Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Employment Standards Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

In the Birch Committee Room, we call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, and after that completes, we call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:04 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. We’re ready to get the committee stage underway for Bill 2, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2024.

[1:05 p.m.]

On clause 1 (continued).

G. Kyllo: Just before the lunch break, the minister and I were canvassing a series of questions around the 131,000 individuals in B.C. that were reportedly currently earning the base minimum wage rate.

My question to the minister before the break was if the minister had any insight into how many of those workers receive additional remuneration on top or above the minimum wage rate, whether that be in the form of stipend, tips or commissions. The minister indicated that he did not have access to that, so this is a follow-up to the minister.

Can the minister share, specifically, where the data is reported, where the minister was able to achieve or identify the number that was provided of 131,000 British Columbians currently being paid the minimum wage and how that is actually reported out to government?

Hon. H. Bains: These numbers we took from the Stats Canada labour force data that they do every month, I’m advised.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister share which specific year and maybe where that number is reported? The minister is referencing Stats Canada. I’m just wondering for what period that number was actually reported as.

Hon. H. Bains: Earlier I answered that question. This is 2023.

G. Kyllo: Of the 131,000, is that number shared or has it been backed up or verified through the Ministry of Finance? Is there any reporting structure government has outside of the StatsCan data to confirm or verify that number?

Hon. H. Bains: I’m not sure there’s anywhere else that you could verify these numbers. These are Stats Canada numbers. They are some of the most reliable numbers. They come up with all kinds of stats. These are one of the stats on the labour force study that they do and that are provided.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to share what methodology is utilized in that StatsCan survey? Is that by a phone survey? Is that direct verification of people’s pay stubs? Is that through consultation or discussions with businesses to report on what percentage or numbers of employees might be paid the minimum wage?

I’m just trying to understand the robustness of the number that the minister has referred to.

Hon. H. Bains: This is Stats Canada. They conduct their analysis however they conduct it. I’m sure the mem­ber can find a number for Stats Canada and inquire how they do that. These are the same stats that Stats Canada puts out periodically about the job losses, job gains, unemployment rates, employment rates. It’s all Stats Canada.

Everyone…. I think almost every person who is interested in this field relies on Stats Canada numbers and their analysis. The member wants to check with Stats Canada. He is welcome to do that.

G. Kyllo: Yeah, I’m certainly familiar with Stats Canada.

I’m just wondering. Is the minister able to share, or is he knowledgable on, what methodology Stats Canada uses in determining that particular number?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It has nothing to do with the bill before us. The member is asking me how Stats Canada does their business. I’m not an expert on that. I don’t have that under my ministry either. The member can inquire elsewhere for that information.

G. Kyllo: Look, I appreciate the response from the minister. But in introducing the bill, the minister did recognize and state that what has brought this legislation forward is concern for some of the lowest-paid workers in our prov­ince. When asking specificity on the number, the minister responded by indicating it’s 131,000.

The minister also, in his previous response, is unable to determine or to advise if, indeed, for those 131,000 individuals, that is the only remuneration that they actually receive from their employers. If you are a commissioned salesperson working in a clothing store or working in a car dealership, certainly my experience has been that they are all legally obligated to be paid the minimum wage, but that is a small portion of their overall remuneration.

As we look at the magnitude or potential impact to those individuals that are really only entitled to and only earning or generating the minimum wage, can the minister share if any work has been done whatsoever to determine how many workers in the province are only receiving remuneration based on the minimum wage and if any work has been done, in any way shape or form, to make a determination on how many workers have additional income over and above the minimum wage rate?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I answered this question more than once. There’s no system available to go and individually ask whether they are paid minimum wage or they are paid any tips that particular day or that particular order. Some people get tips; some don’t get tips. It’s not mandated by the law that they must be paid tips or a certain amount. Therefore, we are unable to answer that question.

G. Kyllo: Is it the minister’s perception that an individual making $100,000 a year cumulative between wages and tips would be characterized as some of the lowest-paid workers in the province of B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: All we are doing here is setting the minimum standard, which is the minimum wage. If employees get higher wages, good for them — through whatever means, if employers decide to pay them higher wages. The minimum wage is what we are setting. That’s what the bill is all about.

The law is the employer must pay that minimum wage if there is an employer-employee relationship and if they are covered under employment standards. All we are doing here is tying the increases of minimum wage to the rate of inflation. That’s all we’re doing.

G. Kyllo: Lookit. The minister has confirmed that he has undertaken no consultation with respect to this piece of legislation. The minister largely is relying on a report that was published by the Fair Wages Commission in 2018 — five, six years ago.

When it comes to consulting with the broader business community, the minister…. I certainly stand to be corrected, but from what I’ve heard from the minister to date, there has been no broad consultation or inquiry with the larger business community.

[1:15 p.m.]

The minister has referenced repeatedly reliance on a policy directive that was put forward by the B.C. chamber, but that certainly does not speak to the broader business community across the province.

The minister has also shared with this House that the purpose of the minimum wage is to establish the base rate to protect some of the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers in the province. However, those individuals that are reportedly in part of the 131,000 individuals that actually earn or are paid the minimum-wage rate have incomes far in excess of that.

I gave just a few references. A worker that may be working in a clothing store at the base minimum-pay rate, at minimum wage, plus commissions that are on top. This is pretty typical in the clothing sector. You look at car dealerships. I happen to know a gentleman that makes $150,000 a year selling automobiles, but he would be identified, under this minister’s explanation, as one of the 131,000 in­dividuals being paid the minimum wage in the province.

I think it’s incredibly important for British Colum­bians to have a good understanding, when the minister refers to the minimum-wage rate — the base rate for some of the most vulnerable individuals in the province — to have a clear understanding of how many workers we are talking about.

Let me maybe go this way. There used to be a separate rate of pay, of minimum wage, in the province for the service industry, largely servers that have the ability of generating additional income through tips or otherwise.

Can the minister share, prior to the change of legislation which eliminated the two-tier or the lower rate of minimum wage, what the proportion of workers was that were being paid the minimum wage and then how many workers were actually being paid the server wage in the prov­ince of B.C.?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The Fair Wages Commission gave us these numbers. They are in the report. The 15,700 liquor servers were women, and 3,600 were men. That represents about 82 percent women liquor servers at that time.

I think there’s quite a bit of work done by the Fair Wages Commission. I recommend the member read that report about liquor service, the myths and some thoughts on why their wages are lower because their tips are taken. They cleared up many of those myths in there.

I don’t have it here, but a big majority of them were not even making $15 an hour at that time, despite the tips. I think that was the right thing to do. That’s why we did it.

Today we are talking about tying the minimum wage increases to the rate of inflation of the previous year. That’s what this bill is all about.

G. Kyllo: In his response, I believe the minister indi­cated that a majority of workers, even with their tips, were making less than $15 an hour. Can the minister point to where he’s drawing that conclusion from or where that information exists?

Hon. H. Bains: I’ll find that and get that to you.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate StatsCan may not be providing the specific data that I am looking for. But I do believe it’s incredibly important that when there’s new legislation before the House, especially legislation that, as the minister has characterized, is deemed to provide certainty and protection for the lowest-paid workers in the province….

Through this line of inquiry, I think we’ve identified that there are workers that are included in that 131,000 number that the minister has provided that are making wage rates that are far in excess of the minimum wage. My colleague from Peace River South had just shared with me that his son, years ago, was working in a furniture business, being paid minimum wage, but he was also in sales and received commission on top of it.

I think if we’ve ever been to Best Buy or a car sales dealership, we likely would be working with an individual that is probably paid the minimum-wage rate. I think it’s incredibly important for the minister to be able to provide a bit more context as far as how many workers in B.C. this legislation is really intended to provide protection and certainty for.

[1:25 p.m.]

As I shared before lunch, I’ve got four daughters. They all worked in the service sector when they were going through college and university, making a significant amount of money. I know that some of my girls, during the summer months in Sicamous, were making, when you took their base wage plus their tips, a higher hourly wage rate than welders that I had working in my manufacturing facility.

If indeed the intention of this change is to protect the lowest-paid workers, I think it’s really important for us to have a better understanding of how many workers only receive the base minimum-wage rate in the province.

Is the minister able to indicate how many workers are paid solely the minimum-wage rate in B.C.? Is that 20,000; is that 40,000? Do we have any idea? Does the minister have any idea on how many workers this legislation is actually going to provide protection for?

Hon. H. Bains: I will refer to the previous question, where I received that number — the liquor servers, how many of them are making minimum wage.

Again, the Fair Wages Commission report of 2018 said liquor servers are overrepresented in the low hourly wage categories as well. About 16 percent earned less than $10.85 per hour, which includes tips — the minimum wage in 2016, which was the minimum wage that they were talking about — compared with 4.6 percent of all employees. About 68 percent earned less than $15 an hour, including tips.

The member, the last…. Again, I said it earlier. That’s exactly where he’s going, making all kinds of arguments why minimum wage should not be increased because some­how, in his world, they’re making hundreds of thousands of dollars with commissions, with tips, so there’s no need for increase. We actually strongly disagree with this notion on this side of the House.

Now, you know, he comes with the philosophy and ideology that the minimum-wage workers should be left on their own, as they did when they were in government, when they were on this side of the House. So he’s supporting…. He’s backing up all those arguments that government used at that time, his party used. For ten years, those rates were frozen — ten years, when the inflation was going up and up and up. He’s making the same argument today.

We disagree. Thanks to the campaigns and thanks to education brought on by all the workers out there and their representatives, from lowest-paid, lowest minimum wage in the country, one of the lowest in the country, we are highest of all provinces today, and we are proud of that.

We are following the recommendations of the Fair Wages Commission, unlike that government. They sent one person in their boardroom to rewrite the WCB act, rewrite the labour code and rewrite the employment stan­dard. We consulted overwhelmingly. The Fair Wages Commission went around, talked to businesses, small busines­ses, workers, their representatives, academics, came back with a report unanimously recommending, showing us a pathway to go to $15 an hour at least.

We adopted that report, achieved $15.20 an hour in 2021. We made a commitment. Publicly, I did that as Minister of Labour. In the 2020 campaign, we made a commitment that once we reach a $15-an-hour minimum wage, we will tie the future increases to the rate of inflation so those workers will continue to stay with the rate of inflation, rate of cost, so they’re not left behind, behind and behind.

These are some of the people that can least afford cost-of-living increases. The member, time and again, is standing up and making the argument that somehow they are making hundreds of thousands of dollars, and why, and that there is no need for raising the minimum wage. We disagree.

[1:30 p.m.]

We are taking politics out of this, as was recommended by the Fair Wages Commission. This ad hoc way of giving governments not to increase minimum wage…. That’s the kind of flexibility the member is arguing, but that flexibility needs to be with the government not to increase minimum wage.

He hasn’t said once it should be CPI plus something. Not once. He wants flexibility. You know exactly what they mean by going back to their record. It means no increases or very little increases to the minimum wage.

We disagree. This is the right thing to do. Through all kinds of consultation, following the recommendation of the fair raises commission and following the recommendation of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, who represent, by the way, a thousand chambers of commerce in the prov­ince. They all agree this is the right thing to do.

G. Kyllo: Hey, look, the minister is mischaracterizing the line of questioning and inquiry. I’m trying to just establish what work, if any, the ministry has undertaken with respect to the consultation that is required across B.C.

As the minister has recognized and actually stated, the legislation before us is largely being directed to avoid political pressure. There are organizations, like Living Wage B.C., that are looking for increases significantly higher than CPI. The living wage organization has indicated that the current minimum wage rate in British of Columbia is $8 an hour less than what they believe to be a living wage in B.C.

The legislation will no longer allow the flexibility for government to make incremental adjustments, either higher or lower than CPI. This legislation will make it extremely difficult for government to ever give consideration to increasing the minimum wage at any rate higher than CPI. If CPI happens to be zero, I guess minimum wage workers should just be content to know that their lot in life is not improving whatsoever under this legislation.

That is the challenge. There has been a lack of consultation, either with the business community or with organizations like Living Wage B.C. The legislation before us is being brought forward, through the minister’s own admission, to avoid future political pressure.

I appreciate that the B.C. chamber came out with a positions paper or a policy recommendation to provide certainty and predictability. I don’t deny them the need and necessity for that. Largely, that recommendation was be­cause of the historic increases in minimum wage over a number of years and the pressure that business had been put upon.

Lookit, businesses don’t operate in a vacuum. The competitiveness of businesses in B.C. is at an all-time low. There has been a continual increase of taxation pressure on businesses over the last number of years. When government has an opportunity to actually make legislative changes internally, to reduce the amount of taxation that may be paid by some of the lowest-paid workers in the province, we hear crickets. But when there is an opportunity to put additional pressure on businesses in B.C., that’s where they go.

The minister has indicated that the need and necessity for tying the rate of future increases to the minimum wage to CPI is to provide predictability and to ensure that the minimum-paid workers in the province are not falling behind.

Has the minister given any consideration, or has his government given consideration, to potentially looking at raising the minimum rate for taxation in the province so that individuals would actually be paying less taxation overall? Has there been any other consideration with respect to how we may better address some of the lowest-paid net earners in the province of B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, sometime I think we will ask you to make a ruling, because some of the questions are repeated over and over.

I get it. The member doesn’t like the bill. That’s the argument he’s making. Why go this route? Now, can we actually debate the bill?

[1:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Member, on clause 1.

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

Look, the government and the minister largely do not know the specific number of workers that are only receiving the minimum-wage rate remuneration in the province. I appreciate the information that the minister has provided with respect to the service sector, but as identified, everyone from furniture salesmen to those that may work at Future Shop or Best Buy, all of our commissioned sales­people in the province of B.C., also generate income, in addition to the minimum-wage rate.

It’s unfortunate the minister responsible for Labour in this province doesn’t have certainty around how many workers are only receiving that minimum-wage rate in the province.

As we look at the context of this bill, I think it’s incredibly concerning that the work hasn’t been undertaken to really better understand those that are the lowest-income earners in the province and what opportunities government may have to provide a series or a suite of different supports and services and reduce taxation for those individuals to help increase their ability to meet the ever-increasing inflation and tax rates in the province of B.C.

Now, with respect to the minimum wage, has the minister or the Minister of Finance undertaken any calculation to determine the minimum-wage-rate increase? What ad­ditional taxation revenues does that drive to government, to the Minister of Finance, on an annualized basis cumulatively? It’s not just the fact that when the minimum wage goes up, there will be an incremental increase in tax deductions that will go to the Minister of Finance, but in addition to that, there will be additional revenues associated with the employer health tax.

Has the minister or the Minister of Finance undertaken any work to have a look to determine what that impact is?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the estimates for the Ministry of Finance are coming up. Those would be, perhaps, appropriate questions for the Minister of Finance.

I think I just heard the member making a point that by raising the wages, the taxes may go up and that somehow, that is a wrong idea. He’s coming up with all kinds of ideas that have nothing to do with the bill here. If wages go up, there are laws, under the Ministry of Finance, on how they pay taxes. We all pay taxes. That’s a question that can be asked at that time to the Minister of Finance.

G. Kyllo: Has the minister undertaken any consultative work, with the minister responsible for small business in the province, to have any opportunity for input on the potential impact on the competitiveness of businesses in B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: The member will know that decisions are made at the cabinet table, and all the ministers are involved.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to share any cautions or concerns that were raised by the minister that largely has responsibility for economic growth in this province, with respect to any potential impacts of further increases in the minimum wage?

Hon. H. Bains: The member also should know about cabinet confidentiality. I can’t divulge who said what.

The Chair: Clause 1, Member.

[1:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Last year the minister brought forward a new piece of legislation which largely gave direction that those working in the gig sector, or precarious workers, would no longer be entitled to be…. I guess the change was that they would no longer be considered to be contract workers but would be actually identified as employees under the revised legislation.

Can the minister share or indicate whether that legislative change will increase the 131,000 workers the minister has identified as earning the minimum wage in B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: The member mentioned a bill to cover the gig workers — ride-hail and food delivery. We are developing regulations. Again, we are trying to establish basic minimum standards for those workers, like all other workers. They are a unique industry. So there will be ways to address the uniqueness of that industry.

Then Stats Canada will make that decision — who’s included, who’s not included — when they are determining how many people actually are paid minimum wage. I’ll leave it up to them who fits in their criteria.

G. Kyllo: I believe, if I recall the debate on the bill the minister referenced, there are about 50,000 precarious workers in the province of B.C. When the regulations are formalized, which I anticipate will be, largely, later this year, those workers will no longer be determined as subcontractors. They will be identified as employees under the act.

Based on the current criteria, which I certainly believe StatsCan utilized to determine those workers in B.C. that are earning minimum wage…. It would be my assumption that these additional 50,000 workers would suddenly be added to that count and would, then, increase the number of reported workers that are earning or being paid the minimum-wage rate.

The reason that’s important is…. The minister doesn’t have a good understanding of how many workers in B.C. that are paid the minimum-wage rate are limited to only that basic income. As we know, with gig or precarious workers, there are additional moneys that are paid to them, typically in the form of tips.

[1:45 p.m.]

As we look to see the number of minimum-wage workers, potentially, in this province grow from 130,000, as currently reported by StatsCan…. We’d see the single largest increase in workers in B.C. getting paid a minimum wage not because of any real change with respect to the work that’s conducted in the province but by a legislative change that has now taken away the opportunity for those workers to be considered subcontractors and now to be considered employees.

I think that it’s important, as we look next year, to see StatsCan numbers start reporting a sudden huge spike or a great increase in the number of perceived minimum-wage earners in the province. It’s also important, I think, to appreciate that just because they’re being paid the minimum-wage rate does not mean that that is the only income that they actually earn.

Now, with that change…. I’m going to get to the specifics, I think, of the bill now.

With respect to clause 3, specifically….

The Chair: If we could do it in order.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for your guidance, hon. Chair.

With respect to clause 3, specifically section 16.1, regarding the establishment of the minimum wage at $16.75 an hour…. Considering the potential for the new minimum-wage increase under section 16.1 to place small businesses into higher employer health tax brackets, has there been any work done to determine, with that increase in the minimum-wage rate…? Will that move any employers outside of the current exemption for the employer health tax?

Hon. H. Bains: It has nothing to do with the bill, but the question is being asked.

The member knows that the Minister of Finance made a decision, when she delivered our budget…. The threshold has been increased from $500,000 to $1 million for businesses to pay the health tax. That is going to help a lot of businesses. Ninety percent of the businesses will not pay as a result of that health tax.

Now, this work is…. I believe it depends on how many employees an employer has, what their payroll totals do at the end of the day. Those are the questions, I think, again, if the member chooses to pursue any further, that should be asked to the Minister of Finance at their estimates.

Right now we are talking about increasing the mini­mum wage and tying it to the rate of inflation. As a result of that, on June 1, the minimum wage in B.C. will be increased to $17.40 an hour.

G. Kyllo: There are businesses in this province who are part of franchises that largely have limitations placed upon them on how much they can charge for a cup of coffee or other items. For businesses that do not necessarily have the opportunity of passing on any price increases to their clients….

Has there been any discussion outside of cabinet but with the other ministers that may be concerned about the reduced competitiveness of B.C. businesses? Has there been any discussion or consideration on how those businesses that do not have the ability, I guess, by raising their prices, to offset an increase in labour costs or otherwise…? Have there been any discussions on how those businesses will be impacted by the proposed increase that’s part of this legislation?

Hon. H. Bains: We understand that businesses are going through a lot of challenges coming out of COVID. There are challenges, no doubt, and we sincerely feel that.

[1:50 p.m.]

There are a number of different ways and programs that the government has to support businesses. One thing we strongly believe is that support for businesses, which they deserve and they need, should not be at the back of the lowest-paid workers of this province. That’s why the minimum wage will go up.

As for the recommendation of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the over 36,000 businesses they represent, that’s one of the ways of supporting those businesses: giving them certainty about labour costs. That’s what this bill will do, and that’s why those businesses were recommending that we go this route.

If the member probably has more expertise than those 36,000 members represented by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, then maybe he should stand up and say that — that somehow they’re wrong and the member is right, that he’s got some different data and science available to say how the B.C. Chamber of Commerce is wrong and how Ken Peacock, who was a member of the Fair Wages Commission, somehow is wrong.

I mentioned that one name because he was part of the Fair Wages Commission and represented the business side of it and is one of the economists in British Columbia.

If the member wants to make some statements defying those experts and those suggestions coming from the businesses, he is free to do that, but we are following recommendations. They did a lot of consultation and came back and made those recommendations. This is how to support the businesses. This is how to keep the lowest-paid workers also at the rate of inflation.

The Chair: We’re on clause 3, so let’s keep things specific to clause 3, if we can.

G. Kyllo: Look, I think it’s worthwhile to respond to the minister’s commentary. I have no quarrel with the work that was done by the Fair Wages Commission, but I think it’s also important to take note of the fact that the economic environment and the inflation rates that the country and the province were experiencing in 2018 are far different from the situation we’ve found ourselves in now.

I also certainly don’t have any quarrel with the opportunity for the B.C. chamber to present a policy paper. I think context is important. The B.C. chamber has had concerns about the increasing rate of the increases of the minimum wage, which were far in excess of CPI.

I certainly believe it was the understanding or the intent of the B.C. chamber to indicate and maybe give direction to government that, look, increases in excess of CPI would be excessive, have a negative impact on business, and if we can at the very least just have consistency, that would be an important first step.

But the chamber certainly is not the only business organization that represents the many businesses across the province. I think, also, by looking to tie the rate of increase to CPI, even the CPI rate is heavily influenced by taxation, which is fully in government’s control.

We have a carbon tax at $65 a tonne on its way to $80 and looking to triple yet again over the next three years. The impact on fuel prices has a significant impact on the CPI rate that’s reported out annually, not just in direct fuel for consumers but also for the transportation network, for getting our food and groceries and goods and services across our province.

Government has a significant hand. I think many would say they probably have the single largest opportunity to influence the rate of CPI, whether that particular measure or tool is the best measure to which government could look for establishing the rate.

To the minister. I know we’ve been talking specifically just about the consumer price index. Has government given any consideration to any form or measurement tool by which they might look to seek guidance for the rate of increase of minimum wage in B.C.?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Clause 3 talks about establishing a minimum wage, which is $16.75 today. That is, going forward, where the increases would start from. That’s the baseline. Section 3 talks about that.

The member has gone back to the argument of how we came to this legislation, why we’re doing this. I think we’ve done that. Those sections are done, and he had enough discussion on that. I think we should concentrate on Section 3.

The Chair: Member, on clause 3.

G. Kyllo: With the legislation that’s before us, government will certainly lose a significant amount of flexibility with respect to making adjustments to any increase of the minimum wage outside of CPI. It was only a few short years ago that we saw inflation rates extremely high. We also could be looking at potentially negative inflation.

To the minister, what would be the mechanism? If his government, in the years ahead, were faced with an inflationary pressure of 12 or 14 percent, what would be the mechanism or what would be the time requirement for government to give consideration to making a change to the existing legislation?

Is that something that could be activated quickly? Would it allow the flexibility of government, or what would that process be? If either his government or a future government were giving consideration to a change in the rate of the minimum wage outside of CPI, what would the time frame look like in order to have that flexibility and to make those changes?

Hon. H. Bains: If this bill receives royal assent, then, in the future, if the government wishes to change, it only has to come back to this House, and it will be the will of this House and through the legislative changes.

G. Kyllo: Has the minister contemplated, either directly within his ministry or maybe in consultation with any of his colleagues, any work to be undertaken with respect to the competitiveness of businesses operating in British Columbia? Although the minimum wage rate is only a small component of that, is there any work being contemplated by government with respect to kind of a broader review of taxation and the continual erosion of the competitiveness of businesses operating here in B.C.?

The Chair: If I might ask the member to focus his questioning on clause 3. More general questions are usually covered at the start of a bill. We’ve now moved into specifics on clause 3, which deals with the minimum wage and the annual adjustment of the minimum wage.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I always appreciate your guidance, but I was hoping you might pro­vide me latitude.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Is the minister willing or able to share any work that might be either considered or under consideration as far as having a look at the continual erosion of the competitiveness of businesses operating here in British Columbia?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The previous Chair actually directed the member to concentrate on clause 3. This question does not belong here. His colleagues have canvassed other ministries through estimates for the last number of days, and perhaps the member should actually go back and read the Hansard if he’s interested in that type of information.

Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:01 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 2, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. A. Kang: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 4, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:03 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call a short recess so staff can come in.

The committee recessed from 2:03 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 4, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 1.

D. Ashton: Madam Chair, thank you and the minister and her staff.

First of all, I’d just like to start off and say that the B.C. United caucus supports the modernization of the legislation and that we are very, very supportive of including First Nations and other local governments in the preamble of the UBCM Act. My questions will be just based around the process and how it took place.

Also, to the minister and her impeccable staff, I would just like to say thank you not only from my past dealings with the municipal authority…. Those in the ministry — I’ve always had an incredibly good relationship, both at the city of Penticton and at the regional district of Okanagan. Whenever there have been issues arise, the staff are always forthcoming.

It makes a huge difference for those elected to have that guidance coming from individuals like those who are employed in your ministry. Thank you very much, through that.

Quickly on clause 1. The last day of February was cho­sen. Is that just so that people at the regional districts can get their appointments in, in time? Is that one of the dates? Was the date that was specifically chosen at the end of February?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I would like to first introduce the following staff that I have with me. I have Tara Faganello, the assistant deputy minister of local government division; Kara Woodward, executive director; Joshua Craig, director of local government finance; Lynne Tang, director of legislation; Sarah Greer, senior policy analyst; and Andrew Johnston, senior policy analyst.

I would also thank the member for his question and always the wonderful collaboration that the both of us have. We both agree that when we work together for our local governments, we only become stronger and stronger voices.

In terms of the question the member has asked, the date of the appointment of the regional district of the MFA has not changed.

D. Ashton: On clause 1, I’m fine. Thank you.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

D. Ashton: March 31 is normal for a fiscal year-end for government, and by substituting…. They’re putting May 15, so it allows another 45 days to get, I’m assuming, information in. Is there any conflict between Municipal Finance Authority/the regional district/governments on that ex­tension of that date by 45 days?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: To the member’s question, local government year-end is December 31, so there’s no conflict for the regional district or the local government year-end. There’s also no conflict with the provincial government, because MFA is entirely independent of the province.

D. Ashton: I’m fine with clause 2.

Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

D. Ashton: In the preamble, they’re replacing “municipalities” with “local governments.” That is put in, I’m assuming, to be more inclusive of those that may be involved in the local government end of it.

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is yes. This amendment will make the preamble of the act inclusive of both municipalities and regional districts.

D. Ashton: Reading ahead and seeing who can participate, may I ask a question? Are First Nations considered, underneath this, as local government?

Hon. A. Kang: To the member’s question, First Nations are their own order of government and not a local government. However, some of them are members of the UBCM.

D. Ashton: That’s very good to see and very inclusive. I’d like to see more and more. I hope the opportunity is extended to all First Nations in British Columbia.

As the Minister had just previously said, we get a lot further working together than having the differences that sometimes appear outside of those not being at the table and hearing actually what is transpiring.

On clause 5, I’m fine, thank you.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

D. Ashton: The difference of replacing “certify” with “confirm” — may I ask why that has been changed?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much to the member for that question.

The amendment regarding area associations will clarify that UBCM’s role regarding area associations is only to confirm that the existing area associations are legitimate and that UBCM has no further role in overseeing area associations.

No changes to the existing area association systems are anticipated. These changes are intended to ensure the text of the UBCM Act reflects the current reality of UBCM.

[2:20 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Municipalities pay a fee towards UBCM for being part and parcel of It. Will that be extended also to include First Nations? Are they going to be responsible, be required to pay a membership fee — I’m using that term loosely — or be able to pay to be part of UBCM?

Hon. A. Kang: First Nations — they do pay a cost to the UBCM for things like conventions and tools and the support that they get. That’s for the UBCM.

In terms of this legislation here, there is no change to this legislation, to that practice.

D. Ashton: I’m fine with clauses 7 and 8, and 9 also.

Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

D. Ashton: Now we get into the disdain of what municipalities do not like to deal with on any occurrences. As a former mayor, I can tell you the number of phone calls I got about barking dogs, when my cell phone was quite well known, at night was….

So clause 10, just standard. It relocates the definition of an animal control officer. That is just a change, so No. 10 is fine.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

D. Ashton: It just allows the council now to delegate the responsibility instead of having to deal with it at a council level, just a collaboration on that. The delegation is being transferred to animal control officers and, I’m assuming, a department within the city.

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is yes.

D. Ashton: On that clause, maybe just to follow up on my preamble with it…. You know, animals these days are close pets of many people. We don’t have any authority or control over the city of Vancouver and their changes, but I would just ask that maybe the ministry can pass along that as new departments are created in the city or new authority is given to departments, it has taken into consideration that….

[2:25 p.m.]

Animals are quite the company of many, many people these days, and I would just ask that those things be passed along to the municipality to ensure that the iron hand of a municipality doesn’t come down on those that do their best.

It’s unfortunate. It’s like the 1 percenters, those that do not control their animals, have the tendency to spoil it for everybody else, and I would just hope that there’s a little bit of compassion and forethought that goes into any seizures and anything else on that.

I’m fine with clause 11 and clause 12.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

On clause 13.

D. Ashton: Madam Chair, just some quick notes here on authority of municipalities, for changing and how it’s going to be addressed.

I’ve just got to grab the notes on this. Excuse me for a moment.

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Yeah. Just a few questions here with respect to the changes to the landscaping requirements of the Vancouver Charter.

I was considering whether or not I should ask this block of questions, because it does extend into a few other acts where landscaping changes, requirements, may be im­posed in the Community Charter that then also informs the Local Government Act and, as well, the Islands Trust Act. I thought that I could take care of this business and the questions that I have dealing with exclusively clause 13, as we see it here.

I’m wondering if the minister has considered the impact of the changes that were made in Bill 44 last fall to the tree canopy that presumably this clause is attempting to address.

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member for that question. We will take this message to the Minister of Housing in terms of Bill 44.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for that. I buried my own notes in a few pages.

Just a question. How did the consultation take place regarding the landscaping amendments? Who was consulted, and how were they consulted?

Hon. A. Kang: We consulted with the city of Vancouver, specifically the planning department. This particular re­quest was from the city of Vancouver to our ministry.

D. Ashton: Was the private sector consulted or those that are building and are faced with what may be dictated by the corporation of Vancouver through development zones and development permits?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: From the province, we did not directly consult with developers. This would be the role of the city of Vancouver. The process amendments will allow council to use a more streamlined development permit process to require trees and other landscaping and to speed up approvals. That will bring more housing more quickly.

D. Ashton: Listen, we all want to see things go up more quickly. We want to see more housing provided, but we also want to see that there are no other, onerous demands being made on those that are providing it. One of my questions is: does the minister know how many changes have taken place, at the city of Vancouver, for this amendment that has been proposed?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Under the existing legislation, Vancouver has required developers to go through a longer development approval process that is subject to any conditions and requirements determined by the director of planning.

If passed, the proposed amendments will continue to allow the city of Vancouver to require landscaping provisions but through a combined development permit, a building permit application, and a clear and more streamlined approval process will benefit developers.

D. Ashton: We do want to see that. I’m just hoping that there is a balance in what would be asked for, and I fully understand the ministry isn’t going to have any control over that by providing more authority to the city of Vancouver to do it.

At home, we’re in a semi-desert area. We’re allowed to use xeriscaping. It’s a huge saving of water and that. I just don’t know what the policies of the city may be. I know my good friend from Saanich North and the Islands has talked about the canopy. The last thing we want to see is a concrete jungle in the city. We want to have….

The west coast is known for its incredible beauty. I’m just hoping that by expanding the authority over to the city and through the Vancouver Charter, there are going to be some checks and balances. I’m not so sure if that is through the ministry or if that is something that has to be dealt with at the municipality of Vancouver.

Hon. A. Kang: These amendments are making amendments to the existing development approvals in the Vancouver Charter, and it is to help them resolve the inefficiencies that they do see in their system right now. They endeavour to protect their tree canopies.

Vancouver has identified areas within its boundaries that lack sufficient tree canopy that is needed to help protect people and protect properties from adverse effects of climate change. We haven’t really changed much, in terms of giving them the tools to be more efficient.

D. Ashton: That’s nice to see, and I do hope it continues.

As I said before, Vancouver — and here, but it’s specifically Vancouver that we’re talking about — is a beautiful city and well renowned and known in the world. I just want to ensure that it doesn’t slow down the permitting process, because as we all know, we want to see roofs over the heads of as many people as possible. We also want to see options given to people about where they want to live and how they want to live. We want to ensure that the outside aspects of the beautiful city that we know as Vancouver are maintained.

One of the issues, adjudication…. If there is an issue at the city with particular developers, is that process still confined to the city, or does somebody have the authority to take it higher than the city if it’s deemed to be onerous?

Hon. A. Kang: The process has not changed. It is just more streamlined to a point where people are clear, devel­opers are clear about the pathways and timelines that they have. Through these amendments to my ministry, we support the city of Vancouver in their efforts to increase housing supply, to streamline the process as well as tree canopy in their city to benefit the residents of Vancouver.

[2:40 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I know my peer will probably discuss on it, but the climate change adaption objectives that are proposed and are being accommodated for around British Columbia…. Do the guidelines that are being proposed at this time to give Vancouver the authority on this…? Will they ensure that it does meet the objectives of the provincial guidelines?

Hon. A. Kang: The city of Vancouver has their own climate change strategy. This is in support of their tree canopy strategy.

D. Ashton: I hope we align on that. We don’t want to see every area, especially with the provincial being above it, having different ideas to what Vancouver maybe has. Hopefully, there’s some discussion amongst the province and the corporation of Vancouver.

My questions are finished. I’m turning it over to my peer from Saanich North and the Islands. And one closing remark at the end.

A. Olsen: Just circling back to the question that I asked. I’m wondering if the consultation that occurred with respect to the protection of the tree canopy…. I referenced Bill 44. The minister asked me to circle back with the Housing Ministry. We’re talking about a change in an act that’s the responsibility of the Municipal Affairs Minister.

I’m just wondering. With respect to the protection of the tree canopy…. Does the minister consider that the changes that were made in Bill 44 last year do indeed say what she says is happening in this bill? That is the protection of the tree canopy.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The goal of Bill 44 is to increase the supply of housing to the market, whereas the goal that we’re talking about today is the Vancouver Charter, which is different.

The city of Vancouver has different land use planning powers when compared to other local governments. This one will allow them to streamline their development process and protect tree canopies at the same time.

A. Olsen: In the debate on Bill 44, the minister was explicit in noting that the changes to the SSMUs, small-scale, multi-unit developments…. There would be no protection of the tree canopy.

I’m wondering if the minister can explain to me how the initiative of the Housing Minister last fall under Bill 44 and this initiative interact with each other.

Hon. A. Kang: The question is noted. We’ll work with the Ministry of Housing to address that at a later time.

[2:50 p.m.]

The bill before us today is on the Vancouver Charter. As I have said before, the city of Vancouver has a different land use planning process. Their powers, under the Vancou­ver Charter…. This particular legislation is to plant new trees and support new development in a more streamlined process.

A. Olsen: This is the only time that we can have this discussion. The minister can suggest that we have this discussion in another form somewhere else, but this is the discussion that needs to happen on the record.

I asked some specific questions. This small-scale, multi-unit development — let’s just be clear about this — impacts Vancouver and the Vancouver Charter as well. So there are not going to be any instances here where we’re not having this discussion right now about the impact and how these two pieces of legislation actually integrate or impact each other.

The Minister of Housing, last fall, was explicit that there is to be no protection of tree canopy with the new protection. The minister here, today, said that the endeavour here is to protect the tree canopy, to protect people from adverse impacts of climate change. These are similar words that I used to the Minister of Housing about Bill 44, about the protection of the tree canopy in light of the impacts of climate change.

What I am trying to understand is: how do these two pieces of legislation…? If this is the goal of this legislation today, this House actually passed legislation last fall that is in direct conflict to this. What I’m trying to understand is where these two pieces of legislation, these acts, will impact each other.

Hon. A. Kang: Our ministry consulted with the Ministry of Housing between these two bills, and these two bills do not conflict with each other. This bill was brought forward through a request from the city of Vancouver so we can help them streamline their process, deliver more housing and, as well, protect tree canopies in the city of Vancouver.

A. Olsen: Can this power that’s being created here — this streamlining, as the minister describes it — be applied to the small-scale, multi-unit housing that has been made available to Vancouverites through Bill 44 last fall?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Bill 44 relates to pre-zoning, whereas this legislation relates to development permits. When we talk about landscaping, landscaping means any combina­tions of trees, shrubs, flowers, grass and other horticulture or architectural elements. In addition, landscaping of a development can help provide shade or reduce soil ero­sion, increase air filtration, manage stormwater runoff, as well as other environmental benefits.

When we talk about development permits, development permits help regulate the building form and location of land uses on a property subject to a development.

A development permit is required whenever a property owner requests a change in the use of land or building or the carrying out of construction of a property in the city of Vancouver.

It is important to note that the city of Vancouver has a unique development permit system that differs from the development permit system provided to all other municipalities.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to note those concerns, and what was highlighted by the minister, were exactly what was removed from the city of Vancouver and from indeed every other municipality over 5,000 people with an urban containment boundary when these small-scale multi-use unit developments were unilaterally approved last fall.

I hear the minister here express concern about climate change, express concern about tree canopy, express all of the concerns that, I think, a rational person would be concerned about, knowing the fact that with climate change, we saw the dreadful impact that the heat dome had. At that moment, the only places of refuge that people could take were under trees and underneath that tree canopy.

Hearing how the minister is framing this, I was wondering, because I didn’t have the opportunity to ask the minister on the record last fall. We had a housing bill, a bill that was really about municipal affairs, being brought forward by a different minister.

Was that part of the discussion with the Minister of Housing last fall, these important values the minister is expressing here now, several months later, to inform Bill 44 where none of the protection of that tree canopy was enabled?

In fact, we will see the largest-scale urban deforestation happen as a result of Bill 44, potentially.

Were those values expressed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to the Minister of Housing last fall when Bill 44 came forward?

[3:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. A. Kang: The questions that you have asked previously all point to Bill 44, which would have been better debated at that time. Today we are debating Bill 4, which is a direct request from the city of Vancouver to help improve their efficiencies in their development approval processes to get more housing.

Both my ministry and the Ministry of Housing have looked into this, and we are aligned in the positions that we are taking.

A. Olsen: I did raise this with the Minister of Housing several times, and it was part of the frustration of that debate. I know that that debate was not the responsibility of this minister. However, the inconsistencies I’m raising in the debate of this change to the streamlining of the process and the protecting of the tree canopy, as has been expressed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs….

There is an inherent inconsistency between these ministries, which is fundamentally a problem. Housing takes place in municipalities, and it takes place in the context of everything else that goes on in municipalities.

When you’re not thinking in complete systems, you can have one minister stand up in the fall and put forward legislation that provides no protection to tree canopy, and then several months later you can have another minister come in and extol the benefits of tree canopy for the protection of people from the adverse impacts of climate change. We, the members on this side of the House, are supposed to sit here and pretend like there’s no dramatic inconsistency between those two things.

I recognize that there are different processes, and I recognize that the Vancouver Charter is unique. But the reality of it is that the tree canopy is not. It provides the same benefits to the city of Vancouver as it would provide to the city of Victoria as it would provide to the city of Kamloops as it would provide to the city of Kelowna.

[3:05 p.m.]

This is a moment and an opportunity to point out to the other minister that’s responsible for local governments and the form and character of our communities that if they’re going to come in here and talk about the benefits of tree canopy and protecting from the adverse impacts of climate change, then I would ask the minister to go back to her government and demand that there’s some consistency in the policies that they’re bringing forward and some consistency in the language that they’re using to describe it.

There is a deep inconsistency with what this minister has said. And I’m not debating against these. I think that this is exactly in line. This minister and I are directly in alignment. It’s the other minister that I’m not in alignment with.

As a member of the executive council, it is important this government has a consistent narrative that they’re talking about and at least some integrated and systemic thinking in terms of when it comes to the value of a tree canopy.

We have got one minister, responsible for Housing, mowing them down and another minister in here talking now about protecting them and the value of them for protecting against the adverse impacts of climate change. It needs to be noted.

I ask this minister — who is responsible for local governments; responsible for the form and character of our communities; responsible for thoughtful planning and development, coordinated and integrated thoughtful planning that includes all the other things that humans need in order to live in their communities, including tree canopy — that when the government is bringing forward initiatives, we need somebody in that cabinet who is fighting for the form and character of our communities.

I’m not talking about preserving the communities and neighbourhoods the way they are. I’m talking about preserving the necessities of a quality of life in those communities. We need a champion for that. Somebody in government needs to champion that. What happened last fall undermined communities’ ability to protect and care for the health and well-being of their citizens.

No protections that are being afforded to the city of Vancouver for a development permit are afforded to the communities that are going to be impacted by the small-scale multi-unit development that’s happening in the communities. That’s a dramatic inconsistency, and it needs to be noted.

I appreciate the minister’s response, and I hope the minister will be that champion within the cabinet to start the integrated and interconnected thinking that’s needed in order to ensure that our communities protect the citizens that live in them, especially if we’re going to invite thousands, millions more citizens to live in our communities. We had better be doing everything we can to protect them from the adverse impacts of climate changes, in the minister’s own words.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

D. Ashton: No more questions for myself.

To the minister and her staff: I just want to thank each and every one of you again for not only the opportunity that I have here in the chambers, but to what you provide to big, small municipalities, to those at Islands Trust and to those First Nations now that are included in the changes that have taken place.

UBCM is a wonderful entity, but the ability to speak directly to ministry staff and to the minister makes a huge difference. UBCM is a big lobby group that we get deluged with all the time and get lots of articles put through. But having the open door that this ministry has continually showed over the years that I’ve been involved in regional politics has made a huge difference.

I want to thank each and every one of you. Keep up the good work.

Clauses 13 and 14 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Kang: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:10 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 4, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that we have a short recess for five minutes.

The Speaker: The House will be in short recess.

The House recessed from 3:11 p.m. to 3:14 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members, we’ll draw this House back to order.

Hon. M. Dean: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
POVERTY REDUCTION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. We’re in committee stage, Bill 7, 2024, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 1.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m honoured to be here to speak to Bill 7.

I’m honoured to be on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-​speaking people.

I want to introduce my staff. To my left, my ADM, Suzanne Christensen, responsible for research innovation and policy division. To my right, Leah Squance, executive director of strategic policy and legislation branch, and who has got my back; Jeff Henderson, director of legislation, strategic policy and legislation branch.

If I may make some introductory remarks, times are very hard right now for the people that we serve in British Columbia. People are facing big challenges, and global inflation has hit people very hard. We are determined to keep doing more to work on systemic generational change that will help people better their lives. We’re taking that action through by introducing Bill 7.

This proposed legislative change, first of all to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, includes updating our poverty reduction targets. These are new ten-year targets to reduce poverty by 60 percent, child poverty by 75 percent, senior poverty by 50 percent. The senior’s poverty target was not in our first poverty reduction act or strategy. These targets will build on the progress that we have made, allowing us to focus on making systemic changes that will have long-term generational impacts.

We know some groups are disproportionately impacted by poverty, and that is why also in this legislative change we are refining and broadening the key populations and identified key groups, such as persons receiving social assistance who are at particular risk of poverty. It’s then the responsibility of me as minister and future ministers to consider these particular named groups when writing a poverty reduction strategy and investing in people.

We are also proposing changes to the income and dis­ability assistance laws. Those are bundled into Bill 7. Be­cause everybody deserves to build a good life for themselves and their families, we are making a number of changes. One, we are moving away from policies that penalize people for making mistakes in a system that can be difficult to navigate.

We are eliminating fines for people who have incurred an overpayment due to misreporting income. Repayment will still be required, and severe consequences remain for those who commit fraud. For those who make a mistake, repaying any overpayment is penalty enough. We’re also introducing a more graduated system of financial penalties for people who don’t follow their employment plans, and we’re also making amendments to allow for pilot projects, paving the way for future change.

Also, our government made a commitment when it passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peo­ples Act to bring our legislation, all our legislation, into alignment with UNDRIP. Amendments in this bill today do that with the employment and assistance acts. We also are looking forward to working with nations going forward to make that real for their governments. This is simply enabling. We will continue to work with Indigenous people to incorporate Indigenous-identified wellness measures and actions into our work moving forward.

As I detailed in my first and second reading speeches, the addition of a client needs assessment employability plan is the most significant change for people in the two income assistance acts that we are amending today.

In closing, we are building a system that acknowledges barriers to both work and assistance and removes those barriers. Thank you to the members opposite and to the Chair for convening the debate. I look forward to your questions.

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity, to my colleague the member for Peace River North, who is the shadow minister for Social Development and Poverty Reduction, to lead off and ask some questions here about Bill 7. I do know there are members of the Third Party here as well and other members, Parksville-Qualicum, that may want to ask some additional questions as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

As we first address the bill itself, as the minister was just referring to in her opening statement here at committee stage, there is continued challenge as to how we as a province address poverty, those living in poverty, certainly as a whole but also for children, for seniors, for Indigenous peoples, to name some of our British Columbians that are clearly challenged with this.

I know that in terms of the significant change, as the minister just put it, to incorporate new definitions we’ll obviously get into, relating to a client needs assessment and employability plan, that that is a significant change in terms of the overall structure and the intention of these new tools and requirements.

First, to start with this question. I understand the need…. Putting aside DRIPA, which we will also get to in the course of this bill, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and the alignment of laws under section 3 of that act, we also understand some of these changes flow from the report provided by the First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society, which has shown, un­fortunately, a continued upward rise in child poverty rates in British Columbia.

We’ve seen those rates as high as…. For those children living in single-family households, the rate is a staggering 40 percent.

Also, according to First Call, this government has overseen the first annual increase in child poverty since the financial crisis in 2008. Obviously, this is a very pressing concern when we talk about child poverty, and with the significant increase even in the last year.

What have been the key factors that the minister has considered in bringing forward these changes? What is driving those increased rates for child poverty in this province?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m going to answer your question in a couple of ways. I heard: what’s driving changes to the legislation?

The first and most obvious is that the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act of 2018 requires us to review and renew and revisit those targets on a five-year basis. We’re at the five-year mark. That’s the very basic piece.

The income assistance legislation, the two bills that are also amended within Bill 7, is updating legislation that dates from 2002. It’s very out of date. So that’s, in the most spare way, the reason, two of the drivers for amending the legislation.

Certainly, what the First Call report, which came out last week…. It didn’t actually have a bearing on this legislation itself, but it certainly reflects what we are all seeing. Particularly since the federal COVID benefits ended and global inflation went up, we have seen that some of the income boosts that had really driven child poverty rates down are starting to come back up. Of course, the terribly increased cost of food is also hitting everybody hard. That has an impact, of course, on children.

In the first poverty reduction strategy and legislation, there was a particular focus on reducing child poverty. Our ambition at that point was to reduce it by 50 percent, which we did do by the 2021 data year. But we certainly see increased pressure on people, and that’s also what motivates this Bill 7 tabling today.

M. Lee: I’ve just been informed, as well, that my colleague the member for Peace River North, who is partici­pating by Zoom, actually would like the opportunity to now make a comment but also ask a question.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister and, obviously, thanks to her staff. I appreciate the time they were here.

Sorry, I wish I could be live and in person there, but duties have taken me back into the riding temporarily.

I do want to just reiterate a couple of comments that were made yesterday in the second reading remarks. Obviously, there are lots of pieces of the legislation that we do welcome. Anything that moves toward improving the lives of, in many cases, our vulnerable population, people that are on social assistance, people that are living with dis­abilities…. We want to make sure that those folks are looked after and such.

Obviously, getting to this stage now in committee, we certainly appreciate the ability to ask a few questions to clarify a number of questions that were touched upon in the second reading as well. I’ll start off, Minister.

[3:30 p.m.]

In clause 1, I wondered if the minister can explain how the introduction of a client need assessment and the em­ployability plan definition, alongside the repeal of the employment plan, will actually enhance support for the recipient, especially those with disabilities or those that are facing vulnerabilities?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The very basic answer is definition in clause 1 so that we know the common language as the work is interpreted.

I think the member is now taking us into clause 2, in a way, so I’ll just give a very spare answer, as I did in the second reading debate.

In the old legislation, which we are amending, the em­ployment plan was a very basic set template that everybody needed to fill out and then needed to report on in order to prove they were going out and making best effort to get a job and say yes to a job if they were offered one.

What we now know, certainly clearly…. I mean, if it wasn’t known in 2002, it’s certainly known now that there are certainly people that are employable and just need a little bit of help before they go out and get that job. But if people have got multiple barriers, or they’ve been out of the workforce for a very long time, or they have language barriers…. There are all kinds of reasons why asking them simply to report monthly on that effort to get a job is not actually going to get them anywhere. They’re not going to get a job.

The client needs assessment is meant to identify whether there are barriers to employment, if there are new supports that they need in order to move along the continuum of employment. Then the employability plan is something that is worked on with that individual to get them ready, to get them connected with the training, the extra supports. Then that is what is the condition of receiving income assistance, that the individual then has to carry out that employability plan.

I’ll also note, because I know this is a passion of the member’s, that what is being put in place here is a requirement for income assistance recipients, not a requirement for disability assistance clients. We can talk about the subtlety of that. I look forward to the next question.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the response, and I’m sure that the member for Peace River North will have much opportunity to pursue the understandings and the underpinnings of the bill and the change. That will come in the sections to follow, as the member for Peace River North has introduced in his initial question.

I just wanted to follow on as well, though, in terms of the minister’s previous response to my first question: what, effectively, is driving the need for the change? She referred to the fact that the First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society report, having only recently come out, is certainly acknowledged by the minister and the ministry, in terms of the current statistics that show an unfortunate upward rise in the child poverty rate in B.C.

The minister has cited a number of different factors that potentially are contributing to that rise in child poverty, which she mentioned. They include the change in the federal COVID benefits, as well as global inflation and the general costs of food. We all know that there are significant affordability challenges here in our province. Despite the measures that are implemented, that has still been a challenge for children here, as we see, and their families.

That brings me back to understanding…. When you’re looking at the nature of this change that’s being proposed under Bill 7, it’s important to understand the challenge that’s being addressed and the factors that are driving this challenge. We’ve talked briefly about the significant rise in child poverty rates in British Columbia. We have talked about some of the factors that might be contributing to that.

The reasons for the change, though, suggest, even with the poverty reduction strategy of this government in 2018, that with the five-year review, there need to be further changes to the way the government has been proceeding around addressing poverty reduction in our province.

I’d ask that the minister elaborate further on the review at the five-year juncture, specifically on the kinds of considerations that are going forward in terms of addressing the changes that are being proposed under Bill 7.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member. I hope that I’m understanding the member’s question well, and I know he’ll let me know if this isn’t helpful.

Knowing we were a year out from the legislated requirement to bring in changes, both to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act and to the strategy itself…. A reminder: the strategy is due March 31, and it hasn’t yet come out. It is required to be tabled in this House. How we will implement the new targets will be elucidated in the new strategy.

[3:40 p.m.]

A bit more than a year ago we launched the public consultation on the new poverty reduction strategy and, over the year since, have heard from over 10,000 people, 70 percent of whom had lived experience of poverty. Very grateful to everybody that took time to participate in an online survey, in an electronic town hall, in an in-person stakeholder town hall.

There were more things than that. Anyway, a multitude of forms. Oh, people made direct submissions, especially some of the anti-poverty advocacy organizations. Very detailed advice. I’m really grateful for the time that everybody took to bring their ideas forward.

Very important to note that we didn’t start from zero, though. We had already, I believe, 1,000 recommendations from existing reports. For example, First Call puts out a child poverty report almost annually, I believe. Their past reports and their policy recommendations informed this work. So did recommendations like, for example, Red Women Rising about Indigenous women and their experience of poverty and the recommendations of the basic annual income expert review panel.

A foundation of existing recommendations, input from 10,000 people over this past year and then the synthesis and advice from our public service. I also don’t want to overlook the separate Indigenous engagement that we did, which identified some similar themes but, certainly, advice that was specific to Métis, Inuit and First Nations people as well.

I look forward to the member’s next question.

D. Davies: This certainly opens up the next question.

We are debating a piece of legislation here that relies upon this strategy, which is to be released, hopefully, sometime next month. We hear, throughout this bill, reference to this strategy.

Does the minister think…? Actually, right off the very start is: how can the minister feel that we can be asking these questions of this bill when we don’t have the strat­egy in front of us? I would like to hear her comments on that, please.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The member will remember that in 2018 the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act was passed. Then the strategy itself was not tabled until 2019. The legislation creates the menu, and then the strategy itself is what flows from that.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s important, though, to say that the strategy directs a goal of poverty reduction that is across government. We do not wait to have a strategy in place or the updates to the strategy. Investments in people are being made continually. Everything that we are investing in — every budget, every policy change — is all aimed at the cause of making life better, especially for people that haven’t had all the chances in life that they deserve, especially with a focus on the youngest people, the most vulnerable, first.

That is a theme that is throughout every part of our government. The work is continuing and ongoing. The strategy that will be tabled next month will reflect the legislation that we are debating today. It will reflect investments that have been made throughout this year and will help direct budget investments going forward over the next ten years.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara.

Of course, we’re on the details of Bill 7.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response to my colleague the member for Peace River North. I just wanted to follow on with that.

The minister, in her response to my previous question, made reference to the new strategy that is coming and that will be presumably available on or around March 31. The minister just now, in her last response, indicated that that strategy will set out the investments that have been made and presumably other data as to how poverty reduction can continue to be addressed in our province.

I would suggest that this is an important understanding, of course. It’s the underpinnings of this bill to know where the government has done its own assessment as to its own progress on its own strategy, which the minister just, again, outlined for the House in 2019.

As much as the minister would want to shift focus to this next strategy coming due on March 31, a matter of — what is that? — three and a half weeks from now, not a lot of time…. We are now, to my colleague the member for Peace River North’s point, being asked to debate a bill, Bill 7, without the understanding of the information and analysis that the minister is saying is spelled out in the next strategy.

Even if I accept that as the response from the minister, it does also raise the question as to, well…. It does mean, though, that the government is operating under the current strategy. We’re getting notice in this House, as we debate this new bill, Bill 7, that there is another strategy coming. Under the current strategy….

Surely the minister has an understanding as to, again, the underpinnings, the factors, the needs as to why she is tabling this Bill 7 in the House — why the changes that are spelled out in section 1, the client needs assessment and employability plan, which I know members have lots of questions about; the structure and the meaning of these new instruments; the requirements on people living in poverty; the government control and oversight on all of that; and the mechanisms which government will be imposing on those living in poverty to have to deal with these new instruments.

Having said all those things, surely we would know from this minister…. I would invite her, again, to share with the House…. What are the specific evaluation points coming out of the current strategy that are causing the government to table this Bill 7 at this juncture?

The Chair: Just to be clear, the employability plan section that the member referred to is in clause 2. We can get there, if members would like.

We are currently on clause 1.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I will say again that the 2018 Pov­erty Reduction Strategy Act requires that we return to this Legislature at five-year intervals and revisit the targets, and we are increasing the targets.

So far as the measurement of our own progress, I will remind the member that we report annually to the Legislature with an assessment of the government’s progress towards meeting its goals and elucidation of the investments and actions and policies across government. These could be from child care to school lunch programs to WorkBC programs. The member can see that. It’s tabled in this Legislature.

The metrics that we set out in the 2019…. In the very first poverty reduction strategy targets, our legislated target for overall poverty was 25 percent reduction. In fact, we reached a 45 percent reduction in poverty, as measured between the 2016 baseline year and 2021, which is the most recent year for which StatsCan data on B.C. poverty rates is available.

Our child poverty reduction target was 50 percent, and in 2021, the year for which data is available, the child pov­erty rate was 54 percent. So in both cases, we exceeded the legislated poverty reduction targets. We know that that data is…. If we had 2024 data, then we would have a different view of that. So 2021 is the most recent StatsCan data that’s available on the poverty rate.

We know people really have been hit hard by poverty, by the terribly increased cost of food, by the impacts of global inflation. Even if we didn’t have a legislated requirement to revisit the poverty reduction targets, we would be, as we are today, increasing the ambition and the depth of our poverty reduction targets, because we’re determined to do more.

The Chair: I would just draw the House’s attention back to Bill 7. Although there are certainly connections to everything everyone is speaking about, we are specifically dealing with Bill 7 and not other legislation.

M. Lee: I appreciate the guidance.

To respond to both points, we’re talking about section 1 of the Employment and Assistance Act, which is section 1 to Bill 7. Section 1 of Bill 7 refers to the client needs assessment and employability plan. That’s the reason why I made reference to those terms.

The minister, in her opening statement to this bill, re­ferred to the significance of the change. Maybe she was using this by way of example, but I took her opening statement comment to mean that there’s some significance to this change. I’m only trying to understand: why the change? This is something that we’ll certainly pursue as we get to the other sections of the bill, as the Chair points out.

The bill also includes, of course, reference to not just the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act but also the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, which is what the minister just referred to.

My understanding is that the entire Bill 7 is dealing with the title, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act. So it is, in fact, bringing forward amendments to three related bills, one of which is the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act.

[3:55 p.m.]

The minister has been responding to my initial questions, as well as the member from Peace River North, about points relating to the poverty reduction strategy. That’s the reason why I’m continuing to raise questions — to understand why Bill 7 is coming forward.

The minister has made comments relating to targets. We are not yet at the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act sections of this bill. There certainly are targets there.

I understand that as we get to clause 35, specifically, that there are certainly numerical targets that are set out. But it’s more than just our targets, of course. We’re talking about the mechanisms that are being amended and changed in the first instance under the Employment and Assistance Act.

Addressing the need for these changes and what underpins the factors driving these changes is what I’m trying to get at. The minister now has responded to statistics, statistics that reveal the government hitting targets.

This does take me back to my initial question and statement that I made. This is relating to, admittedly, something the minister has said only came out recently. My understanding is that the results under the First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society — from their report, recent as it is — show what’s been referred to as an unfortunate upward rise in the child poverty rate in British Columbia.

Can I ask the minister what the minister’s understanding is of that particular finding of the First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society? What is the nature of that finding? Does the minister agree that that is the case? If she does, what is that statistic, as the ministry understands it?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: To the member’s question, I recognize that by us having three pieces of legislation that we are amending within this bill, it is easy to move around.

I certainly heard the member’s questions about the pov­erty rate. The client needs assessment is not part of the poverty rate work. I’m going to try to answer the member’s question, but it might be most helpful for us to start to go into the clause-by-clause so that we’re sure which legislation it is that we are looking at.

[4:00 p.m.]

The Employment and Assistance Act amendments are very different from the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act amendments. But they are all in aim of the overall objective government has to put more money in people’s pockets, to have people’s income and their personal security be at the level that they can have a good life.

That’s where these pieces come together. Certainly, the employability plan is not about child poverty, because we don’t have child labour in the province. So that may be a process suggestion, because I admit we’ve done a bit of an omnibus bill here that has got three different pieces of legislation bundled together.

To answer the member’s question, again, about last week’s First Call report and the First Call reports in other years, they use a different measure for measuring poverty than the federal government does. The provinces and territories — all of us — use the market basket measure, which is what the federal measure is. That’s the StatsCan data that we get — different measure but the same trends, and we see the same things.

As I answered in one of my earlier answers, we have seen, since 2021 — with a reduction in federal COVID payments, with an increase in inflation — that those are the drivers behind an uptick in child poverty, despite the fact that our 2021 numbers show a 54 percent decrease in child poverty since we adopted the first poverty re­duction strategy.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister and the clarification in terms of the nature of the bill. I would say to the minister that the initial part of my previous statement was really more directed at the Chair as opposed to the minister, because the Chair had provided some guidance relating to my questions. So I wanted to ensure that the Chair was clear about my approach.

The minister, in her statement of recognizing the overall goal of this bill, certainly did take my point. So I appreciate that she saw that, and I appreciate her response.

I will take the opportunity to pursue some of the other lines of inquiry on section 1 of Bill 7 at the outset, because they don’t fit neatly within any particular section. These are the kinds of questions that we would typically get into on a major piece of legislation like this.

With that in mind, I know that the Leader of the Third Party would like to do a follow-on here, so I’ll just turn that over to her but also recognize that on section 1, we may have a bit of back-and-forth between myself and the members, the House Leader and the Leader of the Third Party as well.

S. Furstenau: I just want to actually start by digging into these definitions a bit and getting an understanding.

Can the minister give us a sense of what a client needs assessment would entail and what kinds of changes we’re seeing to the client needs assessment? I know that’s in the next section, but the definition is here in section 1, and I’m very curious about what a client needs assessment entails.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Welcome to the member, and thank you for the question.

I think the member heard in my second reading debate the rationale for having a client needs assessment instead of the status quo, but maybe I’ll just restate it. The status quo is a templated employment plan that applies to every income assistance client. It doesn’t recognize the subtlety or the complexities that we now see in income assistance clients — that not all of them are ready and able to get a job or actually do a job well even if they are offered it.

Instead, moving to the new client needs assessment means that an income assistance client first of all receives the assistance that they need, if they qualify. Then they are taken through, with the employment counsellor, an assessment of what their needs and barriers are. It might identify things like language training, like counselling, maybe it’s a pathway to addiction treatment. There are all kinds of things that might be in between a person who is in need and their ability to obtain and retain a job.

Then tailored to the person’s unique circumstance, in order for them to be able to achieve employment, a plan is put in place. And then their condition of being on income assistance is that they have an employability plan, and they are following that employability plan, taking the counselling, the training, the language skills and moving them along that continuum of employment.

If that isn’t enough detail, then I know the member will ask a follow-up.

S. Furstenau: I’m interested in, given how the minister has described the client needs assessment and then the employability plan and then what I heard her talking about earlier about getting input, particularly from people with lived experience, from people who are living in poverty…. There was a great deal in the Basic Income Task Force report about the need for agency and dignity, and that the current system really strips people of both of those things.

Yet what I hear is really very similar to the conditions that have existed for a long time for people who are in need of income assistance or disability assistance, which is that a plan is set out, conditions are laid out, and then a person will be in the position of being denied these benefits and this assistance if they do not hold up their end of the deal, if they don’t meet the conditions of the plan.

This is very similar to what I’ve heard from families over and over again with the Ministry of Children and Families, that people feel set up to fail. What this doesn’t take into account are the realities of people’s lives, particularly people living in poverty in a society like B.C. right now, where everything is incredibly expensive. We heard a story earlier today about a bank charge meaning that somebody wouldn’t be able to get food.

I just wonder about how all of that input that the minister talks about and all of the work done by the Basic Income Task Force and the 500-page report that came out of that…. That really speaks to the need for a system that protects human dignity.

Yet we still have the same language about adhering to, complying with, not meeting, having benefits revoked. So what has changed?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question.

Let me be clear at the outset that the client needs assessment and the employability plan do not apply to peo­ple on disability assistance unless they wish that kind of support. That’s written to the legislation. It’s optional. The plan, the requirement, is for people on income assistance.

Under the existing rules, if you want to apply for assistance, you’re required to enter into an employment plan. There’s a gatekeeping function that prevents you from re­ceiving financial assistance until you sign the employment plan that requires you to find, accept and maintain employment. This is all the status quo. This all happens before you’re eligible for assistance without consideration of your individual circumstance. You might have just been evicted or be on the street or have some other major trauma in your life, but our existing rules, the 2002 rules, say you have to go through this process before we’ll give you an income assistance cheque.

That’s what we’re trying to change with this legislation. We don’t think that’s fair. We don’t think it’s reasonable. It doesn’t make it easy for someone who’s in real trouble to find a job to get the help they need. I know that’s reflected in the member’s comments. The status quo is not acceptable.

The changes that we’re proposing in Bill 7 take that extra step out of the way. If we get the support for this change, then when people apply for assistance, they won’t have to go through that hurdle of employment planning. They still have to meet the eligibility criteria. They still have to get their application reviewed and approved, but once it is approved, they get their cheque.

Then they will have the needs assessment. Only after that, when they have a real conversation with a worker who specializes in this area, both of multi-barrier people and employment, they’ll work with a client to figure out what approach will work best for them, and only then will they have an employability plan.

It’s making the system less complex. It’s making it more fair. It’s giving the clients more agency in the process, be­cause they have a chance to participate in that conversation right up front about what their needs are before they adopt a plan to find a job. That’s what we’re trying to do.

S. Furstenau: I’m quite interested in the eligibility criteria. Does this still include…?

Well, I would actually just like to hear from the minister about people’s assets and how they are accounted for in the eligibility criteria.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question.

Assets are in regulation, not in legislation, so they are not affected or discussed in this bill.

S. Furstenau: For clarity, though: in the current state of the legislation, do the eligibility criteria include an assessment of people’s assets?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Yes. People’s assets are considered in the eligibility, but that is all in regulation. It’s not being changed by this legislation.

S. Furstenau: I’m going to pursue this a little further because this is one of the things that the basic income task force really highlighted, which is that this evalua­tion of people’s assets as part of the eligibility criteria for income assistance actually puts this onus on people to have nothing, essentially, before they are eligible for in­come assistance.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s a system that actually appears to require a depth of poverty before being eligible for assistance. I think all of us can recognize that depth of poverty is a problem. Again, the basic income task force talked about this in particular. Depth of poverty is the issue that we should be most concerned with, because the deeper the poverty, the harder it is for people to get out of that poverty. And we have a system, as it currently exists, that strangely, requires a depth of poverty.

Prevention…. I mean, we can talk about the names of these bills. We don’t have prevention. We don’t have elimination of poverty. We just have reduction of poverty. Language matters. It signals a lot. Prevention of poverty should be a goal. And right now what we’re seeing in B.C., and I’ve heard the minister acknowledge this, is that we’re not doing such a great job of preventing deepening of poverty. We just have to go into our communities to see that right now.

So my question is: does the minister think that this is an appropriate approach to eligibility criteria?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll say again that assets are not covered by legislation. They’re in regulation.

I have certainly heard the same thing as the member. It certainly came up in our poverty reduction strategy consultation. It’s advice to government that is reflected in the what-we-heard report.

It’s certainly a conversation we could conceivably take up in estimates, but it’s not…. There’s no section of this bill that talks about assets. That’s covered in regulation, not legislation.

S. Furstenau: Can the minister provide some detail about…? I’ve heard her talk about a change with the definitions from “employment plan” to “employability plan,” and her response to my questions about client needs asses­sment. Can the minister describe for the House what the tangible difference will be for a person after this legislation is passed from what it is right now?

If I need to clarify, for a person applying for income as­sistance, what are the tangible differences that those people will experience once this legislation is passed, if this legislation is passed?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: A number of changes. I tried to describe them in my comment a couple of answers ago, but I’ll be a little bit more spare here. Again, this is for income assistance clients. They will receive income assistance first. They don’t have to wait for a plan to be in place. So there’s a reduced delay in the individual receiving the assistance that they need.

Right now, a person on income assistance, if they are fired from a job, then they are deemed ineligible. That is removed in this legislation. Someone fired from a job then gets the support to get them ready for the next job and have it be retained.

The individual will be supported through the employability plan to be ready to get the skills that they need to be ready for a job. Then, bottom line, the person will be treated as an individual. They will have the ability to shape their employability plan. They won’t be treated as a cog in a legislated template as they are right now.

A. Olsen: I’m wondering, a more philosophical question, mentioned in my second reading speech, around the goal of elimination or the goal of reduction. Why is it that the minister here has chosen to take a poverty reduction approach rather than a poverty elimination approach?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The end goal of any good government or good society would be elimination of poverty.

British Columbia was certainly in a hole. To be the last place in the country to have a poverty reduction strategy means that we started later on establishing metrics and working towards them than other places in Canada did. I’m glad that we exceeded our last targets, but a lot of that was because of COVID payments.

Now with the very hard hit of global inflation and the terribly increased cost of living and challenges that everybody is under, we have set targets that are achievable and that we will doggedly work to meet. I hope that we exceed them also.

I will just note, too, that this isn’t in section 1, so we can speak in more detail about the targets when we get to that section of the legislation.

[4:25 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Yeah, I’m not talking about the targets. I’m talking about the overall philosophical approach of a government that has long been critical and indeed still, while in government for seven years, is kind of backward critical of the government before.

I’m not going to dispute the hole that the current government was in when they took office. However, there are these…. I guess I’m just challenged that you either are intending to have poverty elimination or you’re intending to have poverty reduction. We see poverty reduction as the frame, yet I heard multiple times the assurances that the goal is poverty elimination. Why not then state poverty elimination as the overarching philosophical goal that, then, everything is built towards achieving?

The reality is, if you set the goal to be poverty reduction, then you will find yourself accepting far less than elimination.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Working across government, we have lifted a quarter-million people out of poverty. We have exceeded our legislated targets, and we’re determined to do a lot more.

Our choice is to focus on targets that we can reach in the near term. Absolutely, the long-term goal is poverty elimination, and the legislation in front of us sets us on that path.

A. Olsen: We’re going to get into the discussion around the actual targets at a much later stage of the debate. This bill changes the scope of it, the time frame which we’re talking about, ten years. We’ll talk about that again later.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the philosophical approach we are grounding a plan in and grounding legislation in and grounding targets in and grounding all of the action in…. This is a bill that talks about a ten-year plan. That’s a fairly long-term view of it, but it’s a long-term view that doesn’t get us to poverty elimination. It gets us to partway down the road.

Also, the minister continues to use statistics that are a few years old now. We see the intense poverty that is in our communities. Indeed, in question period, we talk about the poverty that we see and are experiencing in our neighbourhoods. You know, I think that we hear from our constituents the challenges that they face, the challenges that they encounter with poverty when they visit their urban centres. So there is, I think, a challenge with the story that’s being told in here now about success when the poverty and inequality in our society is deepening.

It’s not a better-case scenario that we’re facing. We’re celebrating poverty reduction of children in poverty, yet there are still tens of thousands of children living in poverty. There are still text messages coming in to us saying that the formula is too expensive, and you’re going to need help covering the costs of baby formula. There’s still the reality that we face with people who are ill, and this ministry and the requirements are completely intrusive in their life.

[4:30 p.m.]

What we’re grounding the act in, what we’re grounding the strategy in, the philosophy that’s underpinning all of it, is important, because it informs all the rest of the programs and services that we create.

I was sitting with Disability Without Poverty today and talking to people who have explained to me the complete morass of bureaucracy that they have to navigate in order to get basic supports from government. Part of the challenge is they don’t access the supports they need because then they will lose the supports they’re currently getting.

My colleague was asking the question in section 1 here about the employability plan. It’s almost a full-time job just to keep up and maintain the supports, the requirements that we have. That was the message. We were all there. All the members were there. The minister was there. We heard the stories directly of the people.

When we’re amending the act, and we know…. In fact, the minister said to the group of advocates that were there: “Keep advocating.” We know, yet we’re requiring people to keep advocating, even though we know and already have heard them. There was a sense of cruelty in that when I heard those words. It took me aback.

We know. We’ve heard them. We just sat with them. We’ve just had the advocacy organization come in and sit with us and describe to us the situation. Yet the message from the government is: “Keep advocating.”

I think it’s important to recognize and to acknowledge the fact that underpinning your approach philosophically towards poverty reduction may reduce poverty. Setting them towards the elimination informs government.

Maybe I’ll just ask this question to the minister. If you were to underpin the process here with poverty elimination, can the ministry and the staff highlight what that would look like, the differences that we would see in the types of policy that are being put forward, and whether or not, if that was the goal, these policy changes that are being proposed here in this bill would achieve those measures?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I understand the member’s question and his point, and that’s not the legislation we have in front of us. The choice that our government has made, and made the first time around, was to set targets that we could be measured against, and we have been measured against, with the most recent data available — targets that we exceeded. Now we’ve set more ambitious targets and longer-term targets. That is what we are here to debate.

[4:35 p.m.]

That’s the choice that was set out in legislation in 2018. We are renewing a commitment but deepening that commitment with Bill 7 before us.

A. Olsen: So Bill 7…. I think it was one of the people at the luncheon earlier today who was pretty clear. “Increase the rates so I’m not living in poverty,” I think was the direct quote. Increase the rates so I’m not living in poverty. Government is using the…. You know, to speak to the legislation in front of us, it is setting targets, yet it’s not addressing the issue that we were advised of earlier today, which was to raise the rates so that people are not living in poverty.

Why has the minister chosen to create, instead, this wide window that, clearly, the government can be measured against — and celebrated that rather than actually listening to the people that are advocating, saying…?

The minister invited advocacy, and when the people advocated, they said: “Raise the rates.” So why are we having debates about this bill and it not being followed up with, actually, the advice that people are giving, which is to raise the rates so they’re not living in poverty?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We can do two things at one time. There is a budget process, and our government has raised assistance rates five times already and surely will again. We don’t do that through legislation, though.

In addition to making budget decisions for people, which is not the subject of this debate today, we are also legislating stronger, tougher poverty reduction targets for ourselves in legislation so we’re accountable to this place and also reforming the foundational income assistance legislation that governs how we deliver supports to people. This is based on the advice about the legislation that we have heard from individuals. The fact that there is not an increase in assistance rates in this legislation is not because it is not a worthy cause. It’s just that this isn’t the place it fits. It’s not something we legislate.

A. Olsen: I understand how the place works, and I think what I’m trying to do at the beginning of this is, I think, provide the alternative picture than the one that the minister and that the government is trying to paint for people to see, because the experience that people have with the Employment and Assistance Act, being a disabled person, being someone who’s ill in this province and needing the support of their government, is that the government can do both things. The government is choosing, as a priority, to not do those things.

We’ll discuss later, in budget estimates, how the budget actually is not consistent with the picture that the minister just painted that the government…. I mean, maybe it’s consistent that the government can do something, but the government is not. That’s the reason why we sat there today and heard the person say: “You want my advice? It’s to raise the rates so that, then, I can not be in poverty.”

I understand that the government has raised the rates five times. However, as I mentioned before, this government’s commitment, historically, has not been to almost get there. It has been very vociferous about getting there for the most vulnerable people. So while the government is held accountable to meeting the targets that it sets for itself, the government is also accountable for the promises that they make and the commitments that they make to people.

[4:40 p.m.]

The commitments that they’ve made to people in the past and the absolute fury with which they held the other governments in the past to account for the decisions that they made led people to believe that the goal of a government of this particular ideology would be one of poverty elimination.

I understand what the name of the legislation has been and what the goals have been in the past, but now we’re opening it up. The minister has offered us the opportunity to have a conversation about this, with amendments.

The minister and the government have chosen to celebrate aspects of the legislation that they’re making, but it falls short from the promise and the commitments, at least in the criticisms of the previous governments in the past.

The challenge here is that government needs to be held accountable to whether or not they’re meeting their targets. But it also needs to be held accountable as to whether or not it’s meeting its commitments to the people of British Columbia, specifically the most vulnerable people in British Columbia.

We see, more and more, increasing rates of homelessness. We see, increasingly, people more vulnerable to falling into homelessness. The minister talks about the integrated approach. The lack of urgent intervention into the greatest core housing need in this province is going to land at the feet of this minister.

The decisions that are made in this ministry land at the feet of the Minister of Children and Family Development. We see the tragic outcomes of what happens when families that are desperate for support and can’t meet that run into a child apprehension person in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

So yes, it’s across the government. That is the reason why I continue to press on this question, because the commitment in the past has been to move towards the elimination of poverty, not just the basic reduction of poverty and then the celebration of that. We still have tens of thousands of children in poverty in our province, yet we’re talking about how we’ve made it partway down the road.

That would never have been accepted here ten years ago. The government, in the opposition benches, would have demanded much more. Those are the expectations that I have and that I think British Columbians have of this government. It’s to not just…

We’re a wealthy society. We invite people to provide us advice. We want to hear their advice. We need to heed it. While we have made modest steps, we have failed to help the most desperate people in need in the way that they need, and they’re falling further and further behind.

I’ll just ask this question, and then I think we can move on, unless my colleague has got another question here.

Is there any discussion about moving the philosophical approach of this government from just poverty reduction to actually taking a strategy of working towards — setting the goals and setting the targets — poverty elimination? We are a wealthy society. Can we not set that as our target instead of being okay and celebrating poverty reduction when we should be celebrating working together towards poverty elimination?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As specified in the legislation, we are proposing ten-year targets to reduce overall poverty by 60 percent — six zero — child poverty by 75 percent and seniors poverty by 50 percent.

[4:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: I do know that when we get to further discussion of those targets that are later on in this bill, there will be a point that I’m sure my colleague the member for Peace River North will want to pursue in terms of just the nature of these targets and the measures themselves.

The minister had made a comment in response, previously, in terms of the First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society — that the measures they utilize are not the same as Statistics Canada or even the ministry.

I do think that is a good understanding of the progress that is being made, or lack of progress because, clearly, First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society shows that upward rise in child poverty rate. That is their analysis, and it would be good to understand the differences between the review there.

The minister also made reference earlier to the level of consultation that has occurred prior to the tabling of this bill. She mentioned, for example, that there were 10,000 participants, 70 percent of whom were living in poverty.

Could I ask the minister to give us a further description of the makeup of the consultation that the ministry undertook in terms of the types of organizations and individuals, how that was identified in terms of participants being invited to participate in the consultation?

If we can start there, perhaps I’ll have other questions relating to the nature of the consultation.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m going to read a long list here for my colleague. We had five virtual town halls in which almost 300 people participated across five regional meetings. That was Vancouver Island–Gulf Islands; Mainland–​Vancouver Coast; Kootenay Rockies; Thompson, Okana­gan; and northern B.C., Cariboo, Chilcotin.

We received 92 submissions — that was publicly adver­tised; 36 policy briefs from organizations; and 56 indi­vidual submissions. We had 8,387 online survey participants. Of those, 77 percent identified as currently living in pov­erty, over 1,000 self-identified as Indigenous — 57 percent First Nations, 38 percent Métis, 1 percent Inuit, 6 percent other North American Indigenous. And 69 percent self-identified as living with a disability; 44 percent self-identified as living with mental illness, substance challenge or addiction.

We had 81 small group sessions and interviews. Four of those were minister’s round tables, with 77 participants. There were 37 small group sessions in partnership with com­munity organizations, with approximately 370 participants. In that case, we publicly advertised that if an NGO wanted to convene their own consultation, then we would support that financially. They would run it themselves. We had 25 representative interviews with income and disability assistance recipients. We had 15 self-directed conversations hosted by organizations with ministry funding support.

Part of our distinctions-based Indigenous engagement was establishing booths or workshops at First Nations gath­erings where we were invited. For example, Elders gatherings, Gathering Our Voices, the youth gathering. We had six in-person town hall sessions hosted in partnership with friendship centres. We had three virtual sessions.

[4:50 p.m.]

There were three rounds of letters to 204 First Nations, including eight modern treaty Nations. That included contact with reps from 57 First Nations, including modern treaty Nations.

There were seven virtual information sessions held with participation from six nations and four modern treaty Nations; also, a ministry-funded engagement on Métis experiences of poverty and wellness, through Métis Nation B.C.; ongoing consultation with Indigenous leadership, Métis Nation B.C. policy staff and the First Nations Leadership Council legal and technical team; and then ongoing participation at gatherings and advisory tables.

That was the basic consultation. I can get into more detail if the member is interested, a similar blow-by-blow on the engagement with Indigenous people. Maybe I’ll just leave that on the record. I look forward to the next question.

M. Lee: I appreciate the fulsome answer from the minister. It’s also anticipating my next question, in where I might go with her response. I appreciate the level of detail in covering a few points that I was going to address.

Looking at it, I know that I am utilizing, as a point of reference, this First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society. It indicated that…. Again, I take the minister’s point that the measure of poverty, or at least the statistics that the society is utilizing, may be different from the ministry’s. Having said that, it stated that one in seven children in B.C. now live in poverty. That’s over 120,000 children.

Going beyond that, I wanted to get to this statistic, which is that the rate for the 67 First Nation reserves that were part of the study is a very concerning 31 percent — which is double the national average — and that for children who live in single-family households, the rate is a staggering 40 percent.

I know, of course, the work that is done in order to address poverty with First Nations in their communities remains a necessary focus for our province. With the response and the outline that the minister provided, if we just focus first on the First Nations themselves, then she can choose to expand it to the eight modern treaty Nations that she referred to. I wanted her to get into a little more detail in terms of the response, the level of engagement and consultation with the First Nations themselves.

I think she said 57. There was a number: 57 represent­atives from First Nations. That’s what it sounded like. Can she talk about that and talk about the other 147 nations, and the level of engagement with those nations as well, in this level of consultation?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I will run through some of this. Again, if I’m not honing in on where the member is going, then I know he’ll let me know.

In addition to the engagement I mentioned in my first answer, we sent three rounds of letters to 204 First Nations, including eight modern treaty Nations, inviting them to share input and co-develop policy and legislative amendments. We had contact with representatives from 57 nations, including modern treaty Nations. We held seven virtual information sessions with participation from six nations and four modern treaty Nations. Métis Nation B.C. was invited and did participate through a separate piece.

[4:55 p.m.]

Then the technical discussions on legislation were held with First Nations Leadership Council, with their legal and technical team, and interested nations.

I neglected to say in my first answer, although I did allude to the recommendations that we inherited and that were already established on the record before we began our consultation, that we also reviewed over 600 Indigenous-led recommendations and advice from previous consultations, reports and resolutions.

Again, on the Indigenous-consultation side, we weren’t starting from zero. We built on what we already had heard, what were already existing commitments. As well, we re­ceived advice from leadership and advisory groups on the engagement approach to meet Indigenous-partner priorities, needs and capacity.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response.

Just to further that, in much of the legislation that comes forward in this chamber, particularly after the passage of Bill 41, the DRIPA act, there’s far greater need for engagement and consultation, and the minister is speaking to that. My general sense is it does raise a couple of other points, though, just to cover it off, as to the nature of the distinctions-based approach, recognizing that nations have their own challenges generationally.

What is the geographic distribution of the nations that did participate in this consultation process? Secondly, on the advisory mechanisms that the minister referred to, to support the consultation process, can the minister give us a bit more of an understanding as to the types of understandings and experiences, and the cultural sensitivity of the individuals involved in conducting these consultations?

I just want a basic description of the types of people that were involved in running these consultations.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The nations that responded were from all over British Columbia, a wide geographic spread. It’s not appropriate to name the nations, but there was a very wide geographic spread.

Indigenous consultation was conducted by an Indigenous-owned facilitation company, Mahihkan. The Indigenous what-we-heard report is online. I’ll flag, from my team, that we made a particular effort to include urban settings, since so many Indigenous people live off reserve.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: That actually does raise another question. The minister did mention friendship centres and some of the other organizations that support urban Indigenous peo­ples, and recognized that there’s a lot of displacement, certainly, to urban centres.

Can the minister describe a little further what the effort was that was made in terms of what it looked like to reach out to the voice of those who are urban Indigen­ous individuals residing and dealing with poverty in their urban settings?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Five that we held, five in-person town halls hosted in partnership with friendship centres. We had eight booths or workshops at First Nations gatherings such as FNLG, Elders Gathering, Gathering Our Voices youth conference. There was a real focus on urban and Indigenous individuals — going to their AGMs, for example, where we thought that people would gather.

That was always when invited, but we invited ourselves to be invited so that we could be where people were already gathering. That was part of the advice that we had when building the consultation so that we were making it really easy for people to learn about our process and easy to give that input without any extra burden on nations or Indigenous people.

M. Lee: The other point relating to consultation I wanted to raise, the minister has mentioned at least twice, is the level of participation and engagement with Métis Nation B.C. We know that the government continues to have discussion with Métis Nation B.C. in terms of their recognition in our province and also the involvement even on matters related to the distinctions-based approach.

I did have the opportunity to ask, for example, the Attorney General in Attorney General estimates a day or two ago about the status of the Métis justice strategy. Coming to this level of consultation with Métis Nation B.C., by the sounds of it, in terms of the description, the minister did have a fair level of engagement with Métis Nation B.C. Were there any impediments or limitations on the level of consultation that was conducted with Métis Nation B.C. in respect of what is being addressed under Bill 7?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: No impediment. We funded Métis Nation B.C. to do their own engagement process. That ministry-funded engagement on Métis experiences of poverty and wellness, their report, is embedded within our Indigenous what-we-heard report. That’s available online. That was on the consultation.

Then on the legislative consultation and cooperation, Métis Nation B.C. was invited to share input and co-develop policy and legislative amendments.

[5:05 p.m.]

M. Lee: I wanted to come back to an earlier comment the minister made at the outset, relating to the importance of this bill and the work that’s being done with Bill 7.

This is alongside of the discussion we’ve been having about poverty reduction and the overall goal and objective to continue to address poverty in our province. The other question or point that the minister made in her statement was the alignment of laws that’s required under section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I appreciate that there are specific provisions that deal with that act by including sections, but just to talk about the alignment of laws, what are the laws that we’ve seen that are being addressed in Bill 7 that need to change in order to accomplish what is being set out in section 3 of DRIPA?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: With respect to the member, I think it’s going to be easier for us to do that in the clause-by-clause, because there are a number of places in the legislation. As I said, early we committed to align these three acts with DRIPA, and that is embedded throughout the package.

M. Lee: I’m asking the question at the beginning of the bill only because, structurally, it’s important to understand the approach of government as we continue to see legislation brought forward to address, for example, section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

When I look at the bill itself, the structure of the bill, I am not seeing…. I’m seeing, of course, new sections come in by adding, for example…. We will get there, I understand, and certainly, my colleague the member for Peace River North will need to address this, as well, when we get to that section, because I may not have that opportunity to join him in this.

I see that under clause 11 of the bill, there is a new part that’s added. That’s one example, and that deals with agreements respecting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. There’s also, of course, another — clause 26, for example, which deals with the second piece of legislation that’s being addressed here, which is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

Each of these main parts are, really, effectively providing for the ability of government to enter into agreements with an Indigenous governing body and the mechanism behind that. I’m not going to attempt here a review of those provisions, because I do understand it’s more appropriate to deal with that when we get to those individual clauses.

My point only is this. I don’t see how this bill is addressing any consistency points, though. This is a bill that provides for agreement-making under section 6 and section 7 of DRIPA, but it doesn’t actually align laws.

Again I’ll ask the minister for a clarification. In what ways does Bill 7, the legislation contemplated, align under the current legislation, the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act? In what ways does this Bill 7 align laws, as contemplated under section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I suggest and request we deal with this in order. It’s going to be much easier to look at the specifics, but I will say, just as a point of principle, that the first principle of alignment of laws is recognizing the right to self-determination, which we have done in this legislation.

I look forward to the member’s questions in the clause-by-clause. That’s where we can get into the details of how, in each section, we have fulfilled our DRIPA commitments.

M. Lee: I think the minister is referring to a particular clause of UNDRIP, certainly relating to self-determination, that does run through UNDRIP and the declaration as defined under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The illustrative tool that government has continued to describe UNDRIP as being…. As a clarity of understanding that we need to have….

I would ask the minister, though, at this juncture, when we’re talking about the alignment of laws, using all measures necessary to do so to ensure that the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration, what are the other articles of UNDRIP, which is attached to the declaration of rights of Indigenous peoples, the government is turning its mind to, other than articles relating to self-determination that are being aligned with the legislation that is being addressed in Bill 7?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I will say, as a general tone and request of the Nations who helped us build Bill 7, that their focus was on the agreement-making aspects of DRIPA.

Also in the poverty reduction strategy, which is ahead of us and will be tabled in this House, there’s a real focus on Indigenous-identified actions in the strategy itself. I continue to suggest that the member asks questions about the specific clauses in the clause-by-clause.

I’m looking meaningfully at the House Leader.

Yes, I am. One more question?

Interjection.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister in attempting to address the question. I know that, as this government continues to move down the path of the im­plementation of UNDRIP under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, we’re crossing over into year 5, almost, now. When we come into the fall of 2024, it will be five years since UNDRIP was adopted in this province.

I think it’s very important that government continues to have a real understanding of clarity, because if government doesn’t have that clarity, then the public doesn’t have that level of clarity.

I appreciate there has been a focus on agreement-making powers under section 6 and section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights and Indigenous Peoples Act, but I do think, to the extent that we are talking nation-to-nation, government-to-government about UNDRIP and the articles of UNDRIP….

I know the article the minister referred to effectively as article 4, which is that “Indigenous peoples, in exercis­ing their right to self-determination, have the right to auto­nomy or self-government matters relating to the internal and local affairs, as well as the means and ways for financing their autonomous functions.”

Financing is an important concept. I don’t have the op­portunity to talk about financing here, but it is a recognition that, even when we talk about self-determination, financing and own-source revenue is an important component.

I’m not sure, and this is the reason why I’m raising it with the minister responsible, I see the word “poverty” in UNDRIP as a concept. I only say that because the House Leader from the Third Party raises an important point. In his view, he’s advocating for why aren’t we just talking about poverty elimination?

Well, all I’m pointing out is that when we’re talking about alignment of laws with UNDRIP — recognizing the aspirational, illustrative document that this is and what the government lawyers have been saying, even in the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act review case with the ʔiiḥatisatḥ and Gitxaała First Nations — that’s still the position.

I’m trying to understand what alignment of laws this government is doing with UNDRIP at that level of clarity. Then secondly, I would just point out this. When we’re talking about agreements with Indigenous peoples under DRIPA…. As an example, “Indigenous governing body,” the term that’s used in this act, we know that it is the position of government that Métis Nation B.C. is not an Indigenous governing body.

[5:20 p.m.]

I would hope that Métis Nation B.C., at the level of consultation that has been done to date on this bill, had the opportunity to express their concern around that, because they’re not even recognized, as far as I see.

I mean, the exchange of letters with the minister re­sponsible for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in May of 2023 would suggest that the government doesn’t even recognize Métis Nation B.C. as an Indigenous governing body.

I know that is two questions in one. The minister may or may not have the time to respond to all of them, but I did want to get the questions on the record, at least, so that she can properly address them as she’s able to. I’m sure my colleague the member for Peace River North will continue this committee stage on this bill as we go.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I look forward to the discussion, clause by clause, about how the specific three pieces of legislation were…. Through these amendments, how we fulfilled our DRIPA commitments.

I’ll reassure, restate again for the member that Métis Nation B.C. had unrestricted access to the process. We’re very grateful for the input that we got. I’ll also flag for the member’s attention and interest article 21 of UNDRIP, which is a commitment to ongoing improvement of economic and social conditions. I think that is where we would find our best connection with a commitment to poverty reduction.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:23 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.