Orders of the Day

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

In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued).

M. de Jong: When we left off, I had asked the minister a question about whether or not the new public policy enshrined in the bill, in the sections, had been reviewed by Treasury Board. Whilst he gave a very flattering commentary about my time in this place, what he unfortunately did not do was answer the question. Here’s a chance for him to do so.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think I tried to answer the question for the member the last time we were in the House. I take the same position that it is…. I’m not able to provide information about cabinet deliberations or materials used in those deliberations, nor any of its committees, except to say that all appropriate processes are being followed when we develop this legislation.

The Chair: I’m hearing some other voices, so if the minister can make sure that they’re able to communicate not onto the feed, that would be appropriate, as they would have to be called strangers for this moment. They are not in this room.

M. de Jong: Last day the member indicated that usual procedures were followed. What we’re seeking to ascertain is, in the context of this government, particularly since its re-election in October of last year, what “usual procedure” actually represents. I am well acquainted with the conventions and the rules around this place and would not seek to inquire as to the nature of discussion or debate that would have happened at the cabinet table or at the table of the Treasury Board.

My question, though, is very specific. In the case of public policy that the minister has confirmed, in these debates, would, at a minimum, add an additional cost over the next seven months of $320 million — whether that policy was reviewed by Treasury Board.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member acknowledged, and he understands, what kind of information I’m able to divulge. But I can assure him that the ministry developed not only this piece of legislation; any legislation using government processes — and undertake appropriate steps that are needed to draft and advance any bill, including this particular bill.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s still not an answer to the question. I can ask an even more general question, then. What is the threshold by which programs of expenditure in this government that the minister serves in as a member of cabinet…? What is the threshold at which review by Treasury Board is required for a program of expenditure?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member asked the same question in a different form. I have answered the question. He knows the process. Any time a bill comes before this House, it follows the processes of cabinet and all of the other government processes that are needed to go through. All the appropriate steps that are needed to advance the bill to this particular stage — we’ve done all of that.

M. de Jong: Well, candidly, I’m becoming increasingly suspicious. I know what the processes were. That is certainly the case. I know this: that under a previous administration, an expenditure of this magnitude would have required analysis and approval by the Treasury Board. I know that there is a Treasury Board for this government. What the minister seems to be saying to this committee is: “It’s none of your business.”

I grant the minister this. The committee is not entitled to know the nature of the advice received, if any. It is not entitled to know the details of any discussion that took place. But the committee is entitled to know whether or not an expenditure of this magnitude was examined, reviewed and approved by the Treasury Board of the government of British Columbia. Was it or wasn’t it?

Hon. H. Bains: The member is asking something, and I have answered that question. Cabinet processes and materials are subject to cabinet privilege. We followed the processes that are required to draft a bill and come to the House. That’s what I’m advising this member.

M. de Jong: The minister has done no such thing and is beginning to look ridiculous. If the answer is no, if the public policy that has given rise to Bill 13, the bill itself, the provisions and the costs that are accruing to government….

[2:45 p.m.]

We are, by the minister’s own admission, talking about significant costs accruing to the Crown. If all of this has come about without analysis and approval by Treasury Board, that’s a simple question to answer and an entirely appropriate question to answer.

The minister keeps talking about these magical processes. Well, we don’t know what those processes are. The minister has to enlighten us. That’s why we have a committee.

I know what the processes were. But I have no idea what the threshold for public expenditures is for involvement of Treasury Board. I’ll ask again. Is there a threshold? Can the minister simply decide to enact policy, in this government, that will cost the Crown hundreds of millions of dollars, without the approval of Treasury Board? Is that the process?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member wants me to answer this question a certain way. But I’m advising this House that the ministry developed this important legislation us­ing government processes and has undertaken appropriate steps to draft and advance this bill. That’s why this bill is before us. We follow those processes that are required for government to draft a bill and bring it to the House.

Processes have not changed since the last time they were in government.

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

Hon. H. Bains: This member, from all, knows what those processes were. I’m advised those processes have not changed.

M. de Jong: I am assuming, therefore, that Treasury Board reviewed and approved this policy. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: As the member said, he knows what the processes were. I am advised those processes remain in place in order to draft a piece of legislation and government expenditure. That’s the process we used.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, look, I have known the minister for some time, Mr. Chair. I say this respectfully, but he sounds ridiculous. I think people are…. Not I think; I know people are entitled to know that the Treasury Board is a statutorily created body charged with the task of approving public expenditures.

The minister’s refusal to state clearly, one way or another, whether the officials, the talented individuals and analysts — never mind the political membership on the Treasury Board, but the talented group of analysts that populate the Treasury Board secretariat…. The minister’s refusal to indicate to this committee and, through this committee, to the public whether or not that group of individuals’ analysis was involved in reviewing this proposal and assisting with the quantification of its costs makes the minister look ridiculous and, by the way, also casts doubt on much of the information he has provided to this committee.

He gives the committee a number. And by the way, these numbers are not insignificant. For the moment, they relate to costs accruing to government, but for reasons that my colleague and the Leader of the Third Party are going to explore a little later, they are entirely relevant, going forward, to the private sector, which may end up bearing the brunt of those costs, because the bill is silent on those matters.

The minister’s refusal to answer a basic question about fiscal safeguards leaves this committee wondering just how reliable any of this information is. The minister quantifies the cost over the next seven months at $320 million — about $45.7 million, as we talked about, per month. We talked about how he came up with that figure. Was that figure reviewed at all by Treasury Board?

Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, the member knows that the material that goes to the cabinet committee, the Treasury Board, is not what I have the ability to divulge. He knows the reasons: these are cabinet privileges. We, as a government, picked $320 million, based on what this will provide.

[2:55 p.m.]

We know, based on the average wage in British Columbia, that that would cover the majority of the workers that we are trying to cover here who don’t have a sick leave provision at workplaces. The cost that would be to the treasury is what I was advised, and we are going with that. That is their position to take. That is a balanced approach to take. It will cover the majority of the workers we want to cover: those who are at the lower end of the wage scale and don’t have any sick leave provisions. So that’s how we came up with those numbers.

M. de Jong: Well, again, with the greatest respect, if the minister says once more that I know the processes, I’m going to ask him to stop misleading the House. No one on this committee that doesn’t sit in cabinet or doesn’t sit on the government side of the House knows the processes. The minister’s refusal to answer a basic question about whether or not the expenditure of public moneys and the amounts contemplated here triggers a review and approval by Treasury Board represents, in my respectful view, a measure of contempt, actually, for the work that committees like this are charged to do.

But I also…. It is clear to me, and I suspect other members of the committee, that the minister does not want to answer the question. I’ll say it. He doesn’t want to answer the question because it’s abundantly clear that Treasury Board wasn’t involved. Were that not the case, he would be more than happy to disclose to the committee the work undertaken by Treasury Board.

I’m going to ask the minister to help me with a little bit of math. He has again repeated and confirmed the $320 million figure. When I extrapolate from that, I do so as follows: that’s roughly $45 million a month. So over the course of a 12-month period, that would be just under $550 million, plus any costs in excess of the $200-per-day threshold. That is to provide the three days paid leave.

I’ll ask the minister to confirm my math. Based on that $320 million for the three days paid medical leave working out to just over $45 million a month — $549 million, plus any additional amount that would accrue above and beyond the $200 million figure. Is that math correct?

Hon. H. Bains: If the member wants to throw insults here and get personal, that’s his prerogative. I could easily come back and say what the definition of contempt to­wards the working people is. This member actually is the one who is the architect of that. Go back to 16 years of contempt that this member and the government showed towards the working people.

I think what he’s doing today is again showing contempt towards the working people. What this bill is about is giving workers time off work when they are sick without fear of losing money, without losing wages. That is good for the worker and good for the businesses so that we can get over this pandemic.

[3:00 p.m.]

When it comes back to the math that the member is talking about, I gave that answer. Based on the information and the advice I’m given, there are a little over a million workers who don’t have any sick leave provisions right now at workplaces. The ministry estimated that if 60 percent of them take advantage fully of three days, between now and December 31, the cost to the government is ap­proximately $320 million, plus or minus.

The Chair: If I might remind members and ministers that, of course, good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. So let’s try and get the best out of each one of us.

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

I’m quite frankly surprised and saddened that the situation has developed where it is deemed inappropriate for a member of the opposition to ask about a statutory body like Treasury Board being involved in the approval of an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. If we have — I was going to say “evolved” — devolved to that point, then I think we’re learning a great deal about the regard the minister has for having an opposition, because those are the questions we are left to ask about the use that government has made of the tools at their disposal.

The minister didn’t want to answer the question. I think I know, I think people know, why he doesn’t want to answer the question. I think it’s unfortunate, because I think there’s a lot of talent in that body that it would be wise for the government to deploy on matters of this sort.

All right. I’ll come back, though…. I’m not trying to trick anyone. I am trying to get a sense of what is a new policy that, conceptually, by the way, enjoys support in this House. For the minister to somehow suggest that this is disrespectful or contemptuous of workers…. It is a policy, a new public policy that, unless I’m mistaken, led to the famous Latin phrase. I think it’s also appropriate for us to inquire just a little bit about the costs and how the government has quantified those costs.

I come back to the $320 million figure. I’m trying to get an annual estimate of the costs. The minister has provided all of the variables and criteria. All I want is…. That was a cost for, I think we said, seven months. I did the math, but I wanted to give the minister a chance to confirm that or check it.

I can ask the question, open-ended: based on the statute, the variables and the calculations that the government did — we don’t know who did them in government, but someone must have — how much would this policy cost over a 12-month period?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I respectfully want to answer the question. I have answered the questions that I’m able to answer without divulging cabinet or cabinet committee deliberations. To say that I didn’t is not correct. I have answered the question.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, coming back to the $320 million, I have repeatedly said that it is between the date that this bill receives royal assent in this House up until December 31. The cost for those days and months, based on the estimates done by the ministry, is $320 million. Now, the member can do the math. If he wishes to know what the 12-month costs would be, it’s not that difficult, but this program is only for the remainder of the year. It does not cover 12 months.

M. de Jong: That calculation was based on three days’ paid leave, as the minister indicated earlier. Correct?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, I’m advised that the calculation they did was that if 60 percent of those who don’t have sick leave provisions right now at workplaces took full advantage — that means a full three days — this would be the cost.

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say that the cost estimate goes up if the number of paid days of leave is increased? That’s the cost for three paid days of leave, but the overall cost would increase as the number of days increases. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: To the member: the cost estimate we have is based on three days, if 60 percent of those eligible workers take full advantage. There is also, the member should know, COVID-related illness between the day this bill receives royal assent and December 31 of this year.

M. de Jong: You know, ordinarily, hon. Chair, I think the minister would have me there, because that, I think, would be the correct answer with respect to legislation that stipulated three days. As the minister has just pointed out, those are the rules for the next seven months. But the minister is also seeking statutory authority, approval from this House, for sweeping, wide-ranging regulatory powers. My guess is that he’s going to refuse to tell this House how those regulatory powers are going to be discharged. In fact, he’s already said that. He said we want to talk to people.

I think it’s entirely legitimate for the committee to seek some guidance from the minister, in this committee, as to what happens to those overall costs. We don’t know who will bear them. It could be the treasury, the Crown. It could be third parties. It could be a combination of the two.

Given that the minister and the government are seeking these wide-ranging regulatory powers, asking the minister to confirm what happens in various circumstances where the number of days is increased — or decreased, for that matter; I don’t think the government is contemplating a decrease — makes it an entirely legitimate question.

I’ll ask it again. Can the minister indicate what happens when the number of days of paid leave increases? What happens to the estimate of the overall cost?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member is venturing into the second part of the bill, in which we’re talking about long-term solutions and the decision about how many days and what model we would be using. We haven’t made that yet. The decision will be made based on consultation with the business community, with the workers, their representatives and other stakeholders. That decision will be made after we go through the consultation.

We will learn from the business community and from the workers to see what kind of a model would make sense, be fair and deal with the gaps that the workers have, as far as their support is concerned during the time when they’re sick, to prevent them from going to work and transmitting whatever illness they may have — which, it is accepted, causes absenteeism and a reduction in production. I think that discussion will take place between the day that this bill receives royal assent and December 31. I think the member will be perfectly right to engage with us and let us know exactly what he feels.

M. de Jong: I guess I should thank the minister, because he’s just made the point: there won’t be a chance to do that. The government is seeking authority, in this bill, to go away and make all of those decisions without any engagement with this chamber, this committee. There will be no opportunity to pose these questions.

The minister and the government want their cake. They want to eat it. They don’t want to tell us about the recipe they used to bake the cake. I’m going to break out into “MacArthur Park” here in a moment. The minister has made the argument. He wants authority from this committee and this House to have all of this power. When we asked the minister today to help provide the committee with advice about what the ramifications of exercising that power would be, he says: “I don’t want to talk about it.”

The minister and I have known each other. He’s an intelligent man. I’m going to ask him to think about this logically. The essence of the question is merely this. In providing statutory authority to the government to do something — which, by the way, in principle, the chamber has indicated that it’s prepared to do — it is equally legitimate for the committee and the House to ask the minister to share with it what the potential costs of the exercise of that authority and discretionary authority would be.

The minister’s approach seems to be: “Well, I’ve told you it’s $320 million, because that’s what the rules will be for the next seven months. Yes, I want authority to change the rules as I see fit after that seven months, but I’m not going to tell you anything about the costs associated with exercising that authority.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Now, look. The minister has been in this place a long time. Surely he understands how absurd that is and how inappropriate that is. I’m merely asking him to share, with the committee, some estimates. I asked him what the impact of increasing the number of days of coverage would be. Presumably, at a minimum, the impact would be to increase the cost. Is that asking too much?

Can the minister confirm, on the record, that if on January 1, the number of days covered goes from three to four days, the cost will go up — the cost to government, the cost to employers, whoever that cost is assigned to? My estimate says that it’ll go up to $732 million a year. I will start by being even more general. Will the minister confirm that the cost will go up if the number of days of coverage increases?

Hon. H. Bains: I think it’s a legit question. There’s no doubt about that in my mind. But I value consultation. The member will know that on the bills that we brought into the House — whether it was a change to the labour code, to the employment standards, to the temporary foreign workers — we did a thorough consultation, and we agreed substantially, if not with all of it, when we considered those consultations and put them into the bills.

Now, the member is asking a legit question: if the number of days is increased from three days, will the costs go up? I think we can be general, but we can also say that it depends on the model that we choose. You know, all things being equal…. Right now we’re talking about COVID-related illness, three days and the cost therefor. Then I gave the parameters of how many workers use and how many workers are out there total in that pool.

Again, through consultation, we will find out what the model is, and then we’ll decide how many days. Again, we talk, in that particular part of the bill, about illness or injury. It’s different than what we have today. I think it all depends on what model we use. The cost will depend on consultation and the model that, at the end of the day, we decide to go with.

M. de Jong: So there’s going to be a consultation. I don’t know; call me crazy, but isn’t it possible that during the course of that consultation, someone is going to ask the minister: “What are your cost estimates?” If someone, bizarrely, does that — imagine that: asking the government what a new piece of public policy is going to cost — either them, in the case of an employer, or the government itself, if it is going to be borne by government — what’s the minister going to say? That’s all I’m asking: what’s the minister going to say?

[3:20 p.m.]

Is he going to say to the people he’s consulting with: “We can’t tell you that, because it depends on the model.” Isn’t the person he’s talking to going to say: “Well, how can I give you advice about what is a reasonable approach, without some information about what the overall cost is going to be?” Or does the minister simply think that people don’t care about that?

I think they do, and I think, over the course of the consultation, they are entitled to know the costs, especially people who might end up bearing that cost. They are entitled to know what the costs of the various models are that the minister and the government may be proposing. I’ll leave that to see what the minister has to say in response.

Hon. H. Bains: With all due respect, I think I tried to answer the question as clearly as I can. Going forward, all of that is part of consultation. I think the first question would be: what kind of model do the stakeholders think will work for us, going forward? Then once that part is decided or agreed to, or there’s some understanding on that, we could develop the costs based on that model and that concept.

I think it’ll be all there, and we will have a thorough consultation with the stakeholders. That kind of discussion will take place before we make that decision.

M. de Jong: I guess the minister and I will agree to disagree. I think that when people are being asked their opinion about charting a path forward on important matters — which they are predisposed to want to support, as was the case in this House — especially people who may be asked to bear a portion of the cost, if not all of the costs, they will say: “Well, there are all kinds of things we’d like to do. But in providing you with advice about what we can do, it would be helpful to know what the overall costs might be.”

The minister says that’s not the approach he and his government intend to take. There’s nothing I’m going to be able to say here to alter his opinion.

I am going to put a couple of numbers on the record, and then I have one more question. I’ll give the minister a chance to either endorse, or not, the numbers based on the calculations, starting with the number that he did provide — the $320 million.

Based on the variables that he has used to calculate that amount, and shared with the committee, it would seem that an increase from three to four days would involve an annualized cost of a minimum of $732 million. Five days would take that to a minimum of $915 million. Ten days, as some people have suggested, would be $1.8 billion. That’s based on the variables and the model that the minister has referred to thus far — those being 12-month estimates.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’ve put those figures on the record. It would only be fair for me to give the minister an opportunity to indicate that those are wildly inaccurate, or otherwise dispute them.

Hon. H. Bains: Let me put it this way. The cost that we have provided to this House is based on COVID-related leave between the day this bill received royal assent and December 31 of this year and based on a number of em­ployees, as I have canvassed before, from the total qualified number of employees used. Again, based on a $200-per-day reimbursement program and the qualifying criteria that we have for this particular part of the bill. That’s the cost: $320 million, plus or minus.

Now, the member maybe is mixing — and I don’t want to put words in his mouth — with the second part, which would be a different kind of leave. We don’t even know what model we will be using, how many days will be used, and then also, we’re talking about sick and injury-related leave there and not COVID-related leave. Hopefully, the pandemic will be behind us by that time.

I think that part of the discussion will take place, and those costs will be calculated based on the model that we get some nods on from the stakeholders when we talk about it. But this cost is based on the rest of the year, the criteria and the different models that we have used.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

If I might, just before proceeding. I would like to ask ministers and members participating virtually to remember that we are in a meeting, as we would be in session. If you’re holding conversations, phone calls or otherwise, please do so outside of the virtual chat room, outside of the virtual space. Then come back when you’re able to join us again for this work.

Member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think that reg­istered.

[3:30 p.m.]

Well, look. I don’t know if the minister detects the same irony in his answer that I do. It is, apparently, on the one hand, legitimate to pose questions about the cost of a program that will be in policy that will be created by the passage of one part of this bill, but it is inappropriate — and the minister is either unable or unwilling — to pose questions about the costs that will accrue with respect to another part of the bill that would provide him, the government and the executive council with wide-ranging powers which they can then exercise without any reference back to this chamber.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I think the minister is going to hear a great deal, in the next few hours and days, about how inappropriate that is and how it represents, quite frankly, an abuse of the parliamentary system. I’m now channelling my inner Leonard Krog. We don’t have time for me to put the quotes here, but the minister sat close by his former colleague through many, many sessions when this matter was presented. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anything quite like this.

Were the minister to come to the House, come to this committee and say, “Yes, we are seeking that regulatory authority, that broad regulatory authority, but here we have, for the committee, some estimates that relate to the costs that would accrue, depending on how that regulatory authority is exercised,” I think the opposition would still be upset about the breadth of the regulatory authority being sought. But at least we’d be in a position — and more importantly, others would be in a position — to know what the costs associated with the exercise of that regulatory authority are.

The minister’s answer here is either that the government doesn’t know, that it hasn’t done any analysis, or: “We’re going to consult. But we’re going to consult without any of that information, because it won’t be available until after that. That’s when we’ll make the decisions.”

Of course, depending on the decisions made, we could be talking about costs…. I don’t think the government is going to step back from the coverage available — I think that’s the expectation of people — that is being presented for the next seven months. I think the government is contemplating a further expansion of that coverage, but I guess we’ll find out. I don’t think they’re…. If they’re contemplating a diminishment, now would be a good time for the minister to say so. We are being asked to take all of that on faith and in the dark, without any information.

I don’t know if it’s because the information isn’t available — I’d find that shocking — or because the minister and the government simply don’t want to share it. In any case, I think that is inappropriate, and I think it fails to respect, really, the parliamentary processes that we have, where oppositions ask government, “What are your intentions? What do you plan to do?” and, amongst other things: “How will that impact people, and what’s it going to cost?” In this case, the government seems particularly hesitant about answering one, if not more, of those questions.

The last two questions are short ones. Was any part of this bill red-flagged?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, I don’t want to be argumentative here. I’m advised that that is the legal advice to the cabinet, and I’m not to di­vulge that part of the information.

M. de Jong: I think I can anticipate the answer, but I’ll ask anyway. Was any part of this bill yellow-flagged?

Hon. H. Bains: Same answer as the first question. It is legal advice to the cabinet, and I’m not in a position to divulge that.

The Chair: The member for Shuswap on clause 1.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, and welcome to the chair, hon. Chair.

With respect to the numbers, the minister has shared some numbers with us previously, which led to the $320 million calculation. I just did some quick math. I wanted to clarify or ask the minister if he can clarify…. The minister indicated that approximately one million workers would be able to have access to the temporary sick day, paid sick days, under this legislation, and also indicated a 60 percent uptake and then that the maximum allowable for any individual would be the three days or $600. Well, six times six is 36. The minister referred to $320 million.

Can the minister confirm that it’s actually $360 million, $40 million more than the number that the minister has shared with this House?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member will know the answer is…. If you go back to my answer, $320 million was based on the number of workers who don’t have — I mean, these are approximate numbers, again — sick leave provisions at workplaces right now. Then based on up to $200 that will be reimbursed to the employers on behalf of those workers who take those…. Not everyone is at $200, and there are workers who will be under $25 an hour. Therefore, the ministry came up with those numbers.

[3:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, there’s certainly no trickery undergoing here. The minister indicated one million workers would be able to access this fund. The minister also indicated to this House that his numbers and his calculation were based on a 60 percent uptake on this program, which would mean 600,000 workers, and the maximum available to any worker for the full three days at the $200 rate would be $600.

I wanted to clarify, or provide the minister an opportunity…. Is the number that he provided, at $320 million…? The math that he has provided does not arrive at $320 million. The math that the minister provided this House actually reflects $360 million, which is $40 million more than the number that the minister had originally shared.

The second part of this line of inquiry is this. The minister has referenced relying on a federal survey, or a federal report, that estimated the number of workers that currently do not have paid sick leave to be at 50 percent. The federal report did not specify, in B.C., that it was a million workers that were not covered under any form of paid sick leave. Again, it was a 50 percent number that the minister has relied on.

I just had a quick look at the WorkBC website. The population data that actually has been indicated and put up — so this is government’s own data; government’s own numbers — indicated the estimated population of those over the age of 15 at 4.3 million, and that total employment is 2.6 million.

The second part of my question would be that the minister has referenced a million workers, where, in actual fact, 50 percent of 2.6 million would be 1.3 million workers being able to have access to the paid sick leave provisions of this bill.

Further to that, if you use those numbers…. Again, this is government’s data, not my data, and I think this is where it’s important. Data drives decisions. We need to make sure that the math is correct and that we’re using actual numbers.

The numbers that I have calculated, based on, again, government’s own reported numbers…. So 50 percent of 2.6 million workers is 1.3 million workers. That’s 30 percent higher than the number that the minister has provided. If you actually take that number, the 1.3 million workers, and assume the 60 percent uptake or utilization rate at $600, the cost is actually $471 million.

I know that was a lot, maybe, for the minister to absorb, but the cost of this program using government’s own numbers and the 60 percent utilization rate that the minister has shared with this House shows a cost magnitude of $471 million. That’s $150 million more than the number that the minister originally shared with this House.

I want to provide an opportunity for the minister just to either correct himself or to refute what I’ve just shared.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think I want to correct the member. He may have used this term last week as well. He may have misheard me. The number…. I did not mention any federal survey. I talked about the B.C. Federation of Labour — B.C. Fed. I’m just assuming maybe a mistake in mixing the two there. That’s one thing that I wanted to correct for the member and to correct for the record here as well.

The other thing is in numbers that the members are picking up — 2.6 million workers in British Columbia. The member should know that includes the self-employed, who are not entitled to this benefit. Also, I think he kept on making the mistake over and over by giving $200 to every worker for every day that they take. Our position is up to $200. Now, there are workers out there working at minimum wage. There are a lot of them. Then there are $16, $17, $18. Then there are $25.

I think, based on all the criteria that was used, and based on up to $200 reimbursement per day per worker who takes a day off, is how we came up with the calculation of $325 million.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the cost of the program…. As the minister has indicated, his number of $320 million is based on a 60 percent participation rate. Can the minister confirm what the number would be at an 80 percent participation rate?

Hon. H. Bains: The assumptions that the ministry used were reasonable assumptions, under different scenarios. Advice that was given to me was that up to 60 percent of members or other workers may take advantage of this program. That’s how the cost was developed.

Again, I mentioned earlier that our vaccination program is going very, very efficiently and going very fast, and 56 percent of the people are vaccinated, and many of them are workers.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think the chances of a full 60 percent of workers taking advantage of this may not be there; it may be less. So I think the costs are reasonable. These are prudent costs, and these are the estimates that were based on fairness and on reasonable assumptions.

G. Kyllo: As a follow-up to that, I think this is where there is maybe some concern. The minister has referenced the $320 million number. That’s based on a 60 percent utilization of this particular program.

What I think business owners and workers would like to know and to have the assurance of this government, is that should the participation rates be higher — should they be 80, 85 or 90 percent — is the minister able to guarantee or provide comfort to this House that the full reimbursement program of up to $200 per employee per day…? Will businesses have access to the full amount of funding as required in order to provide their reimbursement?

Can the minister just confirm to this House that in the program that he’s offering and has set forward before this House, with the legislation that’s tabled here today, will government ensure that funding is made available so that employers will be fully reimbursed, even if the participation rates are much higher and the total cost of the program is much higher than the $320 million that the minister has shared with us?

Hon. H. Bains: The cost that we have before the com­mittee is based on fair assumptions. This is the reasonable way the ministry and the government make those assumptions. I think 60 percent is a fairly high rate of utilization. Also, many employers are already providing many workers with paid sick leave, whether they had it in place previous to this or not. I think, when you look at the assumptions made, the cost based on those assumptions — up to $200 per worker per day — are costs that we anticipate will be on the high end.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think there are arguments that can be made that the costs would be lower. As I said before, the vaccination program is moving very, very rapidly. I think pretty soon — not in the next weeks, but days — you will see that we will be at over a 70 percent vaccination rate. When that happens, the need for such sick benefits is diminished.

I think the member needs to remember that the cost of not doing it could be much higher — we’ve seen it; I think we canvassed this last week — because many employers had to be shut down because of a cluster of COVID at those operations. Employers understand that. I hope that this member understands it and that all colleagues of mine understand that the cost of not doing this is much higher.

Also, conquering this pandemic could become much more difficult if you don’t know the route that we are going. That’s why there are so many employers who are supporting us in our approach here. That’s why we want to make sure, for the employers who are hurting, that we don’t put the entire burden on them. That’s why the up-to-$200 reimbursement program came up, at the cost of $320 million, based on the assumptions that we made.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that answer, but the concern remains. Maybe I can pose a question this way to the minister. Should the cost delivery of the program, as contemplated and set out in this legislation, for the temporary paid sick leave program, which expires on December 31….

Should the utilization of this program be such that the costs are in excess of $320 million, will this minister commit and ensure that businesses will still be able to be fully reimbursed for any expenditures up to that $200 per day, regardless of what the total cost of this program is? Will this program be limited to a maximum of $320 million, or will the minister provide funding as necessary to ensure that all employers are reimbursed for the maximum $200 per day under the provisions of this temporary paid sick leave program?

[4:00 p.m.]

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Now that I have your attention and quorum again, we will continue.

Minister of Labour, whenever you are ready, just raise your hand, please. Go ahead.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think I answered the question as best I could when I said that the reasonable assumptions were made at the upper end. That’s why — if you could go back to the answer I gave, $320 million, plus or minus, but based on the high utilization rate of 60 percent. If you compare it to the COVID-related illnesses in the past, I think all kinds of assumptions are made and all kinds of information was utilized to come up with these numbers.

My estimation is…. I’m really optimistic that we will not have as high cases of COVID-related illnesses going forward, because of the vaccination program that is working so well in this province. Here in Surrey, working together with Fraser Health, they’re opening up vaccination clinics at Bear Creek and other places; 1,000 vaccinations a day are given. I think we’re moving very, very fast to have almost everybody who’s eligible to get vaccinated, to get vaccinated, and there will be less need for sick leave, going forward because of those programs. I’m optimistic that the cost will be even lower, based on the vaccination program that we have.

Again, it is one thing that…. Those workers who wake up in the morning one day and have these symptoms, rather than going to work, will be thinking and using the calculator, “How much money will I lose if I stay home?” and then decide: “No, I’m going to tough it out, and I’m going to go to work because I can’t afford to lose a day’s pay.” So I think in that particular scenario, that worker will be able to stay home, knowing that his or her wages will continue on and there’s no gap between the wages that he or she received every two weeks.

I think that’s how it will be benefiting those workers. And then it will benefit the businesses as well if they don’t go to work and minimize the chance of transmission at workplaces. And the chances of workplaces continuing to operate, I think, is the best way to continue to open up our economy, continue to grow our economy, and also stop the transmission of this virus.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the member for Shuswap, I think an explanation is important, as I saw puzzled looks on the screen when the bells rang. When quorum is lost, I have the option as the Chair to either ring the bells or call a recess. I called a recess last week. I thought I’d ring the bells this week. It worked much faster than calling a five-minute recess, so I think we’ll do that in the future again if we need to.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The question I posed to the minister I think is an important question. The minister has indicated that there is $320 million, or that’s the estimate that he’s provided. The question that I have asked is: should the participation rates, or utilization rate of this program, be higher than the minister has suggested, at 60 percent? I think businesses would want to have assurance that government will fully fund the $200-per-day provision, as set out in this legislation.

So to the minister, just one more time…. I’m just looking for a bit of clarity from the minister. Is this program fixed and capped at $320 million, or will government fully fund the obligations that have been set out as far as the reimbursement for employers?

[4:05 p.m.]

As a second part to that, I’m wondering if the minister might also provide a bit of an explanation to this House with respect to the provisions of the reimbursement program that are not set out specifically in this piece of legislation. Also, if the minister could provide a bit of commentary on how the reimbursement program will work, how it will be funded and what the approximate estimated number of days are for reimbursement to employers once they make application.

Hon. H. Bains: Look, the reimbursement program is not part of this legislation. It is something that we an­nounced, and we are working, as we speak, with WorkSafeBC to set up this program, administer the employer reimbursement program on behalf of the province. Further details, once finalized, will be communicated publicly.

I can assure the member and everyone listening that the idea is to have that program in operation as soon as we can so that workers who are paid by their employer when they take a day off, when they face COVID-related illness — that the employer gets the reimbursement in a timely fashion.

G. Kyllo: Well, as a follow-up to that, can the minister provide any indication to this House on when WorkSafeBC was actually directed to commence with establishing the database program or whatever means will be utilized to actually administer this program?

In a briefing that was provided to me earlier last week from staff within the minister’s office, it indicated that apparently within WorkSafeBC about 90 percent of B.C. businesses already are registered through WorkSafeBC. That would then provide…. The majority of businesses would already be registered. But can the minister provide some clarity?

Will there be a separate registration program or process required of employers in order to access or be eligible for making application for reimbursement, or will businesses that are already registered with WorkSafeBC automatically be eligible for making applications under the provisions of this bill?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The intent here is to make it as seamless as possible. As the member has said in the House, about 90 percent of employers are registered with WorkSafeBC, and that was one of the reasons why we wanted to go with WorkSafeBC. The system is already in place. The employers are registered who would be qualified under this program.

I think the best answer I can give at this time is it will be as seamless as possible. We want to make sure that WorkSafeBC has the data that they have and that they have a system in place. They are right now designing a program so that it is very seamless. The employer will be able to claim the reimbursement very shortly, and they will get their refund or reimbursement in a very, very timely fashion.

G. Kyllo: The success of this program will largely…. The success of the ability of the reimbursement program to remunerate businesses…. It’s obviously incredibly important to businesses. Businesses will first be presented with the obligation of providing pay under this piece of legislation to their workers for paid sick leave. That will be a cash flow impact to their businesses. It’s also extremely important that businesses have some certainty with respect to the timelines for when the reimbursement program will be up and running and available to actually provide them their reimbursement.

Can the minister identify with some specificity the processes that businesses will have to undergo to register, how claims will be submitted, what employers will have to submit to verify entitlement and how claims will be approved, as well as the estimated timelines, once those claims are approved, by which the businesses will actually receive their reimbursement?

Hon. H. Bains: I think those final details are being worked on right now. I think the idea behind this whole program is to ensure that the employers are supported in a timely fashion and that the workers can take time off when they’re sick. When they shouldn’t be going to work, they can stay home and afford to stay home and don’t lose any wages.

WorkSafeBC already has a system where most of the employers, 90 percent of them, are registered. It will be an online system. That’s our expectation. The delivery and the reimbursement system — we expect that it will be a timely fashion so that employers are not waiting a long period of time. It will be very timely. That’s my expectation.

[4:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: The minister references “timely.” I think businesses are looking for some certainty. Can the minister indicate what the expectation level of his ministry would be to WorkSafeBC with respect to the reimbursement? I appreciate that there will be, likely, scenarios where the norm…. There will be deviations, actually, from the guidelines. But can the minister maybe just share with this House what his expectation levels of WorkSafeBC would be? Will the expectation of WorkSafeBC be to provide remuneration to businesses within seven days, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks?

When the minister references and uses the term “timely,” I’m just wondering if he might be able to provide a bit more clarity as far as what direction he is going to be providing to WorkSafeBC with respect to what his expectation level would be for reimbursement to employers.

Hon. H. Bains: Look, like I said, the details of the programs are being worked out right now. I think the benefit of having WorkSafeBC designing, delivering and operating this system is the reason that we want to make sure that the employers don’t wait a long period of time.

Timely? I think I will be in a better position…. How many days? My expectation is, you know, soon — that when you make the claim, you should get your cheque back. But I think we want to make sure that the system is in place, that the employers don’t have to wait for an extended period of time. We understand that the employers are hurting. Many of them are hurting, and you don’t want to add more to the operational funds that they have to come up with when they pay their employees.

I think the recognition of the government is that we want to make sure that the employer is refunded in a timely fashion. But I will be in a better position to say, the way the member asked me to, five days, ten days, two weeks or four weeks…. I think I’ll be in a better position to say that we are at the lower side of what the member is asking. That’s my expectation. But we’ll see what the details are, and then I will be in a better position to answer that more specifically.

Mr. Chair, I request that we take a five- or ten-minute health break, if that is appropriate at this time.

The Chair: The committee will recess till 4:30 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Just wait to make sure we have quorum. Look at that. We have quorum.

G. Kyllo: Just before the break, we were making some inquiries with respect to the timelines by which WorkSafeBC will provide remuneration to businesses.

I just wanted to move quickly to a scenario. I’m looking for some clarity from the minister and just reminding the minister that he certainly has been on the record of acknowledging the fact that many businesses are struggling during the pandemic. I think the last report that I had seen is that there are approximately 25,000 businesses currently at risk of closure in the province right now that employ about 300,000 individuals.

The remuneration period, or the time frame, obviously, will have an impact on cash flows of businesses, but there is one particular question that was raised to me over the course of the weekend. I’m just wondering if the minister might be able to provide some clarity. The minister indicated that in order for employers to be able to access the remuneration of up to $200 per employee for up to three days under this program, it would only be available to those employers that currently do not have a paid sick leave program.

The question that was posed to me was relative to a small clothing shop that is seeing significant reductions in sales revenues over the last year. They do have a paid sick leave program for full-time staff. They have two full-time staff. The question was that the provisions of this bill actually also provide the opportunity for paid sick leave for part-time employees. Now, this particular employer has about eight part-time employees.

I think in the context of the fact that the minister has acknowledged that businesses are struggling and cannot undertake additional cost burden, for an employer that has, in this instance, two full-time employees that do have sick pay provisions as part of their full-time contractual arrangement with the employer, they do not have a paid sick leave program that’s available for part-time staff. In this scenario, would the employer be eligible to make application for reimbursement for paid sick leave that’s provided to the temporary employees, which is an extension of the program they currently have?

Can the minister just provide some clarity with respect to: would that employer in this instance be able to make application for reimbursement for those part-time employees that they currently do not have a paid sick leave program for?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Nine members is not a quorum.

Sorry, Member for Shuswap, we will just wait for a moment.

[4:35 p.m.]

We have quorum. Thank you.

Hon. H. Bains: I could give you the intent of the legislation. I think the legislation is very clear the way it is designed. We are going section by section. This reimbursement piece is not part of the legislation that we are debating. That work is being worked on right now — the qualifying criteria and how you apply — as we canvassed that particular argument a little earlier. I will be in a better position to answer that question as soon as all of that is finalized.

G. Kyllo: I think it’s an important question. This legislation will put cost burden, potentially, on the backs of employers. I think the overall concept…. I’m certainly not disputing the merits of the legislation. But if we think about it in one context, a full-time worker working for one employer is entitled to a maximum of three days of paid sick leave under the provisions of this bill. But a part-time employee that works for three different employers, under the provisions of this bill, is able to apply for three days for each of those three employers and could potentially get nine days. There seems to be an inequity.

The way this legislation is put forward, it does not differentiate between the number of annualized sick days or a maximum cap that any employee can actually be eligible for under this legislation. So I think the question that needs to be answered here with specificity, with respect to this legislation…. Is it the intent of the minister that an employee that actually works for three different part-time jobs is eligible for three paid sick days from each of those three employers for a grand total, in this instance, of nine? Is that the intention?

Would that part-time employee working for three different employers be actually eligible for nine days of paid sick leave under the provisions of this bill?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: You know, it’s a very legit question, and I thank the member for that. You’ll always find some who try to go around the system, work the system. But the intent here is that when a worker is sick, they stay home, and they are entitled to three days paid by the employer. Then we reimburse the employer up to $200 per day.

[4:45 p.m.]

Again, the idea behind here is to make sure that our workplaces are safer, that the workers, if they are sick, with a first employer or a second employer, don’t go to work sick and add to the transmission. I think it’ll be in the best interest of the employer, also, to look at what is best for that particular employer. They may ask that employee to stay home if they know that the employee is sick. Technically, employees can try, but the intent is that employees are entitled to a maximum of three days, and the employer will be reimbursed up to $200 per day.

The Chair: Just a reminder again to our colleagues back at home. You should not be having conversations on electronic devices during the session. Thank you.

G. Kyllo: Well, with all due respect to the minister, it appears that this is a question that has not been contemplated yet by the minister or within the ministry. It speaks to what, I would establish, is probably some gross unfairness. If this temporary paid sick leave program is only in effect for seven months, till the end of this calendar year, the way to provide equity would be to have a maximum cap of three days — period — whether you’re a part-time employee or a full-time employee.

The way this bill is laid out, I believe, should be corrected, in that a part-time employee that works for two, three or four different businesses is actually eligible — under the provisions of this bill, this piece of legislation — for three paid sick days for each and every employer that they work for. I just wondered, Mr. Chair: is the minister willing to consider making an amendment to correct the inequity that exists with the way this piece of legislation is currently put before this House?

Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I think the member will know — or he should know — that all of the different provisions in the employment standards, whether they are stat holidays or others, are based on each employment relationship. I think this is no different. Also, the member should know that the intent of this legislation is that the employee is entitled to full wages for the day that he or she misses because they have a COVID-related illness on a day that they were scheduled to work with that employer.

[4:50 p.m.]

If they are working two different jobs part-time, and one employer had that employee scheduled for days that this employee is sick, then they will be entitled to up to three days.

To suggest that they could ask the other employer to give them an additional three days…. If they were not scheduled to work for those three days, or any days that the employee is taking off as a COVID-related illness, then they would not be entitled to it. It’s based on the days that they are scheduled to work with that particular employer.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate that a part-time employee would not be trying to double-dip per se, but I think that what this does is creates an inequity. A full-time employee is only entitled to a maximum of three days paid leave under the provisions of this bill, whereas a part-time employee that may work for multiple employers is entitled to not just the three days of paid sick leave, but if they were ill for a couple-week period, they’d be eligible to make application, rightfully so, to each of those three different employers for a total of nine days. So this bill provides, or presents, an inequity between full-time and part-time employers.

I believe that the minister does have the ability of remedying that inequity by establishing a maximum of three days — period — per employee, which would be quite easy to do. There certainly is ample opportunity for the minister to do that, to remove the inequity that currently exists between part-time and full-time employees.

Will the minister give serious consideration to moving forward and bringing forth an amendment that eliminates the inequity that this bill actually currently creates?

Hon. H. Bains: There is no need for any amendment, because the employment standard work is no different than this particular bill on a number of other benefits that the employees have. I mentioned stat holidays.

Again, how do you administer that? For example, how would you know…? Even an employer may not know if the employee is working for someone else, another employer. Again, like I said, it probably would be rare that everything falls in place where they would say: “Yes, I was scheduled to work for employer A for these three days, and then right after that, I was scheduled to work for the next employer the next three days and then another employer right after those three days.”

It is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to monitor that. No one will know who this employee is working for and when. I think their expectation is that the employees will utilize the days to stay away from work so that transmission in workplaces is minimized. If there is abuse or if there is a dispute, I think it can be dealt with through the employment standards branch.

G. Kyllo: Well, I’m a bit surprised by that answer in that it is actually the employer who, first and foremost, will have to incur the financial cost in providing the direct remuneration to the employee.

[4:55 p.m.]

The example that the minister had shared…. An em­ployee that works three different part-time jobs, potentially three days for three different employers, would actually be able to make application, under the provisions of this bill, for those three days, for each of those employers, thereby being entitled to nine days of paid leave under the provisions of this legislation, where the full-time employee is only entitled to three days — period. It seems pretty obvious that an inequity exists between part-time and full-time employees.

Now, back to the previous question — and I appreciate that the remuneration program has yet to be fully de­veloped. It’s being undertaken through WorkSafeBC, which is separate from this bill, which actually is a little bit different.

When the Premier, if memory serves me, made his initial announcement with respect to this legislation, he indicated to the media that the paid leave remuneration program was part of this legislation. The minister has clarified — and we’ve been through this bill to verify — that the remuneration program for employers actually is not part of this legislation. It’s something yet to be developed. The minister has shared with us that it’s being worked on now within WorkSafeBC.

Going back to the question that I initially posed at the start of this particular inquiry is really important to businesses. A small clothing shop that has had sales plummet by upwards of 40 percent — two full-time employees that they provide paid sick leave benefits to. They do not provide paid sick leave benefits to their seven part-time staff. Under the provisions of this legislation, that employer will now be obligated and required legally to provide up to three days of paid sick leave for those other seven employees. I think we can all appreciate that all seven likely will not utilize it, but if they did, that’s 21 days.

I think it’s really important to that small clothing shop that’s struggling to keep their doors open right now needs to have some certainty from this minister. This minister, through himself and his cabinet colleagues, will have the ability of determining the provisions under the remuneration program. I think that small business that is struggling for survival needs to have some certainty from this minister that this piece of legislation will not put additional financial burden onto them.

If it does put the financial burden onto them — which this does, through the paid leave provision, for a maximum of three days for part-time employees — I think it’s also incumbent upon the minister to provide some clarity and certainty to this small business. Although they have a paid leave provision for their full-time employees, with this bill putting additional cost burden on this business by extending that coverage for the part-time employees….. Can the minister clarify and confirm for these businesses that with any extension of this bill to part-time employees, those businesses would be eligible for reimbursement from government for those three days per part-time employee?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: First of all, I think we should not forget the benefit to the employers. The benefit of having the workers stay home, who now can afford to stay home without loss of pay, is enormous. Imagine the worker who can’t afford to stay home. They are suffering from COVID-related illness, go to work and transmit that virus to other workers. Now the operation is shut down. So imagine that. It’s not just a hypothetical kind of scenario I’m talking about; it has happened. It is happening. So those are huge benefits.

Again, the details are being worked out. Employers, if their employees are under $25 per hour and they qualify for the program, the only issue then there is the cash flow that they pay up front and then get refunded or reimbursed. I think those are details we worked on, and I said that WorkSafeBC is developing the program very quickly. I think that our intention is to make sure that the reimbursement program is as seamless as possible as we can make it and that the reimbursement is done in a timely fashion.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

G. Kyllo: Can the minister just clarify now…? The minister explained and just shared with this House that, in the instance of the part-time employees, the employer would actually be eligible to apply for reimbursement.

Can the minister just confirm that the business that has a paid sick day program for their full-time staff, through the provisions of this bill, which extends coverage now to part-time employees, something that wasn’t covered previously by this particular employer…. Can the minister confirm that for the business that has a paid sick leave program for full-time staff that they will be eligible to make application for reimbursement for any employees that are part-time that make application for paid sick days under this legislation? That would be a yes or a no.

Hon. H. Bains: As the member knows, the reimbursement program is not part of this bill. I tried to answer this question earlier with a similar question. Those details are being worked out now. Once I have the final details all worked out — how you qualify and who qualifies and how you get the reimbursement — we’ll make those public as soon as I get them.

G. Kyllo: With all due respect to the minister, this legislation puts considerable cost pressures on businesses. The minister, when rolling out the announcement on this bill, he along with the Premier made comments around that businesses cannot afford to have further cost burden put on their backs. We know that this bill specifically puts additional cost burden on the backs of employers.

In the instance of the employer that I was sharing with the minister that has two full-time employees and seven part-time employees, the two full-time employees are already covered through the employer. That’s the agreement the employer has with his two full-time employees. For the seven part-time employees, this bill will entitle those individuals to up to three days of paid sick leave.

[5:05 p.m.]

Nobody is disputing the merits of that, but I think that the essence of this whole bill and the government announcement around providing reimbursement to employers…. I think that the expectation of employers is that for any additional cost burden that this legislation will put onto their backs that government will backstop that to a maximum of $200 per day.

The minister is the one that holds the pen on making the determination on which employers will be eligible and which will not. The minister has indicated previously that employers that already have some form of a paid sick leave program will not be eligible for making application for reimbursement.

If that is the case, employers that have a paid sick leave program for full-time staff are going to be grossly disadvantaged because they will be picking up the full cost burden associated with the paid sick leave days that are provided for under this bill to their seven part-time staff. Seven staff, three days — that’s 21 days. If they were eligible for the max, that’s $4,200 of additional cost burden for a small business that is struggling to survive, has expended all of their savings just to keep the doors open.

Owners are taking home smaller paycheques than employees, yet this minister and this Premier are putting forward a program that puts significant additional cost burden onto the backs of those businesses.

Now, the minister has the opportunity of giving some solace to those businesses by confirming here today in this House that for those businesses that are going to suffer or experience additional costs with respect to this legislation…. All the minister has to do is to indicate to this House that those businesses will also be eligible for making applications for reimbursement under their program, which is yet being developed.

Can the minister provide some assurances to those businesses that if there’s additional cost burden associated with the provisions of this bill, those businesses will also be eligible to make application for reimbursement at the max of $200 per day, up to three days, per employee?

Hon. H. Bains: Look, I think the idea behind this short term — I think that part of the section that the member is talking about — is to allow employees to stay home when they are sick with a COVID-related illness. That helps the employer, and employers understand that. That’s what the intent of this legislation is.

We know that many employers are hurting. We want to make sure…. The Premier made it very clear, and the government made it very clear, that we don’t want to put the entire burden on those employers. The government will come, just like we did in the last 14 months.

Time and again we stood with the employers to help them to move through this very, very tough time. I think our ministers responsible have canvassed those types of benefits time and again. The employers understand that. Many employers are very, very appreciative of the help they received from the government. The same thing is here.

[5:10 p.m.]

I think you need to put the benefit to the employer, because the employer at that particular operation that this member is talking about will make a decision if one of those part-time employees has an illness. “What do I do? Allow them to come because they can’t afford to stay home and then risk the entire business, or give them those days off and extend that time off to all workers?” Then, certainly, I think they’ll meet the criteria.

I think the details of who qualifies, who gets the reimbursement, will be worked out. They are being worked out right now. Right now we’re looking at the bill itself and the provisions of this bill that is before us.

G. Kyllo: Quite frankly, that’s just not good enough. B.C. businesses that are struggling…. There are 8,000 businesses that have already shuttered their doors, and there are another 25,000 businesses that are at risk, representing 300,000 employees. This bill puts additional cost burden on those employers.

The minister and the Premier indicated and gave assurances to the business community that they would be there to help them out. But in the example that the minister and I have been sharing, where an employer has a program only for full-time employees, from the minister’s lack of answer, I can only surmise that that business will not be eligible to make application for the funding for those seven part-time staff. That’s not acceptable.

Can the minister share with this House who will be the adjudicator of any disputes that arise between employers and employees with respect to the provisions of this bill?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer to that question is the em­ployment standards branch.

G. Kyllo: I know that a number of weeks ago we canvassed lots of inquiry with respect to Bill 3. That was the paid leave for individuals to get vaccinated. During that exchange, we were looking for some clarity on the bill. The minister continued to indicate and advise this House that any additional inquiry would be up for employment standards branch to actually make the adjudication, to interpret the legislation and in order to guide them in providing answers in disputes arising between employers and employees.

The minister has indicated that any disputes arising from this piece of legislation also will be left to be determined by the employment standards branch. Can the minister advise this House what the wait times are, currently, for any inquiries that are made to the employment standards branch?

Hon. H. Bains: Inquiries can be made to the employment standards branch through a 1-800 line. That is multilingual, and they get the answers on that line.

G. Kyllo: I think the reason this is important is that the minister is indicating that any disputes that might arise between employers and employees will be adjudicated and directed by the employment standards branch. It’s important for businesses and employees also to know, if there’s a dispute, what the time frame might be for which their claim is actually heard and then an ultimate determination.

Can the minister explain or share with this House what the current wait times are for a complaint that is received by the employment standards branch to actually to be adjudicated on?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: So that the member understands the way that that system works, it will be an employee-initiated complaint in a scenario where the employee believes that they are entitled to three days or two days or one day of full wages because they believe that they have an illness related to COVID. But the employer…. If they refuse to pay, it doesn’t cost them anything. It is the employee who will go through the system, and then they will have their case adjudicated, just like any other complaint that goes through employment standards.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister please advise this House what the current wait times are for employees that reach out to the employment standards branch in order to ex­press a concern — what the current wait times are within the employment standards branch?

Hon. H. Bains: I can’t come up with a definitive answer — not to avoid the question. But I’m advised that most complaints…. I think they attempt to deal with them within six months, but there may be some complex complaints that take longer.

[5:20 p.m.]

The issue of delay and backlog…. I think we can talk about, if we want to go there, the reasons behind it and all of that. But we’re trying to fix that system, as well, as we go. We have added more officers, and we are doing the reformation of the system itself and trying to make sure that the employees’ complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion so that they don’t have to wait a longer period of time for the results.

G. Kyllo: Well, the minister is absolutely avoiding the question. The minister keeps referring to timeliness. The question was very specific. I’m quite certain that the minister must be on top of his files and have a good understanding of the different performance levels within the employment standards branch.

One more time, if I may, to the minister. Can the minister please share with this House what the current wait times are for adjudicating complaints within the employment standards branch? Employees that may have disputes with employers with respect to their eligibility or whether they’re going to get paid sick leave I think need to have some assurances from this minister with respect to what time frame they can expect for any concerns that arise. When they bring their disputes forward to the employment standards branch, what time frame can employees expect to have their complaints adjudicated?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The answer isn’t as the member wished to have, because, first of all, what I said was that the worker can pick up a phone and talk to the employment standards branch and get the answer right away. I mean, that’s that process. Or an employer can actually phone and get the information. That information is being put on their website now about this program. So it’s not only available to workers and employers on a website, but also they can pick up the phone and talk to the employment standards branch on a multilingual basis. But if there seems to be….

If the dispute is not being resolved between the worker and the employer, then the worker can file a complaint. Again, based on the complexity, it could take months — between four and ten months. Again, that’s the backlog that we have that we’re trying to clear up. I’m not happy about the backlog that we have out there, but we’re trying to fix it by bringing some changes.

We added 35 officers to the employment standards branch to fix this problem, and more are being hired, I think, this year. We are aware there’s a backlog. But it’s a range, depending on the type of complaint. I would say that I could get exact information, maybe, while going through the estimates pretty soon. I think we could get that information at that time. I would say four to eight months is the range.

G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated that employees that are looking for dispute resolution through employment standards branch…. The minister has indicated four to eight months. I was actually recently contacted by a constituent that indicated that employment standards branch…. “Employment standards branch told me over the phone a couple of weeks ago that their office is now so backed up, it’ll likely be a year or more until one of their officers is even assigned to read my complaint.” Over a year backlog just to read the complaint, let alone adjudicate it.

I raise this point because I think it is important for those that are listening at home or for workers, for employers. We know that disputes will arise. The minister has indicated that the employment standards branch will be the adjudicator, the one that actually determines and helps to identify resolution to any disputes. But the minister is indicating, on the record here today, four to eight months. It’s a pretty big swing.

If you’re looking for that paid sick leave and you need it on your paycheque and your employer chooses, for whatever reason, to not pay you, if your only solace is to go to the employment standards branch and maybe have them look at your complaint four to eight months from now, it certainly does not provide any support or any benefit to that worker when they need it now.

I’ve read on record a quote from a constituent that has shared with me that the employment standards branch themselves have indicated that it’s going to be over a year before their complaint is even read, let alone adjudicated. It’s extremely troubling, and I don’t believe many employers or employees would take much solace in the information the minister has shared with us today.

That would conclude my questioning on section 1.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

G. Kyllo: I’m wondering if the minister could provide some clarity to this House. How was the self-imposed deadline of January 1, 2022…? How was that date arrived at, and was that done in consultation with the two different business groups that the minister has indicated that he consulted with respect to this legislation?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Our focus right now was to deal with the pandemic. It is still with us, and we wanted to make sure that we….

That’s what the first part of the bill talks about — having three days of paid leave with a COVID-related illness. That program is ending on December 31, 2021. So it was logical that the next step would start right after that so that we have permanent sick leave provisions in place.

Also, it will give us an opportunity — between the day this bill receives royal assent and December 31 — to do the thorough consultation that we need, to be guided by what kind of a model and what kind of a program we will have in place starting January 1, 2022.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister share if this date, this self-imposed deadline of January 1, 2022, was actually shared with the business groups? Were the business groups that the minister has previously indicated he had considerable consultation with indeed advised and shared the information that January 1, 2022, would be the date by which government would be introducing a permanent sick pay program?

Hon. H. Bains: We heard this as we canvassed, I think, last week. When we were consulting with the stakeholders about other provisions that we were considering to put in, through the legislation or regulatory changes, to support the workers and support the businesses, there was a desire shown that there needs to be, in the employment standards, a long-term solution.

We also realized, and it was brought to our attention, that B.C. was behind other jurisdictions who have permanent sick leave provisions. I think we were reminded time and again that we need to put in a permanent solution as well as the short-term solution that we just finished talking about.

[5:35 p.m.]

I think that’s why January 1 makes sense for us to consider. It will also give us time to consult. It being June and December 31, there is plenty of time for us to consider the model and what kind of a program there should be and would be. Then we will make those decisions based on that.

We learned through those consultations time and again the need for a permanent solution. Since the short-term provisions were ending at the end of this year, it’s logical to start with January 1.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that there will be considerable consultation going forward. With respect to the provisions of section 2, which puts in place the provision where the government shall bring forward a permanent sick pay program….

What I’m trying to ascertain is: what was the level of understanding of the business groups? I’ve spoken to a number of individuals that were representatives at those tables. From what I’m understanding, it’s an absolute surprise and a shock to many of them that this legislation is going to put in place a permanent sick pay program on January 1, 2022, without….

At this point in time, anyhow, there is no federal participation. The government of B.C. is moving forward on their own initiative with this self-imposed deadline of January 1, 2022, to put in place a permanent sick pay program.

Can the minister confirm that the business groups that he consulted with in developing this piece of legislation were made aware that it was government’s intention to put forward a permanent sick pay program on January 1 of this coming year?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I answered this question the best that I could. We heard from stakeholders that there is a need for a permanent solution and that there is a need for a short-term solution. So we’re trying to fix both of those through this piece of legislation.

That’s why…. It will give us time. This first program ends on December 31. It’s logical to start with the next program, starting with January 1, 2022. That’s what this…. The time between now and December 31 will serve us to consult with those stakeholders and to decide what kind of a program we should have, what kind of a model and how many days.

All that stuff will be discussed with the employers. That’s the whole purpose of consulting with all stakeholders, and that’s what we will be doing between now and December 31.

G. Kyllo: If the minister could explain…. How does government intend to move forward with a permanent paid sick pay program when they’ve already identified and communicated to the public and to businesses their acknowledgment that businesses cannot afford any further cost burden?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I have repeated this particular part many times now. We will take time between now and until December 31 to talk to those stakeholders. How do we come up with a program? What kind of a model? Who pays? How many days?

I think all of that will be discussed during the time that we do the consultation. That’s what the consultation is all about.

[5:40 p.m.]

You listen to them. All the good things and the challenges that many different stakeholders will face, considering the piece of legislation, we would be looking at. I think that’s the time that we will be spending with the stakeholders, to understand their issues and their challenges and benefits. Then we’ll make that decision before December 31, 2021.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister share with this House why he is choosing to put a permanent paid sick leave program into regulation, to give the current government and cabinet the ability to unilaterally make the decision and determination on what a paid sick leave program will be? The minister has shared, and I appreciate, that there will be some consultation, but there will not be the ability of this House, of the official opposition or of the Green Party, to make further inquiry.

A paid sick leave program…. As the minister has indicated, you have yet to determine the number of days. You have yet to determine the criteria. Will it be full pay? Will remuneration be at a percentage of people’s wage rates? And who will be paying for this program? Will it be paid for by government? Will it be paid for by businesses? There are many questions that remain unanswered.

The only information that we are provided here in this House is that a permanent paid sick pay program will come into effect on January 1, 2022. That is all that has been shared with this House. The breadth of the cost, the number of days, the allocation, the percentage of pay that employees may or may not be entitled to — all of those questions have yet to identified.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide some kind of rationale or justification of why a piece of legislation as fundamental and as important as a permanent paid sick leave program is not being brought forward to this Legislature this coming fall for appropriate deliberation by this committee.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, governments bring in legislation all the time, and then they come up with recommendations to finalize the intent of that legislation. I’ve seen it in my time when I was in opposition. I think the number of times that particular government that this member represents — the party…. They came up with numerous, I would say…. You could actually write a one-inch book to add all that legislation that they brought in and then added the regulations later.

Also, I said this before — that it is time that we put in a permanent solution. We heard that from many stakeholders — that there needs to be a permanent solution. We are debating the merit of that right now. This member can say whether he agrees or disagrees with the merit of having a permanent solution. That’s the debate we are having right now.

What kind of program will there be? He’s free to say what he believes should be the solution to the permanent, or if he says no he doesn’t agree with the permanent solution. But the purpose of the consultation is that we go to the stakeholders who will be impacted by our decision to learn from them what kind of program, what model and how many days. That will be decided through consultation. But the merit of the bill is being debated right now. The member can stand up and, in his next statement, can say he agrees or disagrees with the merit of this program, and we’ll go from there.

S. Furstenau: I’m very interested in the minister’s comments just now. I don’t think that we have necessarily been debating the merit of a sick pay program in British Columbia. What we’ve been hearing, I think, for seven hours into committee stage now, are efforts, mostly on the part of the official opposition, to get details about this program.

For the minister to suggest that governments make legislation and regulation all the time…. We are talking right now about a proposed piece of legislation that is significant, that has significant implications for both government and employers in this province. What is in front of us is a bill that speaks about a solution for sick pay for the COVID pandemic to the end on December 31 and then, basically, a “Trust us” clause. “We’re going to take it from there. No more conversation with the House or the Legislature or the MLAs on either side about what this legislation is going to look like. We’re just going to do it in regulation.”

From my point of view, this is a democratic problem. This is an issue with how we create laws in this province and best practices around those laws and the fact that the public expects us, all of us in this chamber and in this House, to participate in the creation and debate and often amendment of those laws as they go through the processes in this House. That’s been established as a significant pillar in our democracy.

[5:50 p.m.]

For the dismissive response from the minister to the critic for the official opposition raising a really important question about the fact that we’re supposed to pass a bill right now that gives this government a blank cheque on a permanent program for sick pay that will be passed in regulation — that is a problem. I do have a problem with that, and I think British Columbians should too. This permanent legislation absolutely has merit, absolutely should be brought into our province. We are long overdue, but it should be brought in the way that legislation is meant to be brought in, in a parliamentary democracy, which is in the chamber, in legislation.

My question to the minister is: how is this approach consistent with our democracy?

Hon. H. Bains: I think it is very democratic when we are talking about a principle of an issue that is before us. This House has the full ability to debate on that, and in fact, we’ve been doing it — this is the second day now — because it’s a part of being a responsive and consultative government that our citizens demand from their governments. That’s what we are doing. A government that has heard, that has listened, listened to the idea and principle that has been brought to their attention.

I think the member also said that they are in favour of having a permanent solution, if I heard it correctly, and I think that principle is what we are debating. Then we will consult with all the stakeholders — the workers, their representatives, academics, the general population, the Indigenous, and employers, large and small — to learn from them the challenges, the benefits and what kind of program is needed to deal with the issue that has been brought to us.

I think it’s been a nationwide demand from workers to act on their issue of having a permanent solution, not only just a short-term, but a permanent solution as well. We’re acting on this after listening to so many out there who were forced to go to work because they couldn’t afford to stay home when they were sick with COVID. That added to the cost to the employer by having those operations shut down, and many other co-workers became ill. I think that adds to our timelines to deal with the pandemic.

[5:55 p.m.]

I think, all of those considered, the principle is that we need a permanent solution along with a short-term solution, and this bill addresses that. I think: what kind of program should there be? Who pays? How many days? All of those discussions will take place between now and December 31.

Member, I would encourage you and whoever else wishes to engage with the process of consultation. They can send their submissions whether they (1) agree with the principle to have a permanent solution and (2) what kind of solution there should be and what some of the things are we should be watchful and careful about. I think it’s been a very responsive and consultive government that you’re facing here, Member.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Minister.

S. Furstenau: I think, if I understand what just happened, I got invited to consult with government. Not to participate in the debate of legislation, but I got invited to submit my ideas in consultation. But what the minister is outlining, and what this bill outlines, is that between now and January 1 of 2022, this government will take in all of this information from stakeholders, as he points out — academics, apparently members of the opposition parties — and come up with a plan. Then that plan will be instituted in regulation.

It won’t be brought back to this House to be debated. It won’t be brought back to this House for the public to be able to see what that plan is before it’s put into regulation. It won’t be brought back to this House for any capacity for amendments to the legislation. It will just be put into place by regulation by this government after a series of meetings that they have that nobody in the public is going to have any capacity to know about because we won’t be able to ask about them. Doesn’t seem particularly democratic.

Again, my question wasn’t actually answered. The minister talks about how we have the opportunity to debate the principle of an issue. I don’t think that that’s what is meant to happen in here. We are in agreement that there needs to be a sick pay program in place. There should have been one in place many, many months ago. Nobody is disagreeing with that in this chamber. What we should be debating is not the principle, but how we have a permanent sick pay program in British Columbia that addresses a number of outcomes that we should be trying to achieve in this province.

For example, could we have a sick pay program that recognizes that not all businesses are created equal in British Columbia? Some businesses, for example, over the last 15 months, have seen enormous profits. Some businesses, many small and medium-sized businesses, in this province are barely surviving. Will this permanent sick day program being brought into regulation by this government, after a series of meetings that happened outside of the view of the public, take into account that businesses are different, and that some businesses that are earning significant profits might be able to have different levels of affordability when it comes to considering permanent sick days?

Will this program take that into account? Will it have any kind of nuances like that? Or will it be, as the bill is currently standing for the temporary sick day for COVID-19, a one-size-fits-all? Don’t know. The reality is that once we finish debating this bill, if it proceeds as it stands, we’ll never have the opportunity to have that debate. This bill gives the government the ability to bring in a permanent sick leave program in this province without spending any more time discussing that inside this Legislature.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’m astonished that the minister considers this to be an appropriate approach, in a parliamentary democracy, to creating significant legislation. But I’ll ask him again. How does he see this as upholding the principles — if we’re discussing principles — that underpin parliamentary democracy?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member made a couple of points. One is the democracy and how we are using this procedure that, in her view, is not democratic. But look. I would remind the member that we passed a number of legislations in this House that she supported and her party supported — for example, Employment Standards Act changes. In there was child labour. How do we protect our children in this province who were allowed to work in hazardous industries, hazardous work?

But after that…. That was the principle. I’m thankful for the support that we received from all parties there. Then we designed the regulations. What defines light work? What defines hazardous work? That work took a little longer, and that’s how we make those changes.

Again, here we’re talking about the need for a permanent solution to provide workers, if they become ill — that they can afford to stay home. The member talks about how all employers are not created equal. I understand that, but that’s exactly what discussion will take place with those employers and others: how we deal with the different scenarios, different employers and what kind of model we want to come up with. That’s what will take place between now and the end of the year.

What I asked the member was that if they’d like to put in a submission, or anybody…. If she wants to encourage anyone to put in a submission to guide that process of consultation…. You know, they’re free do that. But right now, we’re debating the bill itself. She has every opportunity to debate the bill. What we intend to do, starting January 1, 2022…. This means that we will have a permanent solution to sick leave issues that have so many people asking all across this country. Also, a reminder that we’re behind other jurisdictions who already have permanent sick leave provisions in place, including the federal government.

S. Furstenau: Being one who likes to propose solutions when I see challenges, or ways that I think the government can do better, I have an amendment that I have submitted. The Clerk has a copy of the amendment in my name.

[6:05 p.m.]

[CLAUSE 2, by adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 49.1 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) After 90 consecutive days of employment with an employer, an employee, for personal illness or injury, is entitled, in each employment year, to

(a) paid leave for up to the number of days prescribed, and

(b) unpaid leave for up to 3 days. , and

(b) by adding the following subsections:

(3) Subject to subsection (4), an employer must pay an employee who takes leave under subsection (1) (a) an amount in money equal to at least the amount calculated by multiplying the period of the leave and the average day’s pay, where the average day’s pay is determined by the formula

	amount paid ÷ days worked
where
amount paid	is the amount paid or payable to the employee for work that is done during and wages that are earned within the 30 calendar day period preceding the leave, including vacation pay that is paid or payable for any days of vacation taken within that period, less any amounts paid or payable for overtime, and
days worked	is the number of days the employee worked or earned wages within that 30 calendar day period.

(4) An employer must pay an employee in a prescribed circumstance who takes leave under subsection (1) (a) an amount in money equal to at least the amount calculated in accordance with the regulations.

(5) A regulation to prescribe the number of days may be made under subsection (1) (a) only if

(a) the minister

(i) prepares a report specifying the number of days to be prescribed and any information the minister considers relevant for the selection of the number of days, having regard to the purposes of this section, and

(ii) lays the report described in paragraph (a) before the Legislative Assembly,

(b) the minister’s report stands referred to a select standing or special committee of the Legislative Assembly authorized or designated by the Legislative Assembly to examine the proposed number of days, and

(c) the committee approves the proposed number of days.]

The amendment provides a way in which this government can actually ensure that there is some democratic process attached to the permanent paid sick leave program that they want to bring in by regulation.

What this amendment would do is, it adds sections to (b) so that the minister will prepare a report specifying the number of days to be prescribed and any information the minister considers relevant to the selection of that number, having regard to the purposes of this section, and lays a report before the Legislative Assembly, which then can be referred to a select standing or special committee of the Legislative Assembly or designated by the Legislative Assembly to examine the report, giving the opportunity for the members of this House to review and examine the legislation before it is brought in.

The Chair: If I might, Member, if we could just pause or take, let’s say, a four-minute recess — five-minute, okay; going up by one — so we can give time to make sure the amendment gets to all members who want to read it and understand it. So we’ll just take a five-minute recess, Members. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 6:06 p.m. to 6:11 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On the amendment.

S. Furstenau: I hope to have support on this amendment. What it would achieve is the ability for government to bring its plan back to the Legislature, present its plan for permanent sick pay in British Columbia and have that plan sent to a committee that consists of members from all of the parties. Of course, as government has a majority, they would have the majority on that committee. It gives the opportunity for debate and the capacity for there to be the kinds of questions that we should all expect to be able to happen of legislation that passes in this House, particularly legislation that is as significant as the proposed permanent sick pay legislation.

I will leave it there, but I hope to have the support of the minister on this amendment.

G. Kyllo: I have had an opportunity to review the amendment that is proposed and, although it is less than perfect, I think that this legislation that’s put before this House is certainly less than perfect. I think that the opportunity, as the official leader of the Green Party has shared with this House….

There are so many unanswered questions that remain at this point in time. We have canvassed many questions with the minister as part of section 2. There is yet to be any determination with respect to the number of days of a permanent paid sick leave program. There is no establishment on what the remuneration rates would potentially be, as far as a permanent program. There has also been no clarity with respect to whether the full cost of a program would be borne entirely by employers or whether a plan will be potentially also funded through either the provincial government or federal government. So there are so many questions that remain.

I’m certainly interested in the amendment. I think that anything that this Legislative Assembly can do to ensure that, whatever plan government chooses to bring forward, there is an opportunity, for either this chamber directly or through a committee, to ask very important questions that remain unanswered at this particular juncture…. So with that, I’m certainly interested to hear any comments from the minister.

The Chair: This is on the proposed amendment. Are there any other speakers to the proposed amendment? Now is your chance.

Minister of Labour.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for the amendment, but regrettably, I have to oppose this. I must oppose this, because we have seen what we have learned during this pandemic — the need for having a permanent solution so that when workers are sick, they can afford to stay home to recover and also stop the transmission of the virus at workplaces. The workplaces also will benefit when their workers don’t come to work sick. It will give them the opportunity to continue to operate, because their workplace is healthy, their workplaces are safe.

What this does is delay the process. We have already been very clear that there is a need, and the member said there is a need, for a permanent solution. All we are saying is: “Let’s pass that, and then we will go out for consultation.” But the member is asking that we do that before we come up with the numbers. We do the consultation, and then we will listen to the stakeholders — what kind of program, how it applies to different employers and what model and the cost and everything else that is needed to complete that process. So we will be doing that between now and the end of the year.

Therefore, I will speak against it, and I would urge everyone to vote against this amendment, because we need to move. There has been a demand, not only in British Columbia but all across this country, to have a permanent solution to deal with sick leave. That’s one thing that everyone learned, and it brought to the surface the urgency of it.

I think the bill, the way it is designed, will do exactly what we want to do and what British Columbians want us to do — to make sure that there is a permanent solution. At the same time, we will do the consultation and come up with the model, the cost and who it applies to. All of that will be considered, and then we will make a decision before January 1, 2022.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I see the member for Saanich North and the Islands, on the proposed amendment.

A. Olsen: Thank you to my colleague for raising this important amendment. I’m certainly, as will probably be no surprise to you, in full alignment with this amendment. Frankly, when I listen to the minister’s response, I don’t hear any reason in his response to actually not vote for this amendment. The government certainly knew, as the minister has highlighted…. The minister has highlighted an acknowledgment that, in fact, this legislation that we’re debating in the House today needed to be brought in months ago. The minister has acknowledged that expediency is at the heart of this bill. That’s fine. We’re here now debating it 14 months later, and certainly that’s all time that’s been lost.

However, when we’re talking about the future of paid sick leave, I think that it would be, to the spirit of the Premier’s comment, a collaborative effort. To get us to debate now a bill and a clause right now that has zero understanding of how many days are going to be in it and get us to approve of that now only actually weakens and threatens the stability of that number of days in the future.

The opportunity to engage the opposition parties in this now should be seen as an opportunity by the minister — an opportunity for his party, as my colleague has highlighted, that has a majority government and would certainly have a majority of seats at that table. But this collaborative effort and the spirit of collaboration which the Premier talked so much of since the election, that over the next number of months….

It doesn’t need to be a long period of time, to the minister. It could be a shortened period of time, where an all-party committee hears the arguments, the testimony brought forward by all of the interested parties that I’m certain the minister and the ministry would go and consult and do that work in committee to try to achieve a consensus.

[6:20 p.m.]

Why would you abandon the opportunity at this mom­ent to try to achieve consensus? The business community would appreciate that. I think labour organizations would appreciate an attempt from this government to achieve consensus, based on the fact that the future is always unknown in this business.

If you can achieve a consensus of the members that are sitting around the table now…. If future members of the B.C. Green caucus view this debate, future members of the B.C. Liberal caucus view this debate and the work that was done at committee, recognizing that this isn’t the most expedient part…. This is the least expedient part.

We need to get a paid sick leave program in place for British Columbia. What is in your hands right now is an opportunity to truly put a collaborative effort forward — to put this in front of a committee, have that committee take a look at that, have a committee listen to the different arguments that are going to be put forward as to how a program like this should be put in place, make recommendations and do the hard work of trying to achieve consensus.

How powerful would that be, under the watch of this minister, if an all-party committee was able to achieve consensus? Essentially, the response that we heard from the minister today was that he’s not prepared to even try to achieve that consensus before just turning this opportunity down. I think that it’s a shame that the minister has not embraced the opportunity that is put in front to really, truly take the words that the Premier said after the election — that good ideas come from all parts of the House. Good ideas indeed come from all different aspects of society.

The minister has now got an opportunity to look to his colleagues and say: “You know what? I think this is a good opportunity for us to try to achieve consensus in an area that historically, in British Columbia, has been very difficult to achieve that consensus.” Labour issues have been very divisive, as I’m constantly reminded by my colleagues on both sides of the chamber. This is an opportunity to achieve that in an open way.

You know what? That committee may not achieve consensus, and the government is going to have to make the decision that they’re going to make anyway. But I certainly think that it would be a unique story to tell and a powerful story to tell about collaborative governance, if this minister gave it a shot.

Let’s just set aside the fact that the most expedient part of this bill has been put behind us. We’re debating that now. We’re putting the temporary sick pay for COVID-19…. We’re putting that in place, and we’re going to do that together. Why don’t we do the second part of this together as well? That collaboration, that consultation, the engagement of all of the key stakeholders — let’s do that together. Let’s put a number that we can agree on. And you know what? It might not happen that we get full consensus, but it’s certainly better to try.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call a vote on the proposed amendment.

Division has been called. However, pursuant to the sessional orders, that division will be put over until tomorrow evening at 6 p.m., when the vote on this proposed amendment will take place.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[6:25 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, 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.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.