British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 12, 2021 p.m. — Number 68 (HTML) (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)
20210512pm-Hansard-n68
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Second Session, 42nd Parliament
(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 68
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021
Hon. D. Eby
Statements (Standing Order 25B)
Community Futures Central Kootenay and cannabis industry initiative
B. Anderson
Florence Nightingale and role of nurses
R. Merrifield
COVID-19 response and role of nurses
S. Chant
Anti-Racism Awareness Week and anti-racism education day
T. Wat
Clayton Heights Activity Team initiative for youth
M. Starchuk
Highland Valley Copper and Mining Week
J. Tegart
Oral Questions
Funding for school fruit and vegetable snack program
S. Bond
Hon. L. Popham
M. de Jong
Youth addiction services and youth stabilization care legislation
A. Olsen
Hon. J. Horgan
Access to COVID-19 data on schools
R. Merrifield
Hon. J. Horgan
Hon. A. Dix
S. Cadieux
J. Tegart
Hon. J. Whiteside
Access to COVID-19 data
P. Milobar
Hon. J. Horgan
Petitions
H. Sandhu
Orders of the Day
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021
Hon. H. Bains
G. Kyllo
M. Dykeman
T. Stone
B. Anderson
A. Olsen
D. Coulter
K. Kirkpatrick
D. Clovechok
L. Doerkson
R. Merrifield
P. Milobar
Hon. H. Bains
Committee of the Whole House
Bill 2 — Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)
M. de Jong
Hon. D. Eby
Report and Third Reading of Bills
Bill 2 — Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act, 2021
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 (continued)
Hon. H. Bains
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training
Hon. A. Kang
C. Oakes
A. Olsen
S. Furstenau
B. Stewart
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2021
The House met at 1:35 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time
now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2021. This bill amends the following statutes: the Clean
Energy Act, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, the Family Law Act and
the Motor Vehicle Act. I will be pleased to elaborate on the nature of
these amendments during second reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the question. This is the first reading of
the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second
reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 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.
Mr. Speaker: Members, before I recognize the next member to make a statement, I
want to remind all members to make sure there are no props when you’re
standing up. It is absolutely unacceptable. Otherwise, you will be
confined to your room for the rest of the week. [Laughter.]
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
COMMUNITY FUTURES CENTRAL KOOTENAY
AND CANNABIS
INDUSTRY INITIATIVE
B. Anderson: Today I want to talk about growing in the Kootenays.
Community Futures Central Kootenay, which has been in operation
since 1985, is a non-profit community economic development organization.
They have supported people-developed businesses that have become staples
here in the Kootenays.
Their vision is for a vibrant, diverse and sustainable Kootenay
economy that retains its local businesses and creates opportunities for
them to start up and expand. With that in mind, Community Futures has
been at the forefront of growing the emerging economy for the Kootenays
through the cannabis business transition initiative.
This program is a free business-advising service available to
residents of the Central Kootenay region. Through this program, it has
replaced the predatory consultants that had descended on our region upon
legalization. The cannabis business transition initiative, which is the
first of its kind in Canada, is funded by the Ministry of Social
Development and Poverty Reduction.
The Kootenay region is recognized internationally for growing
high-quality cannabis. This success is rooted in the large pool of
skilled, knowledgable workers. The cannabis business transition
initiative advises with zoning and development, site design, security,
good production practices, handling and storage, analytical testing,
processing, distribution, retail, taxation and recall
processes.
Community Futures also supports cultivators, once they have
received their licence, to ensure they’re able to meet all the ongoing
reporting requirements. To date, they have supported 11 cultivators’
transition. They have 53 businesses in the process and have connected
with more than 400 local cultivators.
[1:40 p.m.]
This program has been incredibly important in our region, and
experienced cultivators from across the province have reached out to see
if they could receive the expertise and supports of this program. The
program is helping to keep the talent, expertise, jobs and small
businesses in the Kootenays and increase tax revenue for our province so
that we can deliver more services to support people.
To end, I would like to thank the incredible cannabis business
transition initiative team — Shannon, Stacy, Paul and Andrea — as well
as the participants, for your vision, your incredible work for our local
economic development and the emerging regulated cannabis industry and
economy here in the Kootenays.
Mr. Speaker: Members, again, to remind you, these are two-minute
statements.
FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE
AND ROLE OF
NURSES
R. Merrifield: I rise today in recognition of International Nurses Day and to
celebrate the dedication and service of nurses.
May 12 is chosen as this day, as it was Florence Nightingale’s
birthday, broadly acknowledged and revered as the pioneer of modern
nursing. Florence Nightingale once said: “Rather ten times I would die
in the surf, heralding the way to a new world, than stand idly on the
shore.” As a woman of action, she chose to step away from the prestige
of her family’s status and instead chose to become a nurse, serving her
community and, ultimately, her country.
Nurses today know the difficulty and sacrifice of stepping away
from their families to serve their communities, finding new ways and new
worlds of bringing about better health outcomes. “How very little can be
done under the spirit of fear.” Nightingale may have used these words
while serving in the Crimean War, but we know that nurses have used this
very spirit in the last year of the war against COVID, while still
fighting wars on all of the other health concerns of our society. Our
nurses arrive with vigour, courage and compassion, as they know that
very little can be done under the spirit of fear.
Nightingale made the path easier for others. War, outbreaks,
education. Nightingale’s mission was to improve the systems in which she
served by saying: “Were there none who were discontented with what they
have, the world would never reach anything better.”
To all the nurses serving today: you make us better in all ways.
We thank you today for all of your courage, your innovation, your
sacrifice and your service. Florence Nightingale would be
proud.
COVID-19 RESPONSE
AND ROLE OF
NURSES
S. Chant: Thank you to the former person speaking, because that was well
said about Florence Nightingale. I’d like to speak also about Nurses
Day. I’ll take my mask off.
I would like to also speak about International Nurses Day, in the
context of nursing leaders. I’d like to talk about my friend Joanne, who
works at Lions Gate Hospital. When COVID started, she and her unit
became the COVID unit immediately. They stepped up. They said: “Yes, we
can do this. We will be the unit that takes it on first to try and find
out what we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to do it.”
Immediately, transitions occurred. There was new training. There were
new renovations. There was new equipment.
I don’t know if you know how to work as a nurse. However, when
they’re doing renovations, it’s extraordinarily difficult. People had to
learn about ventilators. We had to have change rooms. We had to have
phones outside so that we could talk to the staff inside. There were
instructions. How do we support our staff and clinicians? Every day
people were taught how to don and doff personal protective equipment,
because it had to be done properly.
What they were doing, also, was…. They were supporting clients
through the unknown journey of COVID, with its abrupt crashes and
gradual progressions to stability, and its deaths. They supported
families through limited visits — their fears, their anger, their
despair, the unacceptable loss that they faced. If something needed to
be done, she got it done, even if it wasn’t in her job description. If
they were short-staffed, she was at the bedside ensuring patient care.
She saw efficiencies that were to be had. They got done. If an advocate
was needed, she was there, or she found somebody to do what needed to be
done.
[1:45 p.m.]
There was a professional woodwind player, a musician, who ended up
coming in from ICU. He thought his life was completely changed, that he
would never be able to play his instrument again. Joanne got him a
recorder so that he could start, when his lungs were strong enough,
making music again. As time went by, we went from very simple tunes to
very complex tunes. Then she realized that COVID sufferers…. Oh, I’m out
of time.
Joanne calls herself the COVID queen, with a laugh. I call her a
professional, compassionate, knowledgable and effective nursing leader
who inspires all those she interacts with to do the very best they can,
as always.
ANTI-RACISM AWARENESS WEEK
AND ANTI-RACISM EDUCATION
DAY
T. Wat: I rise in the House today to speak about Anti-Racism Awareness
Week. Although Anti-Racism Awareness Week will not take place until May
23, I want to take this moment to recognize the initiatives from the
many members from both sides of the House as well as our incredible
community leaders and advocates who have helped bring this to
fruition.
It has been less than two months since we gathered at the
Vancouver Art Gallery for the Stop Asian Hate rally, but the momentum
that the public has built in that time is helping draw public awareness
to this critical issue and is driving our actions for change. I would
like to thank the more than 11,000 British Columbians and Canadians, and
the more than 170 community and cultural organizations, who have signed
and supported our petition to declare an anti-racism education
day.
Last week over 100 participants joined a town hall on ending
racism. The attendees included members from the Punjabi, Jewish,
Chinese, Black and Southeast Asian communities. They shared their
stories of being racialized at workplaces and even on the
streets.
I was glad to see government take many of the ideas we brought
forward in our anti-racism education day petition and letter, because
education is the greatest tool we have to fight ignorance and hate.
Anti-Racism Awareness Week will help people learn how to practise
identifying, challenging, preventing and eliminating hate, as well as
changing the values, structures, policies, programs, practices and
behaviours that perpetuate racism in our province.
I hope this Anti-Racism Awareness Week will be the first of an
annual tradition that we can embrace for generations to come, as well as
the first of many initiatives that we can undertake together to
eliminate all forms of racism and intolerance in our
province.
CLAYTON HEIGHTS ACTIVITY TEAM
INITIATIVE FOR
YOUTH
M. Starchuk: When most of us think of chat, we think of the little box at the
bottom of a Zoom call. To me, CHAT is the Clayton Heights Activity
Team.
Pre-COVID-19, CHAT was a weekly support program at Clayton Hall
for at-risk youth. CHAT provides activities, a safe place to spend some
time and opportunities to build relationships with caring adults,
providing mentoring and peer-to-peer support.
CHAT was formed as a pilot project in 2013, and was included in
the city of Surrey public safety strategy in 2017, to support at-risk
youth who were disengaged, disconnected and did not respond well to
other forms of programming. Jen Temple started the youth group to help
her tenants who were complaining about teens loitering and causing havoc
around the Hillcrest Village Shopping Centre in Clayton.
Instead of their just hanging out in the parking lot, Jen was able
to get them to come to the Clayton Hall with the simple promise of
dinner. Each week Jen would cook dinner and talk and plan activities,
such as screen printing, ICBC distracted driving and other ideas. By
doing this, Jen was able to reach them on their level, on their
terms.
As a city councillor, I was invited to chat with them and show
them how to make their own pasta from scratch. The look on the faces of
those who ate that fresh fettuccine was an experience I’ll never forget.
They couldn’t believe how easy it was to make and how good it
tasted.
During the pandemic, they used their Instagram CHAT account to
connect with the youth and check in. By doing so, they’ve been able to
reach out and let them know that they’re still here and that they still
care.
[1:50 p.m.]
Before I close, I must share an amazing CHAT success story. Chloe,
who struggled with school and got herself into a bit of trouble, lacked
confidence and needed somebody in her corner. Over the first year of
CHAT, she opened up, and CHAT was able to connect her with some
services. I’m happy to tell the House today that recently Jen wrote a
reference letter for Chloe to enter the early childhood education
program at Douglas College.
Sometimes in life, you just need people in your corner. CHAT is
that corner, and Jen and the volunteers are the supports to all of those
corners.
HIGHLAND VALLEY COPPER
AND MINING
WEEK
J. Tegart: It’s a pleasure to stand in the House today and talk about an
incredible employer in my riding, Highland Valley Copper, during Mining
Week. I want to share with you how important mining is in my
area.
When I was six years old, just a few years ago, my dad got a job
at Bethlehem Copper, located near Ashcroft. The mining valley is located
very close to Logan Lake and is rich with minerals. Next, Lornex mine
opened, the two properties merged, and what we have is a very solid
employer with long-term, good-paying jobs for people who live in the
area.
When we moved to Ashcroft, as a family with six kids, the mine
offered building lots to mine employees for $5,000. It enabled employees
to build their homes affordably. They also provided townhouses and
apartments for rent. Ah, the good old days.
Young people stepped right out of high school into good-paying
labour jobs and were offered opportunities to apprentice and build
skills. The opportunities at the mine opened the doors to future
engineers, technicians, first-aid attendants, mechanics, plumbers,
electricians, to name but a few.
Highland Valley Copper has been very supportive of community
projects. They have recognized and partnered with local First
Nations.
During Mining Week, I wanted to talk about how this property has
been so much more than just extracting minerals out of the ground. They
are innovative, ahead of their time, providing employment opportunities
for long-term jobs. Our communities benefit from people who have worked
at the mine for sometimes 40 years or more. They are our volunteers, our
coaches, our leaders.
To Highland Valley Copper and everyone who works there, you make
us proud to celebrate Mining Week.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member, for finishing your statement within two
minutes.
Oral Questions
FUNDING FOR SCHOOL FRUIT
AND VEGETABLE SNACK
PROGRAM
S. Bond: Yesterday we heard: “The fruit and vegetable program is something
that has been very valuable” and “that many schools in many parts of
British Columbia depend on.” That was the Minister of Agriculture
yesterday, as she, unbelievably, confirmed that the NDP have killed the
program.
In a pandemic, as families struggle, the Premier decided to end a
successful program that has been running for over 15 years and, instead,
apparently spent that money on spin doctors for his office.
This is what a teacher in New Hazelton has to say: “It’s hard to
learn when you’re hungry. Our students are better able to concentrate
and learn when their tummy is not the principal issue on their
minds.”
Will the Premier today do the right thing and reinstate funding
for this absolutely important program that his minister was so rightly
proud of yesterday? Will he do that immediately?
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the official opposition for bringing this topic up
again. It’s a great day when agriculture makes its way into the
legislative chamber.
I would like to say that we are really proud of that program. It
does a lot of great work. In British Columbia, we have over 300 land-
and sea-based products, and I’m happy to say some of that gets
distributed around the province into the school system for kids to try
vegetables and fruit for the very first time, sometimes, and also to
make sure that they develop healthy eating habits for the
future.
[1:55 p.m.]
I have to say that the request for the funding came in this year,
and the association provided two options for funding. That had to be
looked at in the context of the implications that the pandemic has had
on the program. I’m happy to say that it’s under active consideration by
the Minister of Health.
I have often expressed my support for this program. I know the
Minister of Health also supports it. I think we should have some news
soon.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a
supplemental.
S. Bond: While I’m sure that British Columbians are happy to hear that the
Minister of Agriculture supports a fantastic program like this, what
they want to hear from the Minister of Agriculture is a yes and that the
money’s going to get out the door, since it’s already past the
deadline.
Yesterday the minister said, in her glowing reviews: “We will be
looking at ways…to support this type of program.” It seems pretty clear
that the Premier doesn’t intend to keep the existing program. This is a
program run in British Columbia by 4,000 volunteers. It has the support
of teachers and parents across constituencies, including
Stikine.
Let me share this quote with the Premier. “The Gitanyow school is
heavily in support of the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional
program, and we hope to see it fully funded for years to come.” Well,
instead of funding vegetables for students, the Premier gave his office
a $4 million raise, which is more than the cost of this
program.
Yesterday the minister implied that there would be discussion, and
today she confirmed that. It is time for the minister to stop with the
glowing recommendations and actually do something. Pretty
straightforward. Say yes, reinstate the funding for the program, and do
it today.
Will the Premier stand up and do that today?
Hon. L. Popham: Thanks again for the enthusiastic question. It’s hard not to be
glowing about products that get grown in our province and distributed in
every region, including into the school system.
As I said, there is currently…. They are analyzing the request.
But I did say that we’re looking at ways of supporting many programs.
This is just one program that is run by volunteers, that brings the
topic of agriculture right into the heart of classrooms. They’re all run
by incredible volunteers like teachers and parents and
students.
As we look at this request, we’re also considering other programs
that we can take on. I’m really excited to be able to have the
opportunity to work with the Minister of Education, as we look at other
options as well.
As I said, it’s under active consideration. I think we’ll have
some good news soon.
M. de Jong: The minister conveniently overlooks the fact that the society was
told no. They weren’t told it was under active consideration. They were
told no. There’s no funding this year.
I actually don’t understand it. You’ve got a small society that is
delivering food and milk to children across British Columbia, and
they’re doing it for $8 per child, per year — 80 cents per child, per
month. How are they doing it? Because they’ve got access to 4,000
volunteers. They’ve got donations in-kind from farmers, from agrifood
producers, from shippers. It’s working.
I mean, is the government out looking to create problems? It’s
working. You know what occurred to me, why we’re asking this question,
yesterday and today? Because when the society made their application in
February, again in March and in April and in May, no one in the
government stood up to defend the children that they are feeding. No
one. Not the Minister of Education, not the Minister of Health, not the
Minister of Agriculture, not the Minister of Children and
Families.
[2:00 p.m.]
And the Premier? Well, we know what the Premier had already
decided. He was going to take the $4 million and hire some spin doctors
for his own office.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: A former Premier — a friend of the Premier’s, I think, I believe —
Dan Miller, once told me: “When you’re in government, you’ve got to know
when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em.”
It’s time for the government to fold on this thing. Do the right
thing. Do the logical thing. Do the appropriate thing and reinstate the
funding so that this small society can feed children right across
British Columbia.
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the member again for a very enthusiastic question.
The member doesn’t have to convince me about the value of this program,
nor does he have to convince our government. We support programs like
this. This is an excellent program that gets fruit and vegetables into
classrooms around the province. We’ve been supporting it since we became
government in 2017.
I have to say, though, that obviously this has been a different
year. When the association came forward with its request, it offered two
different options. Those options are being analyzed. We do know that
there’s still $1 million left from last year that they have.
All of that information is being looked at, and we should have
some news soon.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: The minister pretends that the government didn’t say to the
society: “There’s no money.” She knows what the budget for this program
is. She knows that it costs between $3 million and $4 million, and that
translates into 80 cents per child, per month, across British
Columbia.
She didn’t say to the society: “We’re thinking about it, and we
want to talk to you about some refinements.” The government said no, and
the government knew that May 10 was a hard deadline when the society has
to say to their suppliers: “We no longer are able to take your products.
We are no longer able to distribute them to children right across
British Columbia.”
The minister and the government are being way too cute. This is
hardly the hardest decision for a government to make at this
time.
Will the minister, will the Premier, stand up, do the right thing,
the logical thing, the appropriate thing and simply tell the society and
children across British Columbia that they’re going to get the fruits
and vegetables with a program that has been working perfectly for 15
years?
Hon. L. Popham: As I said, there should be some news soon.
YOUTH ADDICTION SERVICES AND
YOUTH STABILIZATION CARE
LEGISLATION
A. Olsen: In response to the death of a 12-year-old girl recently, an
especially young casualty of the poisoned drug supply, this government
and the official opposition are advocating to bring back a bill that
would involuntarily restrain youth.
The death of this young child is tragic. No one in this province
should die from a poisoned drug supply, especially a child. In the wake
of this tragedy, we feel the weight of this toxic drug crisis even more.
But let’s not use this tragedy as cover for inadequate policy.
Restraining children against their will, as written in last summer’s
Bill 22, would cause significant and disproportionate harm, especially
to Indigenous youth.
Bill 22 is a reactive policy to an inadequate system of care and
sets up youth for further alienation. What we should be doing is setting
up a proactive mental health care system that ensures everyone can get
the help when they need it. What is needed is a culturally appropriate,
youth-specific, youth-friendly, voluntary detox, intensive care
management, day treatment and community residential treatment
system.
My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.
Will the minister resist calls to bring back this flawed legislation
that has the potential to hurt more than it may help?
Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the position of the member, but I profoundly disagree
with it.
[2:05 p.m.]
Judy Darcy, the first-ever Minister of Mental Health and
Addictions in this country, worked tirelessly with all corners of this
House. Jane Thornthwaite, former member for North Vancouver–Seymour,
former Chair of the Children and Youth Committee, worked collaboratively
to bring forward something.
For the Green Party, perfection is always the enemy of progress.
We had a youth die from opioid overdoses this week, and still the Green
Party believes we should continue to flounder around, rather than coming
together collectively and never letting this happen again.
I don’t know how you can hold that position, Member, after what
we’ve just seen.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a
supplemental.
A. Olsen: Well, there’s a…. It reminds me of last summer, a conversation
that we had. Bill 22 faced strong opposition, yet it was
politicized.
It was the B.C. Greens, just as we saw here today. The B.C. Greens
were the ones that were standing up against this bill — the B.C. Greens.
As I said to the Premier in his office, we’re only raising the
significant concerns of a wide variety of stakeholders that were
speaking out against Bill 22. Yet only the B.C. Greens were the ones
that were speaking out against that.
Lisa Lapointe, our chief coroner: “Serious unintended
consequences…including the potential for an increase in fatalities.” The
Premier won’t mention that. The chief coroner said that this bill might
negatively impact the work being done to reduce fear and stigma,
something that we’ve been talking about in this session of the
Legislature.
The Representative for Children and Youth — not being brought up
in question period today. The Representative for Children and Youth….
Only the Green Party were standing in the way of it. No, the
Representative for Children and Youth said they were disappointed by
government’s move to create involuntary stabilization units, stating the
need for more urgent, voluntary supports.
The Premier’s government not only heard from the Green Party, but
they also heard from — and the chief coroner and the Representative for
Children and Youth — the First Nations Leadership Council, the nurses
association and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that this bill faced
strong opposition, because as it was written, it was not the solution to
the problems that we face and could potentially make the situation
worse. That’s exactly the advocacy that we brought to the Premier’s
office last summer.
My question is again to the Minister of Mental Health and
Addictions. Is her ministry focused on expanding the voluntary supports,
or are they going to bring back the flawed bill that they put in front
of this House last summer?
Hon. J. Horgan: I was a 12-year-old drug user, and I wasn’t reading statutes at
the time. I don’t think that anyone who’s using drugs as a youth is
concerned about the debates in this Legislature. I don’t think the
parents of children using drugs are particularly concerned about the
debates in this Legislature. They want all of us to get our act together
and protect young people.
The direction to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is
to consult, and she has been doing that. We will bring back the bill,
and it may well be an improvement in his eyes. But I reject his position
that we have to find perfection before we step in and help people who
need help.
ACCESS TO COVID-19 DATA ON SCHOOLS
R. Merrifield: Another day and another COVID-19 data leak. This time we have the
Premier concealing data about COVID-19 transmission in
schools.
While we’re on the topic of children, in the absence of the data
that was leaked, parents have been collecting their own, publishing this
on Facebook pages and blog posts, desperate for the information to keep
their families safe. Fraser Health has now been forced to publish a
leaked presentation that shows the Premier had access to local schools’
data about COVID-19 outbreaks and deliberately withheld it.
Will the Premier explain why he is yet again hiding COVID data,
this time about kids?
Hon. J. Horgan: As I said to an earlier question in this regard, we have been
following the direction of public health officials and the B.C. Centre
for Disease Control. We’ve been doing that from the beginning, to good
effect.
Here is some data for the member today: 2.16 million British
Columbians have received the first dose of vaccine, and over 50 percent
of British Columbians eligible have had their first dose. That’s
positive news for the future.
[2:10 p.m.]
I stand behind Dr. Henry. I stand behind the Centre for Disease
Control in how they will apportion the data that they collect to protect
British Columbians. It has been working to this point in time. I’m
confident it will continue to work as we get to the end of the
pandemic.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.
R. Merrifield: Well, I won’t quote the PHO, but I will quote the Premier. Last
year he told British Columbians: “Children are not transmitters of
COVID.” But the leaked data from Fraser Health clearly shows that
student-to-student transmission is the greatest concern and occurred in
the majority of identified cases. As Teri Mooring of the BCTF says, the
leak shows “the opposite of what we were told.”
Will the Premier explain why he kept families in the dark about
COVID transmission at schools, when he has access to the data that
parents want?
Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that on April 15…. Her caucus received a
detailed briefing about this, as did the Green Party caucus and many
other people.
Dr. Bonnie Henry presented, on April 15, modelling data with
respect to school cases, both in Fraser Health for the period in 2021
and in Vancouver Coastal Health for the period in 2020. Subsequently,
Fraser Health provided that data to superintendents and posted it
publicly on Tuesday.
S. Cadieux: Well, another day, another leak. The Premier buried a report on
COVID-19 in long-term-care homes and called an election. Front-line
workers at the BCCDC felt they had to leak the information last
week.
Now it’s happened again with Fraser Health school data. The leaked
data shows that Surrey had the highest number of COVID outbreaks at
schools but also had the highest number of variants of concern. The
leaks show the data that the people have been demanding be made
available.
Why wasn’t it done sooner, Minister?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the provincial health officer, on April 15, provided a
briefing to people across British Columbia. It was done on provincial
television, and it was made available to everyone.
The member talks about previous reports, and frankly, a report
that was concluded after the election could not have been provided
before the election. So with great respect, I think that what’s
important right now is that we focus on what Fraser Health is focusing
on, which is immunizing people in Surrey and dealing with issues of
transmission, the extraordinary effort that’s been made just in the last
week, never mind over the period of the pandemic, by health care workers
and staff in Fraser Health. It’s something to be recognized.
Today people across B.C…. Over 50 percent of adults across B.C.
were immunized by the end of the day yesterday. That includes in both
local health areas in Surrey. There are efforts across the community
health service areas in Surrey, especially hot spots, to raise levels of
immunization.
That’s precisely what we’re doing, and we’re doing it, working
with MLAs on all sides of the House, working with community groups,
working with gurdwaras, working with mosques, working with everyone
across the community. Those efforts, which have registered half a
million people in nine days, have been led by the Premier, and those are
the right efforts for us to do right now.
People need to get registered, they need to get vaccinated, and
all of us need to follow provincial health guidance and
orders.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.
S. Cadieux: Well, government is certainly playing catch-up on Surrey. This
leaked data also showed that Surrey had the most significant burden of
school exposure notifications and isolation orders.
What did the Premier give them? Pop-up clinics and a Hunger
Games vaccination plan. Parents want to know that their kids
will be safe at school, and they need transparency from this Premier and
this government. As Teri Mooring says, the leak shows “the opposite of
what we were told.”
Why did the Premier ignore the concerns of Surrey residents and
teachers and keep them in the dark about COVID data at
schools?
[2:15 p.m.]
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the provincial health officer and our public health
officials in both Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health have done
extensive work. The public was briefed on that work, and further details
were provided to superintendents and posted publicly earlier this week
of the situation in Surrey.
We present data around Fraser Health every single day. It shows
that since last year, in the middle of last year, Fraser Health overtook
Vancouver Coastal Health as the centre of the pandemic in terms of
cases. That case has been made and demonstrated in data throughout that
time.
Over the last week, people in the hundreds of thousands in Fraser
Health have been immunized, and the reason is that we have an
extraordinary team of people. Now we have this supply of vaccine. Those
efforts are going to continue. Surrey is, obviously, amongst large
communities in British Columbia, our top priority. That is reflected in
our actions, in what has occurred in this time.
I appreciate the support of the hon. member for those efforts. I
know she does. I know that members on all sides of the House support
them. So we have to get on with it.
Get registered. Get immunized. Follow provincial health guidance.
Right now we have to live in the present. That’s what we all need to
do.
J. Tegart: I wrote to the Health Minister on January 11, asking him, on
behalf of educators and parents of school-aged children, to provide more
detailed COVID-19 data. I asked him specifically for case breakdowns of
schools, identified by staff and student populations. This government
never responded. They hid the information instead.
Will the Premier share the kind of school COVID data that has
leaked for the whole province, or will he continue to keep parents in
the dark about their children’s safety?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question.
We all share a deep concern to ensure that our children are going
to school and that staff are working in safety in our
schools.
I would say that with respect to the information that has been
provided in Vancouver Coastal Health, as a result of their analysis done
with respect to in-school transmission, and the information done by the
Fraser Health Authority…. Both studies were presented to the public in
the April 15 modelling update by Dr. Henry. That information has
demonstrated, in fact, that our school safety plans are
working.
We know that in the case of Surrey, in particular, we have 77,000
students attending school in Surrey. We have 10,000 staff working across
that health authority. We know that across that district, 1 percent of
the in-school population tested positive. The really good news coming
out of that study is that 87 percent of COVID cases that showed up in
school, in fact, were acquired elsewhere. They weren’t acquired in
school. Even more importantly, a case that did arrive in a school only
resulted in transmission to one or two other individuals.
What those really important studies…. What that really important
work that our health authorities have done demonstrates is that, in
fact, our safety plans are working. They’re working because of the
extraordinary efforts of teachers and educational assistants and
custodians and principals and superintendents and, of course, kids
themselves, who are all in, working hard to ensure that we’re keeping
our schools safe so that kids can continue to learn in
school.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.
J. Tegart: Other regions are worried about the COVID data in their school
districts also. The leaked data from Fraser Health includes part of what
we’ve been requesting regarding schools, breakdown by school district,
geographic breakdown, staff and student numbers and information on
variant cases in schools. We now know that the Premier has access to
this data. Keeping information secret adds to the stress.
Will the Premier tell parents across the province that he will
share the COVID data he has on schools, or will we have to wait for
another data leak?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I’m grateful to the member opposite for, again, the concern that
we all share during this unprecedented time with respect to keeping kids
safe.
[2:20 p.m.]
I can tell you that we work every single day with our partners in
the education system, and also with our partners in the BCCDC, with
medical school health officials in the health authorities. Those
individuals are working together at our provincial steering committee
where, in fact, we met earlier this week and reviewed the information
that had come out of Fraser.
People in leadership positions in the education system have direct
access to our public health officials. Our response across all health
authorities is led, in fact, by public health. We will continue to do
that work, continue to communicate, continue to work across all sides
with all of our partners to ensure the safety of schools.
ACCESS TO COVID-19 DATA
P. Milobar: Yesterday the Premier claimed that he made no direction regarding
the sharing of data. In fact, he said: “The data issue was in the hands
of the BCCDC. At no time did I direct them to do anything.”
Well, the Premier could have directed them to release the
information at any time. Of course, the Premier could have also directed
the Poverty Reduction Minister to end the clawback. But he’s just one
member at the cabinet table, I guess. He could have directed the Ag
Minister, the Health Minister and the Education Minister to not cut the
funding to the fruit and vegetable program. But the Premier did know how
to direct staff when he made sure that his office was directed to get an
extra $4 million to get out some spin doctors to work on upcoming photo
ops for the Premier instead.
The Premier has choices. The Premier could have released the data.
Instead, he has chosen not to.
Can the Premier explain why he chose to withhold the information
and keep the information private?
Hon. J. Horgan: For the party that took away bus passes from people with
disabilities…. They actually did that. We increased income assistance
and disability rates by the largest amount in history in this
budget.
We have been following the lead of public health officials through
the gravest time in our province’s history because it was the right
thing to do. At no time did I direct anyone to withhold anything. I
relied on Dr. Henry and her professional team and the great nurses and
doctors in this province to get us through this.
Now, I think it’s okay for the House Leader of the official
opposition to stand and recite what he got from the kids in the
basement.
The reality is British Columbians are thankful that we’re almost
at the end of the gravest year in our history because we’ve been
collaborating and working cooperatively across sectors, across
industries to make sure that all British Columbians can be safe, and
when we come out of this pandemic, we’re stronger than when we went in
it. That’s why we’re on this side of the House, and that’s why you’re on
that side of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: Wow. I can only imagine what the Premier is like as a boss to his
own staff if that’s the disdain he has for where people are located in a
building for working.
Let’s look at….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. The Opposition House Leader has the floor.
P. Milobar: Well, the Premier seems to be missing the point. He could have
directed that the data be released instead of being hidden for the last
14 months, as community groups, parents, other agencies have been
looking for the data. The media have been looking for the
data.
In fact, I’ll remind the Premier what he said last August, because
he seems to always forget the promises and commitments he makes. Last
August this is what the Premier had to say about COVID: “At the end of
the day, the decisions rest with me and my government.” Funny. Yesterday
he wanted to make sure everyone knew he doesn’t direct anyone to do
anything, it seems, in his government.
Again, front-line workers are feeling like they have to leak
information because this Premier is choosing to hide the
information.
Instead of cheap shots at people that work in this building,
perhaps the Premier could actually answer a question up front for once.
Why is he hiding information, and will he stop hiding data, moving
forward?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, public health officials, led by Dr. Bonnie Henry, have been
briefing British Columbians every day for 15 months. We’ve been laying
out data on outbreaks in particular parts of the province. We’ve been
managing that.
The data in and of itself is not a tool for anything other than
better outcomes for people. We use the data to deliver health services
for people.
[2:25 p.m.]
Now, I know that for the official opposition and, particularly,
the Opposition House Leader, it’s just a club to beat someone over the
head with. But for professionals in the health sector, the data informs
how they respond to situations. That’s how it should be. Thank goodness
we’re here to make sure that happens.
[End of question period.]
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vernon-Monashee has something? All right, Member.
Proceed.
Petitions
H. Sandhu: I’m submitting this petition on behalf of 46 senior condo owners in
Vernon. It’s regarding the excessive insurance premiums that are being
charged. They’re hoping that government can do something.
There have been some actions taken. They’re appreciative of
that.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act,
second reading. In the Douglas Fir Room,
Section A, I call Ministry of Advanced
Education and Skills Training estimates.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT
(N o . 2), 2021
Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time now.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Many workers wake up in the morning with a sore throat and a
difficult choice. On the one hand, if they feel sick, they could stay
home. This would be the right thing to do for their own health and the
health of their co-workers and could help stop the transmission of
COVID-19 at the workplace.
Or they could push through and head into work because they just
can’t afford to stay home. They can’t just stay. They just can’t afford
to lose a day’s pay. This, of course, puts their co-workers at risk and
could lead to an outbreak. This is what we are discussing today with
Bill 13.
Since the beginning of this pandemic, we have been lobbying the
federal government to bring a paid sick leave program for all workers in
Canada. We continue to feel this should be a national priority, as this
is a national emergency. No worker should have to choose between going
to work sick or staying home, losing pay. We’re stepping up and
providing what is needed now and for the future for the workers of
British Columbia.
There are two significant improvements under this bill amending
the Employment Standards Act. First is an immediate measure, on a
short-term basis, to support workers as we continue to battle
COVID-19.
The amendment would provide up to three days of paid COVID-related
sick leave for employees who are on leave in one of the following
situations: they have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and are acting on the
instruction or order of a medical officer or advice of a medical
practitioner, nurse practitioner or registered nurse; they are in
quarantine or self-isolation in accordance with an order made by the
provincial health officer — that’s what this bill would do to cover
those situations; or they have been directed by their employer to stay
home because of concern about an exposure risk to others.
This will mean that the employees who do not currently have access
to paid sick days will be able to take days off to get tested without
losing pay when they have COVID-19 symptoms, for the duration of this
pay leave, from royal assent until December 31, 2021.
We know that the most efficient way to prevent the transmission of
COVID-19 is to self-isolate, to stay home and not go to work when you’re
sick. But for too many workers, they cannot afford to take unpaid sick
leave. Many workers live paycheque to paycheque. Every dollar counts
towards rent, food and other necessities.
[2:30 p.m.]
That can put workers in an impossible situation. If they go into
work when sick, they could be putting other workers, co-workers and
others in danger, but by staying home, they risk their job, food on the
table and their home. A paid sick leave for COVID-19 helps ensure more
workers don’t have to make that choice now, during the
pandemic.
For employers, knowing that the workers are making a choice to
stay home when sick should help keep workplaces safe and healthy for
other workers and customers, which could reduce the likelihood of an
outbreak that could result in a closure order of ten days by public
health.
This paid COVID-19 leave will not replace the federal Canada
recovery sickness benefit, which provides $500 weekly for up to four
weeks, when workers miss at least half of their scheduled work week
because they are ill or self-isolating due to COVID-19. Rather, B.C.’s
proposed COVID-19 sick leave will provide financial support to workers
who find themselves in a situation not currently covered by a federal
program.
At the same time, we need to support businesses that are already
struggling to survive due to the pandemic. So the province will
reimburse employers, up to $200 a day, for up to three days for each
employee who takes this COVID-19 paid sick leave. This means workers
won’t lose pay while waiting for their COVID-19 test results, and
employers will be supported in covering those costs.
In accordance with the amendment under this bill, employers will
be required to pay employees their average day’s wage for a COVID-19
sick leave day. The employer will then be reimbursed by the province up
to a maximum of $200 a day per employee. This program will be
administered by WorkSafeBC, which has the tools and experience working
with employers to run a reimbursement program of this scale.
We expect to have employer reimbursement support fully operational
as soon as we can, and employers will be able to quickly and efficiently
access their reimbursement. We have seen many businesses step up to
support their workers, because they understand that we are all in it
together. The second part of this bill addresses the ongoing concern
about the need for permanent paid sick leave beyond the pandemic.
Employment standard legislation in Quebec, Prince Edward Island and
federally regulated workplaces provides employer-paid sick leave
entitlement for employees.
This pandemic has made it clear that we must ensure paid sick
leave as a basic protection for workers across this province. So looking
beyond the specific COVID-19 paid sick days, which end on December 31,
2021, the bill adds to the Employment Standards Act permanent annual
paid leave for personal illness or injury. Last year we added three
unpaid days for personal illness or injury, and this bill will add new
paid days and preserve the existing unpaid job-protected leave
entitlement.
These new annual leave entitlements will be effective starting on
January 1, 2022, and the minimum numbers of annual paid days will be
established by regulations. This means that the government will
undertake extensive consultation with workers, employers, Indigenous
partners and other stakeholders on the number of paid days that
employees will be entitled to each year for personal illness or injury
and whether any other supports need to be identified.
Establishing long-term permanent paid personal illness and injury
leave in the Employment Standards Act will not only help ensure
financial support for employees who miss work because they are sick or
injured; it also encourages employees who have infectious diseases such
as influenza to stay home, thereby speeding up their recovery and
protecting their co-workers and the public.
The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us just how important it is. As I
noted earlier, for the short-term measures, B.C.’s COVID-19 paid sick
leave, the province will help cover the cost for businesses so we can
all get through the pandemic together. This is an interim measure to
support workers and businesses during these extraordinary
times.
[2:35 p.m.]
We are not alone in recognizing the need for this important
support for employees and businesses either. Ontario recently passed a
law providing paid COVID-19-related sick leave up until September 25,
whereas our government-funded sick leave for COVID-19 will be in effect
until December 31 of this year, after which the second improvement under
this bill, permanent paid personal illness or injury sick leave, will
come into force on January 1, 2022.
This bill, along with a substantial commitment to support
employers with the cost, comes on the heels of several important actions
the government has already taken to support workplaces during this
pandemic.
Last spring this government passed the Employment Standards
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020, Bill 16, which introduced a job-protected
leave entitlement to employees impacted by COVID-19, including when they
have diagnosed virus or are in self-isolation or need to stay home to
look after a child because of a school or daycare closure.
I think people listening will be surprised that in British
Columbia we did not have a right for the workers to take time off when
they are sick. It was up to the employer to give you that time off or
not. You could lose your job if you’re sick and stay home. We fixed
that, because COVID-19 required us to deal with those issues at that
particular time. That happened last year.
Also, most recently, April 1, a regulatory change was made that
extended the job-protected leave to include employees being vaccinated
against COVID-19 or assisting a dependent family member to do the same.
Then last month we put in place three hours of paid leave for workers to
get each dose of the vaccine. All these measures are contributing to
British Columbia’s pandemic recovery, and they are working.
Among other things, the pandemic has highlighted just how
difficult it is for many workers in our society to stay afloat and
thrive. Our government believes that no worker should have to choose
between staying home when sick or getting paid, during a pandemic or any
time. So to better support workers and healthy workplaces in the long
term, the second improvement under this bill lays the groundwork for
permanent paid sick leave for those who cannot work due to personal
injury or illness.
It is estimated that 50 percent of British Columbia employees do
not have access to paid sick leave and must choose between going to work
sick so they could support their families, possibly infecting others, or
staying home and losing pay. That means that upward of one million
workers could benefit from the improvements we are introducing
today.
We know that many vulnerable and low-wage workers, who are often
women and migrant workers, lack benefits. The ability to take
employer-paid leave will especially be beneficial to them. Many of these
workers are essential workers, who have delivered goods, who have made
food for pickup or who have been working, fearlessly, in grocery stores
to make sure we can all get the supplies we need, get the services we
need.
Throughout the pandemic, we have done everything possible to
support businesses and individuals. We will continue to do so during our
economic recovery. In the following months, we will be consulting to
develop a model for permanent paid sick leave that will be fair,
reasonable and affordable for employers. Businesses know that a strong,
healthy and engaged workforce is the most valuable asset they have. They
know that supporting their workers and ensuring a healthy and safe
environment helps their businesses thrive and is key to their overall
success.
We want British Columbians to know their government has their back
throughout this crisis, and together, we will get through this. I look
forward to the debate on this bill.
G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to rise today in the House to speak to Bill 13,
Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021.
[2:40 p.m.]
As the minister has laid out, this bill provides paid leave
protection for workers for a maximum of three days. We are certainly in
support of a government-funded sick pay program in the middle of the
worldwide health pandemic.
It’s important to note, as the minister has indicated, that
workers that are ill should not needlessly lose income when they decide
to stay home from work. I think that it’s important to see that this
bill actually comes forward. Again, broad support from our caucus for
the government-paid support for workers.
It’s really important that we also take note of the timing of this
particular bill. I think, as I’ve been conversing with businesses back
in my home community and industry and trade organizations — and even
just in reading the newspaper and seeing some of the media reports — the
concern that has been brought forward is why it has taken so long for
this paid sick leave program to be brought forward.
COVID has been with us now for going on 15 months. Last year in
March, all members of this Legislature came together in an unprecedented
fashion and approved a $5 billion COVID spending plan to provide
government the resources so that they could do everything within their
ability to help reduce the transmission of COVID in the
workplace.
The Premier, through his own admission, has indicated that the
second-largest COVID transmission in the province is actually
transmission that happens in the workplace or workers that are bringing
COVID back to their families at home. So it’s no great surprise, I don’t
think, to British Columbians in general or this government, of the
challenge that workers have faced for now going on 15 months.
We must ask ourselves: why is it that government has waited so
long to introduce this very important piece of legislation? Government
was aware of the problem and knew that by effecting a sick pay program,
it would actually help to reduce the amount of COVID transmission. Yet
the government has chosen to wait until now — almost going into the
tenth week of this legislative session — before introducing this very
important piece of legislation.
Last summer, when the Premier announced that he had a program or a
plan ready to deploy but chose to stall out and to withhold the
opportunity to actually move this important piece of legislation
forward, government had the financial resources through the $5 billion
COVID spending plan that was approved by all members of this House. He
was aware of the challenge, the problem, the incidents of worker
transmission and the transmission from the workplace back into families’
homes, yet they have failed to act.
Mr. Speaker, I’m certainly very concerned, as I know many British
Columbians are. Why have we had to wait so very, very long for this
important piece of legislation? We had a summer session of this
Legislature. There was ample opportunity to bring forward this
legislation during the summer session.
There would have been opportunity to bring this legislation
forward during the typical fall legislative session during the months of
October and November. But that was not available, because the Premier
chose to put his political self-serving interests ahead of the health
and well-being of British Columbians and throw us into an unnecessary
and risky snap election.
When we came back, after the election, in December, there was
ample opportunity to bring this bill forward and for the paid sick leave
program supported by government and government-funded. It’s my
estimation that there would be unanimous support for that.
We didn’t see the legislation last summer. We did not see the
legislation come forward last fall. We did not see it come forward in
December. When this 42nd sitting of the Legislature started on March 1,
again, we did not see this bill come forward. We didn’t see it in
April.
[2:45 p.m.]
Here, just yesterday, we’ve finally seen this piece of legislation
that British Columbians and health officials know will reduce the
transmission of COVID in the workplace. British Columbians are looking
for leadership from this Premier, but the Premier chose to stall, to
delay. Here we are 15 months into the pandemic before they’ve finally
chosen to take action. It’s very concerning, and I think British
Columbians also should be rightfully concerned.
What labour leaders across the province are indicating is that
it’s far too little, far too late. The $200 cap that government is
providing funding for through this legislation for up to three days is a
great start. At $200 a day, that will equate to an employee making
approximately $25 an hour.
The Premier and the Minister of Labour have been on record in
recent months talking and, actually, finally agreeing and understanding
that businesses across the province are struggling. We’ve lost 8,000
businesses due to COVID just in the last year. There are another 25,000
businesses that are at risk, businesses that cannot afford any
additional cost burden placed upon them. The Premier and the Labour
Minister have made that comment, have made that statement that
businesses can no longer afford any additional cost burden, yet any
employment income over $200 a day will actually be put on the backs of
B.C. businesses.
Now, some might say: “That’s a small component. It’s a small price
for businesses to pay.” It still is an extra cost, and it’s something
that I think needs to be recognized. The Premier had indicated that a
paid sick leave program during the pandemic would not be providing
further burden to businesses that are already struggling, yet that is
exactly what this bill will do.
Bill 13. For those watching from home, there are two main
sections. The first piece, as the minister shared, deals with the
support for workers during COVID. I’ve spoken at length about the
challenge of why we have waited so long for this, but as the minister
indicated, this particular bill, which will come into force and effect
when this bill receives royal assent, will be in force and effect until
December 31.
Now, the second portion of this bill has to do with the permanent
sick leave program. I was fortunate enough to have a briefing from
ministry staff yesterday. There are some specific questions that I think
British Columbians and business owners need to have answered as they
ascertain what this legislation and what this bill will actually mean
and how it’ll impact businesses, going forward — and the impacts for
workers.
I asked a question. How many days is government considering for a
permanent sick pay program? They don’t know. How will that be funded?
Will it be funded through government sources? Will the entire cost be
put on the backs of B.C. business owners? No answer. For a government
that talks about being open and transparent, there is no substance
within this bill that provides any direction to employers or employees
or workers across the province with respect to the impact that a
permanent paid sick leave program will actually provide. No
answers.
When I consider the comments of the Labour Minister with respect
to the consultation that is yet to be undertaken, I can’t help but ask
myself: where was the consultation? Where was the business outreach that
was actually undertaken last year during COVID?
[2:50 p.m.]
The minister referenced a number that approximately…. His
best guess is that about 50 percent of workers in the province are
currently not covered by a paid sick leave program. When I asked the
question on what research or efforts were undertaken and where that data
came from, staff within the minister’s office were unable to answer
that. They just said it’s an approximation.
I think that most of us would appreciate the fact that data drives
decisions. I believe it was the Premier just today during question
period who commented in this legislative chamber that data informs how
decisions happen. Let me repeat that. The Premier in this House today
made the comment: “Data informs how decisions happen.” Yet when I ask
questions about how the decisions were arrived at which led to the
creation of this bill, there isn’t any data.
Government, for the last year, did not undertake any business
surveys. They did not utilize WorkSafeBC to even make an attempt to try
and identify the breadth of the problem — the number of businesses that
currently do not have a paid sick leave problem. So the minister stands
here today and shares with British Columbians: “Trust us. We’ve got no
information today. We have no details on what a permanent paid sick
leave program may look like. Trust us. We’ll do the work, and we’ll make
the decisions for you in January of this coming year.”
Now, the January 1 deadline is a self-imposed deadline. That is a
deadline, a date by which government has undertaken to determine for
themselves. So when we have a look at the need and necessity and the
opportunity to consult with business owners, to consult with workers
around the province, to have a look at other jurisdictions around the
globe, to have a look at what efforts might be undertaken to develop and
determine a paid sick leave program for businesses, no work has been
done to date. It is yet to be seen what work may be undertaken, going
forward.
That’s concerning. We are here on May 12. We have about five weeks
left in this legislative calendar. I certainly appreciate the fact that
the first
section of this bill, with respect to the immediate
government-funded paid leave program, needs to be put in place. It
should have been put in place a year ago. Many workers were put at risk
and families were put at risk because of this government’s failure to
act earlier. They had the funding, they had the budget, they knew the
risks that they were transferring to workers and to families, yet they
chose to act.
The necessity of putting this piece forward, with
section 1, is
something that we’ve been waiting for, and I think businesses and trade
organizations around the province have been waiting for, for a long,
long time. However, when it comes to the second
section of this bill
that talks about the development of a permanent sick pay program that
could literally put hundreds, if not billions, of dollars of additional
cost pressure onto businesses…. Of course, we don’t know
that.
There is nothing in this bill that identifies what government is
proposing. It’s a subversion of the democratic process. The reason that
we are all here and we’re having these debates today is so when
government brings forward important legislation, opposition members have
the opportunity to ask specific questions, to make inquiry, to seek out
the truth and the answers on how government arrived at the decision that
they’re moving forward on.
Section 2 of this bill provides government the opportunity,
without any information, to make up their own minds, to make their own
decisions, and through regulation, through an order-in-council, sitting
around the cabinet table, put in place a regulation that could cost
significant dollars to the economy and to businesses. That, I believe,
is offensive.
[2:55 p.m.]
We’re only in May. Government’s own self-imposed deadline for a
permanent sick pay program is not until January 1. Government has
admitted and shared that there will be a fall legislative session. We
will be back here in the months of October and November.
We’ve not seen the legislative calendar as far as the different
bills or legislation that government will be looking to bring forward,
but there is ample time for government to do their consultation, to
bring forward legislation that has more fulsome details on what a
permanent sick pay program might have and to present that legislation in
a fall legislative session, providing opposition members, British
Columbians and the media to have opportunity to really understand
exactly what government’s motivations are, the consultation that they’ve
undertaken with business groups, First Nations and workers across the
province, so that British Columbians can be satisfied that the decision
that government is making, or the direction they’re moving in, is well
understood.
Bill 13, the second
section of this bill, does the exact opposite.
It empowers government to make that change at their own free
will.
We have to ask ourselves: why are we here? The purpose of this
Legislature…. The fact that 87 members have been elected from around the
province with diverse, different backgrounds to provide us the
opportunity, as the representatives of all British Columbians — in order
to have a fulsome knowledge of what government is planning to do, who is
going to pay for it, how many days of sick pay would be provided to
workers, what research and other data was derived to help direct
government in making a decision going forward…. None of that will exist
with respect to this particular piece of legislation on
section
I’m extremely concerned. As we know, the paid sick leave program
is something that many have been looking for, for a long
time.
I’m just going to go back to
section 1 of this bill, which is the
government-funded paid sick leave program. It’s interesting that here we
are on May 12, 15 months into the pandemic…. Premier Horgan announced
last summer that he had a plan ready to go. It was shelf
ready.
Deputy Speaker: If I might remind the member, we don’t use names in this
House.
G. Kyllo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My apologies.
The Premier announced that he had a program ready to go on the
shelf. Yet in my briefing yesterday, when I asked a specific question
about who is going to administer this program, one of the answers that I
received was that the database program and the work that will be
undertaken to determine how business owners will be reimbursed under the
three days of paid sick leave is yet to be developed.
It was shared that the funding mechanism largely will be through
WorkSafeBC. The answer that was shared with me was about 90 percent of
businesses are registered through WorkSafeBC, but that failed to
identify how they’re going to identify the other 10 percent.
The actual mechanism by which they’ll actually track the data and
be able to provide remuneration to those businesses has yet to be
developed. They’re undertaking to have this ready to go in 30
days.
We’re 15 months into the pandemic. Government must have thought —
or I certainly would hope they would have thought — a year ago: “Look.
We can reduce COVID transmission through a paid sick leave program. We
should be turning our minds to the mechanism by which we might utilize
to actually provide reimbursement to businesses.” None of that work has
been done. So when the Premier talks about the work that was done, the
shelf-ready program, I don’t see it.
[3:00 p.m.]
If this bill was to move forward and receive royal assent later
this week or next week, business owners would be required to continue to
provide that pay, under the provisions of this bill, for paid sick
leave. The system and the mechanism by which they can actually make
application for reimbursement doesn’t even exist. Talk about a
government that’s flying by the seat of their pants. There is no fully
developed plan that was ready to go. They’re making it up on the
fly.
I asked a question. Will government undertake and guarantee that
businesses that will be negatively impacted by cash flow, by having to
pay workers and then wait for reimbursement…? Is there any commitment by
this government to ensure that businesses will receive reimbursement
within a minimum set amount of days — 15 days, 21 days, 30 days? No
commitment.
We know the botched programs that we have seen under this
government’s administration with respect to the COVID restart program, a
program that British Columbian businesses sat waiting for earnestly,
month after month, while the Premier dithered and delayed, only
announcing the COVID restart program in September of last year — a full
five months of consultation, trying to figure out what they might bring
forward to help businesses.
Businesses needed support last year. They needed support in the
months of March, April, May, June, July, August and September. Finally,
in September, the Premier announced the $345 million COVID restart
program and, only four days later, dropped an unnecessary and risky snap
election, further delaying the opportunity for any of those dollars to
flow to help those businesses for a further three months. Eight months
and not a penny flowed to help struggling small businesses. We know that
program is still an absolute failure.
Here we are, over a year in, 15 months into the pandemic. It’s my
understanding that only about 50 percent of the dollars that were
identified and earmarked to help struggling small businesses — only 50
percent of those dollars — have actually flowed into the hands of those
businesses.
We have a government that says: “Trust us. We’ll just make it
work.” There is the barest, skeleton, semblance of a plan for how
government is going to actually provide reimbursement to businesses.
This bill could be in force and effect before government has even
figured out how they’re going to do it, and there’s no commitment with
respect to the implications of the cash flow on businesses and how long
it will take government to provide that necessary reimbursement for
businesses that are already struggling.
During COVID, we know that front-line workers were put at
significant risk. The 20- to 39-year-olds that the Premier chastised by
saying “Don’t blow it for us” are the workers that could have benefited
from a paid sick leave program last summer, last fall, this winter,
earlier this spring. What do we get from this government? Delay, delay,
delay.
As we look to the future, to recovering from COVID and, hopefully,
providing the opportunity for businesses once again to thrive and to
provide the all-important family-supporting jobs around our province,
the opportunity for the private sector to attract investment and
continue to grow, we have to have a look at what businesses require of
government. That’s certainty and clarity.
[3:05 p.m.]
The biggest risk to business largely has to do with the
uncertainty that lies ahead. Government has an opportunity and, I think,
an obligation to provide that certainty and that clarity to businesses,
especially when giving consideration to legislation that could
potentially — we just don’t know what government is thinking — put
additional cost burden yet on the backs of B.C. businesses. Bill 13
provides no such thing. The only thing that is certain is that it will
become permanent on January 1 of 2022.
Businesses have no idea about the potential financial impact that
that legislation will have on them. They have no idea and no certainty
or clarity, from this government, with respect to how it will be funded.
That’s cause for great concern. How can a business plan for their future
when this government is purposely trying to subvert the opportunity for
this House, the people’s House, to have a fulsome debate to see exactly
what government is thinking with respect to a permanent paid sick leave
program by hammering it through with no details whatsoever? That is
offensive.
I see I’ve just got a few more minutes on the clock.
As we look to recovery and what businesses provide for British
Columbians, I think we can all appreciate that businesses provide many
services that we all rely on. They also are government’s single largest
source of revenues. That personal income tax provides the single largest
revenue source for governments.
Government needs to always be cognizant and recognize the fact
that without business owners that are willing to take that risk to put a
second mortgage on their house to create those ever-important
family-supporting jobs, and without those individuals having certainty
and the opportunity to be successful, those jobs will not
exist.
What we have seen under this administration is a continual erosion
of the competitiveness of British Columbia. In just four short years, we
have seen increases in the corporate tax. The corporate tax rate in
British Columbia is now a full 50 percent higher than our neighbouring
province of Alberta — 50 percent higher.
We’ve seen a new employer health tax where the government has
broken their commitment and promise. Their promise, in the 2017
election, was that they were going to eliminate MSP premiums. They did
no such thing. They simply replaced it with a new employer health tax
that puts an additional $1.9 billion tax burden directly on the backs of
B.C. businesses.
It’s the lack of certainty that I’m concerned about. So as
government looks at how we’re going to recover from COVID, it’s really
important that they give recognition to what measures they are
undertaking to provide businesses with a chance for success. I don’t see
that happening under this current administration. That causes me
significant concern.
Back to this particular piece of legislation, I’m very happy to
see it finally on the floor of this House for debate. It is far too
little, far too late. Don’t take my word for that. All you have to do is
scan the newspapers and the TV for many of the comments that are coming
from labour organizers and large industry around the province — that
it’s far too little, far too late.
I think we’ll just close with, again, the piece that I think is
most concerning. Government had an opportunity to reduce COVID
transmission in the workplace, in transmission from workers to families,
and they failed to act. They had the money, they had the knowledge, but
they have failed British Columbians in a big, big way by taking so long
to put this bill before us.
With that, I’ll take my seat.
[3:10 p.m.]
M. Dykeman: It’s a privilege to rise virtually in this House to speak in
support of Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act.
It was another interesting moment from our member opposite here,
during his comments, of whiplash. “We’re not doing enough. We need to do
more. Wait. Why are we doing anything?”
Today I would just like to say…. I’m so proud to be able to speak
in this House today about the action our government is
taking.
Yes, we’re disappointed that the federal government failed to lay
out a comprehensive paid sick leave program for all Canadians, but our
government is committed to working so that workers can stay home when
they’re sick, both during the pandemic and afterward. No one should be
forced to choose between staying home when sick or getting paid. This
bill is essential not only to support workers who cannot afford to lose
wages but also to protect workplaces and businesses in our
community.
Since the outset of this pandemic, British Columbia truly has led
the way in supporting workers and making sure that they don’t go to work
when they’re sick. As a result of this legislation, if a worker wakes up
in the morning and they feel unwell, they can stay home in
self-isolation and get tested without worrying about losing their
income. This is good for our economy. This is good for workers and
businesses. It’s good for families. It’s going to help avoid workplace
transmission and help put this pandemic behind us faster.
For a moment there, I thought I had entered an alternate universe,
but then I just realized that perhaps not everybody takes the time to
become informed before they speak. That’s okay. These opportunities
exist so that we have a chance to go back and forth and debate them.
Hopefully, at the end of the day, people feel they have the information
that they need.
Yes, this legislation will create a permanent paid sick leave for
workers who cannot work due to any illness or injury beginning January
1, 2022. Following consultations with the business community, labour
organizations, Indigenous partners and other stakeholders, the number of
paid sick days and other supports will then be determined.
I’m always perplexed by comments, though, from the opposition of
this nature. I shouldn’t be. Being in local government, I remember what
it was like to have a stark lack of consultation from the opposition
when they were the governing party. But that’s not the way it works now.
Our government is committed to consulting to make decisions that are
important. Maybe these comments were just a case of projecting. I’m not
sure.
Yes, data-informed decisions, which are required, including all
sorts of methods like consultation, instead of a magic eight ball, are
how this government wants to make decisions.
Once again, in case it was missed, on May 11, the press release
clearly said: “The number of paid sick days and other supports will be
determined following consultations with the business community, labour
organizations, Indigenous partners and other stakeholders.”
This, once again, shouldn’t be a surprise. A few weeks back the
member opposite who just spoke spent an inordinate amount of time
arguing that Bill 3, Employment Standards Amendment Act…. Perhaps
workers wouldn’t use the time that’s allotted for them to get their
vaccinations appropriately. So this really shouldn’t be a shock. I must
really ask: who’s dithering?
An estimated 50 percent of B.C. employees do not currently have
access to paid sick leave. That means upwards of one million workers in
British Columbia will benefit from receiving these new paid sick leaves,
and that’s a good-news story. The ability to take paid leave will be
especially beneficial to many vulnerable and low-wage workers, often
women or migrant workers who lack benefits.
As a single mother myself, working in the restaurant industry, in
hospitality and as a farmer, I come in contact with people and have come
in contact with people where they have come to work in a state where it
was shocking. You ask: “Why?” They say: “Because I can’t afford to. I
have children at home that rely on me. I have a family I’m
supporting.”
That’s not good enough. We need to support those people. Our
government is committed to doing so. That ability to take paid leave
will support our most vulnerable. That is a good thing.
[3:15 p.m.]
Across Canada, workers are pushing for action, because they
shouldn’t have to choose between going to work sick or a loss of income.
Our government has put forward a bill which makes important first
changes, with the intent to consult, moving forward, and that’s
something I’m proud to speak in support of.
With that, I will take my seat and let my colleagues speak on this
fantastic bill also.
T. Stone: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 13 today as
well.
I want to first start off by acknowledging the comments made by my
colleague from the Shuswap. He, as always, speaks with such knowledge
and passion when it comes to ensuring that workers and businesses,
employees and employers, have the tools that they need to ensure a
successful workplace for everyone.
That probably doesn’t come as a surprise, because the member for
Shuswap is a successful business person in his own right. He employs
hundreds of people and has for many, many years. So I always pay a
tremendous amount of attention when he’s speaking on legislation and
proposed policies or changes that involve the workplace. He is speaking
from a place of knowledge and experience. I think that adds a lot to the
debate.
I, too, hope to impart some of my expertise as a business person.
I am very proud of the fact that I have started a number of businesses —
a software company, in particular. I grew that company, with some
incredibly talented people, for about 15 years. Frankly, speaking of the
people, the workers…. The talent that we were able to attract in our
company was really why we were successful. It was their
efforts.
Not a day would go by that, as their employer, I didn’t worry for
and be concerned about the well-being of my team. That is why we had a
very generous benefits package. That is why we tried to do what we
could.
We were able to do more and more over the years as we got larger.
We always tried to make sure that our employees had a safe workplace. We
always tried to make sure that our employees could look after their
loved ones. That is why we had good benefits packages in place. It
wasn’t just about that woman or that man that showed up each day to work
shoulder to shoulder with you. It was also about their family. It was
about their spouses and their kids.
It is in that context that I stand to say that it’s about time.
It’s about time that there is legislation in front of this place that
provides for sick pay here in British Columbia.
I suppose one could say to the Premier and to his colleagues:
“Where the heck have you been?” We are 14 months plus into this
pandemic. Providing sick pay had been identified and has consistently
been identified as one of the most significant tools, which had not been
embraced in this province, that, if and when embraced, could make more
of a difference than many other strategies and tools to address the
transmission of COVID during this pandemic. Yet 14 to 15 months into
this pandemic, it is only today, here, in May, that we are dealing with
this legislation.
I support the merits of, certainly, the provisions in this bill
that provide for the temporary sick pay during the pandemic. I’ll have
more to say about the other part of this bill, which I have more
concerns about. But in terms of providing that sick pay during the
pandemic, we’ve been calling for this for many, many months. We wrote
the Premier back on May 27, 2020. In and amongst a series of other
initiatives and actions that we were encouraging, urging, imploring the
government to embrace, to put all of the tools on the table to combat
COVID, we included in that list a very clear call for sick
pay.
[3:20 p.m.]
The Premier not only had our support in moving forward at that
time, but the Premier had the support of virtually every business
organization across this province. As has been said many times, and I
agree, a well-thought-out, reasonable sick pay program during the
pandemic, one that takes into account the needs of employees as well as
employers, is the right thing to do. That’s why I’m glad that we’re
finally here talking about it in the context of this legislation
today.
The Premier has stood in this House and has made many comments
outside of this House. A year ago he said: “We are prepared to go it
alone. We are prepared to implement a plan. In fact, we have a plan
ready to go.” Those aren’t my words. Those are the Premier’s words.
Those were words that he uttered a year ago.
Recently he had an interesting choice of words where, in this
chamber, in reference to a question about, “Where is the sick pay
legislation that was promised so long ago?” he said: “We are leading the
way in the country.” Yet it took 14 months, and a year after promising
to do it, to actually see some legislation brought forward.
It is not lost on a lot of British Columbians. It’s not lost on a
lot of labour organizations, if you read the comments that are out
there, even today, since this legislation was introduced in this House.
It’s not lost on a lot of workers, a lot of small businesses, a lot of
British Columbians, that this temporary sick pay program should have
been put in place a year ago.
I can’t help but point back to the Premier’s decision to call an
election in the middle of this pandemic, which, among many other things,
clearly had an impact on the timing of the introduction of temporary
sick pay in this province. So it’s on the Premier that a lot of British
Columbians had to make that very difficult choice over this past year —
that very difficult choice to choose between paying their bills or going
to work sick.
It’s on the Premier. One will never know the extent to which the
lack of action on this, as was promised and as was needed a year ago….
One will never know the impact that that has truly had on countless
families and British Columbians in communities all over this province.
One will never know how much the spread of COVID was able to accelerate
because there was no introduction of this needed sick pay program a year
ago.
It clearly has had an impact. The lack of action on this has had
an impact on a heck of a lot of people. It’s all of those British
Columbians — those approximately 50 percent of workers in this province
that don’t have sick pay benefits in their workplaces. We’re talking
about a heck of a lot of women. We’re talking about a lot of people of
colour. We’re talking about a lot of youth, you know, those 20- to
39-year-olds that the Premier liked to talk about. A lot of lower-income
workers that have been impacted by this and who need this to be in
place.
We’re concerned that there are a tremendous number of details that
are lacking in this bill and in the materials wrapped around the bill.
For example, we’ll get into more details in the committee stage on this
bill, but we’ll want to talk about a range of different provisions and
regulations and consultation and other details which are largely unknown
today.
[3:25 p.m.]
Again, the member for Shuswap spoke very eloquently about some of
those concerns: the fact that consultation really hasn’t taken place on
what was introduced in this legislation, the fact that
section 2 of this
bill provides for the implementation of a permanent sick leave program
as of January 2022 with absolutely no detail attached to that
whatsoever. The WorkSafeBC reimbursement program — we’re told it’s in
development. There are no details provided as to what that’s going to
look like, how it’s going to work.
There was an indication in some of the materials that it may take
30 days for WorkSafe to set up a reimbursement system, an IT system —
again, no details around how this reimbursement program will actually
work. How often will employers have to submit applications for
reimbursement? How will those applications be adjudicated? How quickly
will the reimbursements be turned around? How will the reimbursements be
made to the small businesses? We don’t know. There are no details
included in any of this material.
The bill says that employers can actually ask for reasonably
sufficient proof from employees in relation to their absence, but there
is also a clear statement that that does not mean a doctor’s note. But
that’s it for detail. There’s no explanation as to what “reasonably
sufficient proof” means.
A bit concerned that the government clearly hasn’t done the work
on the costing of this program. There’s no…. The minister and the
Premier trotted out a number, 300 million bucks, in their press
conference, but if you actually read the transcript of that press
conference, it’s pretty hard to have much confidence that they have much
confidence in that number. It’s based on….
If all of the workers in British Columbia that don’t have access
to sick pay were to take the full three days, it would add up to 300
million bucks, but it hasn’t been tested. There’s no business plan for
this. There is nothing that the government can or has pointed to, to
clearly indicate how they’ve arrived at this number.
I will say, though, back to my comment earlier about the one-year
delay in rolling this program or any program out…. Clearly, it’s going
to cost the government less to implement a temporary sick pay program
today than it would have a year ago or nine months ago or six months
ago. Maybe that was part of the government’s calculation. If it was, I
say shame on them. If that was part of the calculation in delaying,
that’s unacceptable.
The reality is the vaccination program is accelerating. You know,
we hear today that now over 50 percent of British Columbians eligible
for their first vaccine have received that first dose. That’s good news.
We’re seeing case numbers…. The trends look good. The seven-day rolling
average looks good. Hospitalizations and ICU numbers — there’s room for
more improvement, but the numbers look good. All of this is pointing to
the transmission of the virus slowing down. A lot of people have paid
the price, though, because they had to make that difficult choice to be
sick at work or to go home and not be able to pay their
bills.
The impact on small business in particular is, I think, an
important point of discussion here. I hope that members on the other
side, in their subsequent comments, will speak to it as well.
[3:30 p.m.]
There is no question that the Premier and the Labour Minister and
others have echoed comments or have made comments similar to comments
that we’ve made on this side of the House insofar as concern for the
thousands of struggling businesses that there are in British Columbia at
the moment and that these businesses just cannot sustain additional
costs at this time.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
The government says that this temporary program is going to
insulate employers from costs. That’s not entirely true 100 percent. I
mean, just be honest about it in your communications. It will cover most
of the cost for a good number of employers but not the definitive:
“Government is there for small business. We recognize that they’re
struggling right now, and we’re going to cover all the cost.”
The government is going to cover three days, to $200 per day per
worker. That’s roughly an individual making about $25 an hour. For any
employers that are paying workers above that, the employers are going to
have to step up and cover that difference.
That might not be a huge segment of the workplaces that we’re
talking about that will be most impacted by this legislation, but there
are lots of businesses that will meet that test and that will have to
step up and pay these additional costs. That’s not really saying: “We’re
going to be there for struggling small businesses and make sure that
we’re not layering another cost onto their shoulders.”
I’m also shocked that the government is going to implement a
reimbursement program. Instead of using the $3.1 billion in
contingencies that the government has and flattening a process here to
ensure that the money gets directly into the hands of small businesses,
or businesses generally, that need it, the government decides to set up
a program through WorkSafeBC.
The onus is on the business to incur the cost and have their cash
flow impacted as a result, at a time where we can, again, all
acknowledge that businesses are struggling. Many, many are struggling.
But we’re going to say, “Your cash flow is going to take a significant
hit, but don’t worry. You just have to submit your application,” or
receipts, or however that’s going to work. There are no details on that
yet. “You’re going to submit it to government. Don’t worry. We’re going
to reimburse you.” We have no idea about how long it’s going to
take.
I would have more confidence in a reimbursement program if this
government had demonstrated competence in other programs that they have
tripped over their own shoelaces on through this pandemic. There are
still British Columbians today that haven’t received their $500 COVID
recovery benefit. There are thousands of businesses that are still
waiting to be approved for business recovery grants that this government
announced last September.
The latest estimates suggest that on that program, with money that
was approved in March of 2020, a program that was announced in September
of 2020…. Then we had an election. Today, a year plus later, maybe $200
million of the $345 million that constitutes the business recovery grant
program is actually out the door. That’s just ridiculous.
Now government is going to look small businesses in the eyes and
say: “Trust us. We’re going to do a good job at processing your
applications quickly and ensuring that there’s a speedy reimbursement on
your application.” I don’t believe that it’s going to happen.
The government should be dipping into its contingencies here. As I
said, they should be implementing a program that is really flat, minimal
red tape and getting the dollars out the door to businesses that
qualify, to cover the costs of their workers who, rightfully so, will
utilize this program. Instead, this government is going to establish a
reimbursement approach to it.
That brings me to
section 2 of this bill, which is the
section
that provides for the implementation of a permanent sick pay program as
of January 2022. Lots of concerns with this piece.
[3:35 p.m.]
Again, not at the highest of levels, from a principled
perspective, in recognizing the importance of sick pay during a
pandemic. But the cleverness of this government to embed in this
legislation here today…. While we’re in the midst of a pandemic, a third
wave of a pandemic — and the goal should be to push money out the door
as quickly as possible to cover these sick pay benefits during the
pandemic — the government decides to roll into this bill, in
section 2,
a provision for permanent paid sick leave, with no details included in
the bill.
The cost of this — will it be borne by government? Will it be
borne by business? We don’t know. How many days will be involved? Are we
talking about another couple of days? Are we talking about a week? Are
we talking about more? There’s no indication of that either. How will
consultation look like? Government makes a big deal about all the
consultation they do, all the transparency that they ensure is in place.
Read the comments in the news releases that business organizations have
put out, and labour organizations too, just in the last few
days.
While there’s general agreement with the need for implementation
of paid sick pay during the pandemic, there’s a lot of concern around
what any permanent program would actually look like, what it would cost,
who will pay for it, how it will be structured.
Instead of bringing forward separate legislation on that piece,
bringing forward separate legislation to this House so that we can
debate a permanent sick leave program, so that we can ask those tough
questions of government, so that we can insist on costing, so that we
can cross-check the government’s thinking on this and get input from the
official opposition, from the Green members in this House, from
government members…. Instead of doing that — they could even bring that
legislation forward this coming fall — they embed it in this
legislation, with the details to be forthcoming in
regulation.
Section 2 provides for the fleshing out of a permanent program by
saying: “(
a) paid leave for up to the number of days prescribed, and (
b) unpaid leave for up to 3 days….” This is all done through regulation.
For those handful of viewers that are watching right now, what that
means is there’s no scrutiny. When regulations are developed, they’re
developed in the confines of the cabinet room. I’ve been there. I know
how it works. There’s no requirement to bring regulations. It’s not
protocol and practice. It’s not how this place works.
The government is going to implement a permanent sick leave
program, and they’re going to come up with these details. They’re going
to, presumably, do it behind closed doors. They’re not going to bring it
forward into the people’s House here so that we can have a thoughtful
debate and discussion about it and challenge the government on
it.
I mean, they’re going to win the vote, anyway. They’ve got 57
seats. They’re going to win the vote. But this is back to what many
members of this House have talked about recently. This is about
respecting the process of this Legislature. On something as fundamental
as a permanent sick pay program, that should be coming to this place. It
should not be developed and implemented via regulation.
I’m concerned about the process there. I’m frustrated that the
government, as they often do, is linking a very critical issue in the
here and now that requires the attention and the focus of this place,
and they’re sliding in a backdoor a critical program implementation
where there won’t be debate. Yes, I’m concerned about that.
[3:40 p.m.]
I’m also concerned about who the heck is going to pay for this. Is
this going to truly be a program that’s supported by government? Will it
take on the same fashion of the temporary program that we’re also
talking about here today, or is this going to be on the backs of
business? Again, the government has not got a great track record at not
taking every opportunity they have to do these kinds of policy
implementations on the backs of small business.
You know, this is the government that made a great big deal about
eliminating the MSP, half of which had already planned to be repealed.
They’re collecting $1.9 billion now, every year, in the employers health
tax, on the backs of businesses and a lot of small to mid-sized
businesses. That’s on top of the double dip here, the additional $1
billion that they were collecting in MSP premiums still before it’s
fully phased out.
This is the same government that thought it makes sense to
increase British Columbia’s corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to
12 percent while other provinces and neighbouring jurisdictions are
lowering their corporate income tax rates. Alberta is reducing theirs to
8 percent. Can’t even compete with Washington state.
It’s about $5 billion of additional taxes that have been imposed
on the backs of business in this province. All kinds of tax increases,
new taxes, a huge impact from additional regulations that business has
to grapple with. I mean, we can’t even get the government to not tax the
air over the heads of small businesses as a permanent measure. How
ridiculous is that? It’s just another burden, another cost burden,
that’s layered on top of small business.
We don’t even know if we’ll be out of the third wave — hopefully,
we are — or into a fourth wave. We don’t know where COVID’s going
either. Where are the provisions in this legislation, with respect to a
permanent sick leave program, that take into account that we may have a
ways to go here in terms of coming out of COVID and restoring some sense
of normalcy and really relaxing health restrictions that, in part,
impose some significant challenges on businesses?
There are a heck of a lot of businesses out there that are just
not going to make it. They need help, not provisions for a permanent
sick leave program that nobody has any details about, that’s just got
baked into legislation today and that will come into effect at some
point in early 2022.
The government was asked, in briefings on this legislation: is
that permanent program going to be on the backs of business, or will
government be there to help business? There was no answer. The
government refused to answer that question. We’ll be asking those
questions again in committee stage.
There is a lot to be appreciative of insofar as the temporary sick
leave provisions of this legislation, notwithstanding the flaws in terms
of the reimbursement program and all these other, I think, very
legitimate concerns that we have. There’s a lot to be appreciative about
insofar as it’s here today. It’s arguably too little, too late. It’s a
year later than was promised, but it’s here.
We’re going to continue to do everything we possibly can to urge
the government to make sure that this temporary program, the application
process, the reimbursement of costs, has as minimal an impact on the
cash flow and the operations of businesses and small businesses, in
particular, as possible. We’re going to urge this government, every step
of the way, to back up, back off on this inclusion of a permanent sick
leave program in this legislation here today.
[3:45 p.m.]
Let’s take a step back on that piece. Let’s do the proper
consultation with employers, with business associations, with labour
organizations and with businesses, workers. Let’s do that consultation.
Let’s have the government bring something back in its own stand-alone
piece of legislation that we can debate in this House at some later
date.
Businesses need certainty. There’s a lot to be uncertain about in
this piece of legislation. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to
it today.
B. Anderson: Today I am so honoured at the privilege of being able to speak in
this House in support of Bill 13.
Of course, Bill 13 going to provide paid sick leave for workers
across British Columbia. This is incredibly important legislation. As
everyone knows, we’re in the middle of a pandemic. No worker should have
to have the dilemma of going to work sick or being able to provide food
for their families.
I know there’s 50 percent of workers across our province that have
no paid sick leave whatsoever. That means when they wake up with a
tickle in the back of their throat or a sore stomach, many of them just
get up and go to work, because they don’t feel like they have the
option.
What we have seen, I think, with COVID-19 is…. Rewind, say, to two
years ago. All of us knew that co-worker that would come sick to work
and how uncomfortable that could make workers, because we all knew that
that put everyone that came into contact with that person at risk. But
there was this sort of cultural sense of: “No, I’m not that sick. I can
just get through it. My work’s really important. I need to be there.”
But that also puts everyone else at risk.
Now with COVID, we know that you’re not just passing a runny nose
around your office building or a cough. Instead, you could potentially
be impacting your workers so that your co-workers that you care about….
You could be getting them very sick, potentially dying. No one,
absolutely no person, wants to have that burden on them.
Particularly for our low-income workers, they’re living paycheque
to paycheque. Having to skip a day of work means that the already
incredibly tight budget that they are already on is stretched even
further.
What this incredibly important bill does is provide that breathing
room for people so when they need to stay home and take care of their
health, they’re able to do that without losing money and without losing
wages. I think what’s incredibly important is that we’re not saying:
“Okay. We’re just going to be providing this for now because of the
pandemic.” We’re recognizing that this is really important for all
workers to have that type of stability, moving forward, so that when
they feel sick, they’re able to stay home.
I’m so grateful that we’re not seeing this as a temporary measure.
Instead, we’re saying: “Okay. We know it’s the pandemic. We’re going to
put it in place now. Then we’re going to do consultation. We’re going to
be talking to business owners. We’re going to be talking to unions, and
of course, we’re going to be talking, always, to Indigenous People and
figuring out the best way to move forward.”
I was just talking with a local business owner. She has a thriving
small business in our region. She told me that she was really happy to
hear of this legislation coming forward, because that means that there’s
extra incentive for her employees to stay home when they’re sick because
they’re going to be able to get paid. It also means that she’s going to
be reimbursed for that money. So this is a bill that is supporting
workers and supporting businesses.
I know we are so fortunate, all of us, to live in British
Columbia. I’m so glad that we have been able to provide, dollar for
dollar, more funding for businesses, more support for businesses,
through the pandemic than any other place in Canada.
[3:50 p.m.]
We are supporting businesses. We know that for many businesses,
things are really tight. Times are very tricky. I know some businesses
are just hanging on by a thread.
What this type of legislation means is that businesses,
workplaces, are not going to become those hot spots of transmission,
because people, when they feel sick, are going to be able to stay home.
They’re not having to make the decision of feeding their families or
going to work. They’re going to be able to stay home, take care of their
health and still feed their families. I am so grateful that we’re going
to be moving forward with this.
We know this type of legislation is going to be most impactful and
most beneficial to low-wage workers, to many racialized people and to
many young people. We know that a lot of those people do not have paid
sick time with their employment. A lot of these are also essential
workers. Now, to think that essential workers aren’t offered paid sick
leave — how can that be possible? This is British Columbia. Of course,
now we’re saying yes. Workers are going to be getting paid sick
leave.
I think that is especially important for those lower-income and
essential workers so that they’re able to keep themselves and their
communities healthy and safe as they do the incredibly important work
that they’ve been doing over these past 15 months. I just see this also
as an opportunity, really. This is going to be another piece that’s
going to be preventing transmission.
In British Columbia, we have been, with the restrictions…. We’ve
also seen that most businesses — there are a few exceptions, of course,
like theatres, but most businesses — have still been able to operate in
some capacity. I know that if you take a walk down our main street,
there are patios all over the place. If you go down there, you can see
families. You can see couples really enjoying the incredibly wonderful
food and drinks that we have here in the Kootenays.
Restaurants. It’s been challenging for them, but they are still
able to keep their doors open. You get takeout, or you can sit on a
patio. Now you’re also not going to worry if maybe your server is not
feeling their best, because you know that that server or the cooking
staff are able to take time off. If they’re feeling unwell, they’re able
to stay home. We are going to reduce transmissions in the workplace
because people are able to keep themselves, their co-workers and their
communities safe with this legislation.
I want to thank the Premier for his leadership on this. I want to
thank the minister and all of the ministry staff who worked hard on
pulling this together so quickly so that we’re able to take one more
step in supporting workers and supporting businesses in British
Columbia. We all want to see the end of this pandemic, and that is one
more step in the right direction.
We also heard the fantastic news today that over 50 percent of
British Columbians have received a dose of the vaccination against
COVID. That means that our levels of protection are increasing every
single day.
You know, I am the youngest member of the Legislature, which will
also likely mean I will be the very last person in the Legislature to
have the opportunity to receive their vaccination, but I am really,
really looking forward to the opportunity. This is funny because I
absolutely hate needles. If you ask anyone or my family…. If you ask my
little brother how he wants to bug me and drive me crazy, he starts
talking about needles.
Well, with the pandemic, I am absolutely so looking forward to the
day that I’m able to get that needle in my arm, that day that I’m able
to get vaccinated so that I am further protective of myself but also my
family and my community. This legislation is another piece of
that.
We are helping to protect our communities. We’re helping to
protect our workers as the light at the end of the tunnel of the
pandemic grows brighter. So again, thank you to everyone who worked on
this. I’m thrilled to be able to speak in tremendous support of this
bill.
[3:55 p.m.]
A. Olsen: I’m pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 13, the Employment
Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021. I’ll comment on that in a few
minutes here.
I think it’s important to put on the record that it’s our
perspective that three days off is better than none. So from that
perspective, I think it’s important to recognize the action that this
bill is taking. However, three days off is not sufficient when it comes
to addressing the challenges the global pandemic, COVID-19, has caused.
This proposal that’s been put forward in this bill falls short of fixing
the gaps in the federal program and means that many workers will
continue to fall through the cracks.
It’s important to get on the record early in my comments that
half-measures will not solve the problem of workers having to choose
between staying home when they’re sick and facing possible financial
devastation. We’ve heard already, early in this debate, from just the
previous member, how no worker should have to go to work sick, that this
bill and this action are going to prevent transmission and that this is
the type of bill that supports low-wage workers.
It’s important to acknowledge that we are 15 months into this
pandemic. If those statements are true today, then those statements were
true 15 months ago, meaning the lack of action over those 15 months at
the provincial government level has put British Columbians at risk of
unnecessary transmission of COVID-19. It’s the cognitive dissonance of
the members of government that want to stand up today and celebrate this
act and overlook the fact that there has been a significant amount of
heel-dragging to get us here.
The reason why I thought it would be worthwhile to point out that
this is the Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2) is because
earlier in this session we were debating the Employment Standards Act
“No. 1.” It didn’t have “No. 1,” because it was just the Employment
Standards Amendment Act.
Here we are in this spring session of the government, where we
have the budget and the throne speech and all of these things, and we
have two employment standards amendment acts. What does that say about
the level of coordination, the level of preparation, the level of
planning that’s going on in the government side of this House? Did we
have to have two employment standards amendment acts?
These are not for issues that could be deemed as unforeseen. These
are for issues that are very much part of the narrative that’s been
brought forward by advocates, by experts, that we need to put in place a
paid sick leave program that’s going to support workers to make the
decision to stay at home to decrease transmission rates in our
communities, that we should put in place a measure that allows workers
to step away from their job for a period of time to go and get a
vaccine.
Every time we raise an issue about COVID-19 these days, the
government spin machine twists it to: “Oh, and by the way, we have 50
percent of British Columbians vaccinated.” But that’s not even true.
What is true is that we have 50 percent of eligible adult British
Columbians vaccinated. That’s an important distinction. It is a
remarkably different number if 50 percent of British Columbians were
vaccinated than the numbers that are being put out there
today.
[4:00 p.m.]
When I hear the previous member speaking to this House suggest….
It may be a mistake. However, it’s important to acknowledge that every
time it pivots to the amount of vaccinations, it is a distraction from
the fact that this government has already had two employment standards
amendment acts in this Legislature.
There was such a lack of coordination on behalf of the government
that they couldn’t put those two pieces of work together, in the context
of the fact that, as was raised by the member for Shuswap, the Premier
was out in public, in front of the camera, in front of the microphone,
saying: “We’ve got a plan. It’s on the shelf. We’re just advocating with
the federal government. We hope that they’re going to put in a plan to
save us from having to do it and from having to spend from the
provincial treasury to look after the business of the province. We’re
hoping that the feds step in. We’ve got a plan.”
Except every indication that I have, in this process to get this
bill, from the fact that we’ve got two employment standards amendment
acts this session and the fact that the information that we get is that
this has been very much a harried process…. Government is scrambling to
get this in front of us as a response to an overwhelming call from
British Columbians and an overwhelming call from people across the
country, on those provinces, including British Columbia, that do not
have a paid sick leave program for people to help them make the decision
to stay home when they’re not feeling well.
This was one of the first things that our Premier advocated for
back in 2020 when we were responding to COVID-19. “We need a paid sick
leave program.” He said over and over again that he was advocating with
the federal government to do that. So it’s not like this is something
new. So when I hear the members from the government side of the House
celebrate this act today, it must be done in the context that if
everything they say is true — that no worker should have to go to work
sick, that this is going to prevent transmission, that this is going to
support low-wage workers….
If that is true today, it was true yesterday and every day
previous, back to March of 2020. And every day that we have not had that
option in front of British Columbia, that support for British
Columbians, that they were made aware of it, is a day that put people —
vulnerable people, people who didn’t necessarily have the financial
means to take a day off to stop themselves from getting sick — at
risk.
This government put them at risk of that transmission, and that is
entirely and completely unacceptable. It’s important that we call out
the cognitive dissonance that we hear in the speeches already, in the
early part of this debate, and that we put a name to it, because it’s
not acceptable.
Celebrate the second employment standards amendment act of this
session. Celebrate it, if you will. That’s fine. It’s a good step, and
it’s one that we’ve been waiting for. But don’t celebrate it like it’s
some kind of superhero coming in to save us from this. In fact, it is
actually too little and pretty late. Especially since, in question
period this afternoon, the Premier stands up and is talking about how
we’re nearing the end of the pandemic. If that is, in fact, the case,
why is this being brought forward now?
Let’s put some context around what it is that we’re doing here
today. We are scrambling to a finish line that was established by the
public who demanded this action. It was only the demands of the public,
and it was only the demands of the advocates, and it was only the
demands of people like the B.C. Federation of Labour, who were demanding
this program be put in place, that finally got this reluctant government
to stop dragging its heels and put something in front of us. And what is
in front of us falls far short.
Laird Cronk from the B.C. Federation of Labour says: “It never
made sense for workers to go to work sick. Permanent paid sick leave
protects workers and their co-workers, strengthens public health and
ensures economic resiliency at the same time. Workers struggling with a
COVID-19 illness face far greater than three days of lost pay. They face
potential economic devastation.” That’s Laird Cronk, B.C. Federation of
Labour.
[4:05 p.m.]
He goes on. He says: “Ensuring workers don’t have to make the
untenable decision between staying home with symptoms or working sick to
put food on the table and to pay the rent is critical during this deadly
race between variants and vaccines.”
I’ll just pause here for a second. Because it’s only the vaccines
that this government wants to talk about. They’re not talking about the
variants anymore. Thankfully, Mr. Cronk raises the issue of the
variants, because this government doesn’t want to talk about them
anymore. We’re only talking about the vaccines.
Mr. Cronk continues: “COVID-19 is not going away after three
days.” This is the advocacy that three days of paid sick leave as a
bridge doesn’t nearly go far enough. Even at this late date, it is far
less than what is needed. For 15 months, workers have been having to
make the choice that the members from the government side of the House