Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act, second reading. In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time now.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Many workers wake up in the morning with a sore throat and a difficult choice. On the one hand, if they feel sick, they could stay home. This would be the right thing to do for their own health and the health of their co-workers and could help stop the transmission of COVID-19 at the workplace.

Or they could push through and head into work because they just can’t afford to stay home. They can’t just stay. They just can’t afford to lose a day’s pay. This, of course, puts their co-workers at risk and could lead to an outbreak. This is what we are discussing today with Bill 13.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, we have been lobbying the federal government to bring a paid sick leave program for all workers in Canada. We continue to feel this should be a national priority, as this is a national emergency. No worker should have to choose between going to work sick or staying home, losing pay. We’re stepping up and providing what is needed now and for the future for the workers of British Columbia.

There are two significant improvements under this bill amending the Employment Standards Act. First is an immediate measure, on a short-term basis, to support workers as we continue to battle COVID-19.

The amendment would provide up to three days of paid COVID-related sick leave for employees who are on leave in one of the following situations: they have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and are acting on the instruction or order of a medical officer or advice of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or registered nurse; they are in quarantine or self-isolation in accordance with an order made by the provincial health officer — that’s what this bill would do to cover those situations; or they have been directed by their employer to stay home because of concern about an exposure risk to others.

This will mean that the employees who do not currently have access to paid sick days will be able to take days off to get tested without losing pay when they have COVID-19 symptoms, for the duration of this pay leave, from royal assent until December 31, 2021.

We know that the most efficient way to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 is to self-isolate, to stay home and not go to work when you’re sick. But for too many workers, they cannot afford to take unpaid sick leave. Many workers live paycheque to paycheque. Every dollar counts towards rent, food and other necessities.

[2:30 p.m.]

That can put workers in an impossible situation. If they go into work when sick, they could be putting other workers, co-workers and others in danger, but by staying home, they risk their job, food on the table and their home. A paid sick leave for COVID-19 helps ensure more workers don’t have to make that choice now, during the pandemic.

For employers, knowing that the workers are making a choice to stay home when sick should help keep workplaces safe and healthy for other workers and customers, which could reduce the likelihood of an outbreak that could result in a closure order of ten days by public health.

This paid COVID-19 leave will not replace the federal Canada recovery sickness benefit, which provides $500 weekly for up to four weeks, when workers miss at least half of their scheduled work week because they are ill or self-isolating due to COVID-19. Rather, B.C.’s proposed COVID-19 sick leave will provide financial support to workers who find themselves in a situation not currently covered by a federal program.

At the same time, we need to support businesses that are already struggling to survive due to the pandemic. So the province will reimburse employers, up to $200 a day, for up to three days for each employee who takes this COVID-19 paid sick leave. This means workers won’t lose pay while waiting for their COVID-19 test results, and employers will be supported in covering those costs.

In accordance with the amendment under this bill, employers will be required to pay employees their average day’s wage for a COVID-19 sick leave day. The employer will then be reimbursed by the province up to a maximum of $200 a day per employee. This program will be administered by WorkSafeBC, which has the tools and experience working with employers to run a reimbursement program of this scale.

We expect to have employer reimbursement support fully operational as soon as we can, and employers will be able to quickly and efficiently access their reimbursement. We have seen many businesses step up to support their workers, because they understand that we are all in it together. The second part of this bill addresses the ongoing concern about the need for permanent paid sick leave beyond the pandemic. Employment standard legislation in Quebec, Prince Edward Island and federally regulated workplaces provides employer-paid sick leave entitlement for employees.

This pandemic has made it clear that we must ensure paid sick leave as a basic protection for workers across this province. So looking beyond the specific COVID-19 paid sick days, which end on December 31, 2021, the bill adds to the Employment Standards Act permanent annual paid leave for personal illness or injury. Last year we added three unpaid days for personal illness or injury, and this bill will add new paid days and preserve the existing unpaid job-protected leave entitlement.

These new annual leave entitlements will be effective starting on January 1, 2022, and the minimum numbers of annual paid days will be established by regulations. This means that the government will undertake extensive consultation with workers, employers, Indigenous partners and other stakeholders on the number of paid days that employees will be entitled to each year for personal illness or injury and whether any other supports need to be identified.

Establishing long-term permanent paid personal illness and injury leave in the Employment Standards Act will not only help ensure financial support for employees who miss work because they are sick or injured; it also encourages employees who have infectious diseases such as influenza to stay home, thereby speeding up their recovery and protecting their co-workers and the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us just how important it is. As I noted earlier, for the short-term measures, B.C.’s COVID-19 paid sick leave, the province will help cover the cost for businesses so we can all get through the pandemic together. This is an interim measure to support workers and businesses during these extraordinary times.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are not alone in recognizing the need for this important support for employees and businesses either. Ontario recently passed a law providing paid COVID-19-related sick leave up until September 25, whereas our government-funded sick leave for COVID-19 will be in effect until December 31 of this year, after which the second improvement under this bill, permanent paid personal illness or injury sick leave, will come into force on January 1, 2022.

This bill, along with a substantial commitment to support employers with the cost, comes on the heels of several important actions the government has already taken to support workplaces during this pandemic.

Last spring this government passed the Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020, Bill 16, which introduced a job-protected leave entitlement to employees impacted by COVID-19, including when they have diagnosed virus or are in self-isolation or need to stay home to look after a child because of a school or daycare closure.

I think people listening will be surprised that in British Columbia we did not have a right for the workers to take time off when they are sick. It was up to the employer to give you that time off or not. You could lose your job if you’re sick and stay home. We fixed that, because COVID-19 required us to deal with those issues at that particular time. That happened last year.

Also, most recently, April 1, a regulatory change was made that extended the job-protected leave to include employees being vaccinated against COVID-19 or assisting a dependent family member to do the same. Then last month we put in place three hours of paid leave for workers to get each dose of the vaccine. All these measures are contributing to British Columbia’s pandemic recovery, and they are working.

Among other things, the pandemic has highlighted just how difficult it is for many workers in our society to stay afloat and thrive. Our government believes that no worker should have to choose between staying home when sick or getting paid, during a pandemic or any time. So to better support workers and healthy workplaces in the long term, the second improvement under this bill lays the groundwork for permanent paid sick leave for those who cannot work due to personal injury or illness.

It is estimated that 50 percent of British Columbia employees do not have access to paid sick leave and must choose between going to work sick so they could support their families, possibly infecting others, or staying home and losing pay. That means that upward of one million workers could benefit from the improvements we are introducing today.

We know that many vulnerable and low-wage workers, who are often women and migrant workers, lack benefits. The ability to take employer-paid leave will especially be beneficial to them. Many of these workers are essential workers, who have delivered goods, who have made food for pickup or who have been working, fearlessly, in grocery stores to make sure we can all get the supplies we need, get the services we need.

Throughout the pandemic, we have done everything possible to support businesses and individuals. We will continue to do so during our economic recovery. In the following months, we will be consulting to develop a model for permanent paid sick leave that will be fair, reasonable and affordable for employers. Businesses know that a strong, healthy and engaged workforce is the most valuable asset they have. They know that supporting their workers and ensuring a healthy and safe environment helps their businesses thrive and is key to their overall success.

We want British Columbians to know their government has their back throughout this crisis, and together, we will get through this. I look forward to the debate on this bill.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to rise today in the House to speak to Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021.

[2:40 p.m.]

As the minister has laid out, this bill provides paid leave protection for workers for a maximum of three days. We are certainly in support of a government-funded sick pay program in the middle of the worldwide health pandemic.

It’s important to note, as the minister has indicated, that workers that are ill should not needlessly lose income when they decide to stay home from work. I think that it’s important to see that this bill actually comes forward. Again, broad support from our caucus for the government-paid support for workers.

It’s really important that we also take note of the timing of this particular bill. I think, as I’ve been conversing with businesses back in my home community and industry and trade organizations — and even just in reading the newspaper and seeing some of the media reports — the concern that has been brought forward is why it has taken so long for this paid sick leave program to be brought forward.

COVID has been with us now for going on 15 months. Last year in March, all members of this Legislature came together in an unprecedented fashion and approved a $5 billion COVID spending plan to provide government the resources so that they could do everything within their ability to help reduce the transmission of COVID in the workplace.

The Premier, through his own admission, has indicated that the second-largest COVID transmission in the province is actually transmission that happens in the workplace or workers that are bringing COVID back to their families at home. So it’s no great surprise, I don’t think, to British Columbians in general or this government, of the challenge that workers have faced for now going on 15 months.

We must ask ourselves: why is it that government has waited so long to introduce this very important piece of legislation? Government was aware of the problem and knew that by effecting a sick pay program, it would actually help to reduce the amount of COVID transmission. Yet the government has chosen to wait until now — almost going into the tenth week of this legislative session — before introducing this very important piece of legislation.

Last summer, when the Premier announced that he had a program or a plan ready to deploy but chose to stall out and to withhold the opportunity to actually move this important piece of legislation forward, government had the financial resources through the $5 billion COVID spending plan that was approved by all members of this House. He was aware of the challenge, the problem, the incidents of worker transmission and the transmission from the workplace back into families’ homes, yet they have failed to act.

Mr. Speaker, I’m certainly very concerned, as I know many British Columbians are. Why have we had to wait so very, very long for this important piece of legislation? We had a summer session of this Legislature. There was ample opportunity to bring forward this legislation during the summer session.

There would have been opportunity to bring this legislation forward during the typical fall legislative session during the months of October and November. But that was not available, because the Premier chose to put his political self-serving interests ahead of the health and well-being of British Columbians and throw us into an unnecessary and risky snap election.

When we came back, after the election, in December, there was ample opportunity to bring this bill forward and for the paid sick leave program supported by government and government-funded. It’s my estimation that there would be unanimous support for that.

We didn’t see the legislation last summer. We did not see the legislation come forward last fall. We did not see it come forward in December. When this 42nd sitting of the Legislature started on March 1, again, we did not see this bill come forward. We didn’t see it in April.

[2:45 p.m.]

Here, just yesterday, we’ve finally seen this piece of legislation that British Columbians and health officials know will reduce the transmission of COVID in the workplace. British Columbians are looking for leadership from this Premier, but the Premier chose to stall, to delay. Here we are 15 months into the pandemic before they’ve finally chosen to take action. It’s very concerning, and I think British Columbians also should be rightfully concerned.

What labour leaders across the province are indicating is that it’s far too little, far too late. The $200 cap that government is providing funding for through this legislation for up to three days is a great start. At $200 a day, that will equate to an employee making approximately $25 an hour.

The Premier and the Minister of Labour have been on record in recent months talking and, actually, finally agreeing and understanding that businesses across the province are struggling. We’ve lost 8,000 businesses due to COVID just in the last year. There are another 25,000 businesses that are at risk, businesses that cannot afford any additional cost burden placed upon them. The Premier and the Labour Minister have made that comment, have made that statement that businesses can no longer afford any additional cost burden, yet any employment income over $200 a day will actually be put on the backs of B.C. businesses.

Now, some might say: “That’s a small component. It’s a small price for businesses to pay.” It still is an extra cost, and it’s something that I think needs to be recognized. The Premier had indicated that a paid sick leave program during the pandemic would not be providing further burden to businesses that are already struggling, yet that is exactly what this bill will do.

Bill 13. For those watching from home, there are two main sections. The first piece, as the minister shared, deals with the support for workers during COVID. I’ve spoken at length about the challenge of why we have waited so long for this, but as the minister indicated, this particular bill, which will come into force and effect when this bill receives royal assent, will be in force and effect until December 31.

Now, the second portion of this bill has to do with the permanent sick leave program. I was fortunate enough to have a briefing from ministry staff yesterday. There are some specific questions that I think British Columbians and business owners need to have answered as they ascertain what this legislation and what this bill will actually mean and how it’ll impact businesses, going forward — and the impacts for workers.

I asked a question. How many days is government considering for a permanent sick pay program? They don’t know. How will that be funded? Will it be funded through government sources? Will the entire cost be put on the backs of B.C. business owners? No answer. For a government that talks about being open and transparent, there is no substance within this bill that provides any direction to employers or employees or workers across the province with respect to the impact that a permanent paid sick leave program will actually provide. No answers.

When I consider the comments of the Labour Minister with respect to the consultation that is yet to be undertaken, I can’t help but ask myself: where was the consultation? Where was the business outreach that was actually undertaken last year during COVID?

[2:50 p.m.]

The minister referenced a number that approx­imately…. His best guess is that about 50 percent of workers in the province are currently not covered by a paid sick leave program. When I asked the question on what research or efforts were undertaken and where that data came from, staff within the minister’s office were unable to answer that. They just said it’s an approximation.

I think that most of us would appreciate the fact that data drives decisions. I believe it was the Premier just today during question period who commented in this legislative chamber that data informs how decisions happen. Let me repeat that. The Premier in this House today made the comment: “Data informs how decisions happen.” Yet when I ask questions about how the decisions were arrived at which led to the creation of this bill, there isn’t any data.

Government, for the last year, did not undertake any business surveys. They did not utilize WorkSafeBC to even make an attempt to try and identify the breadth of the problem — the number of businesses that currently do not have a paid sick leave problem. So the minister stands here today and shares with British Columbians: “Trust us. We’ve got no information today. We have no details on what a permanent paid sick leave program may look like. Trust us. We’ll do the work, and we’ll make the decisions for you in January of this coming year.”

Now, the January 1 deadline is a self-imposed deadline. That is a deadline, a date by which government has undertaken to determine for themselves. So when we have a look at the need and necessity and the opportunity to consult with business owners, to consult with workers around the province, to have a look at other jurisdictions around the globe, to have a look at what efforts might be undertaken to develop and determine a paid sick leave program for businesses, no work has been done to date. It is yet to be seen what work may be undertaken, going forward.

That’s concerning. We are here on May 12. We have about five weeks left in this legislative calendar. I certainly appreciate the fact that the first section of this bill, with respect to the immediate government-funded paid leave program, needs to be put in place. It should have been put in place a year ago. Many workers were put at risk and families were put at risk because of this government’s failure to act earlier. They had the funding, they had the budget, they knew the risks that they were transferring to workers and to families, yet they chose to act.

The necessity of putting this piece forward, with section 1, is something that we’ve been waiting for, and I think businesses and trade organizations around the province have been waiting for, for a long, long time. However, when it comes to the second section of this bill that talks about the development of a permanent sick pay program that could literally put hundreds, if not billions, of dollars of additional cost pressure onto businesses…. Of course, we don’t know that.

There is nothing in this bill that identifies what government is proposing. It’s a subversion of the democratic process. The reason that we are all here and we’re having these debates today is so when government brings forward important legislation, opposition members have the opportunity to ask specific questions, to make inquiry, to seek out the truth and the answers on how government arrived at the decision that they’re moving forward on.

Section 2 of this bill provides government the opportunity, without any information, to make up their own minds, to make their own decisions, and through regulation, through an order-in-council, sitting around the cabinet table, put in place a regulation that could cost significant dollars to the economy and to businesses. That, I believe, is offensive.

[2:55 p.m.]

We’re only in May. Government’s own self-imposed deadline for a permanent sick pay program is not until January 1. Government has admitted and shared that there will be a fall legislative session. We will be back here in the months of October and November.

We’ve not seen the legislative calendar as far as the different bills or legislation that government will be looking to bring forward, but there is ample time for government to do their consultation, to bring forward legislation that has more fulsome details on what a permanent sick pay program might have and to present that legislation in a fall legislative session, providing opposition members, British Columbians and the media to have opportunity to really understand exactly what government’s motivations are, the consultation that they’ve undertaken with business groups, First Nations and workers across the province, so that British Columbians can be satisfied that the decision that government is making, or the direction they’re moving in, is well understood.

Bill 13, the second section of this bill, does the exact opposite. It empowers government to make that change at their own free will.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we here? The purpose of this Legislature…. The fact that 87 members have been elected from around the province with diverse, different backgrounds to provide us the opportunity, as the representatives of all British Columbians — in order to have a fulsome knowledge of what government is planning to do, who is going to pay for it, how many days of sick pay would be provided to workers, what research and other data was derived to help direct government in making a decision going forward…. None of that will exist with respect to this particular piece of legislation on section 2.

I’m extremely concerned. As we know, the paid sick leave program is something that many have been looking for, for a long time.

I’m just going to go back to section 1 of this bill, which is the government-funded paid sick leave program. It’s interesting that here we are on May 12, 15 months into the pandemic…. Premier Horgan announced last summer that he had a plan ready to go. It was shelf ready.

Deputy Speaker: If I might remind the member, we don’t use names in this House.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My apologies.

The Premier announced that he had a program ready to go on the shelf. Yet in my briefing yesterday, when I asked a specific question about who is going to administer this program, one of the answers that I received was that the database program and the work that will be undertaken to determine how business owners will be reimbursed under the three days of paid sick leave is yet to be developed.

It was shared that the funding mechanism largely will be through WorkSafeBC. The answer that was shared with me was about 90 percent of businesses are registered through WorkSafeBC, but that failed to identify how they’re going to identify the other 10 percent.

The actual mechanism by which they’ll actually track the data and be able to provide remuneration to those businesses has yet to be developed. They’re undertaking to have this ready to go in 30 days.

We’re 15 months into the pandemic. Government must have thought — or I certainly would hope they would have thought — a year ago: “Look. We can reduce COVID transmission through a paid sick leave program. We should be turning our minds to the mechanism by which we might utilize to actually provide reimbursement to businesses.” None of that work has been done. So when the Premier talks about the work that was done, the shelf-ready program, I don’t see it.

[3:00 p.m.]

If this bill was to move forward and receive royal assent later this week or next week, business owners would be required to continue to provide that pay, under the provisions of this bill, for paid sick leave. The system and the mechanism by which they can actually make application for reimbursement doesn’t even exist. Talk about a government that’s flying by the seat of their pants. There is no fully developed plan that was ready to go. They’re making it up on the fly.

I asked a question. Will government undertake and guarantee that businesses that will be negatively impacted by cash flow, by having to pay workers and then wait for reimbursement…? Is there any commitment by this government to ensure that businesses will receive reimbursement within a minimum set amount of days — 15 days, 21 days, 30 days? No commitment.

We know the botched programs that we have seen under this government’s administration with respect to the COVID restart program, a program that British Columbian businesses sat waiting for earnestly, month after month, while the Premier dithered and delayed, only announcing the COVID restart program in September of last year — a full five months of consultation, trying to figure out what they might bring forward to help businesses.

Businesses needed support last year. They needed support in the months of March, April, May, June, July, August and September. Finally, in September, the Premier announced the $345 million COVID restart program and, only four days later, dropped an unnecessary and risky snap election, further delaying the opportunity for any of those dollars to flow to help those businesses for a further three months. Eight months and not a penny flowed to help struggling small businesses. We know that program is still an absolute failure.

Here we are, over a year in, 15 months into the pandemic. It’s my understanding that only about 50 percent of the dollars that were identified and earmarked to help struggling small businesses — only 50 percent of those dollars — have actually flowed into the hands of those businesses.

We have a government that says: “Trust us. We’ll just make it work.” There is the barest, skeleton, semblance of a plan for how government is going to actually provide reimbursement to businesses. This bill could be in force and effect before government has even figured out how they’re going to do it, and there’s no commitment with respect to the implications of the cash flow on businesses and how long it will take government to provide that necessary reimbursement for businesses that are already struggling.

During COVID, we know that front-line workers were put at significant risk. The 20- to 39-year-olds that the Premier chastised by saying “Don’t blow it for us” are the workers that could have benefited from a paid sick leave program last summer, last fall, this winter, earlier this spring. What do we get from this government? Delay, delay, delay.

As we look to the future, to recovering from COVID and, hopefully, providing the opportunity for businesses once again to thrive and to provide the all-important family-supporting jobs around our province, the opportunity for the private sector to attract investment and continue to grow, we have to have a look at what businesses require of government. That’s certainty and clarity.

[3:05 p.m.]

The biggest risk to business largely has to do with the uncertainty that lies ahead. Government has an opportunity and, I think, an obligation to provide that certainty and that clarity to businesses, especially when giving consideration to legislation that could potentially — we just don’t know what government is thinking — put additional cost burden yet on the backs of B.C. businesses. Bill 13 provides no such thing. The only thing that is certain is that it will become permanent on January 1 of 2022.

Businesses have no idea about the potential financial impact that that legislation will have on them. They have no idea and no certainty or clarity, from this government, with respect to how it will be funded. That’s cause for great concern. How can a business plan for their future when this government is purposely trying to subvert the opportunity for this House, the people’s House, to have a fulsome debate to see exactly what government is thinking with respect to a permanent paid sick leave program by hammering it through with no details whatsoever? That is offensive.

I see I’ve just got a few more minutes on the clock.

As we look to recovery and what businesses provide for British Columbians, I think we can all appreciate that businesses provide many services that we all rely on. They also are government’s single largest source of revenues. That personal income tax provides the single largest revenue source for governments.

Government needs to always be cognizant and recognize the fact that without business owners that are willing to take that risk to put a second mortgage on their house to create those ever-important family-supporting jobs, and without those individuals having certainty and the opportunity to be successful, those jobs will not exist.

What we have seen under this administration is a continual erosion of the competitiveness of British Columbia. In just four short years, we have seen increases in the corporate tax. The corporate tax rate in British Columbia is now a full 50 percent higher than our neighbouring province of Alberta — 50 percent higher.

We’ve seen a new employer health tax where the government has broken their commitment and promise. Their promise, in the 2017 election, was that they were going to eliminate MSP premiums. They did no such thing. They simply replaced it with a new employer health tax that puts an additional $1.9 billion tax burden directly on the backs of B.C. businesses.

It’s the lack of certainty that I’m concerned about. So as government looks at how we’re going to recover from COVID, it’s really important that they give recognition to what measures they are undertaking to provide businesses with a chance for success. I don’t see that happening under this current administration. That causes me significant concern.

Back to this particular piece of legislation, I’m very happy to see it finally on the floor of this House for debate. It is far too little, far too late. Don’t take my word for that. All you have to do is scan the newspapers and the TV for many of the comments that are coming from labour organizers and large industry around the province — that it’s far too little, far too late.

I think we’ll just close with, again, the piece that I think is most concerning. Government had an opportunity to reduce COVID transmission in the workplace, in transmission from workers to families, and they failed to act. They had the money, they had the knowledge, but they have failed British Columbians in a big, big way by taking so long to put this bill before us.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

[3:10 p.m.]

M. Dykeman: It’s a privilege to rise virtually in this House to speak in support of Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act.

It was another interesting moment from our member opposite here, during his comments, of whiplash. “We’re not doing enough. We need to do more. Wait. Why are we doing anything?”

Today I would just like to say…. I’m so proud to be able to speak in this House today about the action our government is taking.

Yes, we’re disappointed that the federal government failed to lay out a comprehensive paid sick leave program for all Canadians, but our government is committed to working so that workers can stay home when they’re sick, both during the pandemic and afterward. No one should be forced to choose between staying home when sick or getting paid. This bill is essential not only to support workers who cannot afford to lose wages but also to protect workplaces and businesses in our community.

Since the outset of this pandemic, British Columbia truly has led the way in supporting workers and making sure that they don’t go to work when they’re sick. As a result of this legislation, if a worker wakes up in the morning and they feel unwell, they can stay home in self-isolation and get tested without worrying about losing their income. This is good for our economy. This is good for workers and businesses. It’s good for families. It’s going to help avoid workplace transmission and help put this pandemic behind us faster.

For a moment there, I thought I had entered an alternate universe, but then I just realized that perhaps not everybody takes the time to become informed before they speak. That’s okay. These opportunities exist so that we have a chance to go back and forth and debate them. Hopefully, at the end of the day, people feel they have the information that they need.

Yes, this legislation will create a permanent paid sick leave for workers who cannot work due to any illness or injury beginning January 1, 2022. Following consultations with the business community, labour organizations, Indigenous partners and other stakeholders, the number of paid sick days and other supports will then be determined.

I’m always perplexed by comments, though, from the opposition of this nature. I shouldn’t be. Being in local government, I remember what it was like to have a stark lack of consultation from the opposition when they were the governing party. But that’s not the way it works now. Our government is committed to consulting to make decisions that are important. Maybe these comments were just a case of projecting. I’m not sure.

Yes, data-informed decisions, which are required, including all sorts of methods like consultation, instead of a magic eight ball, are how this government wants to make decisions.

Once again, in case it was missed, on May 11, the press release clearly said: “The number of paid sick days and other supports will be determined following consultations with the business community, labour organizations, Indigenous partners and other stakeholders.”

This, once again, shouldn’t be a surprise. A few weeks back the member opposite who just spoke spent an inordinate amount of time arguing that Bill 3, Employment Standards Amendment Act…. Perhaps workers wouldn’t use the time that’s allotted for them to get their vaccinations appropriately. So this really shouldn’t be a shock. I must really ask: who’s dithering?

An estimated 50 percent of B.C. employees do not currently have access to paid sick leave. That means upwards of one million workers in British Columbia will benefit from receiving these new paid sick leaves, and that’s a good-news story. The ability to take paid leave will be especially beneficial to many vulnerable and low-wage workers, often women or migrant workers who lack benefits.

As a single mother myself, working in the restaurant industry, in hospitality and as a farmer, I come in contact with people and have come in contact with people where they have come to work in a state where it was shocking. You ask: “Why?” They say: “Because I can’t afford to. I have children at home that rely on me. I have a family I’m supporting.”

That’s not good enough. We need to support those people. Our government is committed to doing so. That ability to take paid leave will support our most vulnerable. That is a good thing.

[3:15 p.m.]

Across Canada, workers are pushing for action, because they shouldn’t have to choose between going to work sick or a loss of income. Our government has put forward a bill which makes important first changes, with the intent to consult, moving forward, and that’s something I’m proud to speak in support of.

With that, I will take my seat and let my colleagues speak on this fantastic bill also.

T. Stone: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 13 today as well.

I want to first start off by acknowledging the comments made by my colleague from the Shuswap. He, as always, speaks with such knowledge and passion when it comes to ensuring that workers and businesses, employees and employers, have the tools that they need to ensure a successful workplace for everyone.

That probably doesn’t come as a surprise, because the member for Shuswap is a successful business person in his own right. He employs hundreds of people and has for many, many years. So I always pay a tremendous amount of attention when he’s speaking on legislation and proposed policies or changes that involve the workplace. He is speaking from a place of knowledge and experience. I think that adds a lot to the debate.

I, too, hope to impart some of my expertise as a business person. I am very proud of the fact that I have started a number of businesses — a software company, in particular. I grew that company, with some incredibly talented people, for about 15 years. Frankly, speaking of the people, the workers…. The talent that we were able to attract in our company was really why we were successful. It was their efforts.

Not a day would go by that, as their employer, I didn’t worry for and be concerned about the well-being of my team. That is why we had a very generous benefits package. That is why we tried to do what we could.

We were able to do more and more over the years as we got larger. We always tried to make sure that our employees had a safe workplace. We always tried to make sure that our employees could look after their loved ones. That is why we had good benefits packages in place. It wasn’t just about that woman or that man that showed up each day to work shoulder to shoulder with you. It was also about their family. It was about their spouses and their kids.

It is in that context that I stand to say that it’s about time. It’s about time that there is legislation in front of this place that provides for sick pay here in British Columbia.

I suppose one could say to the Premier and to his colleagues: “Where the heck have you been?” We are 14 months plus into this pandemic. Providing sick pay had been identified and has consistently been identified as one of the most significant tools, which had not been embraced in this province, that, if and when embraced, could make more of a difference than many other strategies and tools to address the transmission of COVID during this pandemic. Yet 14 to 15 months into this pandemic, it is only today, here, in May, that we are dealing with this legislation.

I support the merits of, certainly, the provisions in this bill that provide for the temporary sick pay during the pandemic. I’ll have more to say about the other part of this bill, which I have more concerns about. But in terms of providing that sick pay during the pandemic, we’ve been calling for this for many, many months. We wrote the Premier back on May 27, 2020. In and amongst a series of other initiatives and actions that we were encouraging, urging, imploring the government to embrace, to put all of the tools on the table to combat COVID, we included in that list a very clear call for sick pay.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Premier not only had our support in moving forward at that time, but the Premier had the support of virtually every business organization across this province. As has been said many times, and I agree, a well-thought-out, reasonable sick pay program during the pandemic, one that takes into account the needs of employees as well as employers, is the right thing to do. That’s why I’m glad that we’re finally here talking about it in the context of this legislation today.

The Premier has stood in this House and has made many comments outside of this House. A year ago he said: “We are prepared to go it alone. We are prepared to implement a plan. In fact, we have a plan ready to go.” Those aren’t my words. Those are the Premier’s words. Those were words that he uttered a year ago.

Recently he had an interesting choice of words where, in this chamber, in reference to a question about, “Where is the sick pay legislation that was promised so long ago?” he said: “We are leading the way in the country.” Yet it took 14 months, and a year after promising to do it, to actually see some legislation brought forward.

It is not lost on a lot of British Columbians. It’s not lost on a lot of labour organizations, if you read the comments that are out there, even today, since this legislation was introduced in this House. It’s not lost on a lot of workers, a lot of small businesses, a lot of British Columbians, that this temporary sick pay program should have been put in place a year ago.

I can’t help but point back to the Premier’s decision to call an election in the middle of this pandemic, which, among many other things, clearly had an impact on the timing of the introduction of temporary sick pay in this province. So it’s on the Premier that a lot of British Columbians had to make that very difficult choice over this past year — that very difficult choice to choose between paying their bills or going to work sick.

It’s on the Premier. One will never know the extent to which the lack of action on this, as was promised and as was needed a year ago…. One will never know the impact that that has truly had on countless families and British Columbians in communities all over this province. One will never know how much the spread of COVID was able to accelerate because there was no introduction of this needed sick pay program a year ago.

It clearly has had an impact. The lack of action on this has had an impact on a heck of a lot of people. It’s all of those British Columbians — those approximately 50 percent of workers in this province that don’t have sick pay benefits in their workplaces. We’re talking about a heck of a lot of women. We’re talking about a lot of people of colour. We’re talking about a lot of youth, you know, those 20- to 39-year-olds that the Premier liked to talk about. A lot of lower-income workers that have been impacted by this and who need this to be in place.

We’re concerned that there are a tremendous number of details that are lacking in this bill and in the materials wrapped around the bill. For example, we’ll get into more details in the committee stage on this bill, but we’ll want to talk about a range of different provisions and regulations and consultation and other details which are largely unknown today.

[3:25 p.m.]

Again, the member for Shuswap spoke very eloquently about some of those concerns: the fact that consultation really hasn’t taken place on what was introduced in this legislation, the fact that section 2 of this bill provides for the implementation of a permanent sick leave program as of January 2022 with absolutely no detail attached to that whatsoever. The WorkSafeBC reimbursement program — we’re told it’s in development. There are no details provided as to what that’s going to look like, how it’s going to work.

There was an indication in some of the materials that it may take 30 days for WorkSafe to set up a reimbursement system, an IT system — again, no details around how this reimbursement program will actually work. How often will employers have to submit applications for reimbursement? How will those applications be adjudicated? How quickly will the reimbursements be turned around? How will the reimbursements be made to the small businesses? We don’t know. There are no details included in any of this material.

The bill says that employers can actually ask for reasonably sufficient proof from employees in relation to their absence, but there is also a clear statement that that does not mean a doctor’s note. But that’s it for detail. There’s no explanation as to what “reasonably sufficient proof” means.

A bit concerned that the government clearly hasn’t done the work on the costing of this program. There’s no…. The minister and the Premier trotted out a number, 300 million bucks, in their press conference, but if you actually read the transcript of that press conference, it’s pretty hard to have much confidence that they have much confidence in that number. It’s based on….

If all of the workers in British Columbia that don’t have access to sick pay were to take the full three days, it would add up to 300 million bucks, but it hasn’t been tested. There’s no business plan for this. There is nothing that the government can or has pointed to, to clearly indicate how they’ve arrived at this number.

I will say, though, back to my comment earlier about the one-year delay in rolling this program or any program out…. Clearly, it’s going to cost the government less to implement a temporary sick pay program today than it would have a year ago or nine months ago or six months ago. Maybe that was part of the government’s calculation. If it was, I say shame on them. If that was part of the calculation in delaying, that’s unacceptable.

The reality is the vaccination program is accelerating. You know, we hear today that now over 50 percent of British Columbians eligible for their first vaccine have received that first dose. That’s good news. We’re seeing case numbers…. The trends look good. The seven-day rolling average looks good. Hospitalizations and ICU numbers — there’s room for more improvement, but the numbers look good. All of this is pointing to the transmission of the virus slowing down. A lot of people have paid the price, though, because they had to make that difficult choice to be sick at work or to go home and not be able to pay their bills.

The impact on small business in particular is, I think, an important point of discussion here. I hope that members on the other side, in their subsequent comments, will speak to it as well.

[3:30 p.m.]

There is no question that the Premier and the Labour Minister and others have echoed comments or have made comments similar to comments that we’ve made on this side of the House insofar as concern for the thousands of struggling businesses that there are in British Columbia at the moment and that these businesses just cannot sustain additional costs at this time.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The government says that this temporary program is going to insulate employers from costs. That’s not entirely true 100 percent. I mean, just be honest about it in your communications. It will cover most of the cost for a good number of employers but not the definitive: “Government is there for small business. We recognize that they’re struggling right now, and we’re going to cover all the cost.”

The government is going to cover three days, to $200 per day per worker. That’s roughly an individual making about $25 an hour. For any employers that are paying workers above that, the employers are going to have to step up and cover that difference.

That might not be a huge segment of the workplaces that we’re talking about that will be most impacted by this legislation, but there are lots of businesses that will meet that test and that will have to step up and pay these additional costs. That’s not really saying: “We’re going to be there for struggling small businesses and make sure that we’re not layering another cost onto their shoulders.”

I’m also shocked that the government is going to implement a reimbursement program. Instead of using the $3.1 billion in contingencies that the government has and flattening a process here to ensure that the money gets directly into the hands of small businesses, or businesses generally, that need it, the government decides to set up a program through WorkSafeBC.

The onus is on the business to incur the cost and have their cash flow impacted as a result, at a time where we can, again, all acknowledge that businesses are struggling. Many, many are struggling. But we’re going to say, “Your cash flow is going to take a significant hit, but don’t worry. You just have to submit your application,” or receipts, or however that’s going to work. There are no details on that yet. “You’re going to submit it to government. Don’t worry. We’re going to reimburse you.” We have no idea about how long it’s going to take.

I would have more confidence in a reimbursement program if this government had demonstrated competence in other programs that they have tripped over their own shoelaces on through this pandemic. There are still British Columbians today that haven’t received their $500 COVID recovery benefit. There are thousands of businesses that are still waiting to be approved for business recovery grants that this government announced last September.

The latest estimates suggest that on that program, with money that was approved in March of 2020, a program that was announced in September of 2020…. Then we had an election. Today, a year plus later, maybe $200 million of the $345 million that constitutes the business recovery grant program is actually out the door. That’s just ridiculous.

Now government is going to look small businesses in the eyes and say: “Trust us. We’re going to do a good job at processing your applications quickly and ensuring that there’s a speedy reimbursement on your application.” I don’t believe that it’s going to happen.

The government should be dipping into its contingencies here. As I said, they should be implementing a program that is really flat, minimal red tape and getting the dollars out the door to businesses that qualify, to cover the costs of their workers who, rightfully so, will utilize this program. Instead, this government is going to establish a reimbursement approach to it.

That brings me to section 2 of this bill, which is the section that provides for the implementation of a permanent sick pay program as of January 2022. Lots of concerns with this piece.

[3:35 p.m.]

Again, not at the highest of levels, from a principled perspective, in recognizing the importance of sick pay during a pandemic. But the cleverness of this government to embed in this legislation here today…. While we’re in the midst of a pandemic, a third wave of a pandemic — and the goal should be to push money out the door as quickly as possible to cover these sick pay benefits during the pandemic — the government decides to roll into this bill, in section 2, a provision for permanent paid sick leave, with no details included in the bill.

The cost of this — will it be borne by government? Will it be borne by business? We don’t know. How many days will be involved? Are we talking about another couple of days? Are we talking about a week? Are we talking about more? There’s no indication of that either. How will consultation look like? Government makes a big deal about all the consultation they do, all the transparency that they ensure is in place. Read the comments in the news releases that business organizations have put out, and labour organizations too, just in the last few days.

While there’s general agreement with the need for implementation of paid sick pay during the pandemic, there’s a lot of concern around what any permanent program would actually look like, what it would cost, who will pay for it, how it will be structured.

Instead of bringing forward separate legislation on that piece, bringing forward separate legislation to this House so that we can debate a permanent sick leave program, so that we can ask those tough questions of government, so that we can insist on costing, so that we can cross-check the government’s thinking on this and get input from the official opposition, from the Green members in this House, from government members…. Instead of doing that — they could even bring that legislation forward this coming fall — they embed it in this legislation, with the details to be forthcoming in regulation.

Section 2 provides for the fleshing out of a permanent program by saying: “(a) paid leave for up to the number of days prescribed, and (b) unpaid leave for up to 3 days….” This is all done through regulation. For those handful of viewers that are watching right now, what that means is there’s no scrutiny. When regulations are developed, they’re developed in the confines of the cabinet room. I’ve been there. I know how it works. There’s no requirement to bring regulations. It’s not protocol and practice. It’s not how this place works.

The government is going to implement a permanent sick leave program, and they’re going to come up with these details. They’re going to, presumably, do it behind closed doors. They’re not going to bring it forward into the people’s House here so that we can have a thoughtful debate and discussion about it and challenge the government on it.

I mean, they’re going to win the vote, anyway. They’ve got 57 seats. They’re going to win the vote. But this is back to what many members of this House have talked about recently. This is about respecting the process of this Legislature. On something as fundamental as a permanent sick pay program, that should be coming to this place. It should not be developed and implemented via regulation.

I’m concerned about the process there. I’m frustrated that the government, as they often do, is linking a very critical issue in the here and now that requires the attention and the focus of this place, and they’re sliding in a backdoor a critical program implementation where there won’t be debate. Yes, I’m concerned about that.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m also concerned about who the heck is going to pay for this. Is this going to truly be a program that’s supported by government? Will it take on the same fashion of the temporary program that we’re also talking about here today, or is this going to be on the backs of business? Again, the government has not got a great track record at not taking every opportunity they have to do these kinds of policy implementations on the backs of small business.

You know, this is the government that made a great big deal about eliminating the MSP, half of which had already planned to be repealed. They’re collecting $1.9 billion now, every year, in the employers health tax, on the backs of businesses and a lot of small to mid-sized businesses. That’s on top of the double dip here, the additional $1 billion that they were collecting in MSP premiums still before it’s fully phased out.

This is the same government that thought it makes sense to increase British Columbia’s corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent while other provinces and neighbouring jurisdictions are lowering their corporate income tax rates. Alberta is reducing theirs to 8 percent. Can’t even compete with Washington state.

It’s about $5 billion of additional taxes that have been imposed on the backs of business in this province. All kinds of tax increases, new taxes, a huge impact from additional regulations that business has to grapple with. I mean, we can’t even get the government to not tax the air over the heads of small businesses as a permanent measure. How ridiculous is that? It’s just another burden, another cost burden, that’s layered on top of small business.

We don’t even know if we’ll be out of the third wave — hopefully, we are — or into a fourth wave. We don’t know where COVID’s going either. Where are the provisions in this legislation, with respect to a permanent sick leave program, that take into account that we may have a ways to go here in terms of coming out of COVID and restoring some sense of normalcy and really relaxing health restrictions that, in part, impose some significant challenges on businesses?

There are a heck of a lot of businesses out there that are just not going to make it. They need help, not provisions for a permanent sick leave program that nobody has any details about, that’s just got baked into legislation today and that will come into effect at some point in early 2022.

The government was asked, in briefings on this legislation: is that permanent program going to be on the backs of business, or will government be there to help business? There was no answer. The government refused to answer that question. We’ll be asking those questions again in committee stage.

There is a lot to be appreciative of insofar as the temporary sick leave provisions of this legislation, notwithstanding the flaws in terms of the reimbursement program and all these other, I think, very legitimate concerns that we have. There’s a lot to be appreciative about insofar as it’s here today. It’s arguably too little, too late. It’s a year later than was promised, but it’s here.

We’re going to continue to do everything we possibly can to urge the government to make sure that this temporary program, the application process, the reimbursement of costs, has as minimal an impact on the cash flow and the operations of businesses and small businesses, in particular, as possible. We’re going to urge this government, every step of the way, to back up, back off on this inclusion of a permanent sick leave program in this legislation here today.

[3:45 p.m.]

Let’s take a step back on that piece. Let’s do the proper consultation with employers, with business associations, with labour organizations and with businesses, workers. Let’s do that consultation. Let’s have the government bring something back in its own stand-alone piece of legislation that we can debate in this House at some later date.

Businesses need certainty. There’s a lot to be uncertain about in this piece of legislation. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to it today.

B. Anderson: Today I am so honoured at the privilege of being able to speak in this House in support of Bill 13.

Of course, Bill 13 going to provide paid sick leave for workers across British Columbia. This is incredibly important legislation. As everyone knows, we’re in the middle of a pandemic. No worker should have to have the dilemma of going to work sick or being able to provide food for their families.

I know there’s 50 percent of workers across our province that have no paid sick leave whatsoever. That means when they wake up with a tickle in the back of their throat or a sore stomach, many of them just get up and go to work, because they don’t feel like they have the option.

What we have seen, I think, with COVID-19 is…. Rewind, say, to two years ago. All of us knew that co-worker that would come sick to work and how uncomfortable that could make workers, because we all knew that that put everyone that came into contact with that person at risk. But there was this sort of cultural sense of: “No, I’m not that sick. I can just get through it. My work’s really important. I need to be there.” But that also puts everyone else at risk.

Now with COVID, we know that you’re not just passing a runny nose around your office building or a cough. Instead, you could potentially be impacting your workers so that your co-workers that you care about…. You could be getting them very sick, potentially dying. No one, absolutely no person, wants to have that burden on them.

Particularly for our low-income workers, they’re living paycheque to paycheque. Having to skip a day of work means that the already incredibly tight budget that they are already on is stretched even further.

What this incredibly important bill does is provide that breathing room for people so when they need to stay home and take care of their health, they’re able to do that without losing money and without losing wages. I think what’s incredibly important is that we’re not saying: “Okay. We’re just going to be providing this for now because of the pandemic.” We’re recognizing that this is really important for all workers to have that type of stability, moving forward, so that when they feel sick, they’re able to stay home.

I’m so grateful that we’re not seeing this as a temporary measure. Instead, we’re saying: “Okay. We know it’s the pandemic. We’re going to put it in place now. Then we’re going to do consultation. We’re going to be talking to business owners. We’re going to be talking to unions, and of course, we’re going to be talking, always, to Indigenous People and figuring out the best way to move forward.”

I was just talking with a local business owner. She has a thriving small business in our region. She told me that she was really happy to hear of this legislation coming forward, because that means that there’s extra incentive for her employees to stay home when they’re sick because they’re going to be able to get paid. It also means that she’s going to be reimbursed for that money. So this is a bill that is supporting workers and supporting businesses.

I know we are so fortunate, all of us, to live in British Columbia. I’m so glad that we have been able to provide, dollar for dollar, more funding for businesses, more support for businesses, through the pandemic than any other place in Canada.

[3:50 p.m.]

We are supporting businesses. We know that for many businesses, things are really tight. Times are very tricky. I know some businesses are just hanging on by a thread.

What this type of legislation means is that businesses, workplaces, are not going to become those hot spots of transmission, because people, when they feel sick, are going to be able to stay home. They’re not having to make the decision of feeding their families or going to work. They’re going to be able to stay home, take care of their health and still feed their families. I am so grateful that we’re going to be moving forward with this.

We know this type of legislation is going to be most impactful and most beneficial to low-wage workers, to many racialized people and to many young people. We know that a lot of those people do not have paid sick time with their employment. A lot of these are also essential workers. Now, to think that essential workers aren’t offered paid sick leave — how can that be possible? This is British Columbia. Of course, now we’re saying yes. Workers are going to be getting paid sick leave.

I think that is especially important for those lower-income and essential workers so that they’re able to keep themselves and their communities healthy and safe as they do the incredibly important work that they’ve been doing over these past 15 months. I just see this also as an opportunity, really. This is going to be another piece that’s going to be preventing transmission.

In British Columbia, we have been, with the restrictions…. We’ve also seen that most businesses — there are a few exceptions, of course, like theatres, but most businesses — have still been able to operate in some capacity. I know that if you take a walk down our main street, there are patios all over the place. If you go down there, you can see families. You can see couples really enjoying the incredibly wonderful food and drinks that we have here in the Kootenays.

Restaurants. It’s been challenging for them, but they are still able to keep their doors open. You get takeout, or you can sit on a patio. Now you’re also not going to worry if maybe your server is not feeling their best, because you know that that server or the cooking staff are able to take time off. If they’re feeling unwell, they’re able to stay home. We are going to reduce transmissions in the workplace because people are able to keep themselves, their co-workers and their communities safe with this legislation.

I want to thank the Premier for his leadership on this. I want to thank the minister and all of the ministry staff who worked hard on pulling this together so quickly so that we’re able to take one more step in supporting workers and supporting businesses in British Columbia. We all want to see the end of this pandemic, and that is one more step in the right direction.

We also heard the fantastic news today that over 50 percent of British Columbians have received a dose of the vaccination against COVID. That means that our levels of protection are increasing every single day.

You know, I am the youngest member of the Legislature, which will also likely mean I will be the very last person in the Legislature to have the opportunity to receive their vaccination, but I am really, really looking forward to the opportunity. This is funny because I absolutely hate needles. If you ask anyone or my family…. If you ask my little brother how he wants to bug me and drive me crazy, he starts talking about needles.

Well, with the pandemic, I am absolutely so looking forward to the day that I’m able to get that needle in my arm, that day that I’m able to get vaccinated so that I am further protective of myself but also my family and my community. This legislation is another piece of that.

We are helping to protect our communities. We’re helping to protect our workers as the light at the end of the tunnel of the pandemic grows brighter. So again, thank you to everyone who worked on this. I’m thrilled to be able to speak in tremendous support of this bill.

[3:55 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I’m pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 13, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021. I’ll comment on that in a few minutes here.

I think it’s important to put on the record that it’s our perspective that three days off is better than none. So from that perspective, I think it’s important to recognize the action that this bill is taking. However, three days off is not sufficient when it comes to addressing the challenges the global pandemic, COVID-19, has caused. This proposal that’s been put forward in this bill falls short of fixing the gaps in the federal program and means that many workers will continue to fall through the cracks.

It’s important to get on the record early in my comments that half-measures will not solve the problem of workers having to choose between staying home when they’re sick and facing possible financial devastation. We’ve heard already, early in this debate, from just the previous member, how no worker should have to go to work sick, that this bill and this action are going to prevent transmission and that this is the type of bill that supports low-wage workers.

It’s important to acknowledge that we are 15 months into this pandemic. If those statements are true today, then those statements were true 15 months ago, meaning the lack of action over those 15 months at the provincial government level has put British Columbians at risk of unnecessary transmission of COVID-19. It’s the cognitive dissonance of the members of government that want to stand up today and celebrate this act and overlook the fact that there has been a significant amount of heel-dragging to get us here.

The reason why I thought it would be worthwhile to point out that this is the Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2) is because earlier in this session we were debating the Employment Standards Act “No. 1.” It didn’t have “No. 1,” because it was just the Employment Standards Amendment Act.

Here we are in this spring session of the government, where we have the budget and the throne speech and all of these things, and we have two employment standards amendment acts. What does that say about the level of coordination, the level of preparation, the level of planning that’s going on in the government side of this House? Did we have to have two employment standards amendment acts?

These are not for issues that could be deemed as unforeseen. These are for issues that are very much part of the narrative that’s been brought forward by advocates, by experts, that we need to put in place a paid sick leave program that’s going to support workers to make the decision to stay at home to decrease transmission rates in our communities, that we should put in place a measure that allows workers to step away from their job for a period of time to go and get a vaccine.

Every time we raise an issue about COVID-19 these days, the government spin machine twists it to: “Oh, and by the way, we have 50 percent of British Columbians vaccinated.” But that’s not even true. What is true is that we have 50 percent of eligible adult British Columbians vaccinated. That’s an important distinction. It is a remarkably different number if 50 percent of British Columbians were vaccinated than the numbers that are being put out there today.

[4:00 p.m.]

When I hear the previous member speaking to this House suggest…. It may be a mistake. However, it’s important to acknowledge that every time it pivots to the amount of vaccinations, it is a distraction from the fact that this government has already had two employment standards amendment acts in this Legislature.

There was such a lack of coordination on behalf of the government that they couldn’t put those two pieces of work together, in the context of the fact that, as was raised by the member for Shuswap, the Premier was out in public, in front of the camera, in front of the microphone, saying: “We’ve got a plan. It’s on the shelf. We’re just advocating with the federal government. We hope that they’re going to put in a plan to save us from having to do it and from having to spend from the provincial treasury to look after the business of the province. We’re hoping that the feds step in. We’ve got a plan.”

Except every indication that I have, in this process to get this bill, from the fact that we’ve got two employment standards amendment acts this session and the fact that the information that we get is that this has been very much a harried process…. Government is scrambling to get this in front of us as a response to an overwhelming call from British Columbians and an overwhelming call from people across the country, on those provinces, including British Columbia, that do not have a paid sick leave program for people to help them make the decision to stay home when they’re not feeling well.

This was one of the first things that our Premier advocated for back in 2020 when we were responding to COVID-19. “We need a paid sick leave program.” He said over and over again that he was advocating with the federal government to do that. So it’s not like this is something new. So when I hear the members from the government side of the House celebrate this act today, it must be done in the context that if everything they say is true — that no worker should have to go to work sick, that this is going to prevent transmission, that this is going to support low-wage workers….

If that is true today, it was true yesterday and every day previous, back to March of 2020. And every day that we have not had that option in front of British Columbia, that support for British Columbians, that they were made aware of it, is a day that put people — vulnerable people, people who didn’t necessarily have the financial means to take a day off to stop themselves from getting sick — at risk.

This government put them at risk of that transmission, and that is entirely and completely unacceptable. It’s important that we call out the cognitive dissonance that we hear in the speeches already, in the early part of this debate, and that we put a name to it, because it’s not acceptable.

Celebrate the second employment standards amendment act of this session. Celebrate it, if you will. That’s fine. It’s a good step, and it’s one that we’ve been waiting for. But don’t celebrate it like it’s some kind of superhero coming in to save us from this. In fact, it is actually too little and pretty late. Especially since, in question period this afternoon, the Premier stands up and is talking about how we’re nearing the end of the pandemic. If that is, in fact, the case, why is this being brought forward now?

Let’s put some context around what it is that we’re doing here today. We are scrambling to a finish line that was established by the public who demanded this action. It was only the demands of the public, and it was only the demands of the advocates, and it was only the demands of people like the B.C. Federation of Labour, who were demanding this program be put in place, that finally got this reluctant government to stop dragging its heels and put something in front of us. And what is in front of us falls far short.

Laird Cronk from the B.C. Federation of Labour says: “It never made sense for workers to go to work sick. Permanent paid sick leave protects workers and their co-workers, strengthens public health and ensures economic resiliency at the same time. Workers struggling with a COVID-19 illness face far greater than three days of lost pay. They face potential economic devastation.” That’s Laird Cronk, B.C. Federation of Labour.

[4:05 p.m.]

He goes on. He says: “Ensuring workers don’t have to make the untenable decision between staying home with symptoms or working sick to put food on the table and to pay the rent is critical during this deadly race between variants and vaccines.”

I’ll just pause here for a second. Because it’s only the vaccines that this government wants to talk about. They’re not talking about the variants anymore. Thankfully, Mr. Cronk raises the issue of the variants, because this government doesn’t want to talk about them anymore. We’re only talking about the vaccines.

Mr. Cronk continues: “COVID-19 is not going away after three days.” This is the advocacy that three days of paid sick leave as a bridge doesn’t nearly go far enough. Even at this late date, it is far less than what is needed. For 15 months, workers have been having to make the choice that the members from the government side of the House are celebrating today — that when this bill passes, they won’t have to make that decision anymore. We’re going to help them out.

It’s worth noting that this is an NDP majority government that is putting this bill forward, and it’s completely way off the mark.

Another quote. Paul Finch, treasurer of the BCGEU, tweeted: “This government was elected with a majority to provide the supports working people need to make it through this pandemic. Mimicking the Ford government’s quota on paid sick days, a year late, doesn’t just fall short of the mark. It misses it entirely.”

He’s talking about the Ford government, the government of Ontario, whose three-day paid sick leave was panned and who, yesterday, I guess…. The great distinction that our Premier wanted to draw between our paid sick leave, which is dramatically better, and the Ontario paid sick leave was that theirs ends in September and ours goes all the way to December. But other than that, pretty close to being the same.

Andrea Horwath, leader of the Ontario NDP, talking about that Ford government plan in Ontario, said: “Offering people a pathetically inadequate three paid sick days is not good enough, especially not during a global pandemic that makes people sick for at least 14 days.” That is four days more than what the B.C. Federation of Labour is advocating for with a ten-day paid sick leave program.

While the NDP has been waiting for the feds to step in, people have been getting sick and dying from COVID-19. The foot-dragging by this government is completely unacceptable. We’ve needed, for all those 14 months, for every day and every month since COVID-19 hit, a government that’s been ready to act and do the things that are necessary to stop this pandemic and to protect British Columbians. But we’ve been missing that boat for 14 months.

Okay. I’ll give credit that our Premier did say it first — that we needed a paid sick leave program. But that’s where the credit ends, because he had no follow-through, none at all, even when he had the majority government that he craved so bad last fall. For the last eight months, he’s had this majority government.

We sat in here in December. We sat in here in March. We sat in here in April. We’ve put employment standards amendment acts up previously — nothing about paid sick leave. Only after the public demanded this government do something because the experts were saying this was a needed step in order to stop the community transmission, the transmission in the workplaces, only after this government took the last week or so to debate how they were going to deal with this when we were doing our constituency week, do we finally see this bill now, in May of 2021, 15 months later.

[4:10 p.m.]

This province has long needed permanent solutions that provide paid sick days to everybody. Right now only about half of the workers get paid sick leave, sick days. Disproportionately lower-income and racialized workers do not receive this benefit, and they’re paying with their health.

COVID-19 has shown the need for all workers to have the ability to stay home when they’re not feeling well. We’ve seen the danger when that provision is not made available to British Columbians. CBC journalist Justin McElroy tweeted today: “New community-level data just released by the B.C. government continues to show the positivity rate above 20 percent in many of the poorer and less white areas of Surrey.”

That’s who this government has been ignoring. Racialized neighbourhoods. Less well-off neighbourhoods. Those who face poverty. Those who cannot afford to make the decision to stay home because they need to pay the bills, because they need to put food on the table for their kids and family members. Those are the most vulnerable people, the ones that for the last 14 months, this government has ignored. That’s not acceptable.

These are front-line, low-paid workers. These are the people that we rely on in our society. No support. Lots of talk. Lots of disappointment in the Prime Minister: “So disappointed.” Yet not willing to acknowledge the lack of action that’s been done up until the second employment….

We are ignoring the most vulnerable people, and these are actually the least-protected people as well, because these are also folks who, up until very recently, have not been eligible for a vaccine, despite the calls from people in our communities asking for vaccinations for front-line workers. We had an age-based program — the vaccination program in the most recent weeks. The government’s been scrambling out different variations of the vaccination program with very, very poor communications about it.

Not only are they folks that can least afford to take the day off because of an illness. They’re also the people that are least likely to have been vaccinated now. That just makes the whole situation even more uncomfortable, doesn’t it? We stand here in this place. Don’t we feel uncomfortable about that? Instead, we have a tone from members of government of celebration, a celebratory tone.

I feel kind of uncomfortable that I can stand here in this place and say these words, and they’d be the truth of the matter. That should make all 87 members of this place feel a little out of sorts, I would think, knowing what we’ve known, knowing what our Premier has known.

Rather than actually do something, use the power that is bestowed in the members of that side of the House to actually put in place a program earlier than 15 months late, this government and this Premier have instead engaged in this rather, kind of really unfortunate, game of chicken with the federal government, saying: “You’re going to do it, or I’m going to do it.” It was unfortunate to see that it wasn’t in their budget, and it’s not in our budget. It’s in nobody….

British Columbians lose confidence in their government when they see the elected leaders of their communities posturing like we’ve seen the Premier posturing with the Prime Minister on this matter. What British Columbians want when they elect a government…. When the Premier stands up with all the bluster in question period today: “That’s why we’re on this side of the House, and you’re on that side of the House….” When the people of British Columbia give the blessing of a majority government to a Premier and to a cabinet, they don’t expect them to play games with the federal government.

[4:15 p.m.]

They don’t expect the posturing. They expect leadership. That’s what was promised in the fall of 2020: leadership. “We need this majority government so we can lead without all the distractions of the junior partner, without all the distractions of a minority situation. The House might fall this day or that day. We don’t want those distractions. What we want is a majority government to lead this province through this COVID-19 pandemic public health crisis.”

Instead we get, 15 months later, a bill that doesn’t go far enough to support the very most vulnerable people in our society. In addition to that, we get the government using the same bill to open up the ability to give themselves the ability to put a permanent paid sick day program in place through regulation.

Now, I said earlier that I believe, that we believe, that there needs to be a paid sick day program for all in this province. That’s a position that we take. That’s what we believe. Why would I then be frustrated about the fact that the government is opening up the ability for them to then do that through regulation? There’s a number of reasons why.

First of all, there is no accountability and no debate that happens about that program. It’s not a public process. It’s a private process that gets done through cabinet. As well — and this should be the point that I think the B.C. Federation of Labour and the labour leaders in this province need to pay very, very, very close attention to because of the political environment of this province — when those days are put in regulation, they don’t require legislation to change them.

Just as we can celebrate all these days of a permanent program, perhaps starting in January 2022…. Perhaps. It’s not been done yet. The consultation is still to go. If the government falls, and there is a new government in place, the exact same act that put those days in place is the same act that can remove those days.

Why would we think that there is going to be anything else that has happened in this province than what has happened in this province in the past, which is that pendulum that swings back and forth? One government doing one thing. Next government changing it. Then it swings back and forth.

What we need is stability. Businesses need stability. Employers need stability. There needs to be stability in this House. That is why it needs to be done through the legislative process and not through regulations, because through the legislative process, it has to happen in public. There has to be debate. There has to be a process similar to the one that we’re putting in place and going through right now for this bill, which, with a lot of certainty, is going to pass, because the NDP has the majority.

At the very least, we get to stand and talk about the important issues that are impacting British Columbians, the important issues that are going to impact business owners, entrepreneurs, people who have invested their livelihoods into their business. The issues that are going to impact labour organizations around the province.

For me, section 2 of this bill provides none of that certainty. Yes, it does give the government the blank cheque, that they’d so love to have, to be able to regulate this paid sick leave through regulation. They can pick whatever number they want, but it should not be celebrated too vociferously when that happens, because at any time, the government could change that using exactly the same tools that they used to set it.

I think that in the consultation process, labour leaders need to be really clear. Of course, they will advise government however they advise government, but my advice is: we need to have this done through legislation so that whatever it is that is done has the ability to create certainty. Whether we love the decision or not, at the very least there will be certainty, and people can then plan their investments and their next actions on that.

[4:20 p.m.]

As I wrap up here, I just want to say that despite the Premier’s promises last summer that there was a plan on the shelf that could be dusted off and rolled out when the federal government let us down, that is not the case. There wasn’t a plan.

The government scrambled to this day for us to debate this. They put together a plan that was a program that fell far short of what’s needed to support workers — far too little, far too late — and then also have given themselves the ability to regulate a permanent program which doesn’t create the level of certainty that is going to be needed for both the employer and the employee, as it’s left up to the whim of whoever it is that’s taking up the seats of the executive in this province.

With that, I think it’s important to be clear here. Three days are better than no days. But it is far from adequate to provide the people the time that they need to be tested and to recover — if they have the unfortunate positive test of COVID-19, to recover. It provides a bridge but barely.

This is certainly not as organized, nor should it be celebrated, as I’ve heard in the content of some of these speeches, knowing just the level of vulnerability that this government has accepted, that the lack of action has created. It should be a sombre day in this place that we’re finally here, that we’re finally doing this work that should have been done a long time ago, because a lot of people have contracted COVID in the time that this House has not put this bill forward. Many people have passed away in that time. Many people have lost loved ones.

I think it needs to be done in that context. Half-measures will not solve the problems of workers having to choose between staying home when they’re sick and facing possible financial devastation. What we need from this government is to put forward a plan that does accommodate the needs of those workers and that does respect the needs of the business owners and that is a truly collaborative process, not something that we’re scrambling to this day and that obviously has not been well-thought-through.

With that, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak to Bill 13.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Chilliwack.

D. Coulter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We meet again. It’s a pleasure to speak in front of you as always, and it is a real pleasure for me to speak to this bill.

No worker should have to choose between going to work sick or losing pay. It’s an awful choice. I’m really proud to speak to this bill because I was a worker — now I’m an MLA; I guess I sort of do work, but I’m not part of the working class anymore — and my family is. I really appreciate this bill, and I had to take the opportunity to speak to it. I probably won’t be that long. I’m sure you’re happy with that, but I thought I’d speak to this bill.

I was listening intently to the member before me’s arguments there. Normally, I love criticizing the B.C. Liberal Party. That’s usually my schtick. But I thought I would give somewhat of a critique to his arguments. I found it odd that at one point he complains that we have to amend an act twice — heaven forbid we pass legislation in this House — and then in the second stroke, he complains that this bill also will require regulation to institute long-term pay. So I thought maybe he could make his mind up on that score.

That was my main critique. Other than…. I think he’s right. I think the Premier should not go, you know: “That’s why we’re on this side of the House, and you’re on that side of the House.” I think the Premier should point out that a whole bunch of us sit on this side of the House too.

[4:25 p.m.]

We wrap around the place — you know, when he’s talking about the approaches that different parties have taken, the positions that different parties have taken, and who British Columbians have chosen as their representatives and for the government.

When I used to swing hammers and pull wrenches, I did have a non-union job where I did not get sick pay. It was definitely a choice of whether I could pay my mortgage that month or I could miss a week of work. So I worked sick. Then I made all my co-workers sick.

This bill is going to help to alleviate that. It’s also crucial that we’re doing it during COVID so that workers aren’t going to work with COVID. It’s also…. In many cases, these are front-line workers, essential service workers who don’t get paid sick leave. This is crucial for them as well, and I’m really happy about that.

Now, last time I was in this House, I made some comments about workers. I kind of riled up the member for Kelowna-Mission. I feel bad about that, because I’d like to be friends with everyone in here and be friendly. She’s a great speaker. But I find it a little bit rich when other parties are coming in here, wrapping themselves in the flag of the working class, when you know the devastation they wrought on the working class.

I have a quote from the member for Kelowna-Mission. She says: “I’m going to start with a story. The story is, hopefully, to allow the member for Chilliwack to understand how much the members on this side of the House actually understand workers.” And she did. She made me realize how much this side of the House understands workers. That’s probably not good for this side of the House, in all honesty.

She goes on to say that her daughter asked her what she does for a living, and she says: “In that moment, with tears in my eyes, I looked at her, and I said: ‘Every day I go to work, and I feed hundreds of families, because I sign paycheques.’” Well, they feed their families through their labour, and signing paycheques for workers is about the bare minimum you can do for workers. Essentially, you’re paying your bills. Congratulations. It just made me realize how this side of the House views workers — as paupers in workhouses, I guess, and that they’re the benefactors for them? I don’t understand it.

There’s also one other point, one another issue, I would have there. The member is the critic for Health. I had mentioned the privatization of housekeeping staff, etc., in the health authorities and the hospitals. She mentioned that it was such a great thing, because they saved so much money that they were able to buy new equipment, etc. I mean, sure. Instead of funding health care adequately, privatize contracts and do it off the backs of workers — in most cases, racialized and women workers. Bully for you. That doesn’t seem like a very good thing to be proud of, in my opinion.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I think this is a great bill. I’m especially proud that we are creating a permanent system, to begin on January 1. I’m very proud that we’re going to do such extensive consultation with the community, with business leaders, with workers to come up with a good system of permanent paid sick leave. I can’t tell you how great this is. We’ll consult with stakeholders to develop a model that’s fair, reasonable and works for everyone in B.C.

[4:30 p.m.]

I mean, I feel bad, sort of. I have another friend from the B.C. Liberals here, and I really enjoy her. I feel sad that I’m doing this to you folks while I’m talking.

Anyway, the B.C. Liberals also…. During the years when they were in opposition, the minimum wage remained stagnant, including a decade-long freeze. It resulted in our province having among the lowest minimum wages in Canada. The approach that we take on this side of the House is we are increasing the minimum wage to $15.20 per hour on June 1 and are getting rid of the lower minimum wage for servers.

I think this is a great thing that the B.C. NDP is doing, and it shows the difference in approach we have. It is why we’re bringing this bill forward now. We have an approach where we care about workers and labour.

I don’t have a heck of a lot more. I just wanted to speak a little bit, for a short period of time, and I knew that I had to say something about this bill. I would hope that my colleagues everywhere in this House support the bill and show that they care about workers.

K. Kirkpatrick: That is a hard act to follow, I must say. I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 13, the Employment Standards Amendment Act.

I think everybody, regardless of where in this House they sit, agrees that we need to have paid sick leave to support workers when they are sick so they are not coming to work and spreading COVID and worrying about having to make that decision. There’s absolutely no doubt that we all agree on that same thing.

I’m very pleased to see that this bill has come forward, but I am very disappointed that this bill didn’t come forward much sooner, and I am very surprised that the member previous and other speakers on the other side of the House seem to think three days is some amazing gift that they’re giving. It is absolutely the least that they could possibly be doing, and it certainly is not adequate for what is needed.

The timing of this is just astounding. A year ago, prior to me being elected, I had a different life, and I was running an organization. When the orders came in and we realized that there was a pandemic and we had to do something in the office, the first thing we did was bring our executive team together and say: “In our non-profit, how are we going to support people so that they don’t have to come to work sick?” This was a year ago. This was us thinking: “This is a no-brainer, man. We have got to do this.”

This government said it’s a no-brainer and that they’ve got to do it, but they didn’t do it. And today I just find it stunning. I think the other side of the House should be embarrassed that it has taken this long and it is this inadequate.

I also must say I am offended by the previous member. I know what it’s like to have to choose between going to work and being sick, because I spent much time, as a young person, working in a minimum-wage job, not a strong education, really trying to make my way. Luckily, I wasn’t supporting anybody else, but boy, those were tough times. I’ve also been in a position where I ran a small business. And if you say to me I did not care about my employees and the people that worked with me…. There would be times….

[4:35 p.m.]

Small business people go without their own paycheque sometimes to make sure that their employees get paid. If you look at people that run businesses and look at people on this side of the House like they don’t understand and they don’t care about employees — I’m just very, very offended by that.

I am pleased to see something here, but it’s got to be bigger, and it’s got to be better than this.

There are two pieces to this. We are talking…. I got kind of off track at the beginning because of my emotions there. There are two pieces to this. There is the three-day pandemic pay. The second piece is this ubiquitous permanent pay, which we need to talk about.

One thing…. I might be misinterpreting this. I’m sure government has taken this into consideration. My understanding is that if an employer already provides sick time and pays sick time, the same or in excess of what would be applicable under this — what would be the three days — this amendment does not impact them.

Again, full disclosure. I might be misinterpreting this, but I believe that is what the legislation is saying. If that is, in fact, the case, I have two concerns with that.

We were a non-profit organization. We did the best we could to be able to provide paid sick time. We provided paid sick time. I’ve always, as an employer, provided paid sick time. If an employer offers this, they, in some way, are being penalized for providing, let’s say, six days of paid time if now another employer is providing three days and they’re getting that paid for.

There’s never, always, a best solution to this, but I just want to make sure that we’re not punishing or penalizing an employer who is providing sick time. Perhaps they should now also be able to have those three days reimbursed if employees are using those for COVID illness purposes.

Alternatively, employers or employees who have currently six paid sick days…. If they are now expected to draw on those six days, three of those six days, for their COVID illness, they are now losing a benefit that they already have. Again, just a consideration, as this moves forward, is that they then should have an additional three days to ensure that they’re not losing anything and that they’re back where they started. As I say, I’m sure that that has been considered.

The reimbursement is a concern. This is, yet again, something that an employer is going to have to apply for. We have seen, with the application programs for grants and other benefits that this government has rolled out in the last year, that it’s not always easy to get a reimbursement. It takes time. It is a very difficult time for employers right now. So if they are having to pay something up front and wait for a period of time to get reimbursed, it is just yet another financial burden that they have.

I’ll just pause to see where…. Where do I want to go next, and in what order do I want to talk about these things?

We’ll talk about the permanent paid sick leave. Putting something into regulation, as opposed to putting it into legislation, is lazy. It is simply lazy. You don’t want to do the work now. You don’t want to come and talk about it. You’re just going to put it away and deal with it later, and whoever is going to be impacted is going to be impacted.

That is something that should be determined. There is time. This bill doesn’t all have to come through right now. We can do this in two pieces. We have the fall to come back. This doesn’t come into effect until 2022.

Let me tell you that when I ran a previous organization, the one I was referring to earlier, and the B.C. Liberals said, “We are going to reduce the MSP by 50 percent next year,” we thought: “Oh my gosh. That’s fabulous.” We did pay the MSP for our employees. That was just going to be wonderful for us.

[4:40 p.m.]

Then the NDP government came in, and they said: “We’re going to get rid of the MSP.” I thought: “That is fabulous.” We were very excited that they were going to get rid of the MSP, and then they introduced the employer health tax.

Now, it’s not that they introduced the employer health tax; it’s just that they didn’t explain what it was or how it was going to impact us. So my board, myself, my team, we didn’t know what the impact was going to be to our organization. We didn’t know how much it was going to cost us. Then we had to pay the MSP and the EHT at the same time.

The reason I’m talking about this is because I really do want to demonstrate that when you put uncertainty where a business or an organization doesn’t know what’s going to happen, it’s very problematic. There is a bit of a paralysis in terms of what we can do and what we can’t do. What’s it going to cost? Can I hire somebody else? It was months and months after we already had our budget that we actually knew what the rules were on EHT for our organization.

This is going to be the same thing. You’re saying: “Hey, we’ve got something that’s going to probably cost you money. It might not cost you money. We’re not sure if it’s going to cost you money or how much it is. But don’t worry about it. We’re just going to decide in regulation, and you’re just going to have to roll with it.”

Putting something in regulation, I just…. It’s inexplicable. You go to the legislation. It tells you about overtime. It tells you how to calculate vacation pay. It tells you all these other things. So why would this be treated any differently? I don’t understand. It makes no sense. Businesses and non-profits are stressed enough about this.

I really, really am glad to see that we have got something moving forward, but I am very disappointed. If this is the government of the people, as the member previous was saying, that really cares about workers and really cares about supporting people in these difficult times, there is no excuse for this having not been brought forward earlier, and there is no excuse for it being as light as it is now.

When you have got someone who is sick with COVID or thinking that they are and needing to get that figured out, three days is nothing. It’s embarrassing. What about all of those people, in the last year, in this whole period of time where there could have actually been sick days in place? What about them? Is this going to be retroactive? What about the employers that have already paid out that sick time for people? Is it going to be reimbursed now? We knew it was an issue.

Think about the impact that this has had to people and communities, to workers and to their families by this not having come in a year ago when it was promised. People went to work sick. They made people sick. People could have died because they had to go to work. This could have been fixed a year ago. It’s not like this government did not know that was going to be an issue. It was the first thing that my team thought of when we knew there was a pandemic.

I find it just shocking that everyone I’m listening to on the other side of the House is patting themselves on the back and saying: “Hurray for us. We’re doing this great thing.” Well, it’s not a great thing. It’s an okay thing, and it’s a lot too late.

I shall now take my seat, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I will give one more opportunity for speakers to this bill. I understood there was one more speaker that wanted to address this bill, but I don’t…. There he is, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Welcome. Good to see you, Member.

[4:45 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to see you.

It’s always a pleasure for myself to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the hard-working women and men in the riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke that I represent. Today, of course, I speak to Bill 13, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2).

Bill 13 and what it means to workers, as has already been stated, is long overdue. And I’m absolutely pleased to see that this Premier has finally recognized the need for this bill to come into place during these incredibly difficult pandemic times.

This bill does represent a vital tool that we need to help flatten the curve and prevent the spread of COVID-19, and it’s a real shame that it’s taken us this long. And I’ll reference this several times as I go forward. Thinking about how we’ve been into this pandemic now for 15 months, it’s really, frankly, a shock that it’s here in May. But nonetheless, we continue.

Frankly, it’s about time that this Premier delivered on sick pay during this pandemic, as I mentioned already — a measure and action that on that side of the House we called for, for over a year. Over a year ago we suggested this in a letter — and crickets. There’s no question that paid sick leave is the vital tool that we need to flatten the curve of COVID-19, and, as well as knowing that outside of parties and social gatherings, the workplace is one of the highest spreaders of COVID-19. It’s important to recognize that.

British Columbians need to be able to safely and confidently abide by health guidelines. We’re constantly told: “You’ve got to step up and do your part” — and British Columbians have done that — “and stay home if you’re displaying any COVID symptoms.” But no British Columbian should ever feel like they have to choose between being unable to pay their bills or support their families or going to work sick. That fear had to be removed.

Timing is everything, they say, and this government tabling this legislation more than a year into the pandemic, more than a year after the Premier promised this to British Columbia, does seem too little, too late. But I don’t want you to take my word for it. Laird Cronk, who’s the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said: “Three…days covered by the province won’t be enough to protect low-wage workers, who are disproportionately women and people of colour.” He also said: “Workers struggling with COVID-19 illnesses face far greater than three days of lost pay. They face potential economic devastation.”

It’s completely unfair to the thousands of families who have been forced to make difficult decisions throughout the 14, 15 months — disproportionately women, people of colour, youth 20 to 39 — without coverage, that were counting on this during the second and now the third waves. It’s been too long in coming.

British Columbians should not have had to wait for so long, considering we first brought this issue of a paid sick leave program to the government’s attention. We addressed, on May 27, a letter to the Premier regarding small business supports — almost a year ago. What are the results of their dithering? They do that a whole bunch.

Let’s look at what the member for Shuswap, and the Labour critic, had to say about this. “You have to ask yourself how many COVID transmissions actually happened in the workplace because of the failure and delay of a government-funded sick leave program being made available.” We’ll never know. We’ll never know what impact that had. We won’t. But surely it had an impact, and it’s a shame that people had to get sick because of it.

By the time this bill passes, it will likely be June before anyone is eligible for the provincial sick pay. What is even more concerning about this bill is that it hasn’t outlined many of the provisions, regulations and consultation that such a bill requires and that most likely won’t be in place even after the bill is granted royal assent.

Consultation. It is a fact that paid sick leave has the potential to be the single largest cost to business in the upcoming year, and in spite of that knowledge, this government has not conducted the appropriate public consultation before tabling this bill. Instead, we see more work done behind closed doors from a government displaying a worrying lack of transparency. Where is the consultation in this? Where is the consultation with businesses? Where is the consultation with employers? This has become a pattern of this government. “Let’s just do things and move on.”

[4:50 p.m.]

The operation of this program has been downloaded to WorkSafeBC, yet this government has not yet set up a WorkSafeBC reimbursement program for employers and businesses. They haven’t done that yet. It’s the same old, same old “ready, fire, aim” from this Premier. Success requires a plan, and these guys don’t plan.

Now employers with limited cash flow will have to pay out money and apply to be reimbursed from the government for up to $200 a day and will be on the hook for the rest. In the place that I live, businesses are hanging on by a thread, and they’re trying to keep their employees employed as best they can. Even the reimbursement of $200 a day…. It’s about cash flow.

With all due respect, a lot of those members don’t understand the concept of cash flow. Without cash flow, you’re not going to be able to pay anybody. That money has to come out of their pockets. Then they’ve got to apply to get the $200 a day back, and we know how good this government has been in dishing out the cash that they promised. I mean, thousands of people are still waiting for their COVID-19 relief fund cheques. For a small business where I live, this is very, very worrisome.

The government has also indicated that a minimum of consultation has occurred with businesses and employers and that this is set to take place after the bill is law. This seems very odd to me, as a former businessperson myself, considering that this government has had over a year to do consultation but chose not to. I don’t know why, but they chose not to. Many businesses will be on the hook for costs associated with this legislation, even if temporarily. Again, they will not even be able to consult with government until the legislation has passed.

This bill also outlines that the employers can ask for “reasonably sufficient proof” from employees, but the Premier has failed to specify what qualifies as reasonable proof. So what is it — that we’re supposed to guess, as small business owners? What does that mean? Are we supposed to just guess? No consistency. How can you win a battle without a plan? There is no planning when it comes to this government.

The Premier and the Labour Minister continue to admit that struggling B.C. businesses cannot afford any additional costs placed on their shoulders, yet there is still a potential for additional costs to be downloaded onto business in this legislation. Bill 13 sets out government remuneration at a maximum of three days, up to $200 per day. Employers paying workers in excess of $200, the daily cap, will be required to pay that overage at their expense, expenses that they can’t afford right now.

This bill still has temporary sick pay measures, but there is no clarity about what will happen in January 2022, leaving the possibility for employers and businesses to be burdened with the cost of a mandatory sick pay program at a later date.

It’s important to underscore that this measure is critical for workers. It’s always about the workers. When I ran my small business, it was always about my workers and their families — always, first of all, foremost. That has to be at the forefront, but there is no clarification of contingency supports for businesses should COVID extend beyond January 2022. Uncertainty is not acceptable. More smoke and mirrors.

The government will pose this program by regulation, and the discussions will be held behind closed doors. This is an affront to the democratic process. My colleagues have talked about it: why not put this into legislation? While we’re happy to see British Columbians are finally getting access to paid sick leave, we’re concerned as to why government attached section 2 to this bill at this time, rather than introduce it into a separate piece of legislation and grant it appropriate room for debate and consultation. That’s the big debate here. What’s the rush?

The first part of this bill is incredibly important. We’ve got to get it out the door. No question about that. But what’s the rush on this section 2? Why not wait for the fall and make it a legislated act so that it can be debated and it can be fleshed out and so that it actually works for British Columbians, not just for the government. Forcing section 2 is unnecessary and does not allow the democratic process to encourage proper consultation. That is critical. We have to have that consultation.

The government needs to understand that in order to undertake comprehensive consultation, they need to bring forward a bill, during this fall session, that provides more clarity to the business community and an opportunity for fulsome debate in this Legislature. That’s what we’re hired to do. We’re hired to represent our constituents and debate these things, not to have it rammed through, through a regulation. What can I say? What is the rush on this section? Why is that so important right now?

British Columbians deserve sick pay during a pandemic, and they are finally going to get it. That’s good, as I’ve already mentioned. British Columbians also deserve a government that is open, honest and transparent — qualities that this current government seems to avoid every chance that they get.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m really looking forward to seeing this in committee stage and really having a look at section 2.

L. Doerkson: I wanted to respond to some of the earlier comments. I enjoyed listening to the member for Chilliwack, but I was unclear. He certainly comes across as though he’s attacking the B.C. Liberals, but to me it seemed a little bit unclear, because it seemed to me it was an attack on small business.

I can assure you that I, as a small business person and an employer in the past, have always cared for the people that I worked with and certainly worked very hard to work with those people to the end, which was trying to, obviously, provide services to our community. But the other thing I did as a small business person was that I paid a lot of taxes — lot of taxes that I collected for this province. I paid a lot of wages, which, of course, were also taxed.

I think that some of the members forget. It’s certainly all right to come after us. We have thick skin, for sure, and we’re here to represent our ridings. But that also represents small business in this province as well.

I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss the bill. I want to share my thoughts on Bill 13, the Employment Standards Amendment Act. I’ll support the first section of Bill 13 and really would ask what has taken so long to get the bill to this House, just like many other members have asked. This was help for the people of this province, and it’s taken 15 months to get to this point. It’s certainly not a new need. I’m glad to support this portion of the bill.

I do have many questions and comments to make around the content of the bill, specifically questions about the decisions that will have to be made in the new year as to the amendment and it continuing into the future and the possibilities of this becoming permanent. I’m unclear what the decision will be, how long it will affect small businesses and how it will affect small businesses and the workforce in general, going forward. The intent is not clear to me from reading the bill. I would seek more clarity on this point for certain.

The amendment will create a mandatory provision to provide up to three days of paid sick leave for employees that have been employed for more than 90 days, which, of course, it sounds like we all support. I understand that this will be a temporary provision, though, until the end of 2021. I’d like to add a couple of comments to the debate with respect to this bill.

First, I’d like to make a plea for small businesses. I can’t help but think that small businesses have struggled so desperately for almost two years, and everybody in this place would recognize that — some of them far worse than others. Some of these businesses have tried so hard to change the way that they do things. They’ve suffered through public health orders that have been well beyond their control.

In the case of restaurants, not only have they struggled through orders, but they have had, in many cases, particularly in the Interior and north, to compete against weather. In some cases, they simply do not have areas attached to their establishments for outdoor dining. Movie theatres in my riding are selling popcorn and mini-doughnuts to stay alive. As good as those doughnuts are, it’s not going to keep them alive.

Gyms in my riding also have tried to keep afloat, reinventing the way that they do things. Now that it’s a little warmer, they’re trying to operate outside. Guide-outfitters, tourism operators, just as we approach the season when they all should be busy, are now faced with travel bans which have been devastating to all of these businesses.

It is a trying time for all of us, but for small businesses throughout this province, it is, quite frankly, frightening. What’s worse is that the funding for these small businesses, with respect to the support that the province has tried to offer them, has been an absolute disaster.

While Bill 13 will create another cost for businesses and another application to fill out — which, of course, is a cost in time as well — we still have so many businesses that have been unable to obtain funding, so many businesses that have applied for funding and, for whatever reason, simply do not qualify, or the funding has simply been delayed. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this delay, along with the struggle through the pandemic, has spelled the end for very many small businesses in this province.

[5:00 p.m.]

The idea that all of this has been happening for the last 15 or so months to these businesses and that the government continues to put up roadblocks for funding and to create, at almost every corner, another cost to be absorbed by small business really is too much for so many of these businesses to bear.

I know the feeling from this government. I know the feeling from the members opposite that small businesses of this province seem to be the never-ending well of funds that they can take from and continue to add burden to. But this well is running dry.

It’s not only public orders that have small businesses struggling, but also bills like this one being introduced to this House that continue to cost them. They will soon be providing paid time off for employees to receive their vaccine. They’re now paying the employer health tax, and now, of course, they’re going to pay for sick time also.

Now, I do understand that there’s a provision for an employer to claim these funds back from the government, which I’m sure will not be quite as smooth as we generally hear it to be. How could it be? Nothing that I have seen introduced here in the last months has been smooth. I’m sure that many businesses have given up trying to receive funds from this government.

I would suggest that many will simply try to absorb this cost rather than to go through a complicated application, rather than going through the headache of trying to fill out whatever new questionnaires and applications will be required to receive this funding back. But I can assure you, from what I have seen in attempting to help constituents with the B.C. business recovery benefit, it will likely not be a simple matter.

It’s alarming to me the hurdles that have been put in front of businesses in this province, and what’s more alarming is that the surprises just keep coming. It keeps coming during a time of this worst public health crisis of all time. I can’t imagine what would be next.

I would like to offer to the debate a suggestion or two with respect to current funding and the new bills. First, please break down the barriers for small business and get the funding already in place to where it needs to be. I can’t stress this enough. Everyone in this place has approved hundreds of millions of dollars to help small businesses, and only two-thirds of those funds have actually made it where they need to go.

These last two employment bills have just added to the pressure of small business. As I pointed out earlier, many of them are waiting for funding already and are near the brink, and now they have to deal with another cost — actually, now two more costs.

Second, please make the application process to recover these funds as simple as possible. None of the supports that have been introduced have been simple. Rather, they have been very complex, slow and tedious application processes that have stalled the much-needed help to these hard-working people.

Please, I hope that we do not continue to invent roadblocks for them to navigate. Please allow these businesses that have survived, the honest opportunity to get through what is left of this pandemic.

In the end, I’m not naive, and I realize that people perhaps require this time, and most are going to make honest use of these benefits that this bill will provide to the workforce, and in an appropriate manner. Certainly, it sounds to me like the entire House supports that portion of the bill.

We’ve seen the B.C. recovery benefit, promised back in the election of 2020, still not being received by a few residents in the Cariboo. We are now almost halfway through May, and still we find ourselves having to advocate for people that were counting on this last Christmas. I can predict that we’ll be back to advocating for new claims to be paid under Bill 13. As I said, nothing has been smooth for these operators or for the residents of this province.

We’ve had the B.C. business recovery program, which has only one purpose, and that was to help businesses survive. One purpose. The application process for this and the recovery benefit have been a nightmare, and even some of that has been confirmed by the hard-working staff that have had to administer it. We’ve had to advocate for businesses that were having near-death experiences to try to receive these funds.

I must admit, as a small business owner myself, the ask from government with respect to information that has been required has been absolutely outrageous. I had one business in my riding that almost did not qualify because they didn’t make enough money in 2019, which, by the way, was their first year in business.

To be in a time when not only are you hoping for help from this government by way of funding and, at the same time, trying to accommodate bills like Bill 13 and others, of course, and trying to manoeuvre around public health orders…. I can’t imagine the challenges that these businesses are facing on a daily basis.

[5:05 p.m.]

I can only imagine how businesses will feel about trying to go back to the computer and, once again, try to take another kick at the can, with respect to trying to get any funds out of this government. There are simply too many businesses close to the edge to continue to add to their burden.

I really hope that the second part of Bill 13 will be made clear as to its intention in the coming debate and we clearly outline how it will affect our small businesses going forward at the beginning of 2022, that it will clearly outline if this is another bill that will ultimately be funded on the backs of these small businesses or will the government continue to fund this. Small businesses that create unbelievable amounts of employment, unbelievable amounts of tax income for this province, really need the help.

Thank you very much for the time here today to convey my thoughts on Bill 13.

R. Merrifield: I very much appreciate the time today to rise and to speak to this bill. I’m going to start off by saying it’s usually better late than never or at least it’s about time, but in this particular case, late is too late. The time is actually almost over.

This pandemic has shone a light through every crack of legislation, every weakness that we have in policy, every gap that actually exists within our society. What we’ve seen through these cracks is racism, discrimination, eroded rights and freedoms, as well as it has created the largest chasm between the haves and the have-nots that we’ve ever seen in recorded history. The history books will go to show this.

In this moment, right now, we’re talking about something that’s coming 15 months too late. While all of this was happening, while every crack was showing, while every gap was being exposed, where was this government?

This pandemic started 15 months ago. I can tell you in the first two weeks of that shutdown, every company that I had access to absolutely went into overdrive with contingency plans, with new budgets, with trying to understand what the ramifications were going to be and how to make it through. It didn’t matter if it was companies, non-profits, agencies, for-profit. It just didn’t matter.

Every other entity in this province seemed to take note of what was happening on job sites, in offices, in clinics, in our workspaces and really took a look at how this pandemic was affecting those corners of our province. Yet this government didn’t.

This government, the largest influence on society, has remained silent. This government, since it came into a majority, has not done the job of protecting the worker. But I can tell you who has: businesses. I have just listened to three of my colleagues talk about how their small companies protected their workers. I can say with all earnestness that every single company that I was dealing with protected its workers.

Today I want to celebrate this bill. I really do. I want to be excited that we’re going to see this come to fruition. Yet it feels like it’s almost too late and it’s so little.

If the NDP government was interested in reducing transmission and in keeping B.C.’ers safe, well, why not bring the legislation forward back in December? It was apparently on the shelf already. Or at least back in March. But in June?

[5:10 p.m.]

Today we celebrated that we’re almost 50 percent of the first shot, the first dose of vaccine. How is this in time at all? It’s too late. The hope of B.C., the hope of every British Columbian, really the hope of the globe, is that we’re not going to need this legislation much past July 1. What did we hear our Prime Minister say? “You know, we get to have barbecues this summer and maybe even something else this fall. It’ll be great.”

Meanwhile what have we endured, without sick pay? We’ve watched as seniors died. We knew it was because of the virus that was being brought into the long-term-care facilities. We were being told. The alarm bells were being sounded. We knew that. You know what else happened? Our nurses got sick. Our front-line workers were the heaviest hit, in terms of transmission.

The other thing that happened is that businesses that were not as successful, the have-nots of the businesses, were brought to their knees, and they couldn’t put those precautions in place. They couldn’t put those supports in place for their workforce.

If we truly wanted to stop the spread, if the NDP government were truly serious about this, well, we would have already had one in place. We would have done that because we know that workplaces are a massive spreader of the virus.

Time was our enemy in this situation. While everyone was acting very quickly and pivoting even faster, we sat. We delayed coming back to this House. We delayed having conversations just like this one. I want to create that discomfort for all of us, because we need to act faster when we are in an emergency situation such as a pandemic.

Those who are in the highest-transmission environments and workplaces were the least able to actually afford to be sick or to take time off. So they did go to work, and they went to work sick. It might not have been that bad for them. Maybe the virus didn’t affect them that much, but for the 90-year-old that they were caring for, it did. For the surgical ward that they were working within, it did.

Some of those workers would have loved to have been protected, would have loved to have taken off that time. Some of those businesses would have loved to have provided that, but they couldn’t. They couldn’t pay for it. While these businesses were struggling and were being brought to their knees, again, we remained silent. Only after the budget came out, only after the debate in this House — where many from this side stood up exactly where I am today and said: “We need to advocate for the worker. Where is the sick pay?” Only after our provocations have we seen this government respond.

I’d like to celebrate that today as democracy that’s working, because I care about things like racism and poverty. I’m not going to pat myself on the back while watching the largest divide between the haves and the have-nots widen to the greatest in recorded history. But I’m shocked that this government didn’t have a plan and didn’t have a way forward. They didn’t have it in their budget. They didn’t have something on the shelf that they could whip out. They didn’t have it in a contingency.

How could they not do the one thing that workers would require during a pandemic? That is sick pay, so that they wouldn’t have to go to work ill. What we did see was this government chastise those that were not able to abide by the rules, chastise those who had to work in many long-term-care facilities just to make ends meet, ones that were not able to afford rent and stay at home while they were sick, businesses that were crippled by workers coming to work and infecting their staff.

[5:15 p.m.]

This government remained silent, and that is why we stood up. That is why this side of the House said: “Where is the sick pay?” This act doesn’t even come into force until June 1. How many will actually even require this still? I am somewhat concerned by the disingenuity of being told that there’s a plan on a shelf but that it can’t actually be pulled out until 15 months later.

Section 2 absolutely alarms me, because the one thing I believe in wholeheartedly — it’s why I believe in every single person that sits around this House and in what they do to represent their communities, regardless of what colour they wave — is democracy. I believe in it wholeheartedly. Section 2 flies in the face of democracy, because it gives us little time for debate. Oh, wait — none. No data. Once you have the data on the other side, well, then we won’t even be able to analyze it or to debate it inside of this House.

This is where democracy happens. This is why we are all elected. It’s here that we choose debate and choose to have conversations like this. Thank goodness we do, because we have sick pay legislation in front of us that we wouldn’t have had, because it wasn’t in the budget. Through debate, we now do. So why can we not debate section 2 in the fall? It’s our duty to those that vote for us. It’s our duty to those that elect us. It’s our duty to make sure that it’s in the best interest of every British Columbian.

It’s concerning that this bill hasn’t outlined many of the provisions, the regulations and the consultation that are going to be done after. We don’t get to see it, and we don’t get to know what actually transpired. It likely won’t even be in place until the bill is granted royal assent.

Considering the fact that paid sick leave will probably be the single largest cost to this government in the upcoming year, I don’t believe that we have conducted — and I don’t believe that government has conducted — the appropriate public consultation before tabling this bill. Instead, we’re just seeing more work done, behind closed doors, from a government that’s displaying a worrying lack of transparency.

There are so many details that aren’t in here, from the WorkSafeBC reimbursement program and how that’s going to actually work, to what the consultation is. Minimum consultation has actually occurred, but what is that? Most of it’s going to take place after this bill is law, but it’s these same businesses that are going to be on the hook for costs associated with this legislation. It’s like we’re debating a supply bill without actually having a budget. Wait, I see a pattern.

What if we’re on the hook for costs associated with this legislation, even if it’s temporarily? We won’t be able to consult; we won’t be able to debate. We don’t even know what’s going to happen until January of 2022, but we’re being asked to trust in a government that has not yet earned that trust. Forgive me if I’m being somewhat reticent to give blind approval. But if what this NDP government does with long-term-care reports, Site C reports or COVID-19 data, for instance — or any data — is any indicator of what they’re going to do behind closed doors on this bill, one of the largest labour laws of our time, I am concerned.

[5:20 p.m.]

I want to be excited. I want to say yes. I want to unequivocally put my name to something of that magnitude, but right now I’d be putting my name to nothing. I don’t even know what I would be saying yes to, because it’s not going to be known until January of next year.

Three days of sick pay. It’s a start. It’s not enough to get someone through COVID. British Columbians deserve this bill. Workers deserve this bill. Businesses deserve this bill. But I’m not sure if it’s what they want or need, and they don’t deserve it this way, not without a full, democratic process in place on section 2.

The public deserves better. The public deserves transparency. The public deserves debate, because the public deserves democracy. Employers on their knees. Women excluded from the workforce. Racial minorities hardest hit in highest-transmission jobs. Youth inordinately affected. And this government wants to add an antidemocratic process to the list of ills effected on this population? Why?

We have time, and I believe that this NDP government can do the right thing. The Premier and Labour Minister continue to admit that struggling B.C. businesses cannot afford additional costs. Yet there’s potential for additional costs within this bill. My hope is that you will hear our urges for democracy. Hopefully, democracy is something that we can all agree on.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 13, the sick pay bill.

As we’ve heard, unfortunately, this is several months long overdue. When you think back to March 23 last year, when this House unanimously voted on a COVID spending package, it was unallocated money at the time — billions and billions of dollars, with further votes for even more billions of dollars. At that time, and as we progressed through COVID, what became very clear was that in spite of us approving unanimously those billions of dollars, the Premier was relying on riding on the coat-tails of the federal government for programs and supports to help individuals and businesses.

The billions of dollars were very hard to track — where the government was putting it, where they were spending it, what they were doing with it once it was approved. That should be of concern with people as they look at Bill 13 moving forward.

It wasn’t that long ago that the Premier said sick pay needs to happen. But it cannot come at the cost of businesses. They can’t afford it right now. The Premier couldn’t even keep that commitment with this bill with a $3.1 billion slush fund built into their current budget.

With the billions of dollars approved last year by this House, there was no excuse to need to wait for the federal government for a sick pay program to be in place that would have had to cost businesses money. They could have simply funded it out of the billions of dollars that were unanimously approved by this House — money they had trouble spending, money they couldn’t get out the door. They still can’t get it out the door.

Their business grant program went from a one-year program…. The Premier actually said: “You don’t understand. That’s not how it works. It all has to be spent by March 31.”

Lo and behold, the unspent money showed up in this year’s budget, and then we suddenly had a two-year program for business supports. But that money still can’t get out the door. Then they had to rob it for circuit breaker money, in spite of a $3.1 billion slush fund, because they don’t have any confidence that the remaining money of that program is going to actually get out the door to businesses, because they’ve made it so cumbersome and so full of red tape.

[5:25 p.m.]

We could have had a provincial sick pay program fully funded by the province last year for pandemic reasons. The money was there. The money was approved. The money sat. Instead of people getting the help they needed to stay away from workplaces when they were sick, we saw a second wave, and we are now in the middle of a third wave.

This government has the gall to bring forward a bill that flies directly in the face of what the Premier committed to. Then the Premier wonders why people are done taking him at his word. He’s demonstrated time and again that his word is worthless. His election promises have been worthless. His commitment to businesses that a sick pay program would not have any cost to those businesses — worthless.

When you look at this bill, absolutely, any business with people that earn under $25 an hour, there won’t be a cost to the business. That is a large portion of businesses, absolutely. It doesn’t help many of the trades-based businesses out there. I guess construction sites aren’t quite as big of a worry for this government and this Premier. I guess the tradespeople out there, most of whom, if not all, earn over $25 an hour…. I guess those businesses that will now have to shoulder the difference don’t count as businesses shouldering a cost to this Premier and this government.

If they’re going to play semantics with language like that, imagine why we have apprehension on section 2, the “just trust us” clause. There is no trust. That trust has been shattered time and again by this Premier failing to act and follow through on any of his commitments. His words, his actions do not match up with what he was saying previously, on a wide range of issues.

You want to talk transparency? That doesn’t exist. It certainly doesn’t exist in this bill. It took 15 months to deliver a bill that essentially says businesses will pay the difference and it will cost us roughly $300 million. But we’re not really sure, because we can’t show you any of the data that we used to calculate to get to that number. Either calculations were made and, once again, the government doesn’t want to share any of that data on how calculations were made — sounds a little familiar — or they just randomly picked a number out of the air that they thought this might cost.

Let’s say it’s $300 million, on the tail end of a pandemic. Probably $500 million, $600 million last year, for the main part of the pandemic, especially if it was not to put any costs on businesses. Last I checked, on March 23, we approved $5 billion of open spending for the government last year.

Then they came back in December and needed a couple billion dollars more. They got that too. They didn’t spend it all. Wouldn’t tell us where they were going to spend it all. Wouldn’t tell us why they needed $2 billion to push out a program that was going to be about $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion. Didn’t want to tell us where the other $700 million were going, all the while pointing their fingers at Ottawa, saying: “We don’t have a pandemic sick pay program because Ottawa won’t fund it.”

Well, this chamber voted enough money for them to fund it. They can say all they want that they care for the worker, but it seems very clear that unless Ottawa was going to carry the luggage for them, they weren’t going to do anything. We’re seeing that with child care now. We’re seeing it with a wide range of issues. Any supports to a direct person or business of any consequence through this pandemic has been because the federal government initiated things, not because this government did.

We have a bill with sick pay, three days, that will put costs on a great many businesses out there, a great many. The government can’t have it both ways. They can’t praise and talk about good-paying, family-supporting jobs, all of which would be over $25 an hour, and then turn around and introduce a bill that says to that employer paying those people those good-paying, family-supporting jobs that, actually, you do have an added cost with this bill.

[5:30 p.m.]

Just ignore what the Premier said a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, we need to ignore whatever the Premier says. He either misspeaks or he changes his mind and doesn’t want to be forthright about why he changed his mind.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

It makes sense now why last week, when we were asking where this bill was and asked direct questions of the minister and the Premier, if they were going to use the $3 billion to fund it, to follow through on the Premier’s commitment, his own words, that there would not be an added cost to businesses with a sick pay bill for the pandemic period, they wouldn’t answer that question.

They wouldn’t give a direct answer. “Of course we’re going to live up to the Premier’s commitment, to the Premier’s own words.” Instead, it was evasion and tap dancing around, as we see in question after question in question period.

Of course, when we point out that our suspicion is that means the bill coming forward will have an added cost to businesses, we get head shakes from the government. “Of course it won’t. We won’t dip into WCB surpluses. We won’t change WCB rates to employers to pay for this.” Well, at least they didn’t do that, but they’re still adding a cost to businesses.

If I’m wrong, the minister can correct me in his closing comments. For all those tradespeople that earn $25 an hour or more, there’s no added cost to their employer if they need to trigger this sick pay for three days. A gas fitter, a welder, a plumber, an electrician, a framer…. The list of jobs, especially in the Interior, that are over $25 an hour is never-ending.

I instantly got an email. People think people don’t watch the chamber and care about the debate, according to the Premier. I couldn’t believe that today, when the Premier pointed out that, perhaps, parents of kids struggling with addictions don’t really care what our debates are around addiction issues. That was offensive in the extreme, frankly, to those families and those parents struggling for help and wanting to know what’s going on with their legislators, talking about something as critical as that.

People do pay attention. I had emails last night, instantly, when this bill was brought in. Employers are concerned about the cost to their bottom line. They grudgingly understand the three hours of pay to go get a shot, because they want to keep their workplaces safe. Then they see this layered on.

The employers I’m hearing from are self-made contracting companies that started 30 or 40 years ago as four people operations. They built themselves up to hundreds of employees. I know the NDP don’t like hearing about the ’90s. In the ’90s, they dropped back down to 15 or 16 employees. They’ve built themselves back up to 200.

They’re based in a small town in my riding. They do work all across the province on large industrial sites. They have 200 employees. Not one of them gets paid even close to $25 an hour. How much is this going to cost them, after hearing the Premier commit to no added costs to businesses?

Again, I invite the minister to correct me when he gets up for his closing comments and confirm that there is no added cost to any employer in this province, including those that pay people good, family-supporting jobs of over $25 an hour. But he won’t be able to do that, which means the Premier’s words, once again, are completely hollow.

Then we get to section 2, the “just trust me” clause. Just trust a government that couldn’t even be trusted, with a $3.1 billion slush fund, to follow through on the most minimal commitment possible by the Premier that a sick pay program for the pandemic would not be on the backs of businesses. But still, just trust them, moving forward.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Why is that section so important? Because that’s what sets the stage for sick pay moving forward, which most definitely will be on the backs of businesses. That section and how that will roll out just gets approved with zero detail to it.

[5:35 p.m.]

Now, we’ve waited 15 months to see a page-and-a-half bill that apparently was so complex it took forever for the government to figure out how to say: “Well, you get paid eight hours, up to $200 per employee.” God knows when you’re going to get paid, because the government takes forever to disburse any money of relief. You can upfront the money, but that’s not a cost to businesses, apparently, for their cash flow. No cost there as they wait months, potentially, to get this money back from the government.

“Just trust us. Just trust us on what January will look like.” When the real cost to businesses fully hits, including those businesses that pay employees under $25 an hour…. “Just wait. Trust us. It’ll be fair.”

There was no rush for 15 months, in the middle of a pandemic, to bring something forward. Now we have section 2, with a big rush to get through the House now that won’t even take effect till January 1, seven months from now. News flash for government: we’re supposed to be back in this chamber in October. Last I checked we could still pass legislation in October. The legislation around sick pay, moving forward, could be reintroduced in October, passed and well in place long before January 1.

That would require legislation to be brought forward to this House after proper consultation happened, after proper consultation with stakeholders, with labour groups, with employee groups and with employers, who do not have the bottomless pockets that this government seems to think they have.

That could easily happen. The timeline would be very easy. That would give another five or six months of consultation by this government to then bring forward what sick pay on January 1, 2022, would actually look like. It would get debated, just like this bill is here. A day or two later, it would be through. Obviously the government has a majority. They’re going to do whatever the heck they want anyways. But they’ll go through the guise of consultation.

“At least people will know what to expect on January 1.” But that’s not what’s going to happen. Frankly, the “just trust us” line is wearing a little thin for most people. When the Premier says, “Just trust me,” but he can’t follow through on a commitment that businesses won’t see a cost for pandemic pay of sick days, businesses start to get pretty cynical.

Employees actually even start to get pretty cynical. We’ve heard that from the labour groups. They don’t even know what the heck the government wants to do with sick pay. They don’t know if it’s going to be seven days for a year, if it’s going to be 14 days or if it’s going to stay at three.

It’s quite remarkable, for a government that’s supposed to be so tightly aligned with labour, that even labour is shaking their head and saying this bill doesn’t really meet the test of what they were hoping for. At least that would be understandable. We have businesses that aren’t really happy with how this is laid out, and we have labour that’s not happy with how it’s laid out.

Now, I know that especially the Attorney General is fond of saying: “Well, that would just mean that if no one’s happy, we must have a proper bill.” No, that’s not actually how things work. If you have proper consultation and proper explanation to people, and people actually know where the guideposts are and where the end line is, they may not ultimately like it, but they will at least understand it and move forward with that.

Let’s look at the justification the government used for the ever-increasing minimum wage, which is fine. But time and again, the government has said that businesses need to know how to plan. They need to know what’s in store for them. They need to be able to make plans in advance and know what the schedule of the minimum wage increases are. Suddenly, with this bill, with section 2, they don’t need to know that, on something as potentially expensive as sick pay legislation, with who knows how many days. But just trust them.

It is unbelievable to me, when you look at the timelines available to this government to have something properly vetted — properly discussed with the broader community, with the broader business community, between now and when we reconvene in this chamber in October — to have something in place for January 1, that this is the junk of a bill that we wound up with.

[5:40 p.m.]

It is beyond unbelievable that that’s how this government has chosen to deal with things, with something as fundamentally important as a change in sick pay legislation in this province, especially when the first half of the bill very clearly breaks the Premier’s own commitment. But just trust the Premier. Just trust the Premier. He’s a man of his word. That’s why there are no more portables in Surrey, right? It’s been four years. Oh, wait a second. There are record numbers of portables in Surrey.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: It was the Premier’s words four years ago that there’d be no more portables in four years. Not my words, the Premier’s words.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Not my words, the Premier’s words.

The Premier’s words: there’s going to be a cancer centre in Kamloops in four years. That was six months ago. It’s nowhere on the horizon at all. Premier’s words; not my words.

It was the Premier’s words that there would be no cost to businesses for pandemic sick pay. That was his commitment, not ours. We were asking where the legislation was for 15 months. Contrary to what the Premier flung out in question period, we actually wrote a letter to the Premier in May of 2020 wondering where the sick pay legislation was. Didn’t get a response. He must have been waiting for Ottawa to try to bail him out, because that seems to be the response.

Everyone will have $10-a-day child care. “Oh, no. We’re going to wait. Oh, look at that. Ottawa threw it in the budget. I guess we can just drag our feet a little bit longer.” Premier’s words, not our words.

Premier’s words: “Oh, there’s going to be a $400 renter subsidy.” That sure disappeared fast. But just trust him, trust him on an open-ended bill that has the potential to add massive costs to every business out there.

It’s very deceptive, because if you’re a business owner right now that doesn’t pay someone over $25 an hour, you’re probably not paying that close attention to this bill, because you’re thinking: “Well, okay. There’s probably going to be, knowing this government, a nine-month or a year delay getting reimbursed, but technically, I’ll get reimbursed at some point.” The problem is that this bill, come January 1, will create a sick pay program that that employer of restaurants, of those pesky 20- to 39-year-olds that the Premier seems to keep…. They’re blowing it for him.

All those front-line workers in retail, in transportation, in restaurant and food service areas that don’t necessarily make $25 an hour, a great many of them…. All those employers who won’t necessarily be impacted between now and December 31 — oh, they’ve got a big bill coming for them after December 31. But we can’t even tell them how to budget for that bill, because this government has chosen to just say: “Well, we’ll do it with regulation. Don’t worry about it. We’ll do it in regulation.”

When all we hear are labour advocates saying, “Well, that should be 14 days, not three….” Then you hear other labour advocates saying it should be seven. They’re trying to be a little more moderate with it over the year. We don’t know where the government is going to land. Is it going to be ten days? Is it going to be two, basically, working weeks, if you’re sick, that the employer will be paying you to stay home at 100 percent at their cost the way this bill is structured? We don’t know. But again, why the rush? It doesn’t take effect till January 1.

You could bring forward a bill in October that actually spells that all out for everybody. People could see it. They could understand what’s going to happen in a few months’ time. It would have been after consultation had taken place. It is frankly amazing there hasn’t been enough consultation, given that they’ve talked about needing a sick pay bill for 15 months. So I don’t know who the heck they’ve been talking to for the last 15 months, but apparently it wasn’t in consultation around proper sick pay legislation.

Again, Premier’s words a year ago. Oh, he’s already got a plan ready to go. It took him 15 months, a year to 15 months to fine-tune the one clause in this bill? That’s honestly what it took? That’s laughable.

[5:45 p.m.]

At least be forthright with people. You didn’t want to have to pay it. You’ve got other pet projects, with the billions upon billions of dollars that this House has unanimously approved for COVID supports, where you want to shuttle it off to. You have $3.1 billion sitting in a budget right now in this fiscal year specifically earmarked for COVID supports.

If COVID sick pay benefits to people in the middle of a pandemic do not qualify as COVID supports, I don’t know what will. So if this is going to cost $300 million this year, why not fully fund it? Why not fully fund it so the Premier could actually be a man of his word and not put the cost to businesses?

We’ve heard a lot of praise about the mining industry in this chamber from both sides of the House over the last few days. Those workers are all over $25 an hour. If this supersedes whatever their collective agreement is, this kicks in, not the collective agreement. If they’ve already negotiated something better, fair enough. That’s the free and fair collective agreement process. That’s between the employer and the employee, as it should be. But if they haven’t, this is an added cost.

All of those trades contracting companies out there — this is an added cost. All of the mechanic shops out there — this is an added cost. All of what you would consider your stereotypical blue-collar worker, as they like to be termed — this is an added cost. To all of those companies, this bill in its current form — and it makes me shudder to think what the bill coming in January…. The regulation, sorry. It’s not going to be a bill, because there will be no debate.

There’ll be questionable consultation, because frankly, it doesn’t really matter once this bill gets passed what anyone has to say to the government on their thoughts of what a sick pay program should look like, moving forward, because the Premier, through the minister, will have the power to strictly bring it in by regulation.

It could be done on a Friday evening — just slipped into the order-in-council disclosures that happen. Don’t even have to have a press release if you don’t want to. Although we know the Premier likes his photo ops, so I’m sure that by then, he’ll want some sort of photo op, patting himself on the back for adding untold costs on businesses.

It’s simply not good governance. It’s not open and transparent government, by any measure. I find myself saying this a lot in this chamber when I’m speaking to bills like this that are so blatantly hiding what the true agenda of the government is.

The government members that used to sit in opposition, be it in Victoria, or, I think about half of them used to sit in opposition in Ottawa now…. I’m not sure, but there are quite a few former MPs on that side as well. Ask themselves, when they were in their opposition days, what they’d be saying to this. There are actually a lot of Hansard quotes of things coming in on regulation by various governments, both federally and provincially, about the concerns that the opposition would have about things being done by regulation.

Instead, what we have is a bill that is totally open-ended. It provides zero insight at all into where the government is trying to head with future sick pay legislation that will kick in on January 1 — none whatsoever. No data on how they’re going to have the matrix on it. No data provided on how they even came up with the $300 million for the existing program that’s in this. Nothing.

That is a problem, because when the Premier stands in front of the media and says there will be no added costs to businesses and turns around two weeks later and has his minister introduce a bill that actually does have a cost to businesses, credibility goes out the door. It’s simply not there. It doesn’t stand up to a smell test whatsoever.

It’ll be interesting, as we get to committee stage, listening to the justifications and the tap dancing that will start to happen and the reworking of what the Premier’s words really were, or not.

[5:50 p.m.]

That’s what is going to happen. That’s what’ll happen if this comes up tomorrow. Hopefully, it does come up tomorrow. I know the other side will howl that we’re trying to delay, because we spent all of a couple of hours talking about a bill today. But I think, after waiting 15 months for a bill that’s all of a page and a half, that’s not unreasonable.

We’ll get to committee stage, hopefully tomorrow. Hopefully, the government will see fit to bring it forward, because it’s been a long time since we’ve had any substantial legislation to actually discuss in this chamber, anyways, after — what? — going on seven weeks out of 12. But it’s good that they finally have brought something forward to, at least, kind of get into.

It’s too bad that half of it has absolutely no detail for us to actually scrutinize and look at. It’s too bad that the other half has no data that the government is willing to share and talk about — of how they actually created that first half of the bill. And it’s really too bad that yet again we have a prime example of the Premier breaking his word.

There’s no other way around it. He flat out has broken his word yet again. The trustworthy factor of things that this Premier is now saying at all times, in the middle of a pandemic, when people should be able to trust what he says absolutely as that is actually what will happen in the middle of a pandemic…. It is shocking that this bill so clearly misses that mark. The minister will have a lot of answers to have to give on behalf of the Premier, as many ministers seem to have do these days to clean up the mess of what the Premier has said that doesn’t match legislation and doesn’t match government actions.

This bill does not come close to fulfilling what the Premier committed to. It certainly should send shock waves through the business community, moving forward, in January — just how open-ended and free it is for the government to do whatever they want with sick pay starting January 1, which will be 100 percent on the backs of business owners, business owners that will still be struggling to come out of this pandemic.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Labour to close debate.

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the members who took part in the debate of this very important bill that we’re debating. I think the theme from the opposition was that it’s long overdue, and why didn’t we act on it last year when they wrote a letter?

I just want to clarify that one point. We weren’t sitting idly by. When the pandemic hit us, we started to get to work immediately. We put in support systems for businesses. We put in support systems for families and workers. Since we’re talking about workers, let’s zero in on the workers — what we did in those 14 months.

First, workers didn’t have the right, in this province, to take sick leave without losing their job. We fixed that. Through a presumption clause, with the help of WCB, we brought in changes so that the workers who become sick because of COVID-19 at workplaces kept their benefits from day one — immediately, without delay. Otherwise, it takes days and weeks, sometimes, to process the claims, going back and forth on whether it is work-related or not. But the presumption clause fixed that problem.

Lately we know that the vaccination program is the one that will take us to the end-game of getting over the pandemic. We brought in paid time off for workers to go and get vaccinated. It’s good for the businesses, good for the workers, good for the communities where the workers live.

Parallel to all of that, we were working with the federal government to bring in a national solution to this national emergency. Their twins in Alberta believed in the same thing. Their cousins in Saskatchewan believed in the same thing. Their guru in Toronto said the same thing. We all agreed it was a national emergency, and there needed to be a national solution.

[5:55 p.m.]

That’s why our Premier took the charge, and the federal government listened. They put in the Canada recovery sickness benefit program. Of course, there were flaws and gaps in there. It was brought to their attention by the Premier, by myself, by my other colleagues when they were talking to their federal counterparts.

Qualifying criteria. You must lose at least 50 percent of work or income in order to qualify for the federal program. If you qualify, $500 is less than our minimum wage here. We brought it to their attention. Two weeks was not long enough. They listened. They extended that for four weeks. There was one gap — the one day or two days when the workers lose before they qualify for the federal program — that is going to be fixed with this bill that we are debating right now.

Why today? The federal budget came only two weeks ago; ours was the day after. When we tried to convince them they failed to fix those gaps, then it was up to us to go on our own, have a B.C.-made solution to fix those gaps. That’s what we are doing with this one.

Workers in British Columbia, when they wake up in the morning, if they feel sick, if they have symptoms, they can stay home, and they can be assured they’re taken care of. They will be assured that they will not lose any income as a result of that. And the workplaces are safer because transmission of COVID is limited now. That’s what we are trying to do here.

Now I want to go to the other areas that they brought in. The member for Kelowna-Mission, with all due respect, I think that would be a very good leadership speech that I heard. A lot of politics, but it was full of factual errors.

She mentioned that many of the health care workers went to work sick. She mentioned nurses. She probably should check out that they have sick benefit plans in their collective agreements. Other health care workers also have that.

The other thing that she mentioned: the racialized communities, racialized workers, the women who were hurt because we delayed bringing this in. She can be forgiven because she wasn’t there. Talk about neglecting and trampling on racialized and women’s rights.

She sits around the caucus table. They have members on that caucus table today — the member from Abbotsford West, their current leader. They were the chief architects of the onslaught of attacks on the workers’ rights in 2002-2003. Ten thousand workers were thrown on the street so that they could bring in their donors and friends to take their jobs. Most of them were racialized worker — most of them women, immigrants.

She could talk to those who are still at the caucus table. “Why did you do that? What did we do to fix it? When are we going to apologize to them?” She never did that.

Then she mentioned how we are making decisions behind closed doors. Again, she wasn’t there, but there are others who are still at the caucus table. When the WCB act was rewritten, when the labour code was rewritten, when the employment standard was rewritten, they sent one person who went to his boardroom and rewrote the whole thing — no consultation with anybody. That’s what closed-door decisions are.

Then the House Leader talked about consultation for the part 2 of this bill. “They don’t matter,” he said. They don’t matter. You know why he believes in that? Because that’s exactly how they operate. They make up their mind, then they go for consultation. Then they just bring it in, what they believed in the first place anyway.

[6:00 p.m.]

Our record is very clear. When we brought in changes to the labour code, we went around the province — thousands of inputs, 29 recommendations almost unanimously agreed to by the panel. We adopted almost all of them. That’s consultation. When we changed the employment standard — again, consultation around the province. We accepted those recommendations. That’s exactly how we operate.

They don’t believe in consultation, because they never did. Anyway, those are some of the things that, unfortunately, came.

I think it’s a very good bill. I hope that they could support it because they wanted to have it in. They said they wrote letters back in May last year. I hope that they will support it. It’s a good bill, with two parts to it. It’ll have immediate, short-term solutions so that the workers, if they miss one day or two days, will not lose any income. They’ll stay home and will stop the transmission in the workplace.

The long-term solution: we will do the consultation. We will be guided by the consultation — what kind of long-term solution there needs to be. How we go about it will be determined through consultation. We are fixing those short-term and long-term solutions.

I think that’s all I have to say, but it’s a good bill. I hope we get the support, because there are so many people out there that are waiting for us to pass this bill so that they can actually utilize it. It’s good for business; it’s good for workers. I’m so proud to talk about this and to support this bill.

Those are my comments. Now I move second reading of Bill 13.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 13, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2).

Hon. H. Bains: Division.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Labour has called division. Pursuant to the sessional order of March 1, 2021, the division will be deferred to 30 minutes prior to the end of today, which for today is 6:30 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage, Bill 2, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act, 2021.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. We’ll take a short recess as we prepare for the committee stage.

The House recessed from 6:03 p.m. to 6:06 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 6:06 p.m.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: Okay. On clause 2, I wonder if I can ask the Attorney to…. I think the officials tried to explain this to me when we had the briefing. I must confess that I wasn’t entirely clear.

I think this is…. In part, these subsections previously existed in section 25 of the act. That, of course, is being changed. I think, actually, section 25 is being deleted in these amendments.

Why, again, is it necessary to particularize specific sections of the Ombudsperson Act and not the other 12 acts referred to in section 3(2)?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. A couple of pieces here.

The member is correct that this amendment repeals section 25 of the existing bill. Section 25 was in the section that related to investigations under PIDA. The original drafting decision was that it would make sense to harmonize the Ombudsperson’s powers related to investigations by incorporating them into the PIDA act in the investigation section.

What became apparent was that the Ombudsperson authorities that would be beneficial to have harmonized in PIDA and in the Ombudsperson Act weren’t limited to investigations. For example, the Ombudsperson has an authority to delegate. The Ombudsperson has a privative clause in the Ombudsperson Act that insulates against some forms of judicial review. Given the broad nature of some of these powers, not limited to investigations but that the Ombudsperson was understandably desirous of incorporating into PIDA, they removed section 3, the section relating to how PIDA relates to other forms of legislation.

The specific provisions that have been removed are, in terms of the Ombudsperson’s Act, and disapplied, that are the exception to this rule of wanting to incorporate it, all of the Ombudsperson’s Act’s powers, into PIDA…. Section 16 provides protection from reprisals. It duplicates what is already provided in the act, so to ensure consistency within the act itself, the PIDA protection from reprisals applies for the purposes of PIDA-related disclosures.

Similarly, section 29 of the Ombudsperson Act provides immunity, which is also provided in PIDA. So it’s been removed as well to ensure consistency within the act itself. I hope that assists the member with the question.

I received some correspondence I just wanted to put on the record from the Ombudsperson, clarifying…. The member and I had a couple of exchanges where I wasn’t as clear as I wish I could have been about an investigation that the Ombudsperson’s office was engaged in, related to PIDA.

Just to put it on the record, the Ombudsperson has written and made it very clear that that investigation is not related at all to the Ombudsperson’s office. It is related to a different ministry or agency and is conducted under the Ombudsperson’s authority. There are no active investigations of any type within the Ombudsperson’s office. It’s something that he wanted to make clear, certainly, to my office.

M. de Jong: I’m obliged to the Attorney General. I think he’ll be able to tell from his correspondence that I received, I suspect, a very similar-type letter. I think it’s appropriate for him to relay to the committee the submission from the Ombudsperson, making clear what the Attorney has just said for the purposes of laying any concerns to rest within the Ombudsperson’s office.

[6:15 p.m.]

I, too, have received that correspondence and am satisfied with the information making clear that the investigation that the Attorney and I were discussing yesterday did not relate to allegations about matters that may or may not have occurred within the Ombudsperson’s office. So I’m glad we’ve cleared that up, apparently, to the satisfaction of all.

Last thing on section 2. That phrase in the bill, subsection (3), “with necessary modifications….” Language in statutes tends to be pretty specific. That strikes me as a bit vague. Is there an example that the staff can assist the Attorney with as to what that might refer to with the phrase “with necessary modifications”?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised by staff that this is a classic mutatis mutandis provision. I’m sure I don’t need to say any more to the member, in that that should be fully explanatory, but just in case, for others listening at home….

I did have to look it up to confirm my understanding. The idea is that the Ombudsperson, and of this Latin phrase…. The main points of the section that are incorporated still apply but can be altered to be appropriate for the bill that it’s being incorporated into.

The example that was offered to me was section 9, related to confidentiality. In the Ombudsperson Act there are no exemptions for disclosure related to PIDA. Of course not, because it was drafted and put in place before PIDA. So for the confidentiality requirements about non-disclosure in section 9 of the Ombudsperson Act, those would be interpreted through this phrase “with necessary modifications” to incorporate the exemptions to non-disclosure that are contained in the PIDA act in order to make it fit within the context of the bill.

The confidentiality requirements and authorities apply, from the Ombudsperson Act, but because they’re brought into PIDA, they should be read in the context of the bill and the exemptions, for example, in this case, that apply to confidentiality. I hope that assists the member in understanding that phrase “with necessary modifications.”

M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, I’m going to ask that we go to clause 9.

Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On clause 9.

M. de Jong: I just want to confirm with the Attorney. I believe the amendment to section 10 of the main statute contemplated by clause 9 of the bill relates to the addition of sub (4)(a) and, again, the receiving of a request for advice. I think that’s the case. The Attorney can probably confirm that quickly.

[6:20 p.m.]

Then perhaps he could also confirm that under both the statute and in practise, a senior official can be designated by the chief executive to perform one, two or three of these functions, or can be appointed to perform all three of these functions. I think we canvassed that, somewhat, in another section, but we’ll just confirm that here.

Hon. D. Eby: I can confirm for the member that with respect to the addition of (4)(a), the section was always intended to apply to disclosures and requests for advice but not complaints about reprisals, because designated officers don’t handle those. The term “requests for advice” is being added to give explicit reference so that it’s clear for organizations and employees about the role of different senior officials.

The member is correct in his assumption that you could have one separate senior official doing each of these functions, or one single senior official doing all three. That discretion of how to divide or not divide these authorities is up to the organization.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

M. de Jong: We don’t have enough time to have the fascinating conversation I contemplated having on section 10. It is by no means the single biggest point to be made in legislative history, but it’s curious.

Section 11 is going to be amended by this, to ensure that an employee who is considering making a disclosure may request advice, but we’re going to add “may request and receive.” A little bit of legislative overkill. If you may request something, presumably you are entitled to receive it, but perhaps not.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised this is the noble motivation of the drafters to be as clear as possible about the relevant authorities.

Clauses 10 and 11 approved.

On clause 12.

M. de Jong: I neglected to include this in the list I gave the Attorney. I apologize for that. My question is around the anonymous seeking of advice. I suppose this crops up where a discloser is making a disclosure, as well, on an anonymous basis.

I guess the practical issue here is: if I can seek advice without identifying myself, how does the designated officer know they are dealing with an actual employee?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The idea here is to err on the side of receiving information about wrongdoings. There is certainly a risk of somebody posing as a provincial employee. However, the thinking is that it would be relatively easy to figure out if someone was providing information and had access to information, knowledge of a particular ministry or agency that would reveal whether or not they were such an employee.

In any event, if the information was useful to the Ombudsperson and did in fact disclose information of a concerning nature where there would be a desire to do an investigation, the Ombudsperson would not be foreclosed simply because it came in anonymously from conducting that investigation.

It does provide the authority, where there is some concern, perhaps, that the anonymous discloser may not have the status that they claim — that the Ombudsperson’s office has the authority not to notify that person of what they are doing with that information. It provides the discretion under subsection (2).

M. de Jong: I take it from the Attorney’s answer, then, that there is a recognition that there is a risk, but the belief is that it is a manageable risk and that there are sufficient safeguards to preclude a mischievous situation from arising or being carried too far. Is that a fair synopsis of what the Attorney has said?

Hon. D. Eby: I think that’s right. The benefits of allowing anonymous disclosure outweigh the risks of a system where you would have to identify yourself to the Ombudsperson before providing a disclosure.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

M. de Jong: I alluded to this yesterday, and we had a conversation about what the receiving information designated officer can do in circumstances where there is a belief that there is an imminent risk of danger to life, health or safety. I won’t read the whole clause. We went through that.

What I found curious is it’s permissive in that it says that the designated officer “may report the information to a…protection official.” I thought, in the circumstances described in the legislation, wouldn’t it ordinarily follow that they must? Having hit the threshold spoken to about…. Having come to the conclusion that there is a danger to life, health or safety of persons, wouldn’t it follow that the permissiveness would give way to a directive verb, which is you must report that?

The Chair: Noting the hour.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that there are two issues at play here. One is it may be that there is a countervailing concern that might cause the Ombudsperson or other authority to feel that disclosure was not appropriate in the circumstances. Without knowing that in advance, this discretion allows for that weighting exercise to take place.

[6:30 p.m.]

More likely, and far more realistically, is the fact that a mandatory provision would be basically unenforceable. The only entity that was aware of the information would be the Ombudsperson. So there is no way to review or oversee the failure to report adequately and no mechanism for that.

I’ll just note that this section came about at the request of the Ombudsperson as a result of a lacuna that office observed in their authorities to identify and proactively address these issues. While it’s an interesting legislative discussion, happily, I don’t think it will likely be a significant real-life issue.

Hon. Chair, I seek your leave to move sections 14 through 26.

Clauses 13 to 25 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay. My error. I forgot commencement.

Clause 26 approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 2, Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to a sessional order, a deferred division will take place shortly on the motion for second reading of Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021.

Pursuant to a sessional order, the House stands recessed for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 6:35 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I call the House back to order. The division will proceed in five minutes.

[6:50 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: We will now proceed with the deferred division. The question is second reading of Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021.

[6:55 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 13 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.