Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 70

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Rankin

A. Olsen

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Section

A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

G. Kyllo: It’s great to be back in the House to have further conversation

and inquiry with respect to Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2021. Just before the lunch break, we were asking a series of

questions with respect to the timelines, largely when government first

became aware of the potential concern around, obviously, COVID, and

specifically COVID transmission in the workplace.

The minister provided some context with respect to the timelines

by which government was made aware, indicating first that on March 12,

actually by an order from the provincial health officer, indicating on

March 12 that workers that were feeling unwell should not go to the

workplace and stay home. Further to that, on May 6 of last year, a

little over a year ago, WorkSafeBC actually provided some guidelines

through a safety plan, which set out different protocols and practices

employers could employ in the workplace in order to provide protection

for workers, again to reduce the transfer of COVID in the workplace.

Obviously, increased transfer in the workplace could also impact

families at home.

As part of that general inquiry, I think it’s important for

British Columbians to have a clear understanding of the timelines that

actually were employed. As early as last March, and certainly by May of

last year, by May 6, government was well aware of the concerns of the

transfer of COVID in the workplace and the negative impacts that would

have for workers. The minister had also shared that there was some work

undertaken by government to try and encourage the federal government to

take actions and initiatives that would actually provide protection for

workers through some form of a paid sick leave program.

I think it’s important to note that in the midst of a pandemic,

the single largest health crisis that I think our country and our

province have experienced in well over 100 years, there was a lot of

concern and there was a lot of, I guess, impetus on government to take

actions to reduce the transmission of COVID. To that end…. I guess it

was government’s own admission. The second largest transfer of COVID

actually is in the workplace. The questions that I have today…. I will

be spending some time this afternoon trying to understand a little bit

more about what government was thinking last spring and why it has taken

well over a year now for this piece of legislation to hit the

floor.

Government was aware, certainly, of the concerns and the potential

transfer of COVID in the workplace. Government also had the financial

ability, through a $5 billion COVID spending plan, which was approved by

all members of this Legislature last year, in March. It certainly had

the financial ability. I can remind those that might be watching from

home that it was only back in the summer that the Finance Minister

indicated, initially projected, about a $12½ billion deficit for the

province. We just found out recently, on the tabling of this year’s

financial budget, that the $12½ billion deficit was actually only,

approximately, $8.1 billion — so about $5 billion less than initially

projected.

Government was aware of the concern and had the financial

resources to respond. Then the third part to that is that certainly

government had the legislative time on the calendar. This Legislature

sat last summer, and as we know, there was ample opportunity in order to

bring forward legislation.

There was also ample opportunity that legislation could have been

brought forward last fall. A typical sitting of the Legislature would be

the months of October and November. But, of course, that was cancelled.

That was cancelled due to the Premier’s desire to put his self-serving

political interests ahead of the health and well-being of British

Columbians. It was during that time that there were significant concerns

around the continued transfer of COVID in the workplace.

[1:10 p.m.]

My question for the minister, at this juncture, would be…. Maybe

I’ll back up a step. The minister also had shared that the federal

government did provide a COVID sick leave program for workers. That came

into effect on September 30. I appreciate government was undertaking

efforts, as other provinces across Canada, to try and en­courage

the federal government to step up and to provide those very important

protections for workers.

But by the end of September, when the federal government announced

their plan, government identified that there were gaps. There were areas

where workers that might want to stay home had to miss, in my

understanding, about 50 percent of their workweek of pay before they’d

be eligible to apply for the federal program. That actually left a

shortfall.

Workers that did not have a sick pay program were actually put at

additional risk. They had to choose between going to work with an

illness, potentially transferring that illness in the workplace, but at

least they’d be able to put food on the table…. And if they followed the

health guidelines and followed the WorkSafeBC health protocols and

stayed home, they would actually be financially disadvantaged,

definitely as far as the timeliness, with respect to a federal program

and when that cash flow and that cheque would arrive to them. But they

still would be out of pay for those two or three days.

The minister has gone on at quite a length to explain how this

bill, what is proposed before us today, provides three days of paid sick

leave for workers that are not already covered on a sick leave plan. Up

to $200 per day would be paid for by the government. Any additional wage

shortfall would fall onto the backs of B.C. business owners. This plan —

primarily, the majority of the legislation that’s put before us — is to

provide that funding to workers, that gap that currently

exists.

My question to the minister is: when government was aware of the

shortfall that was left by the federal program on September 30 of last

year, why has it taken until May of this year before this legislation

was actually introduced?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think we canvassed this question all morning. I answered it in

every which way that I could. But again, I will give it a

try.

As the member will know — and I have listed it here earlier — we

were not just sitting idly by when the pandemic hit us. We wanted to see

that the workers get the support that they need. If they were sick, they

could stay home with a job-protected leave. We did that. We wanted to

make sure that the workers, if they become ill at workplaces with COVID,

are covered from day one rather than having to go through the claims and

the regular process, which would take days and sometimes weeks in order

to establish whether that claim is justified or not. We fixed that as

well.

Then, in the meantime, it wasn’t just that we were working in

isolation here. We were working with the federal government. And, as I

said before, it wasn’t just the government. Other governments also were

saying the same thing: this is a national emergency, and there should be

a national solution. They were talking about an EI-type of program to

fix the gap that exists for the workers.

I mentioned earlier today that even the businesses in B.C. and

elsewhere wrote to the Prime Minister and said that the national

solution is the answer, as far as the sick pay is concerned, for the

workers who have become sick and who should stay home to stop the

transmission at workplaces. So that work continued on, and we were

assured by the federal government that the help was coming. They came in

September, and we realized that there were some gaps. We started to work

with them again — that those gaps needed to be fixed.

They complied to an extent by extending from two weeks to four

weeks qualification, but still left a couple other gaps in there, so we

continued to work with them. Indications were that, yeah, there may be a

possibility of finding a solution, to have a national program in place.

Then, when their budget came — I believe it was about two weeks ago — we

realized that there was no mention of that. Then we didn’t stop. We

talked to them again.

Again, there was an indication that there might be some kind of a

model that we could create here between British Columbia and the federal

government that might work not only for British Columbia but for other

provinces as well. Because it is a national emergency, and we should

deal with it with a national lens on it. Then they came back that they

were not able to fix that.

I think the solution, in our view, was easy — that if they weren’t

going to top up the $500, they allow the provinces to top up without

clawing back. Ontario also suggested, almost similar, that the federal

government double the amount to $1,000, and the province would reimburse

them.

So I think there was a discussion going on. We had some indication

there might be a model available, but then we realized soon after,

through the discussions, that they would not be able to do it. They had

their own, I guess, challenges in order to do it in a timely fashion. We

decided the time is now and that we can’t wait any longer, so we would

put together our own made-in-B.C. program.

That’s why we put this thing together. It deals with the one gap

that the federal government program has, which is that you must lose 50

percent of work in a particular week, or 50 percent income, then go on

to their program. I think it covers that piece. When you lose less than

50 percent, you’re not qualified. So these three days will come in, and

the worker will know if they want to take one day off in one particular

week or two days. If they’re waiting for the result of their test, they

know that they’re covered.

I think that’s what this bill does. I think it deals with the

issue that we haven’t had in the short term, up until the end of the

year. I think, as I said before, the program is designed to work in

collaboration with other support systems, including the federal

government, to support the workers who are sick and who should stay home

to stop the transmission at workplace.

[1:20 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that additional information.

The minister has indicated that government was aware that a paid

sick leave program would reduce COVID transmissions. Government was made

aware of that as early as March and, certainly, by May of last year,

when WorkSafeBC published specific workplace protocols that would be

followed with respect to a COVID WorkSafe plan.

I appreciate that efforts were undertaken to try and put the costs

of any paid sick leave program onto the backs of the federal government.

However, by September of last year, it was evident, when the federal

government came forward with their plan, that there were still

gaps.

Can the minister provide to this House any commentary with respect

to the urgency, or the lack thereof, of taking action to provide the

provisions that are set forth in this particular piece of legislation?

This could have happened as early as last summer, but let’s just assume

that government was working in conjunction with the federal

government.

When they were unsuccessful in achieving the plan that they were

trying to pitch to the federal government at the end of September of

last year, why has it taken over six months to bring forward this piece

of legislation that’ll actually provide protection for

workers?

Hon. H. Bains: I think we took action as soon as we could, as soon as we found

out from the federal government that they were unable to deal with the

gaps. We didn’t just stop doing anything after September. We continued

to talk to them. They fixed part of the problem by extending from two

weeks to four weeks. They also gave us the indication that they will

work with us to deal with a couple of the other gaps that we were

talking about.

In the meantime, we also brought in paid vaccination time to help

the workers to go get a vaccination, removing the barriers to

vaccination. That’s the best solution to overcome the pandemic: to have

everyone vaccinated. So we did that as well.

While we continued to talk to the federal government, there were

indications that they would be able to entertain our request to deal

with those gaps. As soon as they said, “No, we cannot do that,” within

two weeks, we brought out this bill.

G. Kyllo: Well, that’s interesting. The minister just confirmed in this

House that government waited to see the federal budget and then has

indicated that within two weeks, he was able to present this legislation

to the floor, which seems to contradict conversations and commentary of

the Premier, in the media, indicating that he had a B.C. plan on the

shelf and ready to go last summer.

Here we are in May of 2021, seeing a piece of legislation that, in

part, will address some of the risks of COVID transfer in the workplace,

yet government had the financial ability. They had the knowledge. They

were aware that workers were at increased risk — those that did not have

access to a paid sick leave program — but they continued to wait and

stall and delay in introducing this legislation.

[1:25 p.m.]

Do they have any specific data, or have they read any of the

reports with respect to the studies that have been undertaken, to

determine the percentage of COVID transmissions in the workplace that

can be reduced through a paid sick leave program, and is he willing to

share that with the House today?

Hon. H. Bains: It was made clear by the provincial health officer that if workers

are sick and if they stay home, that will help stop the transmission.

It’s been accepted fact that if workers who are sick with COVID don’t

come to work, the transmission at a workplace will not happen. That was

clearly established by the provincial health officer.

We knew that workplace COVID transmission would take place,

because there were some operations that were shut down because there

were outbreaks of COVID in those operations. So businesses recognized

that — that the workers should stay home when they’re sick, to stop the

transmission at a workplace, to increase the viability of the operation

to continue to operate. They recognized that.

That’s why many businesses stepped up and allowed people to take

time off without loss of pay. But there are lower-end workers — many of

them minimum-wage workers or close to it, and the grocery stores and

such — that take a risk if they know that they will lose money if they

stay home. So they would go to work. That is accepted fact. Then if they

go to work, transmissions take place. That is not good for workers.

That’s not good for businesses.

Businesses, as early as May 13, recognized that. There are about

20-some businesses, many of them from here in B.C., but there’s also the

Ontario Chamber of Commerce, that penned a letter to the Prime Minister.

For the benefit of the member, maybe I’ll read parts of that letter. It

says:

“Sick pay for employees required to self-isolate or who were found

to be ineligible for provincial workers compensation coverage through

the regular claim adjudication process should, in our view, be covered

under employment insurance (EI) and/or Canada emergency response

benefit, CERB. In this regard, we ask that your government” — this is a

letter to the Prime Minister — “immediately initiate discussions with

provincial officials to extend COVID-19 sick pay coverage under the EI

program and/or CERB. Discussions should include which order of

government tops up sick pay beyond current statutory caps for EI and

CERB coverage.

“Prime Minister, COVID-19 is a national pandemic, and therefore, a

compelling rationale exists for EI and/or CERB to provide temporary sick

pay during the COVID-19 recovery period. A national program through EI

or CERB has the added benefit of ensuring that sick pay coverage is less

variable from province to province as efforts continue to flatten the

pandemic curve.”

[1:30 p.m.]

It’s recognized by the businesses, by this government and by other

governments and workers that the EI type of system that already exists….

The system is already there. All they need to do is tweak it so that

they deal with the emergency and the pandemic that we have on hand. They

did. Then we realized, and others realized, that there were gaps. We

immediately contacted them — that those gaps needed to be

fixed.

The member talks about September. We continued to talk to them

immediately after that, and they fixed part of it. I canvassed this here

earlier. They extended from two weeks to four weeks. So they listened.

But a couple of other areas of gaps were not fixed. We continued on with

them. We had the indication that there would be some answers to fix

those gaps. Once they told us that no, they cannot — that they don’t

have the ability to do it — as the member said, we were ready to go.

Within two weeks, we brought the legislation in.

G. Kyllo: Well, thank you to the minister for sharing what Ontario was

undertaking to try and encourage government. I think the question is:

can the minister respond and provide clarity to this House? If the

provisions of this bill, with respect to the three days of paid sick

leave…. Would those have been of benefit to workers, had this

legislation been introduced last year — when they became aware that the

gaps existed?

The minister has clarified that by the end of September, after

working for a number of months with the federal government, the federal

government failed to provide all of the protections that the province

had been looking for and seeking of the federal government. The minister

today has just shared that when they actually decided to take action,

they could take action in two weeks, and this piece of legislation is

before us today. The province and the government had the ability to move

forward — in haste, in very short order, through the minister’s own

admission — which could happen in two weeks.

Can the minister explain to this House why, when put forward with

the opportunity to provide the provisions of this bill, to provide

additional protections for workers — as early as the end of September of

last year they had the funding ability; the minister just clarified it

only takes two weeks to put this together — it taken over six months for

this piece of legislation to be brought before this House?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Chair, how many times can you answer the same question, giving

the same answer? I explained it to the member with as much clarity as I

could, but obviously the member is looking for something different that

is not there. Let me explain one more time. The federal government, in

September, brought in the program. Jurisdictions across the country

realized that there are gaps. They were all given the indication, or

they had the indication or the hints that those gaps will be fixed.

Discussions took place between our Premier and the Prime Minister that

those gaps need to be fixed.

I’m happy that in February this year, they listened and extended

from two weeks to four weeks. But the Prime Minister and the Premier

continue to engage, to suggest that there are a couple other gaps that

need to be fixed. Other jurisdictions were in the same shape and had the

same challenges. Everyone was waiting for the federal government to come

up with solutions for those gaps. That’s why no one, until they realized

and heard from the federal government that they were not able to fix

those gaps…. Other provinces also started to act around the same time —

some the week before, some the week after.

It’s the same thing that we did, but we continued on with the

federal government, with additional discussions. Again, we said: “What

about the different model? If the Ontario model doesn’t work, what about

a different model, a B.C. model? This is what we are suggesting.” They

looked at it, had discussions, and then they came back that “No, they

could not go there.” Soon, we heard that they’re not moving to fix those

gaps.

As the Premier said, you know, we were ready to go. That’s why,

within two weeks, we brought the legislation in. Here we are. I think it

serves the purpose to fix the gap of the initial two or three days that

workers miss who otherwise, under a federal program, wouldn’t get paid

and that is a disincentive for them to take time off when they’re sick.

That adds risks of transmitting COVID at workplaces and jeopardizing the

existence or the operation of the business.

We are moving as quickly as we could. Again, we’re not stopping

with this bill either. We are continuing to have discussions with the

federal government that more needs to be done with the federal program.

We will continue to advocate, on behalf of not only B.C. workers but all

workers, that that program needs to be fixed. If we’re able to fix that

and if they are able to allow the provinces to top up the $500, or some

other arrangement, I think that is the right solution.

Now, as the vaccination system and the vaccination plan is

progressing so fast here in British Columbia, I’m proud to say — as the

Minister of Health has been saying and Dr. Bonnie Henry has been saying

— that we are over 50 percent vaccinated now. Many of the workers are

vaccinated now, partly because we removed barriers as we went along and

gave them the support that they need.

I think this bill is as timely as it could be, considering that we

tried to work with the federal government to fix the national solution,

which I still believe is the answer and which I think other

jurisdictions still believe is the answer. But we have to move. So we

are moving with this bill as quickly as we could.

G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated that this bill was on the shelf, ready

to go. That’s why they were able to respond so quickly and provide this

bill on the floor within two weeks of the federal government announcing

that they were unable to actually move forward. Having this bill drafted

and, I assume, costed and ready to go, if government gave consideration

last September to providing that additional funding mechanism that

low-paid workers, largely, would actually benefit from, why wasn’t it

brought forward last fall?

[1:40 p.m.]

It really surprises me. I appreciate that work was undertaken with

the federal government to try and encourage them to provide the funding

for a plan that was more robust and was developed. But when the federal

government came forward with a plan that did not fully meet the needs of

government and those of workers, which the minister has shared with us

today, did government give consideration of bringing this bill forward

that apparently was all ready to go? Was there consideration of bringing

it forward last year, in the months of October or November, when there

typically would have been a fall sitting of the Legislature, or was it

just discounted in its entirety and just pushed off to wait for the

federal government to finally tell them with certainty that there were

no additional funds?

This government was aware of the risk that was imposed on workers

that did not have access to a paid sick leave program. In September of

last year, government was aware that there were some further gaps that

existed. The minister has indicated that this legislation before us

today was ready to go. They had the financial ability, yet it was

stalled for six months.

Can the minister share with this House, alike with the people of

British Columbia, why, when they were ready to go and could have

provided those very necessary additional stopgap measures, the

additional funding, to provide protection for workers…? With the

legislation ready to go, the funding in hand, why did they choose to sit

and wait for six months while continuing to put workers at unnecessary

and increased risks?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I made it very clear. We did not sit around and wait for

six months. We were having discussions with the federal government,

because that is the solution. I believed it then. I believe it today. A

national emergency requires a national solution. Not only our province.

Other provinces felt the same way. Twenty-some businesses representing

thousands of businesses in this province believed the same way. So we

continued to have discussions with the federal government. We continued

to have indications from them, coming back to us, that there would be a

solution to those, and they acted. In February, I mentioned, they

changed their plan by extending from two weeks of qualification to four

weeks. So they were listening. But in the other two areas, we will

continue to work with them.

Then we believed that their budget would have something to say

about that. Two weeks ago, when we realized there was nothing in there,

again, we didn’t just sit around and do nothing. We went back to them.

Other provinces started to do the same thing. Ontario said: “Well, if

the feds aren’t going to do it any more, we will do it.” Then we also,

when we received the indication they weren’t going to do it, continued

to have that discussion with them: let’s give it one more try to see if

there’s a different model that would be acceptable to complement the

federal program.

[1:45 p.m.]

The best solution, like I said, is that there’s no waiting period

in the beginning, and the $500 is topped up either by the province or by

the federal government. We have an indication that there’s a chance that

their model may work for British Columbia. But soon we realized, or soon

we were advised, that they were not able to do it. We were ready to go,

and then we brought the legislation as soon as we could.

G. Kyllo: The reasons, the rationale, the justification for bringing this

bill forward today also existed last year in the fall. The minister

indicates that government didn’t sit around waiting. Well, they did sit

around waiting. They waited for the federal government to potentially

correct something.

But this government was elected by the people of British Columbia

to provide protections, and especially to assist with getting through

COVID, to using every measure possible to try and reduce the

transmission of COVID in the province of British Columbia. That was what

this government was elected to do.

All members of this Legislature, in unprecedented fashion,

approved a $5 billion — that’s 5,000 million dollars — COVID spending

plan to provide the necessary resources so that this government could

act. They could take action. It’s really challenging to see this bill

coming forward over six months after government was aware of the

challenge.

So I’ll ask again. Did government give consideration of bringing

forward this legislation last October? Through the minister’s own

admission, he said that the legislation was ready to go. They had the

money. They had the legislative tools. Did government give serious

consideration to the potential opportunity that government had to

provide these protections for workers to reduce COVID transmission in

the fall of last year, or was it that government just didn’t even give

consideration and decided to just push a potential solution off to the

hands of the federal government, to just sit and wait for Budget

2021?

Hon. H. Bains: Look, we’re proud of the work that we did to provide support to

the workers in British Columbia during this very, very tough time.

Unprecedented, difficult times our province went through, our workers

went through, our families went through, the whole world went through.

The main priority was the health and safety of our population. I think

from all accounts, under the guidance of Dr. Bonnie Henry, we did a

pretty good job, and I’m proud to say that.

In the meantime, what we as a province could have done, we did, to

protect the workers, provide them support that they need. If they were

sick, they could take time off with job-protected leave. That wasn’t

there before. That’s what we inherited.

[1:50 p.m.]

Then we knew COVID exists outside and inside workplaces. We made

it easier for workers, if they contract COVID and become sick at the

workplace, to get benefits from day 1, without delay by putting a

presumption clause with the help of WorkSafeBC.

We even helped, in this House, remove the 90-day requirement for

the WCB. After they changed regulations to bring in the presumption, we

waived the 90 days. We did that here to support those workers, many

workers. I could provide to the member, if he wished, how many workers

actually applied to WorkSafe for claims that are work-related COVID.

Most of them got accepted.

That’s another support that we provided to the workers. We were

thinking all along: how do we provide support to the workers in this

province during this tough time? Then, as the vaccination program

started, we brought in another program to remove the barrier for workers

who need to take time off during work time: three hours of paid time to

go and get vaccinated.

But all of that wasn’t just us working in isolation. Like the

businesses, like other jurisdictions, we all decided that it’s a

national emergency and there must be a national solution. You know, the

federal government finally agreed that there needed to be a national

solution. They came back with a program to deal with this.

Was it enough? No. We brought it to their attention. Then they

listened again. They made changes. I said that before. In the meantime,

we continued to talk to them, and we were given the indication that they

would fix those gaps that exist. They tried. They advised us, finally,

that they had challenges to do with that. Once we knew that that’s what

was happening, that they were not going to move….

There’s a real risk. For anything you do that will interfere with

a federal program, there’s a clawback issue. If a worker wishes to go on

a federal program, there’s a clawback issue. So there’s no point in us

doing something when there will be a clawback on the benefit that we

provide to workers. That’s the area that we were trying to

fix.

I think I have answered this question. I don’t know. I can’t even

count that far anymore, but numerous times we have answered this

question and we have canvassed this particular question. Anyway, I’m

prepared to continue to go this route if the member wishes to continue

on this route.

I think at some point, he probably will get to the bill itself,

the content of the bill, what the contents of the bill are. Then

probably we could have more discussion about what this bill is and how

this bill will benefit those workers. We could have a real discussion

about that. I look forward to that.

G. Kyllo: This line of questioning certainly does relate specifically to the

bill. The bill specifically sets out that it will come into force and

effect through government’s own determination, based on when this bill

receives royal assent. They could have chosen to have this bill come

into force and effect at an earlier date, but they have chosen a

specific date in time, which is when this bill actually receives royal

assent. My understanding is that the LG has not been called, and it may

not be happening today. But I’m assuming that in the next week or two,

this bill will actually come into force and effect.

Government has decided and made the decision on when this bill

would be introduced, thereby setting the time that these benefits will

flow to workers across the province. I’m just trying to establish: did

government give serious consideration to implementing this legislation

last fall, when they knew that the federal government program had gaps?

Gaps existed within it, which led to the creation of this legislation

that the minister has indicated was ready and available to be tabled in

the Legislature. They also had the financial resources to do

so.

[1:55 p.m.]

Maybe just another inquiry to the minister. What would have been

the risk for the province to table this legislation last fall to provide

that immediate stopgap measure, while they continued to undertake

negotiations with the federal government with the hope that the federal

government would provide further supports in Budget 2021? Again, if the

minister can just provide maybe some context and some clarity to this

House. What would have been the risk? What would have been the risk to

British Columbians? What would have been the risk to the financial

coffers of the province to introduce this legislation last

fall?

Hon. H. Bains: I think, as I have given information to the member in my previous

answers, the pandemic hit us out of nowhere. The whole world was brought

to its knees. Many around the world lost their loved ones. It took time

to develop a vaccine, and so many people suffered.

We, in our responsibility as a government and my responsibility as

the Minister of Labour, got to work very quickly by looking at the gaps

that existed for workers who are sick and who many times have to make a

tough choice — go to work sick or stay home and lose pay. Many of them

are paycheque to paycheque, especially the lower-paid workers, as we

canvassed earlier today.

Why not at that particular time or that particular time? I mean,

we could argue that point as much as we want. We accomplished a lot by

having the federal government convinced that it was a national pandemic.

It was a national emergency, and we needed a national solution. They

agreed. They came back with a program, and then they extended that

program. So they were listening. It wasn’t that we were facing a stone

wall and then we sat around and continued to bang our heads against the

wall. No. They were listening. They moved. Indications were they would

move further into dealing with some of the other gaps that

existed.

[2:00 p.m.]

What are the risks? Why not earlier? I think we could continue to

talk about that. Why not have sick leave permanently established in the

employment standards two years ago, three years ago, the 16 years when

they were in power? Why didn’t we have sick leave provisions at that

time?

Governments make decisions. They made the decision not to have

sick leave provisions to deal with emergencies like this, to deal with

influenza, sicknesses that workers face every year.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

That impacts productivity. The member should know, because he owns

a business. When members go to work sick with an influenza-like illness,

it impacts the other workers. Absenteeism increases. Productivity

lowers. Well, why not have a permanent sick leave program? The member

can look inward and decide why that lacked under their regime for 16

years.

We are fixing not only a short-term issue here. We are talking

about a long-term solution as well. That is part of this bill: how this

bill is going to benefit workers today. When they wake up in the

morning, on Thursday morning, they feel sick. They go for a test.

They’re waiting for the result. They need to take Friday off as well.

They’re covered under this bill. If they need more time off, they go on

to the other programs that exist, especially the federal

program.

Could they have a better system federally and cooperate with the

provinces? Of course. We would have loved to see that. Didn’t happen.

Other provinces — same thing. They waited. They were also working with

the federal government, and indications were that the federal government

would fix those gaps. They did in February. They went to a length, but

they still left a couple of other gaps.

So the indication was that they were listening, that they would

move and fix those gaps. We had very productive discussions with the

federal government. Even after their budget, we said: “Okay. The Ontario

model doesn’t work. What about a B.C. model, a different way of dealing

with the issue?” They were interested. Once they said, “No, we cannot

move on,” we were ready to go. We moved as quickly as we could. That’s

why we have this bill here.

G. Kyllo: I’m not quite sure where to start first. The minister has chosen

not to answer the question, in that the provisions of this bill will

provide immediate protections, upon receiving royal assent, to workers —

and largely lower-paid workers — in this province, and government was

well aware of the gap that existed by the end of September of last year.

This bill was ready to go. The funds were made available.

The question to the minister was: what was going through

government’s mind, when armed with the knowledge that COVID transmission

in the workplace can be drastically reduced through the provision of a

paid sick leave program? The gaps that are being filled through the

provisions of this legislation…. The minister has indicated that

legislation was available. They had the funding. They had the

opportunity.

Can the minister explain what the risks would have been and what

government’s considerations were last fall when they chose to not act?

The minister has shared with us that when the federal government tabled

their budget, any additional asks and requests of the province were yet

unfulfilled. Six months, from the end of September through until the

tabling of the federal budget — six months — went by, for the federal

government to still not provide those stopgaps.

[2:05 p.m.]

The province had the opportunity to do what they’re doing today.

This piece of legislation could have been brought forward in the fall of

last year to provide additional protections to workers that would have

reduced the transmission of COVID in the workplace. Of course, workers

that are infected with COVID in the workplace take that home to their

families.

Government had knowledge that a program that is being put forward

and tabled here today would have had benefit last fall, but government

chose not to introduce it last fall. All that I have heard from the

minister is…. The reason that they didn’t take immediate action, in the

instance of a national emergency, a worldwide pandemic…. The only reason

that he can indicate and advise to this House, on the reason for their

delay, is: “Well, we’re just waiting for the feds to maybe make some

amendments.” Six months later we found out that the federal government

was still not willing to make those changes.

Can the minister share with us why…? What was the rationale that

was undertaken? There must have been discussion. They had the bill ready

to go. They were aware, as all Canadians were aware, that a paid sick

leave program…. The provisions of this bill will provide additional

supports and protections for workers. They knew that last

fall.

Can the minister share with us…? What were the rationale and the

logic for holding on to this piece of legislation for six months,

putting workers at increased risk? What was it that drove government to

sit on their hands and hold this piece of legislation back, other than…?

In all that I have heard from this minister, the only reason is: “Well,

we’re just waiting for maybe the feds to tweak the program a little bit

more.”

If that is the only reason by which this government did not take

immediate action, in the instance of a worldwide pandemic, to provide

the necessary supports and protections for workers when all members of

the Legislature have provided the funding capacity for government to

act…. I would suggest that government’s choice to sit on their hands and

to delay on introducing this legislation, only because they thought they

could pass the buck on to the federal government, is not good

enough.

The Chair: Member, is there a question?

G. Kyllo: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister can provide any detailed analysis or

undertakings to try and determine the number of workers across the

province that are currently covered under any form of a paid sick leave

program.

As we know, data drives decisions. The Premier yesterday, in

question period, made the comment that data is very important in helping

to guide the direction of government.

Can the minister provide…? What efforts were undertaken over the

last 15 months, since the pandemic hit our door, to undertake any kinds

of surveys, data collection or otherwise to fully understand how many

workers in this province are not currently covered under a paid sick

leave program?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The member will know that the employers in this province are not

required to advise the government on what benefits they provide to their

employees. You get some knowledge through collective

agreements.

The labour code at one time required that all collective

agreements be submitted to the labour board. Over a previous number of

years, that didn’t happen as much as it should have happened. So when we

made the changes to the labour code, I think we put that emphasis on the

changes as well, that all collective agreements must be submitted to the

labour board. I think that’s why it is not as easy to pinpoint the

number of employees who do not enjoy sick leave provisions at

workplaces.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister advise if any other surveys were sent out — or

any efforts whatsoever, either through WorkSafeBC or employment

standards or other government entities — to try and understand and

ascertain how many workers would be covered under any form of a paid

sick leave program?

Hon. H. Bains: There are some surveys done by different organizations. B.C. Fed

will report that about 50 percent of the workers do not have paid sick

leave provisions at their workplaces. Under their estimation, a little

over a million workers do not enjoy paid sick leave provisions in

British Columbia. There are some other reports. They say the same

thing.

I think the reports continue to come back to say that unionization

is the key driver in having paid sick leave at workplaces. So I guess

with more unionization, there are better provisions at those workplaces

for sick leave provisions. I would suggest that, in the end, it’s

anecdotal. Many non-union workers and private sector workers are the

ones who do not enjoy paid sick leave.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think those estimates are probably close to what…. When you look

at different people talking about different numbers, it’s about a

million workers, plus some, that do not enjoy sick leave provisions at

their workplaces right now.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much to the minister. I guess what I hear from the

minister is that there were no direct undertakings of this government,

over the last 15 months, to really understand the breadth of workers in

this province that are not currently covered under, or do not have

available to them, a paid sick leave program. The minister has indicated

that they’re largely relying on federal data, which indicates about 50

percent.

The reason, I think, that this is important is that as we start to

establish legislation, if we look at what the potential impacts are on

COVID in the workplace and otherwise, it’s really important that we have

the statistics, the important information that will help to guide

government in making good and accurate decisions.

Now, the minister provided some context yesterday, in his comments

about the potential cost of this program. I’m assuming that that must be

based, in part, by assuming a certain number of workers that might be

eligible for this particular program. The minister has also indicated

that a lot of work has been done.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide any further comment

with respect to why there were not any undertakings, over the last year,

to really fully identify and determine how many workers are currently

not covered under, or do not have access to, a paid sick leave program,

what the size of those organizations might be, and what might be the

inhibitors from companies actually bringing forward some form of a

plan.

It was the Premier, yesterday, who shared with this House how

government relies on data to be informed in making decisions, yet this

bill appears to be largely based on data that was assembled through an

estimated number of workers from a federal study.

Just a follow-up to that would be: is there the ability of

government, through regulation, to make changes, or were there

opportunities available to government to make changes — to employment

standards, WorkSafeBC reporting or otherwise — in order to potentially

capture that data so that government would have had more data from which

to inform the decisions based around this legislation before us

today?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, once the pandemic hit us, the focus of the

government was to protect the health and safety of our families and of

workers at workplaces. That was the focus. Businesses were hurting. They

were almost all shut down in the beginning.

[2:20 p.m.]

Then we went through phases to reopen the economy — to help the

employers to see how they could continue to operate under those very,

very difficult and challenging times — by bringing in, as the member had

said earlier, unprecedented packages to support the businesses to

survive through this tough time that they were facing. At the same time,

how do we protect the workers and fill the gaps that existed, be in

support of those workers at workplaces if they are sick?

We acted on all of those. Businesses received benefits in every

different part that we could. Then the workers…. I mentioned earlier how

we brought in job-protected leave. You’re sick; your job is protected if

you take time off. That’s good for the business; that’s good for the

workers.

Then we made changes to the WCB — which, by the way, the member

didn’t support — to bring the presumption, to support those workers who

become ill at a workplace and need to depend on workers compensation,

file a claim so that they could get benefits from day one. They get the

support that they need on day one so that they recover sooner to go back

to work. And they protect the workers at the same time, and the

workplaces, so that we could stop the transmission at

workplaces.

I mean, we could sit here and argue who did what. Those are the

facts. The member and his party did not support workers who become ill

at a workplace with COVID, to give them support right away through

workers compensation. Then, as the vaccine program started, we moved

again to support the workers so that they could go get a vaccination

without any barriers.

In the meantime, like I said, we were working with the federal

government. The federal government agreed that it is a national issue

and we need to come up with a national solution. All other jurisdictions

agreed with the same thing. They all worked with the federal government.

The federal government came back with the support, but then we

identified with them that there were more gaps that needed to be fixed.

There were gaps that needed to be fixed. They fixed it. It’s not that we

just sat around and the federal government sat around.

In February, they came back and fixed one of the areas of gaps.

But there were a couple of areas that still were still left. And we

continued to work with them. That was February. March, April, we

continued to work with them to make sure that those gaps were fixed. We

had the indication that they would. Budget came two weeks ago. It wasn’t

there. We again worked with them. Again, they looked at different

models: “How do we fix…?”

We didn’t sit around, as the member sometimes alleges or claims

that we did. We were working every day, and the provincial workers were

working every day in order to fix some of those areas that needed to be

fixed to support the workers and families. Once we realized the federal

government’s inability to fix those gaps, once they advised us that they

were not able to move on those areas, we moved very quickly. That’s why

we have this bill before us. As soon as the federal government gave the

indication that they’re not moving any further, we moved, and we moved

very quickly.

G. Kyllo: I have not accused government or the ministry of sitting around. I

think that the population of British Columbia will make their own

determination, from the answers provided here today, which will evidence

either the actions or lack thereof, of whether government was sitting

around or not.

[2:25 p.m.]

The question, if I could, just to provide some clarity: does

government have the tools and do they have the ability through

regulation to require businesses to report, either through WorkSafeBC,

employment standards or even maybe through the federal government,

through EI…? Was there an ability for government to reach out and to

better understand how many workers in our province are currently not

covered and have access to a paid sick leave program — yes or

no?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member would appreciate that we are talking about a

time when businesses were hurting. To add more burden to them — in their

words, more red tape — how is that going to help those businesses who

are struggling to survive? Now we’re asking them to provide us this much

information.

I guess governments, through law, probably…. I’m not an expert in

this. Can they force every employer in this province to provide certain

information? I think that’s a question that some expert could answer.

But we need to understand. Businesses went through a very tough time. We

have enough information already. We could send 5,000 surveys and get

back 20 percent. It will confirm exactly…. There is other research done

by Ernst and Young. They’re almost confirming the same numbers. So I

think the information is there.

Now, what we do with that information is what is being discussed

here today. This is the bill that will support the worker who gets up in

the morning one day, feels sick, feels that they have signs and symptoms

and could stay home without worrying about income for that day. And we

will support the employer, because they are also struggling to

survive.

It is a balanced approach. It deals with the gap that exists in

the federal program. If the worker needs more time, we wish that we were

able to top up the federal program. We weren’t allowed to, but they will

be going on the federal program then.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Minister. I guess the question that I have

is: what work or what efforts were undertaken by government to really,

accurately understand the breadth of the issue and the number of workers

that do not have the opportunity for a paid sick leave

program?

From the answers that the minister has provided, it appears that

they chose not to undertake any direct surveys or undertake any actions

where they could actually really understand, with some specificity, the

number of workers that are currently not covered under a paid sick leave

program in the province. They have chosen to rely on national data and

maybe a correlation between the national data and the information that

the minister just indicated was provided by Ernst and Young to come up

with some estimation.

[2:30 p.m.]

I don’t want to belabour this point, but when we look to

governments to make decisions that have significant financial impact

both to the province of British Columbia and to employers, I think it is

important that government take those initiatives and those efforts. I

appreciate it was a pandemic, and I appreciate that businesses are

really struggling right now. I know it only too full well.

However, I certainly would have thought that this government would

have undertaken more proactive measures to better understand what the

actual data shows. Because as the minister shared with us yesterday,

they have come up with some estimated numbers on what the potential cost

of this program is. So that’s where I think it is very important and

incumbent on governments to make sure that they’re using accurate data

and undertaking efforts to ensure that they have accurate data when

they’re making decisions that will have significant cost implications to

British Columbians.

Moving on from the lack of effort by the ministry to really fully

understand the breadth of those that are currently not covered under a

paid sick leave program, could the minister just outline for this House

the consultation process that was undertaken over the last 12 months, in

the development of this legislation, with businesses and workers across

the province?

Hon. H. Bains: This issue has been with us, as the member has canvassed, for a

long time — going back to establishing the Economic Recovery Task Force

by the pro­vince. They met regularly, where you have labour,

non-profit and business groups representing their members.

[2:35 p.m.]

These discussions took place there — what kind of program there

should be. That’s where the letter from the businesses to the Prime

Minister was…. That’s how it started. Then that table continues on to

have the discussion.

We had, also, the COVID Industry Engagement Table, which I sit on.

We have numerous meetings on that too. We discuss many of these issues.

How do we support the businesses? How do we support the workers? How do

we have a program to have the workers stay home? Surrey Board of Trade —

I had a discussion with. B.C. Business Coalition. You name

it.

These discussions have been going on for months now. Everyone

agreed that there has to be a national solution to it, and that’s why

all of the businesses — almost all of them, I think — represented by

these 20 different organizations combined a letter saying that the

national solution is the answer. We continue to work towards

that.

I think that’s the engagement. That’s the consultation that we

had. Once we realized that the federal government isn’t going to move to

deal with those issues, we moved here to fix the gap that existed

there.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister. Could the minister just clarify,

specifically, what groups did government rely on to better inform, I

guess, the creation of this legislation? The minister referenced the

COVID Recovery Task Force which, I believe, is chaired by the Premier of

the province. There was also a reference to a roundtable. But if the

minister could just provide a bit more clarity with the specific groups

that were actually consulted upon….

Further to that, was the engagement with these organizations more

to get a general feel or general input into the need or necessity of a

program? Or was this bill, or the provisions that are set out in this

bill, specifically brought forward to these groups for

consideration?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said, when we had these discussions with these different

groups on a regular basis — not only to particularly discuss the content

of this particular bill, but generally, how we support the workers who

are sick to stay home…. Many stakeholders, actually, have written to us.

They believe there should be a paid sick leave provision. Surrey Board

of Trade, for example, is one of them. The others have also said the

same thing.

The businesses that I mentioned here believe that there should be

a paid sick leave provision, but they believe — all of them believe — it

should be an EI-type of program that should be the one that should

administer this federally. That’s why the letter to the federal

government, by all those businesses. So same thing.

Many businesses wrote to us that we need to make sure that the

workers who are sick stay home. There needs to be support for them.

Also, how do we support the businesses at the same time if that happens?

I think they’ve been advising us that there is a clearly established

need for workers who are sick with COVID to stay home without loss of

pay.

[2:40 p.m.]

At the same time, businesses need to be supported as well, because

they’re going through a tough time as well. This bill addresses that. We

looked at all of that information and analyzed it, and then we brought

this bill together because the feds refused to move on a couple of those

areas that we believed they should have.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide some specificity with respect to the

businesses? If there are 500, I certainly don’t need all the names. But

the minister referenced two groups specifically. He referenced the COVID

recovery task force, which I believe is chaired by the Premier. I’m sure

I can find specifically which businesses are actually part of that

organization.

There was also reference to a round table, if the minister could

maybe just provide a bit of context. What I’m trying to determine is the

breadth of consultation with business organizations around the province,

first, just to find out which organizations were consulted. The

explanation the minister just provided sounds like kind of a general

conversation. You might get together with your family and talk about the

need for, maybe, a vacation. Everybody says, “yeah, yeah, we need to go

on a vacation,” but obviously, there is more specificity when it comes

to determining where you’re actually going to go.

In addition to the number of organizations consulted, also looking

for some specificity from the minister, if he might be able to provide.

Were the provisions, specifically, that are outlined and developed and

presented here as part of this bill today, discussed and brought forward

for consideration by all of these businesses, or was it just more of a

general conversation with the businesses? So kind of two parts to that

question.

Hon. H. Bains: On the B.C. Economic Recovery Task Force, we have Surrey Board of

Trade, Vancouver Board of Trade, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C.

Federation of Labour. There are social services sector reps, a rep from

SUCCESS and creative sector. Those are the people who represent those

organizations who are on the Economic Recovery Task Force.

On the B.C. COVID Industry Engagement Table, I’ve got four pages

if you want me to read them. All right. I’ll read them.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m ready.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: I’ve got more. There are four pages of all different sectors and

organizations. Many of them come to attend those meetings. That’s how

far and wide this task force covers.

[2:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Maybe we could just ask that the minister could actually table

those specific documents just so we have it on the record, with respect

to the number of business organizations.

There were kind of two parts to that question. The second part was

the discussions or conversations that happened with these two business

groups. I was looking for a bit more clarity from the minister whether

there was just kind of a general conversation around the need and

necessity for a paid sick leave program or whether the contents of this

bill were actually directly consulted — if those business organizations

were directly consulted with respect to the provisions that are set

forth in this piece of legislation.

Hon. H. Bains: We had a general discussion, and everyone…. I mean, the discussion

was…. I think it was accepted that when workers are sick, they should

stay home. The discussion about how we incentivize for them to stay

home…. It was realized that many workers may not be able to stay home

when they’re sick because they can’t afford to. So that is the issue

identified and the solution — that they should stay home without loss of

pay.

At the same time, it was discussed that the businesses also are

hurting right now, so they should not be asked to carry the entire

burden. I think, when you look at the discussion generally, in those

areas, and then you’re expected to deal with those when you have the

opportunity to deal with them, then you put it into the bill.

That’s how we arrived at this. We believe that in order to move

from those discussions and issues and concerns that were raised…. This

is how we arrived at the solutions to address them. We believe it

addresses the concerns that were raised during those

discussions.

G. Kyllo: I just wanted to go back and confirm that the minister is willing

to table the document that he referenced and showed me here in the

House, just to get that on the record with some clarity. Then as a

further follow-up, I wanted to just confirm that there were no other

business organizations that were actually consulted as part of this

bill. The minister referenced two specific organizations or, I guess,

business groups.

I wanted to just provide the minister one additional time to

clarify if there were any other businesses or organizations that were

consulted with respect to guiding government in the development of this

bill, making sure that the minister would please just clarify that he’s

willing to actually table the document that he referenced

earlier.

Then further to that, just to clarify that consultation on the

legislation, I certainly believe, would be very different than what the

minister has characterized. A conversation with business organizations

around the need or necessity for government to provide protections and

support for workers for a paid leave program — that’s one conversation.

But the specific provisions of this bill, which we’ll get into in a bit

more detail later this afternoon, I’m certainly hoping….

I’m wondering if the minister could just confirm for this House

whether the provisions that are specifically set forth in this bill —

not just pertaining to this first

section we’re still on right now —

were specifically discussed and talked about with these business

organizations in advance of this legislation coming forward

today.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think I would like to read the names again.

The Economic Recovery Task Force, the Surrey Board of Trade, the

Vancouver Board of Trade, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Federation of

Labour, social services sector, SUCCESS, creative sector. They were at

that table. There is more than one person sitting to represent many of

those, so that’s who they were. It’s not just the businesses. You have

the B.C. Federation of Labour. There is a non-profit as well.

As far as the COVID industry table: Aerospace Industries

Association of Canada, Alliance of Beverage Licen­sees, B.C.

Agriculture Council, B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture, B.C. Chamber of

Commerce, B.C. Construction Association, B.C. Craft Brewers Guild, B.C.

Economic Development Association, B.C. Federation of Labour, B.C.

Ferries, B.C. Food and Beverage, B.C. Hotel Association, B.C. Hydro,

B.C. Maritime Employers Association, B.C. New Car Dealers Association,

B.C. Pavilion Corp., B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, B.C.

Tech Association, B.C. Transit, B.C. Trucking Association, BeautyCouncil

of western Canada, Black Business Association of B.C., Building Owners

and Managers Association, Building Supply Industry Association, Burnaby

Board of Trade, Business Council of B.C., Business Improvement Areas of

B.C., Canada West Ski Areas Association, Canadian Federation of

Independent Business, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters B.C., Council

of Forest Industries, Creative B.C., Destination B.C., First Nations

Summit, Fitness Industry Council of Canada, go2HR, Greater Vancouver

Board of Trade, Manufacturing Safety Alliance of B.C., Mining

Association of B.C., Motion Picture Production Industry Association of

B.C., Restaurants Canada, Retail Council of Canada, Small Business B.C.,

Small Business Roundtable, Surrey Board of Trade, Tourism Industry

Association, TransLink, Unifor, Union of B.C. Municipalities, Urban

Development Institute, Vancouver Airport Authority, Wine Growers B.C.,

WorkSafeBC.

Then from the B.C. government, attendees were the Minister of Jobs

and the Minister of Labour, and then there were other deputy ministers

and other staff from those ministries.

G. Kyllo: In the absence of any additional businesses or business

organizations, I will take the minister’s second response now that the

information that is provided, as far as the breadth of the consultation,

is the entirety of the consultation that was undertaken.

[2:55 p.m.]

Further to that, can the minister confirm specifically how many

meetings there were, what the dates of those meetings were and the

duration of those meetings and, specifically, if the provisions that are

set out in Bill 13 were shared or referenced with the members of those

organizations that the minister has referenced?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member should know that you don’t discuss the

provisions of legislation with the groups before you introduce in the

House — not specifically on the provisions of the bill. Generally, you

discuss the issue, concerns, possible solutions. That’s what took place.

A general discussion took place. What were the issues? The issue was, as

I said before, that workers who are sick should be able to stay home

without loss of pay, and employers should not be asked to carry the

burden. How do we do that? All was moving in the direction that it’s a

federal solution required, an EI type of program.

Then, when that came, there was some satisfaction that at least

there was a federal program to deal with some of the issues that were

raised. But gaps were still there. People talked about gaps. Before we

introduced this bill, there were business groups out there publicly

saying that we should have sick leave provisions in this

province.

So you listened. There were organizations out there talking about

X number of days. Others were asking for X-plus number of days. We as

the government listened, and we believe that this is the right balance

to give the workers, so that when they wake up in the morning sick, they

could stay home. They were able to stay home without loss of pay. Also,

we decided that we would step forward to support the businesses with the

cost as well.

G. Kyllo: Thanks to the minister for that information. Can the minister

provide some specific dates on when the consultation actually took

place? The minister has indicated there has been some broad consultation

with these industry organizations and all the different businesses that

are members of those associations. I’m just trying to understand. If the

minister could provide some context as far as the dates of those

specific meetings that talked about, specifically, the necessity for a

paid sick leave program.

I guess, further to that, the minister has shared now with this

House that there was no discussion with these business organizations

around the specific provisions of this bill. Maybe just a bit of further

clarity, if the minister might be able to share with this House…. In

those conversations, was there discussion around the number of days that

a program might entail or might envision, and of who might bear the

costs?

[3:00 p.m.]

I guess, more specifically — these are largely business

organizations — were businesses aware, or at any point in time did the

conversation come about, that there would be a proportion of costs

actually borne by businesses with respect to the bill that’s brought

before us today?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: The industry recovery task force started about April last year.

There were regular meetings, and those issues were raised. It resulted

in the businesses writing to the Prime Minister for a national solution.

And we continue on that path to find a national solution. Then we

established, also, the COVID-19 engagement committee, which also

included almost all of those members who were on the industry recovery

task force.

With those, the latest meetings I had were March 29 and May 10.

But since the Economic Recovery Task Force started and COVID hit us, we

had numerous discussions with industry, with labour, with others — from

a requirement for paid sick leave of various kinds. Some would suggest

ten days, others four weeks and others fewer than that.

Also, the temporary layoff provisions that we were engaging in

with industry — how do we keep the connection of the workers and the

businesses during the layoff? We provided provisions to help the workers

and the businesses to deal with that issue as well. So all along, the

one issue that continued to be discussed was the paid sick leave and the

requirement for workers to stay home. That’s what was being driven down

by the provincial health officer to ensure that the workers who are sick

stay home to stop the transmission.

[3:05 p.m.]

So that discussion went on. You don’t discuss how many days with a

group, because look at the variety of different groups in here. All of

them are — all different spaces or all different numbers that they would

come up with. Like I said, the B.C. Federation of Labour was on that

table. They were at ten days. Others would be at five days. Others would

be no days.

I think, when you listen, the issue was: how do we help the

workers to stay home when they’re sick, to stop the transmission at the

workplace? That was the issue. How do we deal with this? It was felt

that the federal solution was the right solution. We continued to push

right up until the federal budget came in. Even after that, we continued

to push to see if there was a way to improve the gaps that

existed.

When we realized that they weren’t moving…. We knew the discussion

that we were having. We knew that the stakeholders had been approaching

us to move on the sick leave provisions and bring in sick leave

provisions at workplaces in British Columbia to stop the transmission at

workplaces.

There were some who were talking about only the temporary portion.

Others were talking about long-term. As a government, we looked at all

the discussions, and we said this is the right solution. It balances out

different interests out there. It will allow the workers to stay home

who are sick, to stop the transmission. At the same time, the businesses

are being supported by the government as well.

The Chair: Members participating remotely, on the off chance that the two

Richmond MLAs from different parties are having discussions with

each other, that would be great. Just turn off your cameras while

you’re doing it. Otherwise, if you’re talking through your

electronic devices to other people, I would suggest that you turn

off your camera as well, as per standing orders. Thank

you.

Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for that additional clarity.

Can the minister share with this House the conversation around the

provisions that are set forth in this bill — specifically, the temporary

funding of paid sick leave for workers for up to three days — whether

that was discussed and if there was a general consensus? What I’m trying

to get an understanding for is that…. I appreciate government needs to

consult, and I appreciate it’s not a vote around the table, but was

there any consensus-building? Was there an overwhelming majority of

members that were supportive of the temporary paid sick leave provisions

that are set forth in this bill?

Hon. H. Bains: The consensus was listed in this letter. It is to have a national

solution. A letter from 20 business organizations that there needs to be

a sick leave provision addressed through the national program — that was

the consensus.

[3:10 p.m.]

The consensus was that sick leave provisions need to be there

because businesses were worried that workers who are sick are making a

choice to stay home and lose pay or come to work and risk their

businesses by allowing the transmission of COVID at the workplace.

They’re seeing the results of that. That was the consensus: that workers

need to stay home when they’re sick, and they need to be

supported.

They asked the federal government to do that. The federal

government did that. Not enough. Gaps need to be fixed. That’s what we

took from these discussions: those gaps need to be fixed. We were

hoping, they were hoping, that the federal government would do that.

They didn’t. We’re fixing those gaps.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that additional clarity.

Can the minister share with this House that once government was

made aware, in the end of September of last year, that the program that

the federal government provided had some short gaps or shortfalls, which

the minister referenced, and that the provisions of this bill are,

largely, there to fix and fill those gaps, if there were any further or

subsequent conversations with those organizations, specifically about

the need to provide the provisions that are set forth in this

bill?

I appreciate the minister shared that you can’t talk specificity

with respect to the number of days and that sort of thing. Just

wondering if there were any subsequent discussions with these groups

after September 30, when government became aware that the federal

government’s program did not provide the fulsome coverage that the

province was looking for — and if these organizations were part of the

additional provisions as presented in this specific bill around the

temporary three-day paid leave provisions as set forth in Bill

Hon. H. Bains: The discussions that took place were about the gaps that existed

in the federal program. One of those gaps is those 2½ days initially,

and the $500 per week that is after, if they qualify. We couldn’t do

much about the $500, because — I think I gave answers earlier — the

top-up would not be allowed by the federal government without clawback.

So the first gap that is for 2½ days is what we are fixing

here.

G. Kyllo: Great. I appreciate that answer. And through those discussions,

obviously, there were conversations around the opportunity for the

province to maybe fill in these missing days that were not covered under

the federal program. Can the minister just share: was there a general

consensus that this was the right thing to do, and a general consensus,

I guess, by the organization that the province should be pursuing some

form of stopgap measure, similar to what’s presented here before us

today?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The consensus was that a sick leave provision needed to brought

in. Originally, the federal government pushed into it. They moved but

left those gaps. Now, the discussions were around the gaps. It was a

consensus. There’s a gap, 2½ days, two days. So the member could ask me:

why three days? Why not four days? Why not one day?

We came up to fix the gap. That was the consensus — to fix the gap

— because workers who would lose that one day or two days while they

were waiting for the result may not go for the result. They may come to

work, because they can’t afford to lose money from their paycheque. So

those two days and 2½ days they need to miss in order to qualify for the

federal program — that was the gap identified. That’s where the

consensus was. That’s why three days is the provision here.

The Chair: I’ve received a request for a five-minute health break. Do you

want to ask your question before that, Member for

Shuswap?

G. Kyllo: Sure. Maybe I’ll just finish where I’m at, if that would be

acceptable. To the minister: thank you very much for that information.

The minister has shared that there was general consensus by these

organizations to, I guess, direct or give government the confidence to

move forward with the provisions of this bill with respect to the

temporary relief for up to three paid work days for those that have

illness in the workplace.

I’m just wondering. Was there a discussion at all about the

potential of some of the costs of this temporary program being borne by

businesses? I fully appreciate that the minister probably was not able

to share with any certainty or specificity of the group on who would be

paying.

Just trying to get an understanding from these business

organizations when these consultations were undertaken, were businesses

led to believe that all of the costs would be largely borne by

government and taxpayers, or was there a conversation where business

owners may have been presented with the potential for a portion of some

of the costs that will be passed on to employers under this bill?

Whether there were conversations around the potential of business owners

having to incur some of the costs with respect to these

provisions.

Hon. H. Bains: Right from the beginning, employers were concerned. First of all,

they believed that there should be a sick leave program. They also

believed that this was a national emergency, and they shouldn’t be asked

to bear the burden of a sick leave program either.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Premier also said that he would not ask the em­ployer to

carry the entire burden. That’s why, although it’s not in the bill, as

the member would appreciate…. We have discussions about how we support

the businesses. So the average wage…. We are saying that it will cover

most of the workers up to $200 a day. It is a great help to the

employers. It’ll work out to be about $25 an hour. If somebody is making

$26 an hour, the $1, we’re asking the employer to pay.

It’s a huge help to the employer. We’re not asking them to carry

the entire burden. But that’s why businesses were pushing and we were

pushing the need to get a national solution to it — so that we don’t ask

the businesses to carry the burden. At the same time, the workers who

are sick could stay home and stop the transmission.

I think that’s what the discussion was. I think we are stepping up

as a government on behalf of the taxpayers. How do we help or support

the businesses that are also hurting? There are businesses that have

done well during the pandemic as well, the member would appreciate. But

there are businesses that are also hurting. I think this is a fine

balance that we came up with. Workers will be able to stay home without

loss of pay, and the businesses are supported in major way so that

they’re not asked to carry the entire burden.

The Chair: Before I call a five-minute health break recess that has been

requested, just a reminder to all the members participating

remotely.

The Speaker has been asked, by you, to monitor the decorum in

the House, which includes when you are at home. Half of the members

on screen right now are talking through their electronic devices.

Probably on mute, so they can’t hear this anyway, but maybe the

House Whips or House Leaders can relay back to both sides of the

House what they’ve agreed to do when they’re not here in the House.

That would be much more preferable than having the Speaker having to

rule every time he sits in the chair that someone is breaking the

standing orders that we all agreed to.

With that, I would hope that everyone would participate.

Obviously not, because they’re still yapping away.

Interjections.

The Chair: Next time I will have to recognize them, but they won’t hear

me recognizing them, so what’s the point?

Anyway, I’ll leave it to the House Leaders. Five-minute break.

We’re in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

G. Kyllo: Just before the short break, we were talking about the

consultation that was undertaken with business groups and organizations

by government to help inform them, with respect to Bill 13. Can the

minister provide any context, or clarity, I guess, to this House with

respect to any conversations that might have been undertaken with

respect to a permanent paid sick leave program for the

province?

Hon. H. Bains: Many stakeholders during these discussions shared the gaps that

existed in worker support during COVID, outside of COVID, and they

suggested there needs to be a permanent solution. There are some who

would want X number of days permanently to be in place. That’s why we

put the enabling language in this bill that would require us to consult

with all stakeholders between the time that this bill is passed and the

end of the year.

We have a number of months that we will be consulting with

business groups. We will be consulting with the labour groups, workers,

academics. Then we will determine what kind of permanent solution there

should be. That’s why the consultation is important to us, and we will

consult with all those who will be impacted by this. Then we will make a

final decision before January 1.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the consultation and, I guess, the discussions

that would have been undertaken, with respect to the potential need for

a permanent solution to the problem, as the minister has characterized,

the minister shared with us earlier that there was conversation amongst

the business groups. There was a general consensus of a need, and there

was certainly the desire, I think, as the minister has characterized it,

of these organizations for a federal solution, for a national solution,

which led to the letter that the minister actually read some excerpts

from today during this committee stage of the debate.

The conversations amongst those business organizations were for a

federal solution. The organizations came together, put forward a letter

specifically to the federal government, asking the federal government to

respond with a federal solution in the middle of a pandemic. As the

minister has shared, in September the federal government came up with a

federal program, although temporary.

[3:35 p.m.]

As the minister has indicated, it had some shortfalls. It did not

necessarily meet the requirements that the government had initially

outlined and requested of the federal government.

So as the minister and the Premier had further consultations and

discussions with these organizations — which would’ve included maybe

more of a permanent program, as the minister has alluded to — I’m just

wondering if the context of those conversations were for, yet again, a

federal solution to a permanent sick paid program, or if the

conversations among those business organizations, at any time, revolved

around the potential for a provincially funded permanent sick leave

program.

I think why I think this is important…. We know that words matter,

when the Premier and the minister have indicated previously, in the

media and otherwise, that businesses can no longer afford any additional

cost burden in the midst of a global pandemic. We’ve had over 8,000

business failures on account of COVID in the last 14 months. There are

another 25,000 businesses that are at significant risk of bankruptcy and

permanent closure.

When the minister and the Premier speak publicly and acknowledge

the fact that businesses can no longer afford any additional cost burden

— and the conversations around the different round tables and the COVID

Economic Recovery Task Force that the minister had shared — when there

are conversations around even a short-term or an interim measure to

provide supports for workers, the minister has shared with us that there

was a general consensus of a need. I would expect and fully appreciate

that the majority of members around the table, during those

conversations, would have expected that any kind of short-gap measures

would’ve been covered through general taxation and through the $5

billion COVID recovery fund.

As the minister has shared, there were additional conversations

around the potential need for a permanent paid sick leave program. I’m

just wondering if the minister can provide any additional clarity, if

it’s his belief and understanding that the conversations around the need

and necessity for a permanent sick leave program was under the auspices

of a permanent program being made available by the federal government

and funded by the federal government, or if there were specific

conversations amongst those groups about the potential for a B.C.-led,

B.C.-funded permanent sick pay program?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the discussion around those tables was to get us through

the pandemic. Everyone agreed that we needed a federal solution to it, a

national solution to it. That’s why the letter went — to deal with the

pandemic and get us out of the pandemic. But the essence of those

discussions was the fact that workers who go to work when they’re sick

add to the transmission of COVID. That has been recognized. They looked

for a federal solution to that.

So I think, going forward, it is responsible for any government to

look forward, knowing what we learned today. How do we deal with it in

case we are in a similar situation next year or the year after? But in

addition to the pandemic…. It doesn’t always have to be the pandemic. We

have other situations where workers go to work, they’re sick, and they

transmit their illness to other workers. It causes productivity and the

absenteeism. The member will know that, because he owns a

business.

I think that’s why we’re putting in this enabling language — to

get this discussion going. That’s why we would have a discussion,

thorough discussion, between now and December, talking to all of those

stakeholders who have brought those issues to us during this pandemic —

the issue of workers to stay home when they’re sick. So we learned,

rather than reacting to it. It took time. Then, in the meantime, the

illness spread faster, as you know, and it did spread at workplaces.

Workplaces had to shut down, as I said — many of them.

I think, looking forward, it is, I would say, a responsible

government to look ahead. How do we deal with issues that are brought to

us, that we learned when we were hit by this pandemic today? I think

that’s why there’s enabling language.

We’ll have a thorough discussion. The member will know that when

we made changes in the Ministry of Labour, whether it’s the labour code,

employment standards or a temporary form, we had thorough discussions

all across the province. We were guided by those discussions. So I think

that’s exactly what will take place between the day this bill is

passed…. And then we move on to start the discussion until the end of

this year so that we know exactly what kind of model. How do we manage

that, and what is fair? How many days? That discussion will take place

during the coming months.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the response.

I think what is very important to put on the record here today in

the information that has been shared from the minister with respect to

the consultation that was undertaken and the direction and consensus

that was provided by these business organizations that the minister and

the Premier felt that they were incumbent to do this broad consultation

with….

I will state it again. The large focus of conversation and

communication, both the way the minister has characterized the input

that was provided by these business organizations as well as

conversations and discussions that the province has had, was that there

was always a focus first on a federal solution to what’s deemed to be a

federal problem.

[3:45 p.m.]

Government and the Premier and the minister looked to these

business organizations for direction and also sought out what they

believed to be consensus, with respect to moving forward. Apparently,

there must’ve been consensus of the organization to reach out and send

the letter to the federal government, asking for a federal

solution.

When that federal solution was brought forward at the end of

September and did not fulfil all of the requests and requirements of

government, and there were shortages or absences or a lack of funding

for the three days, which has been evidenced here in the House, again

the Premier and the minister looked to these business organizations,

which represent thousands or millions of workers around the province,

for some direction and guidance. There was consensus around the table

that, yes, there was a need to move forward, for government to move

forward with a government-funded interim plan to provide interim support

for up to three days of paid sick leave for workers, which is a portion

of the bill that’s presented before us here today.

When I have asked the question about the discussion around a

permanent sick pay program, which is one of the provisions that is set

forth in this bill…. I certainly appreciate the minister has indicated

that there will be more consultation going forward. But what I’m trying

to get an understanding of from this minister is that the province, when

presented with COVID — with a national emergency, with a provincial

emergency, one of the single-largest health emergencies that ever has

hit our province — didn’t immediately run to a solution.

The province could’ve immediately run to a solution to put forward

a program that would’ve provided immediate cost relief for workers. They

had the financial resources to do that. Yet they chose to sit and wait

and to pressure the federal government to try and come forward. When the

federal government finally came forward in September with a plan that

did not meet their requirements, they still did not immediately fill

that gap. The province still chose to try and encourage the federal

government to provide those measures.

They waited a further six months before, finally, after exhausting

all of the efforts available to them to try and have the federal

government come forward, coming forward with this bill today, which puts

the cost burden on the province and on businesses in order to meet the

missing piece — the three days of pay that workers are not eligible for

— before making application for the federal program.

Yet without any broad consultation — certainly, we have not seen

any letters from these business organizations coming forward to the

province, telling the government, the province of B.C., to go it alone —

government appears to have acted unilaterally, without the consensus of

these business organizations, to make a choice to move forward with a

permanent sick pay program on January 1. Now, January 1 is an arbitrary

date. That’s not a date that’s been forced upon anybody. That’s a date

that government has selected, and I certainly plan on asking some

further questions around why that was the appropriate date.

But the part of the questioning here today is that when the

province of B.C. continued to look to the federal government for

solutions and to look to these groups and these organizations for

consensus, they appear, without the same consensus that they sought in

providing the provisions of this bill for the temporary leave, without

consultation with these organizations around the province going it alone

and creating their own program…. Government has chosen to move forward

with

section 2 of this particular bill that will force and require

government to have a provincial program in place by January 1,

So I’m just trying to understand: why is it that, in the middle of

a pandemic, a health emergency when there is urgency and a need to move

with haste, government sat and waited and looked to the federal

government to provide that relief?

[3:50 p.m.]

When the federal government finally did come forward and there

were shortfalls of that program, and government had the opportunity to

immediately move forward with these short-term measures that are

provided as part of this bill, which could’ve been introduced in October

or November of last year, they chose to wait until tabling this

legislation this week in the Legislature, yet without any guidance or

direction from these business organizations, decided to cast all to the

wind and go it alone on January 1 of 2022.

I’m hoping that the minister can provide a bit of clarity to this

House and the people of British Columbia on why government has chosen to

change direction, instead of looking first to the federal government for

a federal solution, yet choosing through this piece of legislation to

move immediately to a provincial program, which is very different from

what the Premier has been talking about and looking for, for the last

year.

If these business organizations to which government has consulted

— if they were aware that the province of B.C. and this government were

moving forward and even giving consideration to a built-in-B.C. program

that would not be funded federally….

The Chair: Minister of Labour.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. Just for clarification, the member asked a

question about

section 2. I’m asking: have we passed

section

The Chair: Member, on clause 1.

G. Kyllo: To the minister, no, we have not got through

section 1. I

appreciate that the portion of my question related to

section 2, but I’m

just trying to establish what the mindset was of the consultation. I

guess if the minister would like me to withhold any conversations around

the consultation piece and to talk about consultation yet again when we

reach

section 2, I’m happy to do that. But while we’re covering

consultation broadly for all aspects of this bill, I think it probably

would be timely if we could handle the consultation piece for the

entirety of the bill at this juncture. But I will take direction from

you, Mr. Chair, or the minister.

Hon. H. Bains: I think, for clarity, they are two different things. One is a

short-term solution and different consultation. There’s a long-term

solution, and there’s a different consultation. So I think I’d prefer

that if he could finish off

section 1, then we could move on to

section

2, and then we will have a discussion, whatever discussion the member

wishes to have, on

section 2.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely happy to take the minister’s suggestion.

With respect to

section 1, can the minister provide any

information with respect to the consultation that was undertaken with

First Nations, with respect to the provisions of

section 1 of this piece

of legislation?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: We’ve been in discussion with the First Nations all along. They

were part of the industry recovery task force and then also on the

COVID-19 industry engagement committee. More specifically, in March and

April, when the ministry was engaging to discuss Bill 3 — I think we

canvassed this in the House when we were talking about the vaccination

leave — we engaged with them. That’s the time when they brought it to

our attention that it’s Indigenous women who are disproportionately

impacted by COVID. And the need for paid sick leave was brought

up.

I think it is something that they felt that the industry,

especially women…. Indigenous women are disproportionately impacted.

They also had a concern about the cost to the businesses. So I think

that discussion took place there. And then as a part of the COVID-19

industry engagement, again, those discussions took place

there.

[4:00 p.m.]

It was recognized by them as well, just like other tables and

other groups that we were engaging, that the need for sick leave is

there to deal with COVID-19 and to stop the transmission at workplaces.

We listened. I think that’s why we came up with the solution that we

have. The gaps that were identified by all of the groups were identified

by them as well.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for the response. Now, for those that might be listening

from home, there are about 204 First Nations in the province. I think I

would also share that I have heard from some First Nations groups that

the First Nations Leadership Council does not necessarily speak for all

First Nations. It’s this government that brought forward the UNDRIP

legislation.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I was just wondering if the minister might be able to share,

specifically, what government feels would be an appropriate level of

consultation — if the minister could maybe share if it was just a

general conversation around the need and necessity for paid sick leave

for workers in the province or if that conversation was more fulsome and

included any of the provisions as set forth in this particular piece of

legislation.

The Chair: Minister of Labour.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome back. We’re still here on

section

1, Mr. Chair — so that you know.

I think I gave the answer to the member before. No, the specific

contents of the bill were not shared with this group or any other group.

General discussion took place, and consensus was the need to have sick

leave provisions for workers to stay home without loss of pay and that

the employer should not be asked to carry the entire burden.

I think those are the two principles, and that’s where the

consensus was. They all agreed. The solution is the federal solution.

They all agreed that there are gaps. One of the gaps is the first 2½

days for a worker to qualify for the federal program. That’s why we put

these provisions in here to fix that gap.

The Chair: Member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Welcome back to the Chair, as we continue to proceed through

section 1.

Thank you to the minister for that clarification. The minister

referenced consensus. When the minister characterizes the conversation

with First Nations groups and organizations as having the conversation

and receiving consensus, I’m just wondering if the minister might be

able to share with us what that specifically looks like. Is that just a

conversation, and everybody seems to be happy, with thumbs up around the

table? Is it more fulsome than that? Is there actually written dialogue

or communication back and forth between the different

organizations?

When the minister shares with this House that there was consensus

with the First Nations across the province, I’m just wondering if the

minister might be able to provide some additional clarity on exactly

what that looks like.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The discussions were similar to what discussions took place with

other groups. Again, the common understanding was the need for sick

leave so the workers can stay home when they’re sick, not go to work and

add to the transmission of COVID, and the discussion around the gaps in

the federal program. That’s where the common understanding was with

other groups that we talked about earlier, and with

Indigenous.

We took it from there that there is a need to deal with the sick

leave provisions. The federal program has gaps, and we need to fix them.

That’s what we’re doing with the bill.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to share with this House whether those

conversations — those discussions that the minister characterizes as

having consensus — satisfy what government would believe to be free,

prior and informed consent?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member mentioned earlier…. I didn’t use “consensus” to

describe this particular discussion. The understanding, as I said, is

that there’s a need for sick leave. That was from discussion from table

to table to table: to deal with this pandemic, there is a need to have a

sick leave provision.

That’s why the letter went to the federal government by the

business community. We had letters from other stakeholders — that there

should be a sick leave provision, both long-term and short-term. The

same discussion took place at those tables. That’s where it was…. They

all basically were coming to one understanding: that there is a need, a

gap, to support the workers who need to stay home. The understanding

also is that there is a gap between the federal program. The

understanding also was the federal solution is the right solution. I

agreed with them.

How do you deal with the federal solution that has those gaps in

there? One of the gaps is those first two, 2½ days. That’s what this

bill will do to fix that gap, and it will give workers the ability to

stay home when they’re sick. When they wake up in the morning and they

feel they have the signs and they have symptoms, they don’t have to make

that choice to stay home and lose pay or go to work and spread the

COVID.

I think that was the understanding that came out of those

discussions: there is a need for sick leave, there is a gap in the

federal program, and we need to fix it. That’s what we are trying to do

with this bill, and this bill will address that.

G. Kyllo: To the minister, I appreciate the comments and his confirming that

it was not his intent to identify that there was consensus, necessarily,

from First Nations.

The minister has characterized the conversation with business

organizations and the general consensus, I guess the general

conversation, the general support. It also appears — certainly more than

happy for the minister to correct me if I misunderstood — that the

conversation with First Nations around the province was a very similar

conversation. The minister has shared that some organizations have

actually written letters requesting, specifically, that government move

forward with paid sick leave provisions as set out in this particular

piece of legislation.

[4:10 p.m.]

Since government moved forward with the adoption of UNDRIP and

DRIPA, I’m just trying to have a better understanding of what additional

obligations, efforts or undertakings government has taken with respect

to legislation. It’s certainly my understanding, at this point in time,

that government feels there is a necessity to actually consult on this

particular piece of legislation with First Nations. Otherwise, the

minister would have probably characterized it differently. I certainly

stand to be corrected.

In light of the minister’s answers and the fact that government

felt a need or a requirement to consult First Nations under this piece

of legislation — which will have force and effect over businesses that

are covered under the Employment Standards Act, operating on First

Nations reserve lands across British Columbia — I’m just looking for

some clarity on what consultation actually looks like and how government

is able to satisfy that they have actually achieved said consultation,

when this bill was only tabled here just a few short days

ago.

I certainly appreciate that there is a requirement, an obligation

of government, to have conversations with business groups, with

municipalities, with First Nations around the province, but there’s

specific legislation that sets out the requirement for consultation on

legislation that has impact on First Nations and First Nations lands.

I’m just trying to understand, from the minister, if he can provide any

clarity to this House.

What additional efforts or undertakings has this government taken

to satisfy the very important consultation that we have legislation

tabled in this House in order to direct government in their future

endeavours — especially when it comes to the tabling of legislation that

will have impact both to First Nations Peoples and to the lands that

they occupy?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As I mentioned earlier, we consulted the Indigenous groups through

various channels. Again, the understanding was that sick leave is needed

and that the federal program has some gaps. This bill will fix the gap.

We were advised that Indigenous women are disproportionately impacted by

COVID.

Considering all of that, if you look under the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and what is required

under articles 17.1 and 24.2,

article 17.1 sets out the right of

Indigenous People to protection in employment: “Indigenous individuals

and peoples have the right to enjoy fully all rights established under

applicable international and domestic…law.”

Then it goes on to say….We need to measure that against Bill 13.

Is Bill 13 consistent with the United Nations declaration on the rights

of Indigenous Peoples, as required by

section 3 of the Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?

We are mindful of the requirement of the declaration on the rights

of Indigenous Peoples as we develop this legislation. We completed an

assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Paid COVID-19

sick leave and paid personal illness and injury leave, as Bill 13

proposes, are consistent with the rights described in the UN

declaration.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the additional information provided, but when it

comes to consultation, it does not appear that the consultation with

First Nations is any different than the consultation that was undertaken

with any of the other business organizations. Should this bill pass —

and with a government with a significant majority, I’m sure it likely

will at some point in time — this bill will have an impact. It will have

force and effect over businesses that are operating on First Nations

reserve lands that are covered under the Employment Standards

Act.

With 204 different First Nations in the province…. On the UNDRIP

legislation, all members of this Legislature support it, but it

certainly was not our legislation. This was the government’s

legislation. They felt it imperative to bring it forward in order to set

in legislation, in law in this province, the necessity for

consultation.

Yet so far during this inquiry, I have not heard from the minister

any additional efforts that were undertaken to provide that

consultation. Maybe if the minister could provide any information with

respect to the consultation with First Nations or any additional efforts

that were undertaken, other than those that have been shared so far.

Have any letters been written? Was there any direct written

communication with the 204 First Nations in the province, seeking their

input, guidance, thoughts, suggestions?

I think further to that would be, if I were to contact the 204

First Nations in the province, would they even be aware that this bill

has been tabled? Has government taken any additional steps to even

notify the 204 First Nations around the province that this piece of

legislation is even brought before the House and even being

debated?

My inquiry is not to challenge the merits of the consultation —

well, maybe it is, a bit, to challenge the efforts that’ve been

undertaken — but just to have a better understanding. We have a

significant amount of time and energy that were put into the adoption of

the legislation around UNDRIP in this Legislature. I’m just trying to

have a better understanding of what efforts government is undertaking to

actually live up to those requirements and obligations, either written

in statute or even just a general understanding.

I think most First Nations around the province would think that

there is going to be a new way of doing business in this province. That

is certainly the way that members on the opposite side characterized

UNDRIP. Yet, so far under this inquiry, the only thing that has been

shared by the minister with respect to the consultation is some general

conversations in conjunction with the conversation with a lot of other

business organizations.

[4:20 p.m.]

Maybe the minister can provide a little bit more clarity on the

specificity of any direct communication with First Nations, the 204

First Nations around the province, either prior to the tabling of this

legislation or even in the last three days since this bill was tabled

here in the House.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member full well knows, when you talk about

consultation with other groups, that no, we did not write to every

business in this province, every union in this province, every union

member in this province to consult on this particular bill. Their

representatives were at that table.

I think the same thing with the Indigenous groups. Their

representatives were at those tables. Those discussions took place, and

the general understanding was that sick benefit, sick leave is needed to

deal with the pandemic. They all identified that there are gaps. I

mentioned specifically, when we were dealing with First Nations groups,

that they identified that Indigenous women are disproportionately

impacted by this. So that’s the kind of discussion and engagement that

took place. They identified that the gaps are there, and we need to fix

those gaps. I think that’s what we’re doing with the provisions of this

bill.

But no, we don’t discuss the content and the provisions of any

legislation with anybody before we bring it into the House. The general

discussion, the need for sick leave, giving workers the ability to stay

home when they’re sick and helping businesses so that they’re not

burdened entirely with dealing with the sick leave — I think those were

the general parameters of discussions. That’s what we are trying to fix.

This bill will fix it.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response.

I wonder if the minister can provide some clarity. He referenced

the discussions with business organizations and union organizations

around the province and specifically referenced that they do not consult

directly with every business. There is a business organization that the

majority of businesses may be associated with, so the consultation is,

therefore, with the business organization. I assume that the minister

would take satisfaction in the fact that: “Well, we talked to the

association that represents these businesses, and therefore, it’s all

good.”

But when it comes to the 204 First Nations around the province and

the minister’s reference to consultation with representatives, can the

minister share with this House specifically which First Nations

organizations he has consulted with; and who, specifically, was

representing who?

[4:25 p.m.]

There are 204 First Nations, as we know, in the province. I’m just

trying to get a bit of clarity. So when the minister feels that he has

satisfied the requirements of consultation with First Nations, how can

he actually demonstrate that that, in fact, occurred?

Hon. H. Bains: Discussions about the pandemic and economic recovery, as I said,

went on since early last year. Then when we specifically needed to

discuss certain issues, especially on the COVID-19 engagement committee,

we discussed Bill 3. This is where the discussions took place about the

need for the sick leave. The representatives were First Nations Health

Authority, which government has been engaging on other COVID-19

measures.

We presented the issue of paid COVID vaccination leave to the B.C.

COVID-19 Industry Engagement Table on March 29, as I mentioned earlier,

which included leaders and senior representatives from B.C. Assembly of

First Nations, First Nations Summit, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the

First Nations Major Project Coalition.

Also, we had the consultation with the Minister’s Advisory Council

on Indigenous Women and the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship

Centres to obtain a variety of perspectives. Those are the discussions

where the issue of the Indigenous women being disproportionately

impacted during this pandemic…. And in addition to the vaccination

leave, also the need for sick leave issue was brought up — and how do we

help those workers em­ployed by First Nations and

elsewhere?

I think that’s where we realized that the groups identify there’s

a need for sick leave. There is a need for sick leave provisions. And

then the gaps that we talked about — I think that’s where we took the

initiative, where we took the information from. We believe that…. But

they believe, through these discussions, that the sick leave provisions

are needed. And the gaps are there as well, in addition to the

vaccination leave that was needed.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the additional clarification.

[4:30 p.m.]

Is the minister able to Clarify that all 204 First Nations in the

province would agree, if asked, that they’ve been satisfactorily

consulted on this bill?

The minister referenced a number of different organizations. I

don’t know the specificity of the membership of those different

organizations or if those organizations that the minister has shared

actually provide representation for all 204 First Nations in the

province. If the minister might be able to just provide a bit more

clarity with respect to whether he believes that the consultation

requirements as set forth in the UNDRIP legislation have been fully

satisfied.

The reason I’m questioning that is that there has been lots of

news media coverage and lots of efforts undertaken, I think, by the

government to also extend consultation to Hereditary Chiefs in the

province. As a further part of that question, does the minister feel

that the Hereditary Chiefs throughout the province of B.C. would feel

that they were represented by any of the organizations that the minister

has shared?

Hon. H. Bains: We considered our responsibility under DRIPA when we were looking

at Bill 13 and also the consultation that took place with the Indigenous

groups that I mentioned, and we are satisfied that it meets the

requirements under DRIPA.

G. Kyllo: Appreciation to the minister for that response. I’m just wondering

if the minister can share with this House…. I’ll just go straight to the

question. What is the minister’s test for evaluating whether a

collective agreement or employee benefits meet or exceed the provisions

that are set forth in this legislation?

Hon. H. Bains:

Section 3(2) specifies that the paid illness or injury leave

provision of the collective agreement will prevail if they meet or

exceed the corresponding provision of the act. Parties may resolve

questions or disputes on whether a collective agreement meets or exceeds

the act’s paid sick leave provisions through the grievance arbitration

process.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide some further clarification on what the

arbitration process would actually look like or entail, where there are

differences of opinion?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The different collective agreements have different provisions when

it comes to dispute resolution, called grievance procedure. You follow

the grievance procedure. The employee takes the action, and then the

employer will respond. It goes through the steps. If it cannot be

resolved at the local level, then the parties will agree to refer it to

arbitration. Both parties will present their case to the arbitrator, and

the arbitrator will make a decision whether one party is right or the

other.

G. Kyllo: Just wondering if the minister can provide a bit further

clarification. Where there are disputes that arise, the minister has

shared that each collective agreement will have its own terms and

conditions with respect to dispute resolution, and if they’re unable to

arrive at a conclusion — or mutual consent, I guess — it would actually

move forward to arbitration.

Does the minister see the province having any role in those

discussions or conversations?

Hon. H. Bains: This particular provision exists in the employment standards today

to deal with other areas of the act compared to the collective agreement

— meet or exceed. I think the purpose behind here is that no one is able

to negotiate less than the minimum of standards listed in the employment

standards. So I think that’s what it is.

The union and the employer know how to deal with their disputes if

they arise from any terms of their collective agreement within the terms

of the collective agreement, and then they follow the agreement’s

procedure. Then they will move on to arbitration if they cannot resolve

locally among themselves. Now, they may reach out to the labour board

for mediation and help, and those provisions are available to them as

well.

G. Kyllo: In the instance where the union organization or the union

representative may determine or believe that their provisions meet or

exceed the provisions of this act, if there is any challenge between

that, would it be then deferred to employment standards? Maybe I could

ask the minister just to provide a bit more clarity.

[4:40 p.m.]

The concern, I think, that I’m trying to raise or get

clarification on is that with the “meet or exceed” provision of this

particular bill, if there is a dispute within an organization where they

feel, internally, that their provisions actually meet or exceed the

provisions of the act but an employer or an employee representative

group or the union feel that it doesn’t, who would make the

determination of that dispute? Would the government actually participate

in that? Would employment standards? Maybe the minister can just provide

a bit more clarity on how he sees a dispute of that nature being

satisfied.

Hon. H. Bains: Look, every union and employer that has a collective agreement —

they know how to handle disputes arising out of the collective

agreement. This is nothing new.

They know, for example, if somebody was called in out of line of

seniority, somebody was laid off out of line of seniority, which

contravenes the collective agreement, one says: “You are not following

the collective agreement.” The other says: “We are.” If they cannot

resolve that dispute, then they move to arbitration, as I said before.

Same thing here.

If the union believes that the collective agreement has less than

what is listed here in the act, then the union could argue: “Well, a

minimum three days is allowed under the act. Therefore, that’s how much

we are entitled to.” The employer may say: “We already have four

days.”

So I don’t know where the dispute is going to be. It’s very clear

whether you have three days more or you don’t. If it’s less than three

days, then the act applies. If you have more than three days, then the

collective agreement applies.

If there is a dispute between the two parties, they know how to

handle it through the collective agreement and the grievance procedure.

If they are not able to resolve it themselves, they write to the

arbitration. Arbitrators are available. And again, there is also

understanding between the parties on how they select

arbitrators.

So I think they already know how to handle disputes arising out of

the collective agreement. This is not the only provision that requires

“meet or exceed.” There are other provisions. The union and the

employers are already dealing with those issues, and I haven’t heard any

issues with that.

G. Kyllo: If the minister could share with us: how long will an employer o