jong: Well, again, with the greatest respect, if the minister says once

more that I know the processes, I’m going to ask him to stop misleading

the House. No one on this committee that doesn’t sit in cabinet or

doesn’t sit on the government side of the House knows the processes. The

minister’s refusal to answer a basic question about whether or not the

expenditure of public moneys and the amounts contemplated here triggers

a review and approval by Treasury Board represents, in my respectful

view, a measure of contempt, actually, for the work that committees like

this are charged to do.

But I also…. It is clear to me, and I suspect other members of the

committee, that the minister does not want to answer the question. I’ll

say it. He doesn’t want to answer the question because it’s abundantly

clear that Treasury Board wasn’t involved. Were that not the case, he

would be more than happy to disclose to the committee the work

undertaken by Treasury Board.

I’m going to ask the minister to help me with a little bit of

math. He has again repeated and confirmed the $320 million figure. When

I extrapolate from that, I do so as follows: that’s roughly $45 million

a month. So over the course of a 12-month period, that would be just

under $550 million, plus any costs in excess of the $200-per-day

threshold. That is to provide the three days paid leave.

I’ll ask the minister to confirm my math. Based on that $320

million for the three days paid medical leave working out to just over

$45 million a month — $549 million, plus any additional amount that

would accrue above and beyond the $200 million figure. Is that math

correct?

Hon. H. Bains: If the member wants to throw insults here and get personal, that’s

his prerogative. I could easily come back and say what the definition of

contempt to­wards the working people is. This member actually is

the one who is the architect of that. Go back to 16 years of contempt

that this member and the government showed towards the working

people.

I think what he’s doing today is again showing contempt towards

the working people. What this bill is about is giving workers time off

work when they are sick without fear of losing money, without losing

wages. That is good for the worker and good for the businesses so that

we can get over this pandemic.

[3:00 p.m.]

When it comes back to the math that the member is talking about, I

gave that answer. Based on the information and the advice I’m given,

there are a little over a million workers who don’t have any sick leave

provisions right now at workplaces. The ministry estimated that if 60

percent of them take advantage fully of three days, between now and

December 31, the cost to the government is ap­proximately $320

million, plus or minus.

The Chair: If I might remind members and ministers that, of course, good

temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary

language. So let’s try and get the best out of each one of

us.

M. de Jong: Thanks, as always, for your guidance, hon. Chair.

I’m quite frankly surprised and saddened that the situation has

developed where it is deemed inappropriate for a member of the

opposition to ask about a statutory body like Treasury Board being

involved in the approval of an expenditure of hundreds of millions of

dollars. If we have — I was going to say “evolved” — devolved to that

point, then I think we’re learning a great deal about the regard the

minister has for having an opposition, because those are the questions

we are left to ask about the use that government has made of the tools

at their disposal.

The minister didn’t want to answer the question. I think I know, I

think people know, why he doesn’t want to answer the question. I think

it’s unfortunate, because I think there’s a lot of talent in that body

that it would be wise for the government to deploy on matters of this

sort.

All right. I’ll come back, though…. I’m not trying to trick

anyone. I am trying to get a sense of what is a new policy that,

conceptually, by the way, enjoys support in this House. For the minister

to somehow suggest that this is disrespectful or contemptuous of

workers…. It is a policy, a new public policy that, unless I’m mistaken,

led to the famous Latin phrase. I think it’s also appropriate for us to

inquire just a little bit about the costs and how the government has

quantified those costs.

I come back to the $320 million figure. I’m trying to get an

annual estimate of the costs. The minister has provided all of the

variables and criteria. All I want is…. That was a cost for, I think we

said, seven months. I did the math, but I wanted to give the minister a

chance to confirm that or check it.

I can ask the question, open-ended: based on the statute, the

variables and the calculations that the government did — we don’t know

who did them in government, but someone must have — how much would this

policy cost over a 12-month period?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I respectfully want to answer the question. I have answered

the questions that I’m able to answer without divulging cabinet or

cabinet committee deliberations. To say that I didn’t is not correct. I

have answered the question.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, coming back to the $320 million, I have repeatedly said that

it is between the date that this bill receives royal assent in this

House up until December 31. The cost for those days and months, based on

the estimates done by the ministry, is $320 million. Now, the member can

do the math. If he wishes to know what the 12-month costs would be, it’s

not that difficult, but this program is only for the remainder of the

year. It does not cover 12 months.

M. de Jong: That calculation was based on three days’ paid leave, as the

minister indicated earlier. Correct?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, I’m advised that the calculation they did was that if 60

percent of those who don’t have sick leave provisions right now at

workplaces took full advantage — that means a full three days — this

would be the cost.

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say that the cost estimate goes up if the number of

paid days of leave is increased? That’s the cost for three paid days of

leave, but the overall cost would increase as the number of days

increases. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: To the member: the cost estimate we have is based on three days,

if 60 percent of those eligible workers take full advantage. There is

also, the member should know, COVID-related illness between the day this

bill receives royal assent and December 31 of this year.

M. de Jong: You know, ordinarily, hon. Chair, I think the minister would have

me there, because that, I think, would be the correct answer with

respect to legislation that stipulated three days. As the minister has

just pointed out, those are the rules for the next seven months. But the

minister is also seeking statutory authority, approval from this House,

for sweeping, wide-ranging regulatory powers. My guess is that he’s

going to refuse to tell this House how those regulatory powers are going

to be discharged. In fact, he’s already said that. He said we want to

talk to people.

I think it’s entirely legitimate for the committee to seek some

guidance from the minister, in this committee, as to what happens to

those overall costs. We don’t know who will bear them. It could be the

treasury, the Crown. It could be third parties. It could be a

combination of the two.

Given that the minister and the government are seeking these

wide-ranging regulatory powers, asking the minister to confirm what

happens in various circumstances where the number of days is increased —

or decreased, for that matter; I don’t think the government is

contemplating a decrease — makes it an entirely legitimate

question.

I’ll ask it again. Can the minister indicate what happens when the

number of days of paid leave increases? What happens to the estimate of

the overall cost?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member is venturing into the second part of the bill,

in which we’re talking about long-term solutions and the decision about

how many days and what model we would be using. We haven’t made that

yet. The decision will be made based on consultation with the business

community, with the workers, their representatives and other

stakeholders. That decision will be made after we go through the

consultation.

We will learn from the business community and from the workers to

see what kind of a model would make sense, be fair and deal with the

gaps that the workers have, as far as their support is concerned during

the time when they’re sick, to prevent them from going to work and

transmitting whatever illness they may have — which, it is accepted,

causes absenteeism and a reduction in production. I think that

discussion will take place between the day that this bill receives royal

assent and December 31. I think the member will be perfectly right to

engage with us and let us know exactly what he feels.

M. de Jong: I guess I should thank the minister, because he’s just made the

point: there won’t be a chance to do that. The government is seeking

authority, in this bill, to go away and make all of those decisions

without any engagement with this chamber, this committee. There will be

no opportunity to pose these questions.

The minister and the government want their cake. They want to eat

it. They don’t want to tell us about the recipe they used to bake the

cake. I’m going to break out into “MacArthur Park” here in a moment. The

minister has made the argument. He wants authority from this committee

and this House to have all of this power. When we asked the minister

today to help provide the committee with advice about what the

ramifications of exercising that power would be, he says: “I don’t want

to talk about it.”

The minister and I have known each other. He’s an intelligent man.

I’m going to ask him to think about this logically. The essence of the

question is merely this. In providing statutory authority to the

government to do something — which, by the way, in principle, the

chamber has indicated that it’s prepared to do — it is equally

legitimate for the committee and the House to ask the minister to share

with it what the potential costs of the exercise of that authority and

discretionary authority would be.

The minister’s approach seems to be: “Well, I’ve told you it’s

$320 million, because that’s what the rules will be for the next seven

months. Yes, I want authority to change the rules as I see fit after

that seven months, but I’m not going to tell you anything about the

costs associated with exercising that authority.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Now, look. The minister has been in this place a long time. Surely

he understands how absurd that is and how inappropriate that is. I’m

merely asking him to share, with the committee, some estimates. I asked

him what the impact of increasing the number of days of coverage would

be. Presumably, at a minimum, the impact would be to increase the cost.

Is that asking too much?

Can the minister confirm, on the record, that if on January 1, the

number of days covered goes from three to four days, the cost will go up

— the cost to government, the cost to employers, whoever that cost is

assigned to? My estimate says that it’ll go up to $732 million a year. I

will start by being even more general. Will the minister confirm that

the cost will go up if the number of days of coverage

increases?

Hon. H. Bains: I think it’s a legit question. There’s no doubt about that in my

mind. But I value consultation. The member will know that on the bills

that we brought into the House — whether it was a change to the labour

code, to the employment standards, to the temporary foreign workers — we

did a thorough consultation, and we agreed substantially, if not with

all of it, when we considered those consultations and put them into the

bills.

Now, the member is asking a legit question: if the number of days

is increased from three days, will the costs go up? I think we can be

general, but we can also say that it depends on the model that we

choose. You know, all things being equal…. Right now we’re talking about

COVID-related illness, three days and the cost therefor. Then I gave the

parameters of how many workers use and how many workers are out there

total in that pool.

Again, through consultation, we will find out what the model is,

and then we’ll decide how many days. Again, we talk, in that particular

part of the bill, about illness or injury. It’s different than what we

have today. I think it all depends on what model we use. The cost will

depend on consultation and the model that, at the end of the day, we

decide to go with.

M. de Jong: So there’s going to be a consultation. I don’t know; call me

crazy, but isn’t it possible that during the course of that

consultation, someone is going to ask the minister: “What are your cost

estimates?” If someone, bizarrely, does that — imagine that: asking the

government what a new piece of public policy is going to cost — either

them, in the case of an employer, or the government itself, if it is

going to be borne by government — what’s the minister going to say?

That’s all I’m asking: what’s the minister going to say?

[3:20 p.m.]

Is he going to say to the people he’s consulting with: “We can’t

tell you that, because it depends on the model.” Isn’t the person he’s

talking to going to say: “Well, how can I give you advice about what is

a reasonable approach, without some information about what the overall

cost is going to be?” Or does the minister simply think that people

don’t care about that?

I think they do, and I think, over the course of the consultation,

they are entitled to know the costs, especially people who might end up

bearing that cost. They are entitled to know what the costs of the

various models are that the minister and the government may be

proposing. I’ll leave that to see what the minister has to say in

response.

Hon. H. Bains: With all due respect, I think I tried to answer the question as

clearly as I can. Going forward, all of that is part of consultation. I

think the first question would be: what kind of model do the

stakeholders think will work for us, going forward? Then once that

part

is decided or agreed to, or there’s some understanding on that, we could

develop the costs based on that model and that concept.

I think it’ll be all there, and we will have a thorough

consultation with the stakeholders. That kind of discussion will take

place before we make that decision.

M. de Jong: I guess the minister and I will agree to disagree. I think that

when people are being asked their opinion about charting a path forward

on important matters — which they are predisposed to want to support, as

was the case in this House — especially people who may be asked to bear

a portion of the cost, if not all of the costs, they will say: “Well,

there are all kinds of things we’d like to do. But in providing you with

advice about what we can do, it would be helpful to know what the

overall costs might be.”

The minister says that’s not the approach he

and his government intend to take. There’s nothing I’m going to be able

to say here to alter his opinion.

I am going to put a couple of numbers on the record, and then I

have one more question. I’ll give the minister a chance to either

endorse, or not, the numbers based on the calculations, starting with

the number that he did provide — the $320 million.

Based on the variables that he has used to calculate that amount,

and shared with the committee, it would seem that an increase from three

to four days would involve an annualized cost of a minimum of $732

million. Five days would take that to a minimum of $915 million. Ten

days, as some people have suggested, would be $1.8 billion. That’s based

on the variables and the model that the minister has referred to thus

far — those being 12-month estimates.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’ve put those figures on the record. It would only be fair for me

to give the minister an opportunity to indicate that those are wildly

inaccurate, or otherwise dispute them.

Hon. H. Bains: Let me put it this way. The cost that we have provided to this

House is based on COVID-related leave between the day this bill received

royal assent and December 31 of this year and based on a number of

em­ployees, as I have canvassed before, from the total qualified

number of employees used. Again, based on a $200-per-day reimbursement

program and the qualifying criteria that we have for this particular

part of the bill. That’s the cost: $320 million, plus or

minus.

Now, the member maybe is mixing — and I don’t want to put words in

his mouth — with the second part, which would be a different kind of

leave. We don’t even know what model we will be using, how many days

will be used, and then also, we’re talking about sick and injury-related

leave there and not COVID-related leave. Hopefully, the pandemic will be

behind us by that time.

I think that part of the discussion will take place, and those

costs will be calculated based on the model that we get some nods on

from the stakeholders when we talk about it. But this cost is based on

the rest of the year, the criteria and the different models that we have

used.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

If I might, just before proceeding. I would like to ask

ministers and members participating virtually to remember that we

are in a meeting, as we would be in session. If you’re holding

conversations, phone calls or otherwise, please do so outside of the

virtual chat room, outside of the virtual space. Then come back when

you’re able to join us again for this work.

Member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think that reg­istered.

[3:30 p.m.]

Well, look. I don’t know if the minister detects the same irony in

his answer that I do. It is, apparently, on the one hand, legitimate to

pose questions about the cost of a program that will be in policy that

will be created by the passage of one part of this bill, but it is

inappropriate — and the minister is either unable or unwilling — to pose

questions about the costs that will accrue with respect to another part

of the bill that would provide him, the government and the executive

council with wide-ranging powers which they can then exercise without

any reference back to this chamber.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I think the minister is going to hear a great deal, in the next

few hours and days, about how inappropriate that is and how it

represents, quite frankly, an abuse of the parliamentary system. I’m now

channelling my inner Leonard Krog. We don’t have time for me to put the

quotes here, but the minister sat close by his former colleague through

many, many sessions when this matter was presented. I don’t know if I’ve

ever seen anything quite like this.

Were the minister to come to the House, come to this committee and

say, “Yes, we are seeking that regulatory authority, that broad

regulatory authority, but here we have, for the committee, some

estimates that relate to the costs that would accrue, depending on how

that regulatory authority is exercised,” I think the opposition would

still be upset about the breadth of the regulatory authority being

sought. But at least we’d be in a position — and more importantly,

others would be in a position — to know what the costs associated with

the exercise of that regulatory authority are.

The minister’s answer here is either that the government doesn’t

know, that it hasn’t done any analysis, or: “We’re going to consult. But

we’re going to consult without any of that information, because it won’t

be available until after that. That’s when we’ll make the

decisions.”

Of course, depending on the decisions made, we could be talking

about costs…. I don’t think the government is going to step back from

the coverage available — I think that’s the expectation of people — that

is being presented for the next seven months. I think the government is

contemplating a further expansion of that coverage, but I guess we’ll

find out. I don’t think they’re…. If they’re contemplating a

diminishment, now would be a good time for the minister to say so. We

are being asked to take all of that on faith and in the dark, without

any information.

I don’t know if it’s because the information isn’t available — I’d

find that shocking — or because the minister and the government simply

don’t want to share it. In any case, I think that is inappropriate, and

I think it fails to respect, really, the parliamentary processes that we

have, where oppositions ask government, “What are your intentions? What

do you plan to do?” and, amongst other things: “How will that impact

people, and what’s it going to cost?” In this case, the government seems

particularly hesitant about answering one, if not more, of those

questions.

The last two questions are short ones. Was any part of this bill

red-flagged?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, I don’t want to be argumentative here. I’m advised that that

is the legal advice to the cabinet, and I’m not to di­vulge that

part of the information.

M. de Jong: I think I can anticipate the answer, but I’ll ask anyway. Was any

part of this bill yellow-flagged?

Hon. H. Bains: Same answer as the first question. It is legal advice to the

cabinet, and I’m not in a position to divulge that.

The Chair: The member for Shuswap on clause 1.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, and welcome to the chair, hon.

Chair.

With respect to the numbers, the minister has shared some numbers

with us previously, which led to the $320 million calculation. I just

did some quick math. I wanted to clarify or ask the minister if he can

clarify…. The minister indicated that approximately one million workers

would be able to have access to the temporary sick day, paid sick days,

under this legislation, and also indicated a 60 percent uptake and then

that the maximum allowable for any individual would be the three days or

$600. Well, six times six is 36. The minister referred to $320

million.

Can the minister confirm that it’s actually $360 million, $40

million more than the number that the minister has shared with this

House?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member will know the answer is…. If you go back to my

answer, $320 million was based on the number of workers who don’t have —

I mean, these are approximate numbers, again — sick leave provisions at

workplaces right now. Then based on up to $200 that will be reimbursed

to the employers on behalf of those workers who take those…. Not

everyone is at $200, and there are workers who will be under $25 an

hour. Therefore, the ministry came up with those numbers.

[3:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, there’s certainly no trickery undergoing here. The minister

indicated one million workers would be able to access this fund. The

minister also indicated to this House that his numbers and his

calculation were based on a 60 percent uptake on this program, which

would mean 600,000 workers, and the maximum available to any worker for

the full three days at the $200 rate would be $600.

I wanted to clarify, or provide the minister an opportunity…. Is

the number that he provided, at $320 million…? The math that he has

provided does not arrive at $320 million. The math that the minister

provided this House actually reflects $360 million, which is $40 million

more than the number that the minister had originally shared.

The second part of this line of inquiry is this. The minister has

referenced relying on a federal survey, or a federal report, that

estimated the number of workers that currently do not have paid sick

leave to be at 50 percent. The federal report did not specify, in B.C.,

that it was a million workers that were not covered under any form of

paid sick leave. Again, it was a 50 percent number that the minister has

relied on.

I just had a quick look at the WorkBC website. The population data

that actually has been indicated and put up — so this is government’s

own data; government’s own numbers — indicated the estimated population

of those over the age of 15 at 4.3 million, and that total employment is

2.6 million.

The second part of my question would be that the minister has

referenced a million workers, where, in actual fact, 50 percent of 2.6

million would be 1.3 million workers being able to have access to the

paid sick leave provisions of this bill.

Further to that, if you use those numbers…. Again, this is

government’s data, not my data, and I think this is where it’s

important. Data drives decisions. We need to make sure that the math is

correct and that we’re using actual numbers.

The numbers that I have calculated, based on, again, government’s

own reported numbers…. So 50 percent of 2.6 million workers is 1.3

million workers. That’s 30 percent higher than the number that the

minister has provided. If you actually take that number, the 1.3 million

workers, and assume the 60 percent uptake or utilization rate at $600,

the cost is actually $471 million.

I know that was a lot, maybe, for the minister to absorb, but the

cost of this program using government’s own numbers and the 60 percent

utilization rate that the minister has shared with this House shows a

cost magnitude of $471 million. That’s $150 million more than the number

that the minister originally shared with this House.

I want to provide an opportunity for the minister just to either

correct himself or to refute what I’ve just shared.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think I want to correct the member. He may have used this term

last week as well. He may have misheard me. The number…. I did not

mention any federal survey. I talked about the B.C. Federation of Labour

— B.C. Fed. I’m just assuming maybe a mistake in mixing the two there.

That’s one thing that I wanted to correct for the member and to correct

for the record here as well.

The other thing is in numbers that the members are picking up —

2.6 million workers in British Columbia. The member should know that

includes the self-employed, who are not entitled to this benefit. Also,

I think he kept on making the mistake over and over by giving $200 to

every worker for every day that they take. Our position is up to $200.

Now, there are workers out there working at minimum wage. There are a

lot of them. Then there are $16, $17, $18. Then there are

$25.

I think, based on all the criteria that was used, and based on up

to $200 reimbursement per day per worker who takes a day off, is how we

came up with the calculation of $325 million.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the cost of the program…. As the minister has

indicated, his number of $320 million is based on a 60 percent

participation rate. Can the minister confirm what the number would be at

an 80 percent participation rate?

Hon. H. Bains: The assumptions that the ministry used were reasonable

assumptions, under different scenarios. Advice that was given to me was

that up to 60 percent of members or other workers may take advantage of

this program. That’s how the cost was developed.

Again, I mentioned earlier that our vaccination program is going

very, very efficiently and going very fast, and 56 percent of the people

are vaccinated, and many of them are workers.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think the chances of a full 60 percent of workers taking

advantage of this may not be there; it may be less. So I think the costs

are reasonable. These are prudent costs, and these are the estimates

that were based on fairness and on reasonable assumptions.

G. Kyllo: As a follow-up to that, I think this is where there is maybe some

concern. The minister has referenced the $320 million number. That’s

based on a 60 percent utilization of this particular program.

What I think business owners and workers would like to know and to

have the assurance of this government, is that should the participation

rates be higher — should they be 80, 85 or 90 percent — is the minister

able to guarantee or provide comfort to this House that the full

reimbursement program of up to $200 per employee per day…? Will

businesses have access to the full amount of funding as required in

order to provide their reimbursement?

Can the minister just confirm to this House that in the program

that he’s offering and has set forward before this House, with the

legislation that’s tabled here today, will government ensure that

funding is made available so that employers will be fully reimbursed,

even if the participation rates are much higher and the total cost of

the program is much higher than the $320 million that the minister has

shared with us?

Hon. H. Bains: The cost that we have before the com­mittee is based on fair

assumptions. This is the reasonable way the ministry and the government

make those assumptions. I think 60 percent is a fairly high rate of

utilization. Also, many employers are already providing many workers

with paid sick leave, whether they had it in place previous to this or

not. I think, when you look at the assumptions made, the cost based on

those assumptions — up to $200 per worker per day — are costs that we

anticipate will be on the high end.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think there are arguments that can be made that the costs would

be lower. As I said before, the vaccination program is moving very, very

rapidly. I think pretty soon — not in the next weeks, but days — you

will see that we will be at over a 70 percent vaccination rate. When

that happens, the need for such sick benefits is diminished.

I think the member needs to remember that the cost of not doing it

could be much higher — we’ve seen it; I think we canvassed this last

week — because many employers had to be shut down because of a cluster

of COVID at those operations. Employers understand that. I hope that

this member understands it and that all colleagues of mine understand

that the cost of not doing this is much higher.

Also, conquering this pandemic could become much more difficult if

you don’t know the route that we are going. That’s why there are so many

employers who are supporting us in our approach here. That’s why we want

to make sure, for the employers who are hurting, that we don’t put the

entire burden on them. That’s why the up-to-$200 reimbursement program

came up, at the cost of $320 million, based on the assumptions that we

made.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that answer, but the concern remains.

Maybe I can pose a question this way to the minister. Should the cost

delivery of the program, as contemplated and set out in this

legislation, for the temporary paid sick leave program, which expires on

December 31….

Should the utilization of this program be such that the costs are

in excess of $320 million, will this minister commit and ensure that

businesses will still be able to be fully reimbursed for any

expenditures up to that $200 per day, regardless of what the total cost

of this program is? Will this program be limited to a maximum of $320

million, or will the minister provide funding as necessary to ensure

that all employers are reimbursed for the maximum $200 per day under the

provisions of this temporary paid sick leave program?

[4:00 p.m.]

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Now that I have your attention and quorum again, we will

continue.

Minister of Labour, whenever you are ready, just raise your

hand, please. Go ahead.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think I answered the question as best I

could when I said that the reasonable assumptions were made at the upper

end. That’s why — if you could go back to the answer I gave, $320

million, plus or minus, but based on the high utilization rate of 60

percent. If you compare it to the COVID-related illnesses in the past, I

think all kinds of assumptions are made and all kinds of information was

utilized to come up with these numbers.

My estimation is…. I’m really optimistic that we will not have as

high cases of COVID-related illnesses going forward, because of the

vaccination program that is working so well in this province. Here in

Surrey, working together with Fraser Health, they’re opening up

vaccination clinics at Bear Creek and other places; 1,000 vaccinations a

day are given. I think we’re moving very, very fast to have almost

everybody who’s eligible to get vaccinated, to get vaccinated, and there

will be less need for sick leave, going forward because of those

programs. I’m optimistic that the cost will be even lower, based on the

vaccination program that we have.

Again, it is one thing that…. Those workers who wake up in the

morning one day and have these symptoms, rather than going to work, will

be thinking and using the calculator, “How much money will I lose if I

stay home?” and then decide: “No, I’m going to tough it out, and I’m

going to go to work because I can’t afford to lose a day’s pay.” So I

think in that particular scenario, that worker will be able to stay

home, knowing that his or her wages will continue on and there’s no gap

between the wages that he or she received every two weeks.

I think that’s how it will be benefiting those workers. And then

it will benefit the businesses as well if they don’t go to work and

minimize the chance of transmission at workplaces. And the chances of

workplaces continuing to operate, I think, is the best way to continue

to open up our economy, continue to grow our economy, and also stop the

transmission of this virus.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the member for Shuswap, I think an

explanation is important, as I saw puzzled looks on the screen when

the bells rang. When quorum is lost, I have the option as the Chair

to either ring the bells or call a recess. I called a recess last

week. I thought I’d ring the bells this week. It worked much faster

than calling a five-minute recess, so I think we’ll do that in the

future again if we need to.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The question I posed to the minister I think is an important

question. The minister has indicated that there is $320 million, or

that’s the estimate that he’s provided. The question that I have asked

is: should the participation rates, or utilization rate of this program,

be higher than the minister has suggested, at 60 percent? I think

businesses would want to have assurance that government will fully fund

the $200-per-day provision, as set out in this legislation.

So to the minister, just one more time…. I’m just looking for a

bit of clarity from the minister. Is this program fixed and capped at

$320 million, or will government fully fund the obligations that have

been set out as far as the reimbursement for employers?

[4:05 p.m.]

As a second part to that, I’m wondering if the minister might also

provide a bit of an explanation to this House with respect to the

provisions of the reimbursement program that are not set out

specifically in this piece of legislation. Also, if the minister could

provide a bit of commentary on how the reimbursement program will work,

how it will be funded and what the approximate estimated number of days

are for reimbursement to employers once they make

application.

Hon. H. Bains: Look, the reimbursement program is not part of this legislation.

It is something that we an­nounced, and we are working, as we

speak, with WorkSafeBC to set up this program, administer the employer

reimbursement program on behalf of the province. Further details, once

finalized, will be communicated publicly.

I can assure the member and everyone listening that the idea is to

have that program in operation as soon as we can so that workers who are

paid by their employer when they take a day off, when they face

COVID-related illness — that the employer gets the reimbursement in a

timely fashion.

G. Kyllo: Well, as a follow-up to that, can the minister provide any

indication to this House on when WorkSafeBC was actually directed to

commence with establishing the database program or whatever means will

be utilized to actually administer this program?

In a briefing that was provided to me earlier last week from staff

within the minister’s office, it indicated that apparently within

WorkSafeBC about 90 percent of B.C. businesses already are registered

through WorkSafeBC. That would then provide…. The majority of businesses

would already be registered. But can the minister provide some

clarity?

Will there be a separate registration program or process required

of employers in order to access or be eligible for making application

for reimbursement, or will businesses that are already registered with

WorkSafeBC automatically be eligible for making applications under the

provisions of this bill?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The intent here is to make it as seamless as possible. As the

member has said in the House, about 90 percent of employers are

registered with WorkSafeBC, and that was one of the reasons why we

wanted to go with WorkSafeBC. The system is already in place. The

employers are registered who would be qualified under this

program.

I think the best answer I can give at this time is it will be as

seamless as possible. We want to make sure that WorkSafeBC has the data

that they have and that they have a system in place. They are right now

designing a program so that it is very seamless. The employer will be

able to claim the reimbursement very shortly, and they will get their

refund or reimbursement in a very, very timely fashion.

G. Kyllo: The success of this program will largely…. The success of the

ability of the reimbursement program to remunerate businesses…. It’s

obviously incredibly important to businesses. Businesses will first be

presented with the obligation of providing pay under this piece of

legislation to their workers for paid sick leave. That will be a cash

flow impact to their businesses. It’s also extremely important that

businesses have some certainty with respect to the timelines for when

the reimbursement program will be up and running and available to

actually provide them their reimbursement.

Can the minister identify with some specificity the processes that

businesses will have to undergo to register, how claims will be

submitted, what employers will have to submit to verify entitlement and

how claims will be approved, as well as the estimated timelines, once

those claims are approved, by which the businesses will actually receive

their reimbursement?

Hon. H. Bains: I think those final details are being worked on right now. I think

the idea behind this whole program is to ensure that the employers are

supported in a timely fashion and that the workers can take time off

when they’re sick. When they shouldn’t be going to work, they can stay

home and afford to stay home and don’t lose any wages.

WorkSafeBC already has a system where most of the employers, 90

percent of them, are registered. It will be an online system. That’s our

expectation. The delivery and the reimbursement system — we expect that

it will be a timely fashion so that employers are not waiting a long

period of time. It will be very timely. That’s my

expectation.

[4:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: The minister references “timely.” I think businesses are looking

for some certainty. Can the minister indicate what the expectation level

of his ministry would be to WorkSafeBC with respect to the

reimbursement? I appreciate that there will be, likely, scenarios where

the norm…. There will be deviations, actually, from the guidelines. But

can the minister maybe just share with this House what his expectation

levels of WorkSafeBC would be? Will the expectation of WorkSafeBC be to

provide remuneration to businesses within seven days, two weeks, three

weeks, four weeks?

When the minister references and uses the term “timely,” I’m just

wondering if he might be able to provide a bit more clarity as far as

what direction he is going to be providing to WorkSafeBC with respect to

what his expectation level would be for reimbursement to

employers.

Hon. H. Bains: Look, like I said, the details of the programs are being worked

out right now. I think the benefit of having WorkSafeBC designing,

delivering and operating this system is the reason that we want to make

sure that the employers don’t wait a long period of time.

Timely? I think I will be in a better position…. How many days? My

expectation is, you know, soon — that when you make the claim, you

should get your cheque back. But I think we want to make sure that the

system is in place, that the employers don’t have to wait for an

extended period of time. We understand that the employers are hurting.

Many of them are hurting, and you don’t want to add more to the

operational funds that they have to come up with when they pay their

employees.

I think the recognition of the government is that we want to make

sure that the employer is refunded in a timely fashion. But I will be in

a better position to say, the way the member asked me to, five days, ten

days, two weeks or four weeks…. I think I’ll be in a better position to

say that we are at the lower side of what the member is asking. That’s

my expectation. But we’ll see what the details are, and then I will be

in a better position to answer that more specifically.

Mr. Chair, I request that we take a five- or ten-minute health

break, if that is appropriate at this time.

The Chair: The committee will recess till 4:30 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Just wait to make sure we have quorum. Look at that. We have

quorum.

G. Kyllo: Just before the break, we were making some inquiries with respect

to the timelines by which WorkSafeBC will provide remuneration to

businesses.

I just wanted to move quickly to a scenario. I’m looking for some

clarity from the minister and just reminding the minister that he

certainly has been on the record of acknowledging the fact that many

businesses are struggling during the pandemic. I think the last report

that I had seen is that there are approximately 25,000 businesses

currently at risk of closure in the province right now that employ about

300,000 individuals.

The remuneration period, or the time frame, obviously, will have

an impact on cash flows of businesses, but there is one particular

question that was raised to me over the course of the weekend. I’m just

wondering if the minister might be able to provide some clarity. The

minister indicated that in order for employers to be able to access the

remuneration of up to $200 per employee for up to three days under this

program, it would only be available to those employers that currently do

not have a paid sick leave program.

The question that was posed to me was relative to a small clothing

shop that is seeing significant reductions in sales revenues over the

last year. They do have a paid sick leave program for full-time staff.

They have two full-time staff. The question was that the provisions of

this bill actually also provide the opportunity for paid sick leave for

part-time employees. Now, this particular employer has about eight

part-time employees.

I think in the context of the fact that the minister has

acknowledged that businesses are struggling and cannot undertake

additional cost burden, for an employer that has, in this instance, two

full-time employees that do have sick pay provisions as part of their

full-time contractual arrangement with the employer, they do not have a

paid sick leave program that’s available for part-time staff. In this

scenario, would the employer be eligible to make application for

reimbursement for paid sick leave that’s provided to the temporary

employees, which is an extension of the program they currently

have?

Can the minister just provide some clarity with respect to: would

that employer in this instance be able to make application for

reimbursement for those part-time employees that they currently do not

have a paid sick leave program for?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Nine members is not a quorum.

Sorry, Member for Shuswap, we will just wait for a

moment.

[4:35 p.m.]

We have quorum. Thank you.

Hon. H. Bains: I could give you the intent of the legislation. I think the

legislation is very clear the way it is designed. We are going

section

by section. This reimbursement piece is not part of the legislation that

we are debating. That work is being worked on right now — the qualifying

criteria and how you apply — as we canvassed that particular argument a

little earlier. I will be in a better position to answer that question

as soon as all of that is finalized.

G. Kyllo: I think it’s an important question. This legislation will put cost

burden, potentially, on the backs of employers. I think the overall

concept…. I’m certainly not disputing the merits of the legislation. But

if we think about it in one context, a full-time worker working for one

employer is entitled to a maximum of three days of paid sick leave under

the provisions of this bill. But a part-time employee that works for

three different employers, under the provisions of this bill, is able to

apply for three days for each of those three employers and could

potentially get nine days. There seems to be an inequity.

The way this legislation is put forward, it does not differentiate

between the number of annualized sick days or a maximum cap that any

employee can actually be eligible for under this legislation. So I think

the question that needs to be answered here with specificity, with

respect to this legislation…. Is it the intent of the minister that an

employee that actually works for three different part-time jobs is

eligible for three paid sick days from each of those three employers for

a grand total, in this instance, of nine? Is that the

intention?

Would that part-time employee working for three different

employers be actually eligible for nine days of paid sick leave under

the provisions of this bill?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: You know, it’s a very legit question, and I thank the member for

that. You’ll always find some who try to go around the system, work the

system. But the intent here is that when a worker is sick, they stay

home, and they are entitled to three days paid by the employer. Then we

reimburse the employer up to $200 per day.

[4:45 p.m.]

Again, the idea behind here is to make sure that our workplaces

are safer, that the workers, if they are sick, with a first employer or

a second employer, don’t go to work sick and add to the transmission. I

think it’ll be in the best interest of the employer, also, to look at

what is best for that particular employer. They may ask that employee to

stay home if they know that the employee is sick. Technically, employees

can try, but the intent is that employees are entitled to a maximum of

three days, and the employer will be reimbursed up to $200 per

day.

The Chair: Just a reminder again to our colleagues back at home. You

should not be having conversations on electronic devices during the

session. Thank you.

G. Kyllo: Well, with all due respect to the minister, it appears that this

is a question that has not been contemplated yet by the minister or

within the ministry. It speaks to what, I would establish, is probably

some gross unfairness. If this temporary paid sick leave program is only

in effect for seven months, till the end of this calendar year, the way

to provide equity would be to have a maximum cap of three days — period

— whether you’re a part-time employee or a full-time

employee.

The way this bill is laid out, I believe, should be corrected, in

that a part-time employee that works for two, three or four different

businesses is actually eligible — under the provisions of this bill,

this piece of legislation — for three paid sick days for each and every

employer that they work for. I just wondered, Mr. Chair: is the minister

willing to consider making an amendment to correct the inequity that

exists with the way this piece of legislation is currently put before

this House?

Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I think the member will know — or he should know —

that all of the different provisions in the employment standards,

whether they are stat holidays or others, are based on each employment

relationship. I think this is no different. Also, the member should know

that the intent of this legislation is that the employee is entitled to

full wages for the day that he or she misses because they have a

COVID-related illness on a day that they were scheduled to work with

that employer.

[4:50 p.m.]

If they are working two different jobs part-time, and one employer

had that employee scheduled for days that this employee is sick, then

they will be entitled to up to three days.

To suggest that they could

ask the other employer to give them an additional three days…. If they

were not scheduled to work for those three days, or any days that the

employee is taking off as a COVID-related illness, then they would not

be entitled to it. It’s based on the days that they are scheduled to

work with that particular employer.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate that a part-time employee would not be

trying to double-dip per se, but I think that what this does is creates

an inequity. A full-time employee is only entitled to a maximum of three

days paid leave under the provisions of this bill,

whereas a part-time

employee that may work for multiple employers is entitled to not just

the three days of paid sick leave, but if they were ill for a

couple-week period, they’d be eligible to make application, rightfully

so, to each of those three different employers for a total of nine days.

So this bill provides, or presents, an inequity between full-time and

part-time employers.

I believe that the minister does have the ability of remedying

that inequity by establishing a maximum of three days — period — per

employee, which would be quite easy to do. There certainly is ample

opportunity for the minister to do that, to remove the inequity that

currently exists between part-time and full-time employees.

Will the minister give serious consideration to moving forward and

bringing forth an amendment that eliminates the inequity that this bill

actually currently creates?

Hon. H. Bains: There is no need for any amendment, because the employment

standard work is no different than this particular bill on a number of

other benefits that the employees have. I mentioned stat

holidays.

Again, how do you administer that? For example, how would you

know…? Even an employer may not know if the employee is working for

someone else, another employer. Again, like I said, it probably would be

rare that everything falls in place where they would say: “Yes, I was

scheduled to work for employer A for these three days, and then right

after that, I was scheduled to work for the next employer the next three

days and then another employer right after those three days.”

It is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to monitor that. No

one will know who this employee is working for and when. I think their

expectation is that the employees will utilize the days to stay away

from work so that transmission in workplaces is minimized. If there is

abuse or if there is a dispute, I think it can be dealt with through the

employment standards branch.

G. Kyllo: Well, I’m a bit surprised by that answer in that it is actually

the employer who, first and foremost, will have to incur the financial

cost in providing the direct remuneration to the employee.

[4:55 p.m.]

The example that the minister had shared…. An em­ployee that

works three different part-time jobs, potentially three days for three

different employers, would actually be able to make application, under

the provisions of this bill, for those three days, for each of those

employers, thereby being entitled to nine days of paid leave under the

provisions of this legislation, where the full-time employee is only

entitled to three days — period. It seems pretty obvious that an

inequity exists between part-time and full-time employees.

Now, back to the previous question — and I appreciate that the

remuneration program has yet to be fully de­veloped. It’s being

undertaken through WorkSafeBC, which is separate from this bill, which

actually is a little bit different.

When the Premier, if memory serves me, made his initial

announcement with respect to this legislation, he indicated to the media

that the paid leave remuneration program was part of this legislation.

The minister has clarified — and we’ve been through this bill to verify

— that the remuneration program for employers actually is not part of

this legislation. It’s something yet to be developed. The minister has

shared with us that it’s being worked on now within

WorkSafeBC.

Going back to the question that I initially posed at the start of

this particular inquiry is really important to businesses. A small

clothing shop that has had sales plummet by upwards of 40 percent — two

full-time employees that they provide paid sick leave benefits to. They

do not provide paid sick leave benefits to their seven part-time staff.

Under the provisions of this legislation, that employer will now be

obligated and required legally to provide up to three days of paid sick

leave for those other seven employees. I think we can all appreciate

that all seven likely will not utilize it, but if they did, that’s 21

days.

I think it’s really important to that small clothing shop that’s

struggling to keep their doors open right now needs to have some

certainty from this minister. This minister, through himself and his

cabinet colleagues, will have the ability of determining the provisions

under the remuneration program. I think that small business that is

struggling for survival needs to have some certainty from this minister

that this piece of legislation will not put additional financial burden

onto them.

If it does put the financial burden onto them — which this does,

through the paid leave provision, for a maximum of three days for

part-time employees — I think it’s also incumbent upon the minister to

provide some clarity and certainty to this small business. Although they

have a paid leave provision for their full-time employees, with this

bill putting additional cost burden on this business by extending that

coverage for the part-time employees….. Can the minister clarify and

confirm for these businesses that with any extension of this bill to

part-time employees, those businesses would be eligible for

reimbursement from government for those three days per part-time

employee?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: First of all, I think we should not forget the benefit to the

employers. The benefit of having the workers stay home, who now can

afford to stay home without loss of pay, is enormous. Imagine the worker

who can’t afford to stay home. They are suffering from COVID-related

illness, go to work and transmit that virus to other workers. Now the

operation is shut down. So imagine that. It’s not just a hypothetical

kind of scenario I’m talking about; it has happened. It is happening. So

those are huge benefits.

Again, the details are being worked out. Employers, if their

employees are under $25 per hour and they qualify for the program, the

only issue then there is the cash flow that they pay up front and then

get refunded or reimbursed. I think those are details we worked on, and

I said that WorkSafeBC is developing the program very quickly. I think

that our intention is to make sure that the reimbursement program is as

seamless as possible as we can make it and that the reimbursement is

done in a timely fashion.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

G. Kyllo: Can the minister just clarify now…? The minister explained and

just shared with this House that, in the instance of the part-time

employees, the employer would actually be eligible to apply for

reimbursement.

Can the minister just confirm that the business that has a paid

sick day program for their full-time staff, through the provisions of

this bill, which extends coverage now to part-time employees, something

that wasn’t covered previously by this particular employer…. Can the

minister confirm that for the business that has a paid sick leave

program for full-time staff that they will be eligible to make

application for reimbursement for any employees that are part-time that

make application for paid sick days under this legislation? That would

be a yes or a no.

Hon. H. Bains: As the member knows, the reimbursement program is not part of this

bill. I tried to answer this question earlier with a similar question.

Those details are being worked out now. Once I have the final details

all worked out — how you qualify and who qualifies and how you get the

reimbursement — we’ll make those public as soon as I get

them.

G. Kyllo: With all due respect to the minister, this legislation puts

considerable cost pressures on businesses. The minister, when rolling

out the announcement on this bill, he along with the Premier made

comments around that businesses cannot afford to have further cost

burden put on their backs. We know that this bill specifically puts

additional cost burden on the backs of employers.

In the instance of the employer that I was sharing with the

minister that has two full-time employees and seven part-time employees,

the two full-time employees are already covered through the employer.

That’s the agreement the employer has with his two full-time employees.

For the seven part-time employees, this bill will entitle those

individuals to up to three days of paid sick leave.

[5:05 p.m.]

Nobody is disputing the merits of that, but I think that the

essence of this whole bill and the government announcement around

providing reimbursement to employers…. I think that the expectation of

employers is that for any additional cost burden that this legislation

will put onto their backs that government will backstop that to a

maximum of $200 per day.

The minister is the one that holds the pen on making the

determination on which employers will be eligible and which will not.

The minister has indicated previously that employers that already have

some form of a paid sick leave program will not be eligible for making

application for reimbursement.

If that is the case, employers that have a paid sick leave program

for full-time staff are going to be grossly disadvantaged because they

will be picking up the full cost burden associated with the paid sick

leave days that are provided for under this bill to their seven

part-time staff. Seven staff, three days — that’s 21 days. If they were

eligible for the max, that’s $4,200 of additional cost burden for a

small business that is struggling to survive, has expended all of their

savings just to keep the doors open.

Owners are taking home smaller

paycheques than employees, yet this minister and this Premier are

putting forward a program that puts significant additional cost burden

onto the backs of those businesses.

Now, the minister has the opportunity of giving some solace to

those businesses by confirming here today in this House that for those

businesses that are going to suffer or experience additional costs with

respect to this legis