Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $17,185,000 (continued).

J. Martin: Welcome back. Hope everyone had a nice little lunch break there.

Carrying on with some line of questioning around workers compensation. I think we got two questions in just prior to when the member from Cowichan took over.

With the changes to the Workers Compensation Act last spring to expand presumptive conditions, can the minister tell us how many claims were made under the previous scope and how many have been made under the new expanded criteria, please?

The Chair: For the benefit of the public, this is a subsection of the B.C. Legislature. We are reviewing the spending estimates of the Minister of Labour. Right now the minister is conferring with his advisers to answer a question from his opposition critic, the member for Chilliwack.

I am on Songhees and Esquimalt territory. The rest of the members you may see popping up are from all over the province, participating digitally so that we can do our work reviewing budgets and spending, and do it safely.

There will be lots of long pauses while we get answers to the questions that the opposition is asking.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, Member, for the question. I’ll give you some numbers.

I’m told that mental health disorder claims in 2017 were 3,900; in 2018, there were 4,400; and in 2019, there were 5,400. Those are the numbers that WorkSafe has seen coming their way as far as the mental health disorders are concerned.

J. Martin: Thank you for that, Minister. To follow up, can you tell us how many front-line staff were dedicated to processing claims before and during the pandemic?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, before COVID-19, there were 1,320 staff to deal with claims. During COVID-19, there hasn’t been any significant reduction in those numbers.

G. Kyllo: It’s a great pleasure to join the debate today in estimates. If I may, I’d like to go back to WorkSafeBC and the accident fund.

Early on, my colleague from Chilliwack had asked some questions with respect to the size of the surplus, or the accident fund. I was just wondering if the minister would be able to share with us…. He had indicated previously that the accident fund was at 152 percent. I’m just wondering if he could share with me what that 152 percent, what that number, actually related to in real dollars. I understand that was at the end of fiscal 2019.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As you know, we are still going through the year — volatility in the market and the fluctuation in the marketplace. It’s hard to tell from day to day where the funds will be at the end of the year or in a couple of months. But I can tell you, if you need numbers, that by the end of last year — those are the numbers available to us — they were at around $20 billion.

G. Kyllo: You said approximately $20 billion. I just wonder if you could share with us what the exact number was at December 31 of 2019 for the accident fund.

Hon. H. Bains: The number I’m given is that by December 31, 2019, they were 20.5. That’s what represents 152 percent funding.

G. Kyllo: I have a series of questions, so I’m hoping that I’ll have the floor for about the next 40 minutes or so. Thank you very much.

So $20.5 billion. Do you know what the actual total value of the accident fund is as of June 1 of this year?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes. On May 31, the numbers are $19.5 billion.

[1:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much. So since December 31 till June 1, there has been a $1 billion reduction in the total accident fund. Now, for those of you that are listening from home, I just want to recognize that these funds are set aside to provide supports and services and wages for injured workers in our province.

That reduction of $1 billion is quite a large number. That’s a thousand million dollars. If you compare that, it’s about 25 times larger than your entire ministry budget.

What do you have to say to injured workers that have concerns about your inability or, I guess, the loss of what equates to $1 billion in funds that were set aside to provide supports for injured workers in our province?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, you must understand. I don’t know whether you were on when this question was asked.

The WCB’s mandate…. They have given themselves a mandate to have the accident fund funded at 130 percent, and they were at 152 percent at the end of last year.

As I said in my answer to the question before, they are at 145 percent now. Remember, their mandate is to maintain 130 percent. Now, why are we at those numbers? Because of growth in the economy in the last two, three, four years, and more revenue came in and also a good strategy of investment. Good investment return came in. As a result of that, they were able to amass well over 130 percent that is required under their mandate. So they were over 130 percent at a level of 152 percent.

Yes, the market was very volatile. Every investment took a deep hit during this summer because of the COVID-19, but they started to recover again. Same thing happened with WCB. They took a hit, but they’re recovering again.

You know, that 130 percent funding was never in danger. I want to make sure that the employers and the workers of this province understand that the WCB was always in a good, sound funding position. They are in a good, strong funding position, and they will be, I’m expecting, going forward. I think there is no risk to anybody when it comes to making sure that there are sufficient funds available to pay for claims of past, current or future, and to provide services that the WCB is mandated to do.

You’re talking about if there was any hit during the COVID-19 in the market. They have built up an extra cushion. That’s the surplus that people are talking about, over and above 130 percent. I think it fluctuated. They’re recovering. They’re almost to a point where they’re reaching towards the pre-COVID-19 position.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for confirming that there has been a $1 billion loss. For those listening at home, that’s a thousand million dollars that have been lost from the accident fund since December 31 of last year.

[1:50 p.m.]

I appreciate that you have responsibility for WorkSafeBC. It appears that it’s a $20.5 billion total accident fund within WorkSafe. That’s a significant amount of money, and I would assume that that must be top priority for you as a minister to have a full understanding of how those funds are being invested and what the operational efficiencies are of WorkSafeBC, and receiving, I would hope, at least monthly updates as far as any concerns or any risks there may be with respect to the investments of the workers accident fund.

I’m just wondering if you could confirm for me how often you receive financial updates on the performance of WorkSafeBC, specifically with reference to the accident fund, which is set aside specifically for caring for injured workers in our province.

Hon. H. Bains: I get regular updates through the chair of the board — now the acting chair. I have been advised from time to time that they are always in a good, sound financial position. They advised me, as I said, that they were sitting at 152 percent — well over and above the 130 percent required by their mandate.

Then, during COVID-19, as the markets started to fluctuate, I was made aware that the funds, just like all the other investments, were taking a hit. But very quickly, it started to recover again. That’s why I’m suggesting that it went down, but it is back to 145 percent again.

G. Kyllo: So, Minister, taking it from your answer, you’re not provided with regular updates. I would estimate that, as having responsibility for overseeing WorkSafeBC, you would be provided with at least, at very least, monthly updates on the financial performance of the organization.

In any event, can I ask you: did you have any conversations with WorkSafeBC with respect to how those dollars were invested — whether they were invested conservatively, whether you had any questions with WorkSafeBC with the onset and advent of COVID-19? Was there any discussion directly with WorkSafeBC about the potential for moving those funds into a safer place where they would not be subject to the volatility and the $1 billion loss that has been evidenced through the COVID-19 outbreak?

[1:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Another public service announcement from the Chair. Just a reminder that you are asking your questions and giving answers through the Chair. Thanks for keeping that in mind.

Hon. H. Bains: To the member, the investment is made through B.C. Investment Management Corp. That is the entity that is used by other public sector entities to invest. I am advised by the WCB that they knew well ahead of time…. They thought that there would be a downturn in the economy coming. They anticipated that, but no one knew what kind of hit it would take in the economy.

But they were prepared. That reflects on the results that we see here today. They were at 152 percent funded, end of December last year, pre-COVID. They went through a real tough time, as all markets did, and we’re still sitting at 145 percent.

That shows the results — that they were prepared and that the funds were well secured. I would say that the employer and the workers should be very pleased that the investment is in good hands, as I think the results show.

G. Kyllo: To the minister: might I ask, with respect to the comments that you provided the news media about three or four weeks back, I guess it was…. With respect to your commentary indicating that the surplus had been wiped out, I’m just wondering: what did you rely upon in providing that advice to the media? I think we can also appreciate that the general public have a great amount of concern, and that comment caused a great amount of concern for individuals across British Columbia when the minister had indicated to the media that the surplus was gone.

I might remind the minister that he’s indicated that the surplus, over and above the 130 percent requirement, was 22 percent. That’s a significant amount of money. So I’m just wondering: what information did the minister rely on in advising the media that the surplus had been wiped out?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I just want to re-emphasize that, as we canvassed those numbers, WCB’s mandate had set for themselves to be funded at 130 percent, and they were at 152 percent. The market was volatile. The market was taking a hit. All market investment was taking a hit at that time. If you look at how deep a hit the market took — all different North American sides of it — and a $20 billion investment, you could do the calculation.

The fact remains that it took a hit, but then it started to recover again, like all other markets. From 152 percent, it went down. Then it’s going back as the economy is improving. It’s going back to 145 percent. So I think that’s what’s important.

That funding was always there. There was always a strong funding position. Even during COVID-19, of course they took some hits. They played a number of scenarios. One scenario was that they could lose $3 billion, which means over and above 130 percent. We had a cushion built up over 130 percent. So the workers’ benefits and employers’ investments were in pretty good shape.

As the market is improving, we are improving as far as that particular investment is concerned. As I said, the recent number shows to us they’re back at 145 percent.

G. Kyllo: Well, thank you for that, Minister. However, the 22 percent additional surplus for the 130 percent, which is a requirement — and you had indicated at December 31 that was 152 percent — equates to $2.9 billion. So that’s $2.9 billion of a surplus. You had indicated to the media that that surplus was wiped out.

How is it…? What information did you rely on in advising the media that the surplus — which was close to $3 billion, or three thousand million dollars — that it had somehow vanished?

For those of you listening at home, I think it’s important to note that the minister has responsibility for overseeing the operations and the full responsibility for WorkSafeBC.

I would expect that British Columbians would want to ensure and have confidence that the minister would be fully up to speed and aware of the financial ongoings of the operations of WorkSafeBC as well as the fund that is set aside specifically to provide protection for workers.

Again, not to belabour this point, but the error of misunderstanding the true financial picture of the operations or the accident fund within WorkSafeBC to the tune of three thousand million dollars is a little bit more than just a small oversight.

I’m not going to look for a further response from that, but I would like to carry on.

[2:05 p.m.]

With respect to the operations of WorkSafeBC, I just wonder if the minister can share with us what the cost is to administer the workers compensation system and programs. My understanding is that the accident fund…. One of the allowable costs associated with the management of that fund is the actual administration. I’m just wondering if you could set out for us what the actual administrative costs were in fiscal 2019 for administering the workers accident fund.

Hon. H. Bains: I could give you 2019 numbers, which are available. In 2019, the WorkSafeBC goal was to maintain costs at or lower than the published target of 0.461 percent of assessible payroll. The 2019 result was 0.445 percent. So the target was 0.461 percent of assessible payroll, and the result, the actual, was 0.445 percent.

Now, if you put it into numbers, administration costs totalled $506.6 million, which is exactly the same as budget. They were budgeted for $506.5 million for that year.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Would the minister also be able to share…? Has that number gone down, or has it remained constant as a percentage of the total value of the accident fund over the last two years?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As I said earlier in the previous question, the way the WCB measures their administrative cost is it’s a percentage of the total of the assessable payroll. So in 2019, the numbers that are available to us, they were less than their target. Their actual was 0.445 percent of the assessable payroll, and their target was 0.461 percent of their assessable payroll.

G. Kyllo: Thanks for repeating the previous answer, Minister. However, what I was looking for was what the costs were as a percentage of the accident fund, both for fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2019. You had referenced a percentage of the assessable payroll. I’m not sure what that number is.

What I’m looking for is if you could maybe provide just what the actual hard cost number was for the administration of WorkSafeBC for fiscal 2018 and also for fiscal ’19. What I’m trying to look to see is if that number has actually gone up or gone down. I think that British Columbians would be interested to find out the efficiency of the organization, what the total administrative cost is of the funds that are being disbursed, and the programs and services delivered through WorkSafeBC.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The numbers I have are that in 2019, their target was 0.46 percent of the assessable payroll, but their actual was 0.445 percent. They’re expecting that at 2020, the administration budget would be a total of $549.3 million, which would be a $42.8 million increase from the 2019 budget.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. However, I was looking for what the total cost was for fiscal 2018 and then, also, for 2019. What I’m trying to find out is if the total cost of administration at WorkSafeBC has gone up or if that has gone down. Also, if the minister would be able to provide what the total amount of expenditure for WorkSafeBC was, in those two fiscals.

For a bit of clarity, what I’m trying to find out is if the percentage or the cost of administration of the total funds and expenditures by WorkSafeBC is going up or if it is going down.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: We will get you the 2018 numbers. We don’t have that available here. But I gave you the 2019 numbers, and that was $506.6 million. In 2020, the expectation is it will be $549.3 million.

Partly the reason for the cost increase, as we talked about, is there has been an increase in claims over the last three, four years, year over year. Also, the mental health disorder claims add to that equation as well. So I think when you took it overall….

We’re trying to improve the WorkSafe system to make sure that the confidence of the employer and the workers is increased, so that workers feel that their claims are dealt with in a timely fashion and the employers feel that they are getting the service that they need. Therefore, there were some added resources to the system. I think it’s all going towards the service to the injured workers and to help the employers.

G. Kyllo: I would appreciate receiving those numbers.

Minister, I’d also asked…. Thank you for providing the $506.6 million administrative cost. What was the total expenditure of WorkSafeBC in fiscal 2019 which reflects that $506 million administrative fee?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: In 2019, the total cost for claims was $2.7 billion, and about $300 million was administration costs to deal with the claims. Then there was another $200-some million that is non-claims-related administration costs.

G. Kyllo: Okay, just so I’m clear, $2.7 billion in total claims costs paid out in fiscal 2019. Of that, there was $506 million in total administration costs, of which $300 million was for direct administration, but a total of $506 million. Thank you for that. I certainly would appreciate if you could provide me follow-up information with respect to, also, the performance of 2018 as well.

Now, just while we’re talking about the administrative costs…. It’s a significant amount of money, over $500 million, certainly much larger than the minister’s labour budget. Can the minister share with me what initiatives have been undertaken in recent years to help reduce the overall administrative costs associated with managing the workers accident fund?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, WorkSafeBC works very hard to be as efficient as they can be, because the money that they are working with is paid by the employer. As you know, in the great compromise of 1917, workers gave up their right to sue the employer if they got injured at the workplace, and an employer, on the other side, agreed look after those workers’ health and safety in the workplace — when they’re injured or become ill, to look after them, provide them the care that they need so that they are ready to go back to their pre-injury job if possible.

When you talk about administration cost, it is all about service to the workers: how we process those claims in a timely fashion, how we provide rehab to the workers and how we communicate with the employer to serve their needs. So anytime you’re talking about administration costs, it is to provide those services to employers and to the workers and to ensure that the health and safety of the workers at workplaces is maintained and enforced.

[2:30 p.m.]

I think at WorkSafeBC, the number one priority is the health and safety of workers and also to look after those workers who are injured or become ill at the workplace. I think that we need to put all of that in relation and reflect all that when we are talking about administration costs — the claim costs being the largest, as I have mentioned.

Administration is there to support those claims when a claim comes their way. Administration is there to support the health and safety of workers at workplaces, to support employers, support their safety associations. There are about ten or 11 of them around the province, sector-specific. I think it all comes as a cost to run their operation, so I think we’ve got to be careful what we are talking about when we are comparing costs of administration.

Of course, it is expected of WorkSafe that they must be efficient, must be prudent, and that money is well spent. But the core reason that they’re there is to maintain the health and safety of the workplaces, prevent injuries and illnesses at workplaces, look after those workers if they become ill or injured, and provide support to the employer through a number of those health and safety associations and direct help. So there’s a lot of work that goes on between WorkSafe and the employer and the workers.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for your remarks. How­ever, what I was looking for was whether you were aware of any initiatives that are being undertaken within WorkSafeBC. You are the minister responsible for labour and responsible for WorkSafeBC. I was just wondering if you had any knowledge of any initiatives that are being undertaken within WorkSafeBC to help streamline operations and increase administrative efficiency in order to ensure that a larger percentage of funds would go back to the direct benefit of workers.

In any event, I’m going to move on, if I can. I’m actually just going to go back to the accident fund. Can the minister share with us — as of last year-end, March 31 of this year, of 2020 — what the financial picture will be and what WorkSafeBC will be reporting as far as financial losses?

Hon. H. Bains: So that the member knows, WorkSafeBC is not on our fiscal year. They are on a calendar year, and our government, as you know, is on an end-of-March fiscal year. So they go by the year.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think they are monitoring the situation, and we will know…. We have the numbers for 2019, at the end of the year, and we know what the numbers are now, as you asked before — at 145 percent. Moving forward depends on the market fluctuations and market. We are hoping the economy will pick up. We’re hoping that health and safety, as the WCB has taken very seriously, is improved. Then we will know the real numbers by the end of this calendar year.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that information. So the most recent information we have, then, is as of May 31, in which case it shows approximately a $1 billion loss in the accident investment fund.

Is the minister aware…? Is there a board-approved financial strategy for WorkSafeBC with respect to how they’re investing this accident worker fund?

Hon. H. Bains: Members should know that the way the investment is made through BCI, as I said before, has not changed over a number of years, whether it was our government or the previous government. And, yes, the board approves…. The BCI comes to the board investment committee and the investment committee advises the board, and the board approves the investment strategy.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that, Minister. Then just one follow-up question. Are you familiar with the investment strategy, or are you briefed with respect to the risk tolerance level, on how the workers accident fund is actually invested? Are you part of those discussions, or is the information just simply provided to you for information only?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, the board operates at arm’s length from the minister and the government. But they have a built-in system, no different than it was four or five years ago under the previous government. They have an investment committee. They advise the board. They work very closely with BCI, and I get reports on a regular basis through the chair.

I have been advised over the last three years that WorkSafeBC has been very strong on their finances. Their results speak for themselves. And their mandate is to ensure that the accident fund is maintained at 130 percent, but they’ve been well over that because of the growth in the economy in the last two or three years and a good investment return.

[2:40 p.m.]

That is the result. That’s what I’m interested in. The results are clear. They are before us. And although there was…. As you know, we are just going through COVID-19, and the market took big hits in the spring, but we are still sitting at 145 percent. We took a hit, but we are improving, and it is at 145 percent as of June 1.

I think we are in really good shape. They have a very strong checks and balances system in place, and, as you know, the board is a professional board as well. They understand what their role is, and they work very closely with each other and the investment committee. The results are there.

Now, the member may also want to take a look at the WorkSafeBC 2019 annual report. There are a number of areas in there that the member may be interested in. Their performance targets and what their results are at a glance — I think pages 34-35 — would be beneficial to the member about initiatives that they take to make sure that they are efficient, they’re meeting their targets, their costs are under control and they’re maintaining the administration at a very efficient level.

G. Kyllo: The point that British Columbians, I believe, would be concerned about and wanting to know is: why is it that the worker accident fund has lost $1 billion — that’s one thousand million dollars — since December 31, 2019? That’s a thousand million dollars that have been lost.

I speak to my financial adviser at least once a month. I get regular updates on the value of my investments — certainly nowhere near the value to which the minister has responsibility for overseeing through WorkSafeBC. I’m happy to report that although there were certainly some declines in the market through March and April, my investments are back on track with where they were at the end of the year.

How is it that personal financial advisers can somehow steer investments of individuals to not see any fiscal loss over the COVID period, yet when we’re talking about the investment of $20.5 billion, $1 billion was lost?

I appreciate that the minister is wanting to continue to stick with the 145 percent, but I don’t care how you determine the percentage. There has been a $1 billion loss, and that is funds that are not going to be available to provide supports for workers in the future.

With that, I’m going to quickly just segue over to paid sick leave. I know there’s been lots of conversation — certainly by our Premier as well as our Prime Minister — with respect to the potential for providing paid sick leave for workers. I wonder if the minister would be able to share with us what his thoughts are around the provision of paid sick leave for workers, especially in light of COVID, and if he has a plan at this point in time for how that would be funded.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, Member, for the question. He may not have been on earlier on when another member asked the question…. I answered that question, but, anyway, I will repeat that.

[2:45 p.m.]

As you know, during COVID-19, this issue became very clear — that people were going to work sick and they were transmitting the virus to other workers, resulting in the operation to be shut down. That’s not good for workers. That’s not good for operations. So our Premier was very, very forceful, when he was meeting with the federal government and his counterparts from the other jurisdictions, that there should be sick leave provisions.

Members who are sick, or they’re showing signs that are flu-like, should stay home. They probably want to stay home, but an economic hit is one that they can’t take. Loss of income would be a huge problem for them because they still have to pay rent. They still have to pay for mortgages and other expenses to run the family.

We were pushing the federal government that there should be provisions available to workers so that when they’re sick, they stay home. They don’t go to work, especially during the pandemic.

We also said it very clear. The Premier was very clear that we don’t want to add additional burdens onto employers, who are already hurting. I think, thankfully, the federal government listened, and other jurisdictions joined in with our Premier. The federal government announced a $14 billion aid package.

Part of that would be paid sick leave. And now it is left between the federal government and provinces to come up with the details of how to deliver that. I think it will be a federal program, fully funded by the federal government. My advice is that it will probably work just like CERB, but no details have been worked out. It is a federal program, paid by federal…. But employees will have paid sick leave available to them when they’re sick so that we can stop the spread and transmission of the virus by going to work sick.

I think it’s also good that we are standing on the side of the employer by not burdening them with the cost.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. My apologies. I was not on when the member from Cowichan asked the question earlier. So I certainly appreciate you reiterating your answer.

I would agree that businesses in B.C. cannot afford to have any further cost burden put on their backs. There’s been enough burden put on the backs of B.C. businesses under this current administration with the employer health tax, increases in the corporate tax, significant increases in minimum wage, so I am very happy to hear the minister finally, finally agree that businesses can no longer afford to continually be burdened by additional costs by this current government.

With that, I will turn it back to our critic, my colleague the MLA for Chilliwack.

J. Martin: Thank you to my colleague from Shuswap. We’re going to be shifting the order a little bit just to accommodate different members wanting to ask questions of different ministers in different houses, as we become more and more familiar with this innovative format to conduct the estimates. I believe that right now my colleague from Cariboo North has some questions.

C. Oakes: A couple of my questions that I do have for the minister…. I really thank…. I appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions. Over the last three months, I’ve had the opportunity to have over 17 small business round tables across the province, and I’ve heard from small businesses on concerns and what’s on their mind and where they feel that there are opportunities that we can look at. I have a couple of questions that emerged from some of these small business round-table sessions that I had the opportunity to listen to.

[2:50 p.m.]

The first few will align around WorkSafe. I guess an overall comment. I really appreciate the work that the WorkSafe staff have done. It’s a very challenging and difficult job. I want to acknowledge that, and I want to recognize that. I know that here in Cariboo North, they’re working diligently. They’re working really hard to work with small businesses to support them getting back open and giving them a clear direction.

I have heard now, in many different communities, that there still continues to be some discrepancy through different WorkSafe staff that are giving different directions to small businesses. Perhaps the minister could help me identify or understand the process that is being managed to make sure everyone has the same and equal information.

Hon. H. Bains: I agree with the member that we are all going through some very challenging times, as you know — the service providers…. Then you look at the Ministry of Health, the public health authorities, WorkSafeBC. They’re all put through some really grinding work during COVID-19 so that our businesses stay safe. Then, when we restart the economy, there is guidance, and there is some help available to them to restart safely.

As Dr. Bonnie Henry has always said, we don’t want to be in a position to reopen the economy and then have to shut it down again. So how we succeed going forward from one phase to another depends on how we act and react and conduct ourselves during each of those phases of reopening our economy.

I share the comments made by the member that small businesses make up the vast majority of employers in this province. They can face unique challenges in meeting their occupational health and safety obligations. Small businesses may lack knowledge sometimes because they don’t have spare staff to guide them, and they just work from morning till evening and concentrate on how to run their business and serve their customers. They don’t have a huge HR department.

I understand that, and WCB understands that. They understand that they have unique and challenging needs. That’s why part of that five-year strategic plan that WCB has is to expand its reach into the small business community to assist them in improving occupational health and safety. WorkSafe is also working to identify new ways of communication with small business, enhancing its approach to inspectors, education and consultation and continuing to leverage small business industry groups and associations to engage these employers.

I think I mentioned before, but I’ll mention this again. There are a number of industry health and safety associations across the province that are sector specific. They are full of resources to guide their members and the businesses in that industry.

[2:55 p.m.]

My suggestion would be to reach out to them. WorkSafeBC is doing everything that they can to come up with new ways of communication with them. Then there’s the employers advisers office available to them to help them to navigate some of the challenges that the businesses may have. That’s a free service.

We added another $3 million when we formed government to both the workers adviser and to the employers adviser offices so they would have resources. I could give you a breakdown — the number of education seminars they do all across the province to help the employer on how they can actually improve their health and safety and get the help that they need from WorkSafeBC.

The help is available. I agree with you. Sometimes the communication isn’t there, and the small businesses worry and wonder who is there to help them. I think WCB is there. They’re doing everything that they can, as you said. But communication can improve, certainly. I agree.

C. Oakes: I certainly acknowledge that the sector associations have been a valuable resource for many of our small businesses in the province. I do want to identify that so many of our small businesses in the province of British Columbia really are not a part of certain sector organizations. I just want to acknowledge that so that when we’re looking at communication and we’re looking at next steps, we also recognize that there is a substantial portion of our small businesses that do not have that access. And I will also acknowledge it’s that same group of small businesses that have had such a difficult time accessing any of the federal support programs that are set up to assist our small businesses.

If we lose these small businesses in our communities and our neighbourhoods, it will have a significant impact. So I want to be a champion of theirs and make sure that we find a reasonable solution to reach out to them.

I recognize that communication is a critical component of this. I have also heard specifically in some of the more remote rural communities that it’s difficult to get access to PPEs. That’s twofold. I have two questions on this. The first is I recognize that work has been done for people to be able to look at where you can access PPEs. What I can offer to the minister…. Some of the supply chains that we experienced in the north or rural remote communities create difficulties for us to access some of those PPE opportunities.

The second piece of the question is just the cost for these small businesses that have not been able to access any of the federal programs. You know, the cash flow is a significant challenge. To the minister: would you consider setting up some kind of funds to support these small businesses? Even if we’re looking at employers under ten or those small businesses that have not been able to access any of the additional programs that have been identified.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank and appreciate the member’s concern on behalf of small businesses. We always say that they are the backbone of our economy. The majority of jobs are with the small businesses. They need support, you know, when they need it. I fully understand, especially during COVID-19, that they are going through tough times.

As far as the supply of PPE, I think there is a supply hub available through which they can actually reach out to get the PPE. It is run through emergency management B.C. The second piece, I would suggest, is…. The Small Business B.C. website has a site on it to guide the small businesses and to help them with whatever help they need.

The other thing that I could say is that the federal government programs are federal government programs. We raise those issues whenever our ministers meet with their counterparts federally. Our Premier always raises those issues because we believe that we need to support businesses if we are to have a good economy. He always says that people are our economy, and our economy is people.

That’s why we acted very, very early and swiftly when we knew that COVID-19 was hitting us. Businesses were getting hit. Right away, I think, the B.C. government came up with $5 billion to support families and businesses. So $1.8 billion, Member, as you know, for businesses, with the tax deferrals and tax breaks.

I might add that if you break that down, the property tax break, 25 percent, amounts to $700 million, one of the largest tax cuts in history. We do understand that these are unprecedented times and that we need to make those moves to help the businesses to stay. We work hard with the federal government. We were able to get help with the 75 percent emergency wage supplement.

The WCB is also stepping up. They gave premium deferrals for six months. Also, for certain employers who qualify for the federal emergency wage subsidy, they waived their premiums. So I think everyone is playing their part.

In the provincial government, certainly, we are alive to the challenges that our small businesses, especially, are facing. We are there. I think there’s $1.5 billion also set aside by this government to help restart the economy.

That discussion takes place at the economic recovery task force , which meets regularly. They have representatives of businesses there, and those issues are discussed there. How do we use the $1.5 billion to help businesses, especially small businesses, and, also, the hardest-hit economy sectors like the hospitality and restaurant industries? I think government is very, very alive to the area and to the challenges faced by the businesses.

I appreciate the member raising that concern, and I share those concerns. We’re doing all we can. I can say we have demonstrated, through our actions, that this is a government that listens. Then we respond to deal with the concerns that are brought to us. Especially, we are very, very concerned about the challenges faced by the small businesses.

C. Oakes: Thank you to the minister. Thank you very much for your concern. I know it’s sincere. I appreciate that, and I appreciate that you have identified some of the programs that are available.

Again, what we are hearing…. We still have gaps of small businesses that are not able to access any of these programs. Some of the concerns that I have are that if you have no cash flow to even purchase your PPEs, to even get your business open….

[3:05 p.m.]

It’s not about tax deferrals. It’s not about looking three months ahead, that you can look at paying taxes and do your deferrals and your property tax and all of those pieces. Quite frankly, if we can’t get these businesses open safely and open so that they can start getting some cash flow into them, the reality is they’re going to become insolvent, and the consequences on workers in this province are going to be significant.

I recognize there is $1.5 billion. I recognize that the economic recovery task force is out there looking at a survey, for the next six weeks, to take in ideas. I am pleading with the minister to consider some type of fund or grant that could be provided to small businesses immediately — for those that just have fallen through the cracks, that need access right now to cash to get their doors open so that they can bring their workers back.

Again, I know that the member mentioned the wage subsidy program and some of the wage supplement pieces. Many of these small businesses have not been able to qualify for these programs.

Will the minister at least commit to raising the concern that there needs to be some thought, by this economic recovery task force, to have some cash provided to small businesses to get access to PPEs so that they can open their doors?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, again, I want to appreciate the concerns that you’re raising. We share those concerns, as I said before. Those are real. We need to do everything we can.

We have, like I said, demonstrated through our actions in the last three or four months that we want to be on the side of the businesses. We want to make sure that the workers’ rights and their benefits are protected. They’re struggling as well. Businesses are struggling.

I think everyone understands the concerns that are being raised here. My suggestion would be…. The economic recovery task force is the right place. These issues are discussed there. The representatives of businesses are at that table. The representatives of labour are there. NGOs are there. First Nations are there. Also, I gave some pathways on how to reach out to get the PPE.

Again, I think this issue probably best rests with the Minister of Finance and the economic recovery task force. My suggestion also would be to participate in the survey that is being conducted right now. How do we utilize that $1.5 billion? My suggestion would be to reach out to the survey and to make those suggestions. I’d encourage those small businesses to make those recommendations so that their voices are heard and so that the outcome is there that they are looking for.

C. Oakes: I do want to acknowledge that we have submitted multiple letters. Andrew Wilkinson has, of course, submitted that letter to the Premier, and I know chambers of commerce have recognized this as well.

I have a question here from the Prince George Chamber of Commerce specifically, and it sort of ties into what we’re hearing very clearly in the north.

[3:10 p.m.]

WorkSafe has created rules around individual verticals. However, these regulations do not add up when you cannot visit a small business and pick up a product to determine purchase, but this can be done in big businesses. How can we create a level playing field?

Hon. H. Bains: I think for clarity…. I would like the member to clarify exactly what she’s asking when she talks about how they have created individual verticals, and then how the comparisons are done between the small business and large businesses. So can you elaborate what, exactly, you are asking?

C. Oakes: As we rolled out with WorkSafe and the requirements that have been required for businesses in general, in many of our smaller communities, where many of us are industry towns, sometimes the same requirements that have been outlined and necessary to get open for large businesses are also applied to some of the smaller businesses, and they are completely different.

What we’re saying is, if there could be a review…. I mean, now we’re in phase 3. I recognize that these questions were submitted — these specifically — over the last few weeks. As we head into phase 3, I think that will work through the system.

We want to acknowledge that many of the businesses we’ve heard are wanting to make sure, and provide solid feedback to the government, that if we find ourselves going back into another unfortunate situation, where we have a relapse, and we find ourselves back in the situation, that there’s some kind of recognition that small businesses are much different than large businesses — if that can be acknowledged when we’re looking at rolling out the different phases.

Hon. H. Bains: I think if I get it correctly…. The member will correct me if I’m not going into the area that you’re asking me to go. You’re asking about the reopening of the economy and going through different phases — we were in phase 2, and now we’re going into phase 3 — and then the large businesses and how they reopen, based on WCB-created guidelines, compared to small, mom-and-pop operations. They are different. There should be flexibility.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m advised that there is that flexibility that exists currently. For example, the WCB will create guidelines that are sector specific. They’re also advised that within those sectors, each business is unique and different. They’re large. They’re small. Within those guidelines — which, by the way, are created with the help of the provincial health office — each business will create their own safety plan, working with their employees to make sure that they have a safety plan within the WCB guidelines that suits their business.

At the end of the day, Member, you would agree with me that people are fearful to go back to the businesses, fearful to go into the stores and patronize the places they used to go because of COVID-19 and the risk of health and safety. So my advice and my suggestion to all businesses — and I know the Premier and Dr. Henry have been very clear — that it is up to us.

It is up to the businesses to have a really sound safety plan that suits their needs for that business within the guidelines of the WCB, but then also to win the trust and confidence of the customers who need to be confident that when they patronize those businesses, their health and safety is protected. Then they will go there and they will do business there. And their workers will go to work as well, knowing that their health and safety is looked after.

We encourage them to post that so that people can see it. It’s transparency. I think we need to win those people back into the businesses. That’s the only way we’re going to succeed. We’re all in it together. And if small businesses…. If you have some real, specific issues, then bring it over to us, and we’ll see what we can do to help.

C. Oakes: Two specific examples — and I just ask that perhaps you look into that. In the oil and gas sector, we heard right across the board that there was some significant challenges around travel to and from worksites and what that looked like. So there was…. We are, again, getting some mixed messages from WorkSafe on what that looks like. Hopefully, that’s been resolved, but I wanted to recognize that, because I acknowledged that I would raise it.

The second piece actually came from three separate municipalities in my region. It’s around their public works yards that three different communities have been given different information on how they manage getting to and from worksites. There are three communities in the Cariboo. So again, one WorkSafe person will say one thing, and you go down to the next city, and they’re given different direction.

It’s just creating a lot of uncertainty, and, quite frankly, in the oil and gas sector, for example, it’s really driving up costs. We’re seeing major projects in our communities have a significant economic impact because of some of the WorkSafe rules that have been put in place that I’m not so sure…. It’s a not a brick-and-mortar business. These are….

Often when you look at the type of contractors, self-employed individuals and major projects that are in process, we’re driving up the costs. They’re just asking us to look at having some flexibility, and they just haven’t felt that they’ve had that to this point.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, Member. I think that there’s nothing normal anymore, as you know, with the challenges that we all face. So one thing that we did was…. I mean, there were some hiccups about the orders between the provincial health office and then the WCB — the jurisdictional issues, who was to enforce which rules. That has been ironed out.

Also, in general terms, Member, that the example that you have used…. WorkSafeBC — what they have done is, in conjunction with the provincial health office, created sector-specific guidelines. They are on their website. Each industry or each business within those sectors is advised to take those guidelines, create their own and modify them if they have to — but as long as they follow those guidelines — to suit their needs. I think that’s the general way of approaching this. Those guidelines are on the WorkSafeBC website.

Again, I think all of that…. We need to, I think, come back to one thing. We need to make sure that as we move from one phase to another, it is all to curb the spread of this virus. And then we go to the next phase only when we are successful in the first phase. I think that’s how we’re going to reach the final destination of opening up our economy.

I understand that there are challenges for businesses. There are challenges for WorkSafeBC. There are challenges for municipalities and others. But we’re working as we can to deal with those issues as we go through. So I think the best thing to do would be for those municipalities and those businesses to reach out to WorkSafeBC. The information is on the website. If they still need to contact someone at WorkSafeBC….

Take a look at the guidelines, make sure that your individual safety plan falls within those guidelines and how you actually are complying with them — that you’re able to justify it to the provincial health office and WorkSafe that those guidelines are being met.

C. Oakes: If there are discrepancies, what is the process? If somebody has gone through the safety plan and they’ve completed that and they’ve gone through their WorkSafe officer and they followed everything that was set out to do and they’re still having challenges and they are struggling between the health authorities and WorkSafe and they’re trying to navigate all of this — you know, the bureaucracy — where can they go? What is the next step? Is there somebody else that they can talk to, to resolve any discrepancy?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, there is a process in place in any event. First of all, I think we encourage all businesses and their employees to follow WorkSafeBC guidelines and the provincial health officer’s guidelines. If they are sure that they are doing everything that is asked of them under those guidelines and then they have some dispute or disagreement with the WorkSafeBC officer, they can go to that officer’s manager. If they’re not satisfied there, they can go to the senior level of management to deal with those issues.

I think we encourage them to solve them at the local level, because at the end of the day, it’s not about just rules for the sake of rules. It is about the health and safety of the workers. It is about the health and safety of that operation.

As I said before, if we lapse, if we take shortcuts, then what would happen is that there’s a risk of somebody bringing in the virus to the workplace and transmitting that to other workers, and then the entire operation is at risk. I think that we should not forget that. I think that should be the guiding principle: how are we preventing the transmission of this virus at the workplace?

Those guidelines are there to direct them, to help them, and inspectors are there to guide them as well. Again, if there are disputes, there’s that mechanism that I just mentioned.

C. Oakes: I’m now moving on to a second topic, which was, by far, the most singular topic that was raised by all small businesses. It’s the concern around the increase in the minimum wage at this time during COVID-19.

I think we would all acknowledge that we want a healthy, robust economy so that we can ensure that everyone has every access to be able to benefit from all of the incredible blessings that we have in the province of British Columbia. I went back and reviewed recently the Fair Wages Commission to understand a little bit better about the analysis that was made when the report was produced and the understandings that were based on how the economic analysis would support us looking at the increases in minimum wage.

I’m going to open with saying that I had the opportunity to sit the last time when we were the minister and looking at impacts around increasing small business, and we made those decisions. We clearly heard from the small business community what their views are. But we also listened to people and wanted to make sure that there weren’t unintended consequences.

I read in your report again that the modelling, the analysis and the research…. There was an acknowledgement in the report early on, in 2018, that no public policy exists without some unintended negative consequences and that the attempt of government, of course, is to minimize those negative consequences.

[3:30 p.m.]

The Fair Wages Commission was based on modelling that we had a very strong economy, that we were looking at it remaining stable and well able to support higher wages with little or the possibility of no negative employment effects. When you look at the economy from 2018 and you look at where we are today, my question is: what analysis and modelling was done in response to the situation that we are in with COVID-19 to make the decision to acknowledge that there will be unintended consequences with increasing minimum wage during COVID-19? Could you report to us what that analysis showed?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, important question, Member.

I am glad the member acknowledged that when we first came in, we appointed a Fair Wages Commission. There was the business community on it. There was a workers’ representative on it and a professor from UBC. They went around the province, listened to businesses, especially small businesses — the economists, the experts, the workers. They came back with those recommendations. It was very clear in their report that what they heard from small businesses was certainty. They would like to have a system where there are gradual, predictable increases so that they know what their costs are going to be so they could start to budget accordingly.

I think they laid out a four-year plan for us. If you read their report also, they said the economy was good. That’s why they were recommending that. I understand that part. They also said that the increase could even go higher in the last year, if the economy was better. But I think we’ve seen the COVID-19 hit us very hard.

Again, I want to say that the lowest-paid workers in this province need support now more than ever. I think small businesses need our support. That’s why there are programs to support the businesses, and there are programs to support the individuals and the workers. I mentioned before. The first thing that we did was we lowered the small business tax when we came in, and we also took PST on the non-residential electric yields.

There are a whole host of other programs that we brought in to help the businesses to send a clear message that the businesses are important. We want to create a business environment where businesses want to invest in B.C., grow their businesses and with the expectation of good return.

[3:35 p.m.]

On the other side, the expectation is that the workers also share that growing economy and that they are paid fairly as well.

Now, when we talk about the lowest-paid workers and how we provide certainty to these small businesses, this is the way to do it — have gradual predictable increases as we are going forward. Businesses, as I said before, because of COVID-19, have serious challenges, of course. The workers. I think: “Who are these workers that we are talking about?” These are the front-line workers right now. Many of them are not even working. Others are working as grocery store clerks and in health care. So they need support right now as well.

Businesses need support. That’s why we came up with the $5 billion plan — originally, out of that, $1.8 billion to give tax deferral and tax breaks to businesses to support them in a timely fashion. Like I said before, $700 million in tax cuts in property. That’s one of the highest levels of tax cuts to businesses in the history of this province. So I think government very seriously supports the businesses. At the same time, the lowest-paid workers in this province also need support.

Now, also understand, these are the workers that, with any increase in their wages, will invest in their own community and the businesses in those communities. So businesses will benefit, and they will have a few extra dollars to have a better life to pay for essentials to run their household. I think we’re all in it together, and everyone needs support. Businesses need support. We’re providing it to them. Individuals need support. We are standing on their side as well.

The federal government and the provincial government are working together to provide those supports in addition to what we are doing. We came in with the $5 billion to fill the gaps that the federal government may have left and the area that they didn’t cover. So I think, you know, we are all moving in the right direction — working with the businesses, working with the workers. It’s not one or the other. I think we all need to move in the same direction.

I think that’s the goal of this government — to have a balanced approach. I think that $1.5 billion, again, is available just to help business to restart their businesses and to start them safely and as soon as possible. I think we’re working hard, working with businesses. As we said, the economic recovery task force discussed those issues there. If we take a balanced approach and help each other out, I think we will get out of this much, much safer.

C. Oakes: Well, I hope the $1.5 billion is allocated to small businesses. I think it would certainly be a strong step in helping small business’ recovery, but as we know, that money has not been allocated at this point. It’s a survey that’s being sent out across the province over the next six weeks. People will be looking at ways that that fund will be spent.

My specific question around minimum wage is that analysis and modelling is done with the Fair Wages Commission. It identified that in the report — that there will be unintended consequences. There is research that has been done across the country, and it’s not….

Look. I’m not saying this is my view. I really wish…. From a philosophical perspective, Minister, I understand that championing need. The reality is that when you are in government, there are policies that you put in place that have consequences.

I am wondering: did you base the minimum wage increase on analysis? Because that analysis will demonstrate that it will significantly hurt young people. I don’t want to see young people have unintended consequences and be deeply impacted. The report identified that that was a risk we needed to look at. I know from research I have done when I was a minister and looked at that and talked to many people and looked at all the research.

There are three areas of concerns when you look at increasing minimum wage. They are that young people get impacted, women get impacted, and vulnerable populations get impacted. I am certain that there are either two answers. First, that the minister made the decision to increase the minimum wage, understanding that there are unintended consequences.

[3:40 p.m.]

You should be clear on that — that you understand there will be consequences, and that’s something that you’re willing to accept; or that a decision wasn’t made based on any type of analysis or modelling, that it was just moved forward because of timing. Either it was based on thorough analysis and modelling, which has traditionally been how the ministry manages these types of decisions, or no analysis was done, so which one was it?

The Chair: While the minister is considering his answer, talking to his advisers, I’ll just say for the benefit of the public that we are, right now, reviewing the budget and spending of each ministry. We were working on Education this morning. This is now the Labour Minister who’s answering questions from the opposition.

It goes slowly because the answers are considered. But if you are finding this as gripping as we are, you can tune in again starting July 9. Every Thursday and Friday, all of July, you can watch government in action.

The other thing I’ll say while I’ve interrupted is just a reminder to members to keep the word “you” out of both your questions and responses and to direct your questions through the Chair.

Hon. H. Bains: Member, as you know…. You have read the report from the Fair Wages Commission. They did the analysis, and they looked at the consequences of raising the minimum wage — what the consequences would be. There’s always acknowledgment that there may be some consequences, but take a look. Since we implemented their recommendations, you see, if anything, an increase in employment in British Columbia. I think you see the economy continue to grow in British Columbia — it led the country — and the lowest unemployment in the country.

What the analysis has also done…. What the businesses want is certainty. They need predictable, gradual increases every year so that they can adapt to the additional costs. Again, we made the decision that during COVID-19, businesses need support, so we provided them support, as I mentioned before. We also understand that individuals need support, so we are working on that area as well. One of them is to continue to raise the minimum wage to keep with the recommendation of the Fair Wages Commission and also to understand that the needs of the lowest-paid workers also are there.

This debate, if you go back years…. This debate is always there — what impact raising the minimum wage has on employment and on the economy. You’ll have an economic report that says it’s devastating. You’ll have economic reports that say it’s had an insignificant impact. In fact, when we were considering the report at that time, 50 very renowned economists put a letter together, all across Canada. Seven of those economists were from three very key universities in B.C. They all put a letter together. They said in their letter that there’s no relation to job losses and business closure with raising the minimum wage.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think there are analyses available. This particular time or challenging time…. These are unprecedented times, and I think decisions are being made based on the current needs. We’re supporting businesses so that they can restart their businesses, get back to close to normal, as they were. All that support is there, $1.5 million, in addition to what we have already done. At the same time, workers and individuals also need support. I think that’s how we made those decisions.

C. Oakes: The minister acknowledges that decisions were made in 2018 under much different economic circumstances. My question was clearly what modelling the minister has done, over the last two months, to understand the consequences of the decisions that he has made.

What are you going to say to the young person, that woman who is vulnerable, or that vulnerable population who now finds themselves in a situation where they no longer have a job? I recognize that there are programs right now for workers that might last a few months, but what happens next? What happens after these programs run out? What are people to do?

I’m speaking on behalf of the workers. I’m pleading on behalf of our young people who are out there, who desperately want to make sure they have a job to go back to. The minister has heard, through multiple letters…. Multiple information has been provided through both the minister, the economic councils, about the challenges that will happen. If small businesses become insolvent, then the deepest cuts will happen to young people, to women and to people in vulnerable situations.

I heard the minister earlier acknowledge the fact that the hospitality sector, the retail sector, the accommodation sector are significantly challenged right now. He mentioned it. He mentioned that small businesses are impacted right now.

What I am trying to understand is what analysis was done so that he clearly can articulate — or at least, be honest to British Columbians — that he knew full well that there would be unintended consequences for young people, for women and vulnerable persons if they move forward with the increase of minimum wage?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, I think we canvassed this thing for quite some time already. But let me say this again. The relation to job loss, economic growth and minimum wage increase, as I said, was canvassed and analyzed by the Fair Wages Commission. They came back with a recommendation based on what they heard and also their own research — came back with recommendations. I think it’s the right path to continue on, to go with gradual, predictable increases for businesses to give them the certainty that they need, that they asked for. That’s why we’re doing it.

[3:50 p.m.]

Even now, if you take a look, we are trying to help the businesses to stand on their feet again, to restart the economy, restart their businesses by coming up with all those different programs that I mentioned. At the same time, people need money in their pockets so that they can invest in those businesses. If people don’t have money in their pockets, businesses cannot rely on the investment from people. I think we need to seriously look at where we are going with this.

The member will know that some of the lowest-paid workers are grocery store workers. Their employer agreed to pay them additional money during COVID-19. The federal government came in and also paid the front-line workers more money.

Also, when you take a look at the CERB money that is given to people, it’s all to put money in peoples’ pockets so that they can make a living and, at the same time, invest that money in their local businesses that are operating and which will be starting to operate so that they can buy their product and buy their services. I think we need to enable those people to make sure that they’re able to cater to those businesses.

That’s why we’re going with this. I think it’s the right thing to do. The lowest-paid workers need support now, just like businesses and others do. I think it’s a balanced approach, and I think it’s the right approach.

C. Oakes: To the minister: I do thank you for your answer. Again, I’ve seen the analysis. I know that you keep going back to 2018, but I also recognize that the research was based on strong economic times. I’ve also seen research, when we were looking at this. So we, as a government, when we were going through this, could clearly understand unintended consequences on decisions that we made, on the policies that we were making.

We understood, again, and the minister has acknowledged, that there are unintended consequences to decisions that governments make. Based on the fact that we know that young people are going to be very much hurt right now by COVID-19…. We know that women are going to be impacted very much right now by COVID-19, and people who are vulnerable.

The mass majority of small businesses in the province of British Columbia, over 400,000, are under five employees. If they have the opportunity to reopen…. We canvassed this earlier. Many small businesses do not have the cash to reopen. They have not been able to access any of the programs that have been allocated by the provincial or federal government. They need cash in order to get the PPEs up, in order that they can open the doors, so that they can have their staff back in. If they become insolvent and they go bankrupt, then, again, that’s going to desperately hurt a significant portion of the workers that you’ve recognized.

I guess my last question…. The minister knows what the unintended consequences are. I’m going to continue to fight for the workers who are in that category, whether they’re young people, whether they’re women, whether they’re people who are vulnerable, because I think it’s our job to be doing that. I’m going to continue do that, because I worry that there will be unintended consequences, based on information when the economies go poor.

The second thing. I’m going to fight for small businesses, because if we do not have funds and cash that we can provide to small businesses — taxpayers, job creators in the province of British Columbia…. If they can’t reopen, our communities are going to be changed forever, because then it becomes a whole different conversation from government. How are you going to support all these sports teams now that the community used to support? How are you going to support all of the search and rescue, the fire rescue, the volunteer fire departments and all of those organizations that the small business sector used to support?

Unless we get this right, unless we figure out how we can have a mix…. I recognize that $1.5 billion was put forward, and I appreciate the fact that the minister keeps raising that. We’ve not heard clearly how that money has the possibility of helping both small businesses and those people who have fallen through the cracks, to make sure that there is a small business open that that young person can go back to, that that woman can go back to that small business, that that vulnerable individual can go back to that business.

Will the minister consider creating a small business resiliency fund to assist during the recovery, to make sure our small businesses have cash in hand so that they can make sure that they are able to bring back their workers who are most vulnerable?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I just want to say this. We are going through some unprecedented times. We all acknowledge that. At least I know in my lifetime that I’ve never seen the situation that we’re going through right now, and I was born a long time ago. I can tell you that I think even if I go to my parents’ generation, you probably wouldn’t see a significant impact on humans and on the economy as we’re going through today, even in their lifetime. So I think in a long time….

We are going through some really challenging times, and we all understand that. That’s why everyone is working together — the government, the businesses, the workers and ordinary folks out there, retirees and NGOs. They’re all working together to help each other so that we can get out of this together and be better when we get out of this.

Challenging times right now? Of course. But more challenging times are coming, going forward. Dr. Henry has explained to us very clearly that history will tell you that when there are pandemics like this, the higher chances are that there will be a second wave. We need to prepare ourselves for that.

I think when we are talking about supporting each other, it’s not supporting one on the back of the other. I think we are a government that listens. That’s why we are consulting again on that $1.5 billion. Then we will see what the needs are of the businesses and of the families. Then we can put those programs together. The workers need protection as well. People need money in their pocket. So we are doing all those things.

Having said that, of course more needs to be done. Everyone — our ministry, WorkSafeBC, the employment standards branch and others — is working together to help us help the workers, help the businesses to navigate through this tough time.

Now, the member asked to put together a model based on resiliency, a task force. My suggestion is that that isn’t part of my ministry or a mandate that I can fulfil. The member should take this up with the Ministry of Finance, because I think a lot of decisions are coming on that $1.4 billion.

I know your side, Member, and others have said that sometimes we consult too much. But this is a government that listens. We listen, and then we respond in a timely fashion, because we believe that’s the right model of governance. We’re going to continue on that path — listen, consult and then develop policies, put people in the middle to develop policies, Member, because people are the economy, as the Premier always said, and the economy is people. I think both of them have to be part of that equation for success, and that’s the direction we’re going.

J. Martin: Thank you to my colleague from Cariboo North, and thank you to the minister for his responses.

I’m just going to carry on in a similar vein for a few more questions before we return to issues around workers compensation. But while we’re on the topic, can the minister provide us with any further updates on the work of the Fair Wages Commission?

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

We’re going to have a ten-minute recess. We’ll see you back here shortly.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think it has gone very smoothly up until now, and we’re expecting nothing less. I have high hopes.

A question was asked: what is the update on the Fair Wages Commission? We gave them a mandate at that time to come up with a recommendation on how we increase minimum wage in this province. The second piece was for them to come up with a recommendation on how we deal with the discrepancy between the minimum wage and the living wage. The Fair Wages Commission still is continuing on that part of the task. We will get their report, hopefully, later this year. Once that recommendation comes, then we will make that public.

J. Martin: I appreciate that, Minister. You’ve already answered the next follow-up question that I was prepared for.

In previous years, the minister has emphasized the importance of consultation regarding the minimum wage. But in light of these extraordinary times, were further consultations made before the government eventually did decide to follow through with the scheduled June 1 increase?

Hon. H. Bains: As the member full well knows, this question has been extensively canvassed by the member for Cariboo North. I think I would repeat some of the answer that I gave. When the Fair Wages Commission was consulting, they did a very thorough job. They listened to economists. They listened to workers and small businesses and did their own research. As I’ve said, there were very esteemed members on that board.

They came back with their recommendations. What they advised us was that what businesses, especially small businesses, wanted was certainty — that there is a gradual increase so that they can predict what their cost is going to be. I think that’s why those recommendations were made — to gradually increase the minimum wage to $15.20 over four years. Year after year, we’ve been implementing those.

For now, yes, we are going through some challenging times due to COVID-19. I have said this before and explained this before, that we were very quick to react after listening to businesses. That’s why the $5 billion package was brought in to give support to families and to businesses.

[4:15 p.m.]

Out of that, $1.8 billion was for businesses, in tax deferrals, tax cuts and, working with the federal government, the wage subsidy, 75 percent. Then we take a look at the WCB, in supporting premium deferrals and waiving premiums for certain employers. We also extended the temporary layoff, first to 16 weeks, now to August 30. We’re doing everything we can to support local businesses.

At the same time, we do realize — I know that our federal counterparts understand as well — that we need to put money in people’s pockets during these tough times. It’s money that they will be investing in businesses in their own communities, money that they will be using to get by on, for the daily needs of their families, their children.

We are taking a balanced approach. Yes, we heard from the businesses. Some were saying: “Postpone the mini­mum wage by six months.” Others were saying: “Don’t increase minimum wage.” But we heard also that we should continue to provide this certainty to the employers and to the businesses and that the workers need. Especially the lowest-paid workers in B.C. need the support now more than ever. These are people that will be spending, almost entirely, all of their increase in wages in businesses in their own communities.

I think it’s a win-win situation. We’re all in it together. This virus does not differentiate between the worker and the business; it hits them both. Workers are losing jobs; their friends are losing jobs. Their families are not working, and they’re worried about the health and safety of their members. They are worried about…. Some of them actually have seen deaths in their families.

Businesses also are hurting. When you look at it from both sides, we listen and we hear them. We thought this was the right decision to make: that we support the lowest-paid workers and, at the same time, that we provide support to the businesses — which we’ve done. I have listed all those different areas of support for businesses.

J. Martin: At this point, I welcome my colleague from Vancouver-Langara to the conversation.

M. Lee: I would like to take our line of questioning back to WorkSafe. We were looking before at the principles around…. Certainly, when we have employees who get sick on the job, we all agree that we need to ensure that there is appropriate compensation for those employees.

I’d just like to ask the minister to comment on what leadership the minister and the Premier have taken in respect to the COVID-19 presumption.

Hon. H. Bains: As the member full well knows, WorkSafeBC works at arm’s length and is independent of the minister and the government, under the act that is enacted by the government. Their main mandate is to protect the health and safety of the workers and to have sufficient funds to make sure that past, current and future claims are paid, that there are sufficient funds in there.

From time to time, they make decisions. At this particular time, they made a decision, due to the pandemic that we’re all facing and that the workers are facing. They also heard of cases where workers were going to work sick and transmitting the virus to other workers. That was a threat to the health and safety of workers at the workplace.

They decided that they want to turn this into a presumptive approach. For workers who become sick at the workplace, their claims are processed in a timely fashion so that they don’t have to go through the process of proving that it’s work-related — it is presumed to be work-related — and that they get the support that they need.

[4:20 p.m.]

They stay home during the time that they are recovering. The workers at the workplace — the other workers — are protected, and these workers’ claims are taken care of in a timely fashion.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara, do you have another question?

M. Lee: Yes, I do. Mr. Chair, I do have a series of questions here just on this particular topic.

Minister, were there discussions between yourself and the Premier about what WorkSafeBC potentially could do in terms of a COVID-19 presumption?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, we had discussions about this issue.

M. Lee: When did those discussions take place?

Hon. H. Bains: As the member knows, COVID-19 hit us early this year. There were always concerns about the health and safety of government employees and the health and safety of workplaces. WorkSafeBC was doing their own things in order to be proactive, to provide help and support to the workers who were becoming sick at workplaces due to this COVID. They started to put a process together to fast-track those claims.

M. Lee: I just wanted to walk back to one of your previous responses in terms of the appropriate nature of the minister’s role and WorkSafeBC and their board. Can you just describe the arm’s-length nature that you maintain with that board?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, first, my role is to appoint…. It’s my responsibility to appoint the board at WorkSafe. The board works within the confines of the Workers Compensation Act, which is enacted by legislation. Annually, they develop a service plan and annual report, and they give you a high-level report of their working. And that’s my relationship with them.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. How often would the minister be meeting with that board?

Hon. H. Bains: Since I was appointed minister, I’ve had two meetings with the full board. And I do get quarterly updates through the chair of the board.

M. Lee: Thank you. I’m just trying to get an understanding, of course, and I appreciate the responses. I understand that the minister…. Presumably, he has some recollection of this.

On April 29, there was a Surrey Board of Trade event, a town hall, and you made statements at the town hall regarding the following. I can read the quote out to you, just because it gives the context for this discussion:

“The Premier and I met with, along with my deputy minister…. We met with WCB to see how they can help us in this particular area. If someone acquired, you know, COVID out of work, what is WCB’s response to do that?

“So the WCB board met, and they prioritized the situation and said: ‘Look, if they are impacted by COVID-19 at work, they file a claim, and then we will look at it. If we can make it as a presumptive, you know, they don’t have to prove going to the doctor, getting a note, and then the claim will be accepted.’”

Minister, I believe that’s consistent with your understanding as to the board’s response and putting priority on COVID presumption. Is that your understanding in terms of your meeting with the board, with the Premier and your deputy?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, we had discussions with the board. I must tell you that the board advised me on April 20 that they are initiating this initiative to consider the COVID-19 illness as presumptive. We also wanted, as we were talking about reopening the economy, to see what role WCB can play in helping us in creating the guidelines for the industry.

At the same time, what are we doing? COVID-19 hit us from nowhere, and we wanted to know what is going on with the workers who are becoming ill at the workplace and also workers who go to work sick and transmit the virus to other workers. As you know, in a couple of cases, factories had to shut down as a result of that.

We were all concerned about what’s going on. That discussion took place with the CEO and the chair of the board, and we got the update from them. In the meantime, they were already working on the presumptive clause to include COVID-19 as presumptive.

M. Lee: So your discussion, then, with the Premier and the deputy minister present with the CEO and the board chair, took place before or after April 20?

Hon. H. Bains: I believe our meeting was April 22. That was after the board advised us that they were moving ahead on COVID presumption to deal with the pandemic that we are facing at workplaces. So that discussion and a number of other issues were discussed. How are we going to help each other? What role can WCB play? We needed to make sure that we’re all moving in the right direction and that in the areas that are of concern to move and restart the economy, all the pieces are there. We just wanted to get the information on what every one of us [audio interrupted].

M. Lee: Just in terms of this meeting…. I appreciate that we’re hearing from the minister that there’s obviously lots of concern in terms of worker safety. We all understand the importance of that in the face of COVID-19. What level of preparatory work was done by the minister and the Premier and the deputy in terms of other initiatives, let’s say, that the board could be taking in this time?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: We were going through, as the member would appreciate, something that we never experienced before, that our institution has never experienced before. The provincial health officer and that office were working on one side. How do we protect the health and safety of people in this province, including the workplaces? WorkSafe also has a mandate to make sure that the health and safety at workplaces of the workers is a number one priority. So there are two jurisdictions.

We wanted to make sure that they’re working together to come up with the safety guidelines for a reopening of the economy, that they can work together. We just wanted to know how closely they’re working with each other so that they could develop the guidelines, sector-specific, which they did.

Then we were able to start the economy during phase 2, and now we’re moving to phase 3, so I think that work continues. And I think that’s what our major concern was — how WorkSafeBC and the provincial health office can work together to provide us the guidelines that the workers need and, in public, we need.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. When did the minister get informed of the decision by the board on April 20? When would the minister have been informed of that decision?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, I can tell you this — that the board met on the 16th. They made that decision at that meeting. Then later, they advised me, so I came to know on the 20th that they are moving in that direction. Those are the timelines.

M. Lee: I appreciate that these are unusual times and that government must move quickly — with everything that the government had to deal with. I’m just trying to gain a better understanding here in terms of this area of great importance. So I appreciate that response.

If I could ask a few more questions in this area, Mr. Chair. Was the board aware of any interest by the Premier or the minister in a COVID-19 presumption before they made their decision on April 16?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I think it’s important to understand that the board works independent of the minister. In this particular case, they, again, made a decision independent of the minister. As I said, on the 16th of April, they decided on their own to deal with this pandemic that we were all facing. How to protect the health and safety of the workers? They made that decision on the 16th. Then they advised us that they are moving in that direction.

I believe that they were proactive, and I think it was a timely decision that they made. And I think many workers benefitted from it.

M. Lee: Just to clarify, the minister is effectively saying that the board made the decision on April 16 and then informed the minister on April 20. So the actual decision was made on the 16th. Is that correct?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The board made the decision on the 16th to proceed with that approach. But on the 20th, they decided to fast-track it, because the normal course takes time, and they wanted to deal with this in a timely fashion because circumstances were changing. Workplaces were changing, and people were getting sick. So they made that decision to fast-track it, and that decision was made on the 20th.

M. Lee: Thank you for that clarification as well. Just one other point in terms of what was happening in April. When we look back, so much, of course, has happened since the start of this pandemic.

I understand that the B.C. Federation of Labour, in a news release which was disseminated on April 8, indicated that they had written a letter to the provincial government urging them to act quickly on a COVID-19 presumption. Can the minister share with us more details or elaborate further on that letter itself?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, we received that letter, and they raised that issue in their letter. But also their letter…. If you could look at the letter, it was cc’d to the chair of the WCB board as well.

During these tough times, Member, as you know, we get correspondence from all kinds of different stakeholders, different people, businesses, workers and others who are concerned about COVID-19, especially workplaces and the health and safety of workers. Individual workers were reaching out, and many talked about paid sick leave. Many talked about a number of other issues that were raised that were related to COVID-19, and they were really worried. But on that particular letter, coming back to your question, yes, they raised that issue with us, but they also sent that letter to the chair of the board.

M. Lee: Thank you. I appreciate that response.

In receipt of that letter, was there any communication between the minister or the government with the board?

Hon. H. Bains: In reference to that letter, no.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Were there any other stakeholders that the government heard from about COVID presumption?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, there was correspondence we received from individuals and from organizations. Some were cc’d to us. What our response to all of them was: that WorkSafe has taken this initiative on their own, and they’re going through the consultative process. We directed them anytime that we could to participate in the WCB process of consultation.

M. Lee: Certainly, we will talk about the consultation process, as short as it was. But just before we go on from this, I was looking, really, for any confirmation of stakeholder communications, let’s say, to the government about the need for putting in place a COVID-19 presumption before the board made their decision on April 16.

Hon. H. Bains: Member, we received correspondence before the 16th and after the 16th advocating for presumption, then we also received correspondence from some stakeholders suggesting that the board should not go through the presumption.

I think we received letters from both sides, but we directed them to the board. It was a board decision. They made it on their own to deal with the pandemic and the emergency that we’re all facing. They heard from the stakeholders. They also — after they made their decision — went for consultation so that the stakeholders and others could have their input as well.

M. Lee: Just one other question on this particular set of questions. Can I ask…? The minister mentioned earlier that in some of the responses to the stakeholders, there was an indication from government that the board was looking and examining a COVID-19 presumption. Can the minister inform us as to the minister’s knowledge when that consideration began?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The board made their decision on their own. After they made the decision, then I was advised that that was the direction they were going. They may have received correspondence and suggestions from stakeholders. I have no idea. It was the board’s decision, and it was a decision that they made and they believed was the right decision for that particular time to deal with this emergency that everyone is facing.

M. Lee: Am I to understand, then, that prior to April 16, before the board made the decision, that the minister was not aware of any consideration by the board of pursuing or evaluating a COVID-19 presumption?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, to the best of my recollection, I was not aware. Actually, when I was advised that they were making that decision, that was news to me. They had made a decision based on what they felt was the right thing to do at that particular time to deal with the emergency that our society was facing.

M. Lee: Just in terms of the nature of COVID-19, there is a review that has been done and documentation by the board in terms of claims that have been adjudicated or are under review by the board through the COVID-19 pandemic. Can the minister describe for us the process for which these claims are being adjudicated to date?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, claims submitted for potential COVID-19 contracted through work-related exposure are adjudicated case by case right now. Claims are allowed when there is sufficient evidence to establish that the worker has COVID-19 and that the risk of contracting the disease in the workplace was significantly higher than the risk to the public at large.

Currently the presumption is not in place. They are processing those claims on a case-by-case basis, just like any other workplace injury or illness. I think right now they need to have evidence, and based on evidence, the claims are processed.

I am advised that around 600 claims have been filed. I think the acceptance rate is between 55 and 60 percent.

M. Lee: I see a schedule on page 10 of the discussion paper which WorkSafeBC has developed, dated May 29, 2020. It has a table which is very consistent with the minister’s response. As at May 27, the number of claims, in total, was 514.

I would like to ask the minister: since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, has the minister been receiving regular reporting on the number of claims relating to COVID-19 that WorkSafeBC is receiving?

Hon. H. Bains: The member, I think, will know that WorkSafe put the claims received on their website. I get the update as well, similarly, through my ministry.

M. Lee: With the regular updates, then, that the minister is receiving and monitoring on the WorkSafeBC website, did the minister or his team have any concern regarding the numbers of claims that were coming forward and the ability of WorkSafeBC to process those claims?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Of course. We were going through a pandemic. It was impacting workplaces as well, and that, through WorkSafe, concerns me and the government as well. We as a government, as an employer…. It is a concern that our employees were also being impacted by COVID-19.

I never was concerned about WorkSafeBC’s capacity to handle these claims in a timely fashion. I think they are fully equipped, as you can see. They are even moving proactively to prepare themselves and to deal with the pandemic that is before us.

I would say that, of course, I’m concerned but not concerned about WorkSafeBC’s ability to process those claims in a timely fashion.

M. Lee: Certainly, like my colleagues have acknowledged during this estimates process, we do recognize the important role that WorkSafe and WCB, and all of the staff, have been playing in all of this and in dealing with this great challenge facing us all.

I hear in the minister’s response that, just to confirm…. Is there any backlog in terms of how these claims are being dealt with?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, there is no backlog, I’m advised. If there are some claims that haven’t been finalized or processed, it is due to the fact that they are waiting for more information to be received to finalize those claims or process those claims to the next level.

M. Lee: This table, which I’m sure the minister is familiar with, gives the various categories that the minister referred to, which includes allowed, disallowed, no adjudication required, pending, rejected and suspended. It breaks it out into the various sectors. So the data is very important, certainly, in the way that it is being produced. To acknowledge, of course, that….

When you look at the 339 occupations from which employees are filing claims, many of them, of course…. We all recognize and support the efforts of front-line workers. They include registered nurses; nursing aides; social and community service workers; LPNs, licensed practical nurses; firefighters; police officers; paramedics; respiratory therapists; and the like.

I certainly recognize the importance of ensuring that their claims are being dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Again, the minister has confirmed a few times now that, in his view, that’s occurring.

I recognize the complexity of COVID-19, the immediacy of the ongoing challenge and how medical practitioners and experts all over the world still do not have a full handle on the nature of this virulent disease. With the adjudication process, what role does contact tracing play in the way that these claims are being adjudicated?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the guideline that WorkSafe uses is that any illness or injury is compensable that is work-related and arises during the course of employment. I think that’s what the worker will be able to provide — that information, the evidence that they have that illness and that they contracted it at a workplace. That’s how their claims are processed.

M. Lee: I appreciate the complexity of that analysis that WorkSafe needs to do on a case-by-case basis with each worker.

Just to ask the minister, in terms of what is…? Certainly for claims that have been adjudicated to have occurred through exposure in the workplace, those that have been awarded and allowed — at the time, 186 out of 514 as of the end of May — that was the case.

I would like to ask: what is the minister’s sense of the ability to make that determination of COVID-19 transmission — whether it’s through the community or through the workplace?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, looking at that chart, a number of claims were filed by those members who felt that they contracted this disease at a workplace. Some of them got accepted; others got rejected.

It’s all case by case, based on the evidence presented to the board. They adjudicate those cases. That’s their mandate. It’s not the minister’s role to participate in that process. That’s why WorkSafeBC has a process in place, and they go claim by claim, as I said, based on the evidence before them.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response, Minister.

The guiding test that the minister had given earlier in terms of the determination…. I see it, below the table, repeated. Just to read into the discussion here, to restate it, “Claims are allowed when there is sufficient evidence to establish that the worker has COVID-19,” and meets the policy requirement that “the risk in the workplace was significantly higher than the ordinary exposure risk.”

Certainly, just going to the other column, for discussion purposes with the minister, of the 514 claims that were made, 153 were disallowed. To the minister, would it be the minister’s understanding that these claims that were disallowed were on the assessment and conclusion that the worker did not contract COVID-19 from the workplace or exposure in the workplace?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As I said, WorkSafe makes all those decisions on how they adjudicate and what is considered based within the guidelines that they have themselves. Now here is what I would give to the member: how the claims are allowed and disallowed. Claims are typically disallowed when there is insufficient evidence to establish that the worker has COVID-19 based on the testing or symptom clusters and/or a worker went off work strictly as a preventative measure and did not develop symptoms.

They have their own criteria of how they adjudicate and determine whether it’s a work-related illness or it is not or there is sufficient evidence to prove it’s work-related or not. That’s how they adjudicate those claims, not only just with COVID-19 but other illnesses and injuries as well.

M. Lee: I would like to ask one more question about adjudication to the minister as to whether the minister agrees, then, that WorkSafeBC is doing a good job in ensuring that those workers who should get coverage are getting coverage because of COVID-19.

Hon. H. Bains: Member, the board constantly is looking at how they can improve the service to the workers and to the employers and then how they can deliver their mandate to ensure that the workers’ health and safety are protected, employers are supported to run their operations safely and the claims are processed in a timely fashion. I think that the same thing is happening here. Just like other claims, people file claims, and people file claims for COVID-19 illness, and they are processed on a case-by-case basis, just like other claims, and decisions are made.

WorkSafe is the place where they can…. We can actually say that, overall, WorkSafeBC is doing a pretty good job when it comes to dealing with claims filed by injured workers.

[5:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Just to acknowledge, when the minister gave his response to the previous question about those who are not approved, certainly through this government and the federal government, whether it’s unpaid sick leave or paid sick leave, there are mechanisms in place and to be in place that would provide some coverage for those workers who are denied coverage under this adjudication process. Can the minister comment on whether the minister sees any gaps in that coverage for those who are not being approved?

Hon. H. Bains: I think everyone recognized that a sick leave provision not available to workers was considered to be a gap. That’s why our Premier was very consistent in pushing the federal government to have some sort of paid sick leave available to workers so they don’t go to work when they show flu-like symptoms. I’m happy that the federal government responded.

Now they’re working with the provincial governments to work out details on how to implement their program. The Premier was very clear, as well, that they don’t want to add another burden onto the employers, who are already hurting. I think that was one part, and it’s being dealt with.

On the other side, there are a number of other federal and provincial programs to help not only people who are suffering from COVID-19 but many other different people. WorkSafeBC also, I think proactively — as we have canvassed this — looked at this particular disease that the workers may contract at workplaces…. How do you process those claims in an expedited manner or in a timely fashion?

I think when you’re looking at different places, there are challenges. Any time when you’re looking at a new disease that is introduced, for the workplace to consider that they believe is work-related, they need to look at ways to consider the signs, to consider the research, and then they make those decisions. But they make those decisions on their own.

M. Lee: Thank you, again, to the minister for that response.

When the minister looks at the decision by WorkSafeBC to move forward with the COVID-19 presumption, what is the minister’s understanding as to the need to add COVID-19 to schedule 1? Typically, in view of our discussion today that WorkSafeBC is able to continue to process, have the resources available to deal with the claims that have come in to date, that there are other ways in which workers are being supported — for example, in paid sick leave by the federal government — where does the minister see the need for adding a COVID-19 presumption to schedule 1?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think we canvassed this before. My only response to that even now is that WorkSafeBC, under their mandate, are looking at how to serve the workers — those who are injured and who become ill at workplaces. At any given time, they make decisions. They change policies and regulations on their own to deal with the circumstances of the day.

This particular time they believed that there were a number of claims coming in this particular area. We were going through a pandemic emergency. You know, I think I commend them for looking at it from a proactive approach so that they were prepared in order to deal with this pandemic.

So claims come. They are adjudicating them on a claim-by-claim basis. I think that what the board…. You know, the consultations ended June 12. What the board’s next steps are, based on the consultation…. I think the board will make that decision.

M. Lee: There are a number of questions that stem out of that response. I appreciate that.

First of all, in terms of…. And appreciate, to the minister, that the reason why I’m asking these questions…. To date, in our discussion, there’s been a lot of good acknowledgement for the efforts of WorkSafeBC in this troubled time. But from a governance perspective, there are a few points to consider.

One is that, as stated on page 12 of the May 29 discussion paper, there is an indication at the bottom of that page that there is a policy of the board that states: “The board of directors may add a disease to schedule 1 along with the corresponding process or industry where scientific and medical evidence establishes there is a substantially greater incidence of a particular disease in a particular employment than there is in the general population.” So that is what the minister referred to earlier in terms of the board’s mandate and what WorkSafeBC needs to operate within.

[5:30 p.m.]

Keeping in mind that that is the policy of the board — that in order to add a disease to schedule 1, there needs to be scientific and medical evidence that establishes a substantially greater incidence of that particular disease — to the minister’s knowledge, what scientific and medical evidence has been established that that is the case?

Hon. H. Bains: Once again, I want to go back to my earlier answer — that the board decided, in their own wisdom, that we were going through a pandemic, that there was a public emergency. Claims were coming from workplaces, related to COVID-19.

As everyone else was caught off guard, everyone else was trying to prepare for the worst as all different institutions and governments and institutes within government were looking at how we deal with this. No one knew where this was going to end up, how serious it was going to be.

The board, I think to their credit, were looking at how to deal with this issue. In case there were so many claims or a number of claims, how do they deal with them? They decided to go this route, and they are doing their due diligence. I expect them to do their due diligence. Now they’re going through the consultation process, and based on the consultation input that they receive, they will be making a decision.

I think I will leave it up to the board to decide what the right thing is to do, given the circumstances.

M. Lee: I’m just raising to the minister’s attention factors that I would expect the minister would be considering in terms of the conduct and governance activities of the WorkSafe board. When the minister speaks about due diligence, in this report, it indicates that the policy, regulation and research division, PRRD, was directed on April 20 to amend schedule 1 and to conduct what was an expedited basis review of the underlying scientific research and medical research relating to COVID-19.

That review, as I understand it, typically would take 18 to 24 months, and there would be a full review of the research, as well as an understanding by WorkSafeBC as to the kinds of claims that it is seeing from claimants and developing that institutional knowledge to evaluate that. Well, that whole process was accelerated.

[5:35 p.m.]

Now, I appreciate, again, the challenge of COVID-19 and that we all have to work fast in the response at all levels of government and in our communities. But when we’re talking about making a change of this nature, particularly when the adjudication process has been operating on a case-by-case basis in the way the minister described, I need to question why it is that the board decided to accelerate the review of the medical research.

Perhaps I could first ask the minister, or next ask the minister, as to whether he has any concern about the acceleration and the brief nature of the review in which…. Rather than do a full review, that group, that department, did a rapid review, which I’ll talk about further in a moment.

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I just want to remind you: not only here in British Columbia, not only just WorkSafeBC, all across the world, all levels of governments are doing something that they’ve never done before. No one knew what they were getting into — how hard this COVID-19 would hit them, how to respond to that.

There are laws on the books that must be balanced, and books must be balanced. But all that is being changed. Decisions are being made based on what we have today. The industry, the economy and people are impacted by COVID-19.

You know, WorkSafeBC is no different. They are reacting to ensure that they are in a place to deal with the issues that come as a result of COVID-19. They’re doing their level best to make sure that they are equipped, that they can deal with this pandemic, especially work-related, and that they could deal with this.

I’m going to leave it to the board that they will do their due diligence. They know what their mandate is. They have gone through the consultation process. I’m sure that what the member is bringing here, they have been reminded of through the consultation process. They will consider all of that, and then they’ll make their decision.

I don’t know what their decision is going to be at the end of the day. So we’ll wait until they make that decision.

M. Lee: I appreciate that the understanding the minister is communicating is that there is still some process to remain here in the way that decisions have been made. But from the time that we spent here in estimates going over the timeline, WorkSafeBC’s board has moved very fast — faster than any other jurisdiction in Canada. No other jurisdiction in Canada has gone to this step. There are some, as I understand it, states in the U.S. that have put in place a COVID-19 presumption, but it’s not, from my understanding, as broad of an approach that WorkSafeBC is currently mandating to its various divisions.

I heard the minister’s response on timing, but perhaps I can just go to the next item of concern. What is set out in the summary on page 2 of this rapid review is a review based on “limited analytic research currently available.”

I appreciate, again, because COVID-19 has hit the world in such a rapid nature, that as I mentioned earlier, there is still more understanding to come about the nature of the disease and how it affects us all physiologically and otherwise. But the conclusion is, and I just wanted to state it here, that “there is no strong evidence of a consistent association between workers in a specific occupation and a significantly greater risk of COVID-19, SARS and the H1N1 infection.”

[5:40 p.m.]

We can come back to the latter two in a moment. But this report itself that went to the board communicates that there is no scientific and medical evidence to suggest that there’s a greater risk or association between workers and their specific occupations in the workplace. So in the absence of that evidence, I fail to see how the board could reach a decision that meets and adheres to its own policy that that linkage must be demonstrated.

Again, does the minister have any concern in respect as to how this board is determining moving forward with COVID-19 in the absence of that scientific evidence?

Hon. H. Bains: Let me say this, Member. The board, as I said, makes decisions at arm’s length from the minister. I expect them to continue to do that. They made a decision to move in this direction, and they are following their process. They will consider all the areas of concern that the member is raising. They haven’t made a decision yet. They will be making that decision once they have all that information.

I’m not concerned that the board is making decisions on their own to deal with an emergency that our society is facing right now, especially at workplaces. We have seen the COVID-19 outbreaks in certain workplaces. You know that. They need to be prepared. They need to see what’s the best way to deal with that pandemic right now that we are facing. So I would allow the board to continue to work within their mandate and see what kind of decision they make, based on the consultation that they receive, as we mentioned before.

M. Lee: When the minister says that he will allow the board to continue with its process, at what point would the minister step in if the minister saw any concerns regarding the process that they are conducting?

Hon. H. Bains: We want to make it clear. I do not interfere with the independent working of WorkSafeBC.

[5:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: But ultimately, the minister is involved with the appointment of who serves on that board. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: [Audio interrupted] appoint board members.

M. Lee: So in that respect, these board members are ultimately accountable to the minister.

The Chair: Member, do you have a question?

M. Lee: Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: The board is accountable to the LG, the Lieutenant-Governor, to the Crown, and, with my recommendation, they are appointed. The WCA, the Workers Compensation Act, is very clear on the role of the board and the role of the minister. The day-to-day operation of the board is left solely to the WorkSafe board, and I don’t interfere in their daily work.

M. Lee: Is the minister concerned at all with the rushed nature of the consultation, which I understand was about ten days, and the remaining process on consultation, if any?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, the board makes those decisions without my input. I’m advised that during that time they received 420 submissions. So, you know, we can say all we want about how much time there was, but people were engaged. Stakeholders were engaged. And 420 submissions came during this time, I am advised. I think that they have consulted well.

I expect them to do the work within their mandate — on their day-to-day basis, how they make those decisions — and I think we’ll see where they end up with the decisions that they make independent of me.

M. Lee: Can you share with us any financial analysis on the potential for cost of this COVID-19 presumption?

Hon. H. Bains: It’s hard to answer that question, Member, because we don’t know what kind of presumption the board is looking at. Are they looking at all workers? Are they looking at a certain sector of the economy? We have no clue. It’s the board that will be dealing with that issue. And once they make that decision, then maybe, perhaps, we will be in a better position to answer those questions.

[5:50 p.m.]

M. Lee: Is there any expectation or requirement, though, that there needs to be a financial cost analysis to be done in this important change?

Hon. H. Bains: They know what their mandate is. They know to run the operation as efficiently as possible, to maintain an accident fund that is sufficient to pay for past, current and future claims, to protect workers’ health and safety and to do their day-to-day operations. That’s their mandate. They’re working within their mandate. I expect them to follow their mandate and come up with a solution in this particular area that they’ve deemed is within their mandate and how they have conducted themselves.

Of course, you expect the board to work within the mandate that they have, and they have decided that this is the route they want to go. They’ve gone through the process. Part of that process…. I don’t even know what anything else entails in that. It might as well be what you are suggesting here. But as I said, I don’t sit at that table, and I don’t get involved in their day-to-day affairs. They make those decisions, and I expect them to make those decisions independent of me, within their mandate.

M. Lee: Recognizing the potential impact of this decision, is the minister concerned about any particular legal challenge that might arise in the absence of scientific evidence?

Hon. H. Bains: I expect the board to consider all the eventualities about their decision. There is a process in place for people to challenge, people to appeal their decisions. So I expect that that process will work when and if they make that decision.

J. Martin: Thank you very much to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara and to the minister. A couple of other items I’d like to pursue in the time that we do have remaining this evening.

Changing to another topic, can the minister provide an update on the work completed to create a registry each for foreign worker recruiters and employers of temporary foreign workers, hiring staff, etc.?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think we canvassed this last year as well. I think everyone recognized that these are some of the most vulnerable workers that British Columbia has and that they were going through a tremendous amount of abuse and exploitation. As a result, we decided to move. Other jurisdictions also dealt with this. We decided that through legislation…. We brought the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. With that, all the recruiters must be licensed and all the employers must be registered.

We are going through that process. Effective October 2019, all recruiters must be licensed in order to do the recruiting for British Columbian employers. The second part of that was to have all the employers who choose to use temporary foreign workers to be registered with us. That process is ongoing. Due to COVID-19, it slowed down a bit, but we expect that process to be completed as soon as we can.

J. Martin: Can the minister tell us how much of this year’s budget is being allocated toward these registries?

Hon. H. Bains: The temporary foreign worker protection unit is part of the overall employment standards branch budget. I can give you the numbers of the employment standards. For 2019-20, it was $13.041 million. For 2020-21, it is $13.882 million. There’s a lift of about $841,000.

It is part of the overall $4 million lift that we received, I believe, for four years. Sorry, $14 million over three years. So it is part of the overall employment standards branch budget.

J. Martin: Thank you once again. With COVID-19, with the border closure, with the shutdown of much of the economy and slowly restarting some of it, what does the ministry anticipate the number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. is going to be this year vis-à-vis last year?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, we have numbers for 2019. The numbers were 24,420. As you know, there are the operations that are shut down here. Things are shut down. But there are other COVID-related challenges. Some borders are not open. Some countries will not allow transportation out of their cities to come here. There are some other challenges for temporary foreign workers to get the visas to come to Canada.

I think there are some challenges. Our government is working hard with the federal government to ask them to do whatever they can to work with other governments and other consular offices, embassies. If we could speed up the system so that we could have those workers come here, especially in the agriculture industry…. That season is coming up. The employers are really worried that they may not get enough workers.

I want to correct myself: 24,420 temporary foreign worker work permits were issued for B.C. I think that was in 2019.

Again, the challenges due to COVID-19 — some are beyond our control, our country’s control. Other countries are making those decisions, where the temporary foreign workers come from. There are border issues. The federal government and provincial governments are working together to see how we get those workers here so that they are here, especially for the agriculture season, which is starting. We have challenges in trucking, transportation and other places.

I think those are challenges. We don’t know exactly how many will end up this year due to the COVID-19 challenges.

J. Martin: Can the minister share whether his ministry has looked into establishing compulsory trades in B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, that is not part of my ministry. It’s a good question, though. The Minister of Advanced Education is leading a working group to deal with that issue. You may want to ask that question when those estimates come up.

J. Martin: I appreciate that. Those questions will be referred to the appropriate ministry.

On another matter, can the minister share what considerations were taken into place when recently lengthening the temporary layoff period?

Hon. H. Bains: I’ve said this before, and I want to repeat this: this is a government that listens. It responds to deal with concerns that come our way in a timely fashion. Our track record, especially during the last three months, during COVID-19, is very clear. Issues come up. We deal with them in a responsible manner, in a balanced manner. The same thing with this particular issue.

[6:05 p.m.]

First, it was brought to our attention that 13 weeks’ temporary layoff was not sufficient, that they needed an extension. We worked with employers, and we extended that to 16 weeks. In the meantime, we advised them that in our Employment Standards Act…. It’s distinctly different than other jurisdictions. It does have a clause — we call it section 72 — that allows the employer and the impacted employees to work together to ask for an extension, if they need it, beyond 16 weeks.

We listened to them. They came back, and they said: “Well, that is a bit onerous. It may not work.”

We listened also to people like Greg D’Avignon. He made a very good point when we met with him. He said many of the employers have less than 50 employees, and they don’t have an HR system or HR division. They may not even know that clause exists. They’re going through some tough times as it is, and they thought that would not work.

Again, we sat down at the economic recovery task force. We listened to the representatives of the businesses there. They made a case again, including the letter they sent to me, that the system in place may not be sufficient, that they need additional support.

We again responded, and we have decided to expand the temporary layoff to August 30. That’s the consideration — listening, consulting, especially with people who will be impacted. But at the same time, we wanted to make sure the workers who have earned their benefits through service with their employers — that their rights are protected; their benefits are protected.

We want to make sure that the employers get the support that they need in order to restart the economy and restart their businesses. We want to make sure that the workers also have their benefits protected, and not only that, that they have their relationship intact with their employer so that when they start, they would be recalled. That connection is important. The employer will get the trained workforce, and the employees will have a job to go back to.

It’s a win-win situation. We thought it was the right thing to do. We responded to the request from the employers and, at the same time, listened to the workers, as well, to ensure that their rights and benefits are protected.

J. Martin: Can the minister explain why he initially refused to lengthen the temporary layoff period on June 18, after the groups had written the letter to him on June 5 and had been expressing the need to do so since April?

Hon. H. Bains: My letter was in response to the request that the employer made, and I said that at this time, there are no plans for further extension of the temporary layoff time limits.

Again, like I said, the circumstances change due to COVID-19. We’ve never seen a situation change so rapidly. When the time came…. We also believed…. At that time, I was clear in that letter that section 72 is available to them — to take a look.

When we made the extension in early May…. Since May 4 and onward, when we made the decision to extend the temporary layoff to 16 weeks, we made it clear to the employers and employees that section 72 is available for them. If they need extensions beyond 16 weeks, they could use that route and apply to the employment standards. Employment standards…. If they’re satisfied with the application and they meet the requirements, they may get the extension.

The employer got back to us and said that look, that system is not going work for them. It’s not sufficient. It’s not going to address the situation, especially in the times that they’re going through.

[6:10 p.m.]

We again listened. We went back to them, and we had that meeting Thursday. After we listened and they made a very powerful argument in favour of further extension, we made that decision.

J. Martin: Has the ministry analyzed the differences between lengthening the period for temporary layoffs to a fixed date versus to a few weeks after the provincial state of emergency has been lifted?

Hon. H. Bains: Our government recognizes we must be nimble during these tough times, because circumstances are changing. We are going through different phases to reopen the economy.

At this particular time, we believe extension of temporary layoff to August 30 is sufficient. Again, employment standards is equipped to deal with applications if employers and employees today know that they may need extension beyond August 30. There’s plenty of time between now and August 30.

I expect that the employment standards branch would expect some applications from those employers who work with their employees. If they already know that they need extension beyond August 30, they could go through that route.

Like I said, we respond to the times. We listen, and then we respond based on the situation — the decisions we make — as we go forward.

J. Martin: The minister has already extended the temporary layoff period twice. I’m wondering, if the state of emergency is in place toward the end of this period and business recovery is still slow, if the minister would consider lengthening the temporary layoff period a third time.

Hon. H. Bains: I think we are in a pretty good position to extend the temporary layoff to August 30. We have plenty of time, and the employers know they have options available to that, under section 72, to extend beyond August 30 if they need to, by working with their employees. Then as we move forward, like I said, we’ll take a look at the situation.

As we say, the circumstances change; situations change; needs change both for the employers and the employees. I think the system is there to deal with the concern the member is raising. They could go to employment standards now and ask for extension if they think that they need time beyond August 30.

We will monitor the situation and make decisions as we go forward.

M. Lee: I certainly recognize that it’s important to maintain the employer-employee relationship here in the way that the minister is speaking to. With the extension, has the ministry considered any other concerns relating to the ability of employers to utilize the temporary layoff provisions without triggering severance liabilities?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, we have the Employment Standards Act that governs how we deal with a layoff situation as we face…. We were asked to extend the temporary layoff provision from 16 weeks, to August 30. We have done that.

In the meantime, the provision under section 72 allows the employer and impacted employees to work together to apply for an extension, if they choose to do that. Those are the two provisions that are available right now.

M. Lee: Before getting to section 72, because I know the minister often refers to section 72…. Obviously, I think we would recognize and acknowledge, with the CERB federal program, that effectively, the federal and provincial governments are able to utilize these mechanisms where, up until this past week, B.C. was the outlier in terms of extending and keeping up with the extension of the temporary layoff period.

Where an employee receives a CERB payment as well as subsequently receiving a severance payment, I understand that it would be the employee’s obligation to pay back the CERB amount, that there wouldn’t be an opportunity to double-dip. Really, these mechanisms should work together.

Is the minister concerned regarding employers utilizing and being forced to move on layoffs on a basis of unforeseen circumstances under subsection 65(1)(d), as we saw with the Sheraton Hotel in Richmond?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I think you started somewhere, then it seemed like you shifted with your question — interplay between CERB and severance. I don’t have any jurisdiction over that. I expect everyone to obey the rules and law.

When you talk about unforeseen circumstances under section 65, that section is available to employers and employees to look through the employment standard and deal with it there, if they have any questions about that.

M. Lee: I would have thought the minister would be concerned about employers having to be forced to utilize that provision, where effectively employees would be terminated without any severance payment to be provided because of the unforeseen circumstances.

[6:20 p.m.]

As the minister referred to earlier, B.C. is a different employment regime. Part of that reason, of course, is that the employee’s consent is necessary for the temporary layoff provisions to apply. That is the employment standards branch’s approach. I certainly recognize that that was the approach under the previous government. That hasn’t been a change.

As a result, without the kind of relief that is different in British Columbia, we may see more employers being forced to utilize the unforeseen circumstances exclusion under the Employment Standards Act — being forced do that because they are, unlike any other jurisdiction in this country, unable to utilize a mechanism of temporary layoff without the employee’s consent so that the employee can take advantage of and collect the CERB.

Again, does the minister not see and want to consider further what other relief would be necessary for employers so that they can fully utilize the temporary layoff provisions where employees are not consenting so that those employees will collect the CERB as the alternative?

Hon. H. Bains: I don’t know what the member is referring to, that somehow employers are forced to go a certain way.

We have actually dealt with the issue that was brought to us. I think it addresses the issue that the member is talking about. We have extended the temporary layoff to August 30. And if they choose to extend further and beyond August 30, then they could go to section 72. But we have lots of time between now and August 30. A lot could change.

I expect everyone to obey the law. The act is there to guide them. The employment standards branch is there to help them, and I expect that most employers will reopen and that workers will go back to work. That’s why we want to keep that employer-employee relationship intact — so that when the businesses open, those employees can go back to work.

J. Martin: I’d like to especially thank the minister, his deputy and all the staff for participating in the estimates process this afternoon — this morning, this afternoon, this evening — and also to Hansard, the Clerk’s office, the legislative staff, everyone doing so much under such trying circumstances.

I would like to give the minister a brief opportunity for some closing remarks and thank everyone that participated.

The Chair: I will give the opportunity to the Minister of Labour for the final brief remarks.

Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I really, really appreciate that, and I want to thank you for that.

I also want to thank the critic and all the other members who participated in questions about the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. I think they were very good questions. I think this whole process was very cordial and very respectful, and I want to thank them all. I tried to do my best to answer the questions as clearly as I could.

[6:25 p.m.]

I want to also thank my staff here, sitting here and others on the phone, WorkSafeBC. Thank you very much for participating and helping us. These are some very, very important services that are provided to the workers and workplaces and the workers who work and need the help of the employment standards branch and labour board. I just want to say thank you to all of the staff in the ministry, every part of the ministry, and the opposition member who participated here.

Yes, not the least, Mr. Chair, thank you for navigating us through this very, very adroitly. I just want to close by saying thank you. We are doing some really, really important work in this ministry. A lot has been done; more to do. Hopefully, we’ll see you again next year.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, all, Members.

Vote 35: ministry operations, $17,185,000 — approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Members, we are now adjourned. Have a safe weekend.

The committee adjourned at 6:27 p.m.