Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:10 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $25,986,000 (continued).

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that a sum not exceeding $25,986,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Labour ministry operations to 31st March, 2026.

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back, everyone.

Right before we adjourned for lunch, I think I jumped the gun a little bit and asked the question about the ministry budget right off the bat. Guess how excited I was to get started here. I appreciate the minister’s response, but I wanted to maybe elaborate that.

Does that budget…. Could the minister maybe describe whether that includes increases or cuts to various departments? Are there any programs or offices being closed, merged or expanded as a result of this budget?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair. Just to note that in the previous session, we’d agreed I’ll just raise my physical hand when I’m ready to speak. Thank you so much.

Thank you to the member for the question.

The budget for the Ministry of Labour, as the member will know, is comprised of resources that, for the most part, power the employment standards branch, as well as our work on policy, the public service office, the minister’s office. But really it is the employment standards branch that is the lion’s share of the ministry’s budget. That is, of course, the budget that is not the WorkSafe–recoverable part of the budget, which, of course, is under the authority of WorkSafe.

I’d say that the budget has been fairly static over the last number of years. There is no change in programs or closure of programs. We have the same number of employment standards offices that we’ve had.

As I’d indicated in my answer just before the lunch break, though, we have experienced quite an uptick in casework for the employment standards branch over the last few years, and therefore we’ve adjusted the budget for the employment standards branch. In ’22-23, there was an increase of over $7 million, and that resulted in an increase in FTEs by 40 so that we can better serve the parties who are coming through the employment standards branch.

[1:15 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s response.

I’m wondering, just as we’re getting into the total FTEs, if the minister could clarify the total for this year. I believe last year I read that there were 393 total FTEs and 182 being in

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s response. I’m wondering, just as we’re getting into the total FTEs, if the minister could clarify a total for this year. I believe last year I read that there were 393 total FTEs, 182 being in the employment standards branch. If the minister could describe just how many total this year and then how many specifically related towards employment standards.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The total FTEs in ’24-25 was 408, and 182 of the 408 were at the employment standards branch. I should note as well, however, that of that total FTE count, 100 are with the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal; 41 are employers advisers; 64 are workers advisers. Those FTEs are initially paid for by the ministry, and then they are recovered from WorkSafe. WorkSafe reimburses for them.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much to the minister for clarifying and breaking those down a little bit further. I note that, as well, the ministry or government as a whole had a hiring freeze that was implemented on, I believe, December 11, 2024. How many FTEs were in place at that point, compared to now, I guess?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Could I just clarify from the member, please? Is he asking for what was the number of FTEs in December 2024 compared to what is the number of FTEs at this point?

Kiel Giddens: Yes, that is correct.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The total FTE count that I gave is the average count for all of last year.

[1:20 p.m.]

There wouldn’t have been a significant difference in December 2024. The workers in the employment standards branch, of course, are front-line workers, so that’s the

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The total FTE count that I gave is the average count for all of last year. There wouldn’t have been a significant difference in December 2024. The workers in the employment standards branch, of course, are front-line workers. That is the count.

If the member wishes, we could send staff away to do that count and provide a refined number. I don’t think it would be significantly different than the number that’s there.

Kiel Giddens: I wouldn’t mind getting that number, and it could be afterwards. It doesn’t have to be right now, certainly, but just having that refined number, I think, would be useful to note later.

I guess maybe a more general question on it, though: can the minister confirm that the Ministry of Labour is complying with the Premier’s directive of a hiring freeze? Also, I’m wondering if the minister could also confirm whether or not the ministry is committed to not hiring any more outside contractors or consultants, as they can’t hire more staff because of that freeze.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, with respect to the hiring freeze, the ministry is following all of the internal direction received from the head of the public service — in the context, of course, of a ministry that is primarily about front-line services.

Secondarily, with respect to contractors, no, the ministry is not making use of external contractors.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the confirmation on that; it’s helpful to note. Just on that, maybe a little bit further, can the minister identify which portion of the budget is towards internal administration versus the front-line service delivery? We talked about employment standards, but there’s also an enforcement component that I would include in that. If that can be broken down, that would be useful.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What I can tell the member is that the total budget for the employment standards branch and the labour policy and legislation division of the ministry is $21,780,000 or so, and the executive and support services is about $2 million, close to $3 million, about 8 percent of the budget.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the breakdown, including the percentage actually. That’s useful to have, so appreciate that.

On April 1, of course, there was a change since the budget was first introduced in that, obviously, the removal of the consumer carbon tax is taking a significant portion of provincial revenue out of what we initially learned in the March 4 budget. I’m wondering if this means any changes that are not included in the budget documents that may include changes to the Ministry of Labour budget or if there are any risks of change in the future.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just need to correct the number that I gave in the previous answer. Apologies. I was looking at the wrong line. The number for labour programs is $23,903,000, not $21,783,000. Apologies for that. The percentage calculation is a little rough, because it was done on the spot, but that is definitely in the neighbourhood.

I’m not aware of any changes to programs occurring.

[1:30 p.m.]

I think it’s worth, really, noting that, just with respect to the time we’re in, we know that working people are going to be and are currently being dramatically impacted by the trade war that the President of the United States is perpetrating against our country. Obviously, our government is quite seized with the potential impacts on different sectors of the economy, on workers, on the volatility, on potential disruption

by the trade war that the President of the United States is perpetrating against our country.

I mean, obviously, our government is quite seized with the potential impacts on different sectors of the economy, on workers, on the volatility, on potential disruption, on potential job loss. I know that the member is aware of the modelling that was done by our Finance Ministry in that regard.

And of course, we are very attuned in this budget to ensuring that we are doing everything that we can to protect front-line services. Certainly, in terms of our work with respect to particularly…. Ensuring that we that strong floor with respect to labour standards that the Employment Standards Act represents our ability to process disputes through the board — that has been a key priority for this government.

As I’d mentioned, we made a significant investment a couple of budget cycles ago to improve the accessibility of that process for workers. So we’ve made a significant commitment to front-line services. That’s where we sit at the moment.

Kiel Giddens: I guess I’m just trying to understand the risks of change from that April 1 policy. I recognize we are in an uncertain time, but because these are front-line services we are talking about, I think workers just want to be able to have confidence that the employment standards branch, in particular, can get their disputes heard in a timely manner. I’m trying to understand that.

I’m just wondering, again, if the minister could describe if there are any labour policy programs or the employment standards branch that might have risks to their budget being cut as a result of the April 1 change in the consumer carbon tax.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The Ministry of Labour has not received any direction with respect to changes in front-line services.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe I’ll wait for government’s guidance in the future on that. I’m sure we’ll hear more down the road from the Finance Minister.

But in the meantime, I think just understanding what is happening in the employment standards branch…. I do appreciate the labour policy and programs and employment standards branch combination of just about $24 million that the minister described.

If the minister could just maybe specify the amount specifically to the employment standards branch within that number? Then I know that the minister will recall her predecessor back in 2023 announced that the branch’s operating budget would be increased by nearly $12 million dollars over three years to hire as many as 33 more full-time employees. I just read this in a press release I recall that said: “To resolve disputes between workers and employers, provide guidance on B.C.’s employment standards and process employer registrations for temporary foreign workers.”

[1:35 p.m.]

So I’m just wondering with what the budget is for employment standards, has that $12 million been completed? Or was there a cut in this year’s budget?

I did note that the minister, I believe, noted that 182 FTEs remain the same. I’m just wondering if this was actually fulfilled or not.

The minister, I believe, noted that the 182 FTEs remain the same. I’m just wondering if this was actually fulfilled or not.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: You wanted the overall. The first number that I had given you, $21.783 million, is the employment standards branch budget for ’25-26. In 2022-23, the budget of the branch was $14 million.

We’ve seen, yes, the increases, which we had committed to, roll out over the last few budget cycles, but including even an additional amount in 2024 of about $1.4 million — again, recognizing the need for increased FTEs. That is how we wound up with the additional 40 FTEs over the last few years.

Kiel Giddens: All right, I think I can leave that, for sure, for now. I appreciate the response from the minister.

I’m sure the minister talks regularly with the B.C. Federation of Labour. In response to the budget, I just noted that they did express some concerns over what they would still characterize as underfunding of the employment standards branch and the Labour Relations Board. They were still citing long wait times and backlogs in the systems. So they did urge government to increase funding for these agencies, to continue to strengthen workplace stability and certainty.

I’m wondering if the minister can describe the impacts of underfunding these functions. What does that mean in the context of what government is aiming to do for workers and employers?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Well, I think what I would say is that our government has really stood up for working people in this province. With respect to employment standards, one of the very first actions that our government took was a critical one, and that was to eliminate the workers self-help kit, reversing a generational trend that had been brought in by the previous government to really kind of deprive working people of access to support, to be able to actually pursue dispute resolution through the employment standards branch.

That is something that had been called for by the B.C. Federation of Labour, by affiliates, by worker advocacy organizations for many, many years. We know that that made a direct and materially positive impact on working people, when they were able to access worker advisors and get more support to work through the employment standards process.

We’ve increased minimum wages.

We’ve taken the initial steps to address the development of app-based work in our province and provide the first recognition of those workers as employees and provide them with access to a floor with respect to standards of work.

We eliminated the training wage.

We set minimum ages for employment to protect youth from hazardous work, something that was lacking in this province until our government came in in 2017.

Of course, we brought in paid sick leave during the pandemic, understanding just the incredible risks that workers were under, particularly during the pandemic.

So we’ve taken a number of steps and commensurately increased the resources of the employment standards branch to be able to address those concerns that workers and employers have. Yes, of course we recognize that there’s always more to do, and the branch is working on ways of identifying how to streamline services and how to better serve the parties that rely on their services.

I think, along with the improvements that we’ve made for sort of the conditions of working people, we’ve also improved the funding so that they can access dispute resolution.

Kiel Giddens: I do recognize the government has had a very active agenda that they’ve tried to implement here, but the fact is the service plan still has a measure of targets of 80 percent, of percentage of employment standards branch complaints that are supposed to be resolved within 180 days. I know this has been a challenge that the ministry has been trying to resolve, these backlogs that have been talked about in the branch.

I’m wondering if the minister could just confirm the actual results of complaints resolved within 180 days over the last three years and what this year’s target would be.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In the last three years…. In 2022, 39 percent of complaints were resolved within 180 days. In 2023, that number was 35 percent. In 2024, it was 32 percent.

Kiel Giddens: There still is obviously a challenge that the ministry is needing to work with here to get to that 80 percent, and we’re in a bit of a trend there. I’m wondering. With that, does the ministry have a plan to mitigate this issue, going forward? I recognize that the minister is not in support of self-help tools, but what else would be the ministry’s plan to be able to resolve this?

I recognize this is probably a challenge that’s going to be one that workers who are trying to access the system — that these backlogs are creating uncertainty…. They’re also creating uncertainty for employers as these disputes are working their way through the system. If they take more than 180 days, then that’s a real challenge. I’m wondering what the ministry’s plan is to deal with this.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I want to put some of this in context with respect to the important work that staff at the employment standards branch do.

[1:50 p.m.]

The branch resolves just over 7,000 complaints a year. Over the last five years, they have recovered, on average, close to $9 million per year in wages for workers

The branch resolves just over 7,000 complaints a year. Over the last five years, they have recovered, on average, close to $9 million per year in wages for workers. There are over 112,000 calls that come in to the ESB multilingual information line, and that’s employers and workers looking for assistance.

One of the innovations that the branch is developing to try and assist with earlier intervention on resolving disputes is the introduction of an alternative dispute resolution pathway for certain kinds of complaints that meet criteria. The objective of this is really to bring a more streamlined process that brings the parties together in a more informal way through mediation to see if it’s possible to resolve their dispute in that way before advancing it to a more formal stage. Of course, it’s totally voluntary; either party can decide to participate or not.

But what we found during the pilot was that where both workers and employers participated in this pilot, more than 75 percent of complaints were able to be resolved through that process. So that is one way in which the branch is continuing to look at how to refine that, the outcome of that pilot, how that might be incorporated on an ongoing basis into the processes of the board.

And that is in addition to a number of steps that have been taken to try to improve transparency of access to the employment standards branch system, which includes a guided pathway to assist both employers and employees understand what the minimum standards are and understand where there may or may not have been breaches of the act. That’s a tool that’s available through the internet.

There is a more…. The internet is more accessible than in the past. There are some new internal administrative tools, including a new case management information system that’s meant to help staff streamline their internal processes, a new investigation process to meet the new legislative direction that was implemented by our government in the last mandate.

The branch is always looking for ways to improve processes in order to improve processes in order to improve the timelines. I would say that one of the good metrics, for sure, that we see through the branch is that over 80 percent of complaints are resolved within 120 days once they are assigned to an investigator.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response.

I would like to learn more about that alternative dispute resolution pilot and find out if that is going to be something that can move the needle on this, because I appreciate the minister providing the 120-day stat that was just provided, but we still have the case where 68 percent of cases are not resolved within that 180 days.

A quick question: is that pilot on that alternative dispute resolution something that is forthcoming, soon to be expanded further? What’s the long-term plan for that?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The ADR pilot concluded at the end of 2024, and changes have been made to how the branch operates, to integrate the alternative dispute resolution mechanism into the work of the branch. There is an intake team of ten people, who are working with all the ESB investigators, and that team is dealing with scheduling over 40 resolution meetings every week.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for that response. Just on the complaints, it sounds like there is pretty rigorous tracking. I’m wondering if, for the last four years, it could be broken down by industry sector. I think that’s something that previous critics have also been provided. I’m wondering if the minister could provide the number of complaints made, by industry sector, for the last four years.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This is an area where the critic and I are both, maybe, aligned in our data nerd tendencies. It’s also one of the first questions that I asked when I became the Minister of Labour. Unfortunately, while I appreciate that previous critics have asked for this specific data in previous rounds of estimates, we’re actually not able to produce a report, given the limitations on the data system within the branch.

The data that the investigators and the officers are working with is what is self-disclosed by the workers. They may or may not disclose what sectors they’re in. It can be very difficult to go back and try and figure that out. I appreciate that this is really a limitation on our understanding of which sectors of the economy we see more violations of the employment standards branch in.

It’s something that we’ve identified internally. I’d be more than happy — as we are working through this issue and, hopefully, making some progress on being able to collect more refined data — to commit, certainly, to sharing that as it becomes available.

[2:00 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Madam Chair, I appreciate the nerd alert moment that we’ve just had between the minister and me, and I appreciate her response.

I think that data is going to be critical. If we’re going to look for material improvements to the employment

as it becomes available.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the nerd alert moment that we’ve just had between the minister and I, and I appreciate her response.

I think that data is going to be critical. If we’re going to look for a material improvement to the employment standards branch, I would agree with the minister that data and tracking and making sure that we can understand where the pinch points are is going to be really important. So I’d be pleased to follow up when there are updates on that and stay in touch with the minister on that topic.

I’m going to move on away from the employment standards branch onto a different topic. Just noting in the minister’s mandate letter, of course, it includes the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour. The letter says the focus is to “support the development and maintenance of relationships with organized labour to ensure their feedback is considered in policy development.”

I met, obviously, the parliamentary secretary, and I know she has strong labour roots and has exposed that in the House and made sure that folks are aware, and she’s likely doing a great job. Can the minister explain what the budget and deliverables of the parliamentary secretary are?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to be clear, there’s no separate budget for the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary works under the very small budget that we run the minister’s office operations out of.

I think, as the member would have been aware, our parliamentary secretary was on maternity leave, albeit for a very brief time, during the spring session. It’s been a very, very exciting and active spring session for the parliamentary secretary, who also serves as the military families liaison, which is a very important role, given the parliamentary secretary’s connection to the Navy, given her location and given that her community is in Esquimalt, where military services are located.

We’re actually just still really in the process of working out the work plan for what the specific work of the PS will be. Certainly, there are many, many opportunities for engagement with partners and stakeholders through this ministry, more than the minister would be able to accommodate in their calendar.

It would be my expectation that the parliamentary secretary will aid in ensuring that we have really good outreach to all of our partners on the specific issues that I’m mandated to be focusing on in my mandate letter.

[2:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that update and will look forward to seeing the work plan when it becomes available.

I do appreciate the parliamentary secretary’s role as the military liaison for the New Democrat caucus as well. The member from Prince George–Valemount is the military liaison for the Conservative caucus, so that’s great to see that there’s a

Kiel Giddens: Appreciate that update, and we’ll look forward to seeing the workplan when it becomes available. I do appreciate the parliamentary secretary’s role as the military liaison for the New Democrat caucus as well. The member for Prince George–Valemount is the military liaison for the Conservative caucus, so that’s great to see that there’s alignment and need that…. That relationship should be should exist.

Maybe, going forward, and considering the role of the parliamentary secretary, I’m just wondering why there isn’t a similar function to engage with employers. There is obviously, as the minister noted, a wide range of stakeholders and different types of employer groups, different types of employer-employee relationships. Some of those may be with union-affiliated workplaces; some not.

I’m wondering why the role couldn’t have been focused on sort of that broad employer-employee relationship, as I note that the top line in the mandate letters to all ministers was to grow the economy by creating good jobs across British Columbia. I do note that employers play a key role in their relationships with their employees, with workers and vice-versa. That’s where some of that top-line mandate is actually going to be met. I’m wondering why there isn’t an equal focus on employers.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just want to be clear that there is really no disproportionate sort of emphasis on one group of stakeholders or another. And of course, as I said in my opening and as has been my experience throughout my career in labour relations, it really is all about relationships. We are as successful as the relationships that we have in trying to work through differences of opinion that we may have, in order to arrive at what is, hopefully, a good common outcome.

That is always the approach that I have taken into the work I have done with employers. And I’ve certainly taken that into my work in government. I have met with the B.C. Business Council, with construction sector employers, both regional associations as well as COCO. And I met with those employer organizations many, many times when I was Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I met with Restaurants B.C. I met with individual restaurant owners, greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, Uber, DoorDash.

I have spent a considerable amount of time working with, meeting with and hearing from the employer community. I absolutely understand the importance of all stakeholders who have touchpoints with this ministry. Additionally, the senior staff of this ministry have those connections.

With respect to the work of the parliamentary secretary, you may be aware that in the previous mandate, the parliamentary secretary was really focused on work that our government had prioritized around gig work in particular. Again, where there are sort of smaller, discrete projects, the parliamentary secretary can be certainly available to assist with those. But I would say there is absolutely no intention for there to be any disproportionate emphasis on one stakeholder or another in this ministry.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the minister. I would hope that there is a balance in some of those differing viewpoints and making sure that those are being taken into account. I’m going to move on from there.

[2:10 p.m.]

Of course, there was a labour code review conducted last year with submissions that were due last August. I’m wondering if the minister could provide an update on when the labour code review panel report can be expected to be released.

Of course, there was a labour code review conducted last year with the submissions that were due last August. I’m wondering if the minister could provide an update on when the labour code review panel report can be expected to be released.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thanks to the member for the question.

I appreciate that there has been some distance between when the code review was submitted and today, and really that, I will say, it is in large part a function of the timing of the code review. It was struck, did its work over the summer and reported in just as we were coming up to writ drop, and of course we were into interregnum. And then we had a new minister, and then we had a new deputy, and then we had January 4 and the launching of the trade war by the government of the U.S.

So it is true that our attentions have been focused on some broader issues. However, I appreciate the interest and the desire for everyone across the labour relations community to see what the panel’s recommendations were and have an opportunity to comment on that report.

It will be out very soon. I would say it would be my intention that the report would be out to the community by early summer so there would be an opportunity for some time for folks to respond on it before we determine the disposition of the recommendations that are there.

Kiel Giddens: I actually very much appreciate the ballpark timing. I think that’s useful. I’ve had many, many questions from various groups about this topic. Timing-wise, going forward from that…. I’m just wondering if the minister has already had a chance to review the report and if legislative changes from the recommendations can be expected this fall? Or would that be at a later date?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: That is too soon. There will be determinations about that down the road.

Kiel Giddens: I guess part of the reason I’m asking, again, is there’s just lots of interest and questions about this topic, and part of that stems from the fact that the government has sometimes chosen to diverge from the review panel recommendations. For example, the minister will recall, in 2022, their removal of the two-step certification in introduction of card check was actually not what the panel recommended.

I’m wondering how organizations or the public can actually really trust the review panel process at all if the government is going to ignore some of these recommendations and go a different direction.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Well, I would just say that the report will come out, the recommendations will be there and then we’ll make a determination about how we move forward in the context of what is in my mandate letter, what our government’s priorities are and what we hear from stakeholders.

Kiel Giddens: Another recommendation that was ignored was actually one that came out last year in Bill 9. This was a labour code change in a miscellaneous statutes bill, but it was in the middle of when this labour code review panel was out for consultation. So it made many organizations pause to wonder why they were making recommendations and the submissions into this process.

The amendment in this case, of course…. The amendment to the definition of “strike” gave provincial regulated employees a bit more of a free pass to engage in mid-contract strikes in response to federal pickets that the Labour Relations Board can’t actually regulate.

[2:15 p.m.]

And during a time when we do have that significant economic risk that we talked about, particularly around trade, this legislative change to the code has also actually increased labour relations pressure at critical infrastructure like our ports, our railways. And so this change

risk that we talked about, particularly around trade. This legislative change to the code has also actually increased labour relations pressure at critical infrastructure like our ports and our railways. This change could have the potential to significantly worsen the impacts of federal strikes on our economy.

Again, I wonder how the public can really trust that the government is keeping our economic interests at heart, if they’re ignoring these labour code review panel recommendations to implement some more politically motivated agenda — legislation, in this case.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: It’s my understanding that it has long been the practice, in fact, in British Columbia for provincial unions to respect federal picket lines and that, as a result of a dispute in the federal arena at the ports, the Labour Relations Board made a decision clarifying that there was, in fact, a gap in the code in that regard.

We moved to close that gap, so that we could codify what in fact was the long-standing practice in the province. I think that it is really about ensuring that there’s a level playing field, that there’s clarity and that there’s some predictability about which rights are being exercised in which arena.

Kiel Giddens: Being newer to the Legislature, I would appreciate just an update, maybe, on when that code change happened, which the government chose to change last year. When was it taken out of the previous practice in British Columbia?

Then maybe a follow-up to that: I’m wondering if the Ministry of Labour conducted an economic risk assessment of Bill 9 changes, now that we’re focused on Team Canada and overall risks to B.C.’s economic future — if this has been revisited at all.

[2:20 p.m.]

or if this has been revisited at all.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to clarify that it has been the long-standing practice in the province to interpret the code as…. It’s my understanding that it was the long-standing practice to interpret the code in British Columbia as allowing provincially regulated workers, who are also co-located with federally regulated workers, to respect picket lines if they were set up by federal workers, if it was a federal picket line.

The labour board decision that I’m referencing changed that practice, altered that practice, and pointed to a gap in the code that government then corrected in the way that you’ve identified.

I want to be clear that what we are speaking about here is federally regulated worksites where there are also provincially regulated workers who are covered by the provincial labour code. So it’s a fairly narrow application.

With respect to the impact of this, we have not received any concerns about any actual impact of this since the change was made in 2022.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll have to learn more about this, but now I’ll appreciate the update from the minister. I’ll have to dig into that a little bit more as I’m learning the file.

[2:25 p.m.]

As I referenced already, in 2022 the government passed Bill 10, which made it significantly easier to unionize in the province by eliminating secret ballot votes for a union who demonstrates 55 percent or more employees who’ve signed membership cards. So secret ballot votes are only now required if 45 to 54 percent of members have signed cards. I’m wondering.

significantly easier to unionize in the province by eliminating secret-ballot votes for a union that demonstrates 55 percent or more employees who’ve signed membership cards. Secret-ballot votes are only now required if 45 to 54 percent of members have signed cards.

I’m wondering: since this change, how many unions were certified by a secret-ballot vote, compared to card check? Can the minister break that information down by year?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for 2023, which is the most recent full data available with respect to the number of certifications granted, there were a total of 194 certifications.

With respect to single-step certifications, there were 152 that were granted without objection; there were 27 granted after an objection was resolved. There were ten certifications that were granted after a representation vote, and five granted after a representation vote after there had been an objection resolved. That data is on page 22 of the LRB 2023 report.

[2:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the specific numbers. I’m going to go through those in further detail, likely, afterwards, but the specific page reference from the minister is also useful. So thank you for that.

I guess when government made the change.... Maybe it would be good to understand how these numbers.... Is this kind of what was expected from the Labour Relations Board as part of this change?

the specific page reference is also useful from the minister, so thank you for that.

I guess, when government made the change…. And maybe it would be good to understand how these numbers…. Is this kind of what was expected from the Labour Relations Board as part of this change? I’m wondering what specific evidence, really, the ministry relied on to…. As I understand, the rationale at the time was saying that….

That the previous process for union certification was undemocratic or prone to employer interference were a couple of the rationales used. I’m wondering what evidence the ministry used to conclude that.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would say that, just to start my response to this question, it’s important to note that the right for an individual in Canada to join a union is a constitutional right. It is a right pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has been much consideration of this question by the Supreme Court of Canada, and I think that’s an important frame for this discussion.

When it comes to the work that the labour code review panel conducted in 2018, there was significant evidence presented by many unions, by workers. There was a lot of testimony about their experience of employer interference during union drives, which in some cases either prevented employees from even considering pursuing unionization as an option or had frustrated the process.

[2:35 p.m.]

When it came to the panel’s recommendation to keep two-step but monitor for employer interference — which would have been a terrific administrative burden, incidentally — government was of the view that the evidence was sufficient to warrant acknowledging that when an individual makes a decision to sign a union card, they at that time are making their decision. And that the gap in time between signing a card and waiting for a secondary process to validate that decision provides an

at time are making their decision, and that the gap in time between signing a card and waiting for a secondary process to validate that decision provides an opportunity for some frustration of that right.

I want to say here that I’ve spent lots of time with lots of different employers over the course of my career, not only public sector employers, where in some respects the labour relations environment is much more straightforward. I do not in any way want to suggest that for those employers who do interfere with an individual’s constitutional right to join a union, that is representative of employers generally. It certainly isn’t.

I would say that…. And certainly what the board saw was a significant increase to unfair…. What we’ve seen is an increase, certainly since single-step certification, in actual certification numbers, which says, I think, that workers are better able to exercise that right.

I just want to observe from my own personal experience that, particularly in privatized health services, I met with many workers whose right to join a union was absolutely frustrated by employers who were afraid in their working conditions. I don’t want to suggest, again, that that is representative.

I know of that evidence firsthand. I participated in that 2018 labour code review at that time as a stakeholder and heard much of the testimony that was offered. I would say that since those changes have been made — while, yes, we have seen an increase in certifications overall — I haven’t seen or haven’t heard particular concerns other than we have some delays at the board, which we may have an opportunity to canvass for sure.

In terms of how the mechanism is working, I have not had significant concerns or been aware of significant concerns being expressed to this office.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Minister for the response. I realize she comes from personal background and experience in concerns over employer interference, but this is an issue that’s personal to me as well.

I’ve got a family business that’s been going for 111 years in Kamloops, and this is something that I saw the last time this policy was in place. There was significant…. In our small business…. It’s an appliance and electronics repair business in Kamloops. This almost broke this business from this change in the 1990s. My Dad is trying to keep this business open to provide good jobs for his employees. My uncles work there. I worked there as a kid.

But I remember certain coercion from employees who were trying to drive to unionize, and my dad and my uncles laid out the facts that the business couldn’t survive because it was too small. It also wasn’t a business where this is extreme profit-taking. This is a very modest family business.

This is a personal topic to me actually. I go back to the fact that we have democratic rights that are also constitutionally protected. I appreciate that it is the right to join a union. That’s constitutionally protected. There’s also a right not to within that. There’s nothing forcing us to do so.

With that, maybe a very simple answer. Does the minister believe that eliminating the secret ballot is more democratic than requiring a confidential vote?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Minister for a

believe that eliminating the secret ballot is more democratic than requiring a confidential vote?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for a simple response.

I know we will agree to disagree on the policy position and move forward from here, but I would like to ask a few follow-up questions related to this policy.

So as the Labour Relations Board is navigating their piece in it as well…. Has the ministry conducted any post-implementation analysis on whether the card-check model has increased coercion or peer pressure among workers during union drives? And if that is the case at all, will the minister consider any other options for this policy?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What I would say is that I think that one of the important features of the labour relations system in British Columbia that really dates back to Paul Wheeler and the 1970s when the infrastructure of the current labour relations board and system was set up is that balance of employer interests and worker interests.

I think that our labour relations system in the province sometimes has…. There has tended to be at times a bit of a pendulum swing, and it has worked more effectively in balance at certain times than at other times. But I would say on the whole, looking at the whole history since Paul Wheeler established the current approach that we have to labour relations, that we’ve been pretty successful in trying to maintain that balance.

I appreciate the member’s story and experience. I come from an environment where democracy is a very, very deep-seated value in the workers I’ve worked with, the organizations I’ve worked with and represented over the course of the years.

I think that we should have faith in the Labour Relations Board to conduct their statutory obligations under the code with respect to allegations of unfairness in the process, whether they come from the employer’s side or the worker’s side or the union’s side, because we do have processes to resolve those disputes where there are allegations of improper conduct under the code. We have processes in place.

We can take this question away to look at whether there’s been a particular uptick in cases of one sort or the other, in this respect, around certifications. We don’t have that information right here, but we can check with the board on that.

But again, I would say that we have really striven, I think, in this province, and I think our government has really placed a priority on absolutely having a balance. I think that that is borne out in how the board functions and the kind of experience that both employers and workers are having at the LRB.

Kiel Giddens: As I’m learning this as well, I would appreciate understanding some of those processes that the board goes through. If there are any updates or examples that could be shared today, that would be useful.

At the same time, I do think that making sure that there are fair processes…. The board is in place as…. This is a quasi-judicial board. It’s very important that this is being done fairly.

I’m wondering if the ministry or the board has ever audited a union-card-signing process. We obviously want to make sure…. The minister talked about wanting to prevent employer interference, but I also want to make sure employee coercion isn’t becoming another challenge here.

[2:45 p.m.]

I wonder if any audits have actually been done to make sure that it’s not happening. If not, then, perhaps, why?

I wonder if any audits have actually been done to make sure that it’s not, in case, happening. And if not, then perhaps why.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I can say that, yes, absolutely, the investigators who work for the Labour Relations Board and who are responsible for working with the parties when an application is received, absolutely do have the ability to audit membership cards. And they do, in certain circumstances, audit membership cards.

Again, because the Labour Relations Board is a neutral arbiter of the code, they take that responsibility very seriously and want to ensure that there is fairness on all sides, with respect to their responsibilities.

I can offer to the member, as well, that we have not seen any significant increase in unfair labour disputes, for example, since single-site certification was brought in. Those numbers are just really flat in terms of what the board reports out, Again, that information is available in the board’s annual report.

I would be happy to offer the member a briefing with the chair of the Labour Relations Board to understand more clearly how the board operates, how the board fulfills its obligations under the labour code, which are very, very strict with respect to ensuring administrative fairness in their proceedings.

Jennifer Blatherwick: It appears to the chair that the exchange has strayed from matters that are canvassed, generally, during estimates process, so I encourage the committee to focus on matters that are directly related to the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

Kiel Giddens: Sure, and my follow-up questions are related to costs at the Labour Relations Board, so I’m going to continue. But I do appreciate that, Madam Chair.

I do appreciate the minister’s offer for a briefing with the chair of the board. I did work in the Labour Minister’s office previously, so I am aware of the function. I was the acting chief of staff for a period, as well. But I have not had the chance to meet with the current chair so would appreciate and take the minister up on that, certainly.

Just, maybe, we’ll move on from this line of questioning and get into the board’s costs and caseloads.

[2:50 p.m.]

Just very quickly. Has the board received any funding increases to manage caseloads, backlogs or appeals? I am hearing that there are backlogs happening. I agree that when a grievance is filed or a dispute on a raid or something like that, all of those decisions are before the board.

backlogs or appeals. I am hearing that there are backlogs happening, and I agree that when a grievance is filed — or a dispute on a raid or something like that — all of those decisions are before the board.

Has there been any increase in that caseload, and what does that look like? What actually is the wait time to get in to see the board at this time?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: For the member’s benefit, of course — he’ll know, having worked in the Labour office some time ago — the labour board is an administrative tribunal and, as such, is technically part of the operations of the board, or part of the Attorney General. It’s just why we don’t have those numbers that the member requested at our fingertips.

We can take the question on notice and provide them afterwards, but we would have to consult with the board and with the Attorney General Ministry in that regard. I should just clarify that, of course, I would certainly strongly advise and recommend to my colleague the Attorney General to facilitate a briefing between the critic and the chair of the labour board.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, I would appreciate the follow-up. Thank you for the offer from the minister on that. I’m just noting that there are a number of public sector collective agreements that are up for renegotiation this year. I’m wondering if the ministry has allocated funds specifically for supporting or mediating major public sector negotiations.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to say that public sector bargaining comes under the Ministry of Finance, and any questions regarding public sector bargaining would be appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll certainly follow up in the Finance Ministry estimates on that.

With that, maybe, Chair, would it be okay to take a brief recess? I’m going to move to a different topic: WorkSafe. So I thought, perhaps for the minister’s benefit as well, that maybe a brief recess might be okay.

The Chair: The chair deeply appreciates the suggestion by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. We will take a ten-minute recess. Please return at 3:05.

The committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.

please return at 3:05.

The committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.

The committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Supply, Section A, back to order for the Ministry of Labour. Recognizing the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair to join this afternoon’s discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

Actually, before I get into questions here, I’m going to start maybe discussing the important provincial agency of WorkSafeBC. It’s a unique agency, certainly. It’s entirely funded by employer premiums, so it is unique, but I know that the Ministry of Labour does have oversight, and the legislation exists within the ministry, and it is critical.

As I said off the top of my remarks, I think we can certainly agree that we want to prevent worksite accidents from happening, to begin with. No one should fall ill or be injured or, heaven forbid, lose their life simply because they went to work that day. Maybe just to start off the discussion on this I’ll give the minister, since this is her first year in the role, a bit of a chance to describe the ministry’s role in overseeing WorkSafeBC and how that’s reflected in the budget. Also, how many workers were covered, in total, in the province in the last year?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Can I just clarify that last point from the member? How many workers were covered, in what respect?

Kiel Giddens: Sorry, maybe I can clarify that a little bit further for the minister. Does WorkSafeBC include the entire number of workers in the province that have ability to access the important workers compensation system that we have?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’ll just start by first noting that we’ve been joined by the WorkSafe team, who are just, again: Kevin Lafreniere, head of stakeholder experience, marketing and communications; Todd McDonald, the head of prevention services; Mark Heywood, head of assessments, finance and chief financial officer; and Tanya Houghton, senior director, health care and specialized claim services. They will be providing the technical advice to me during this section of our discussion.

The member asked: what is the Labour Ministry’s and the Labour Minister’s role and relationship with WorkSafeBC? I think, before I get there, I just wanted to also take an opportunity to highlight the critical importance of worker safety, I think to all of us, the critical role that WorkSafe plays in that regard and the historical sort of evolution of how WorkSafe as the regulatory body for workers’ injury and illness claims came to be.

I know the member will probably be familiar with some of this story, but our very first Workers’ Compensation Act in British Columbia was developed in 1902. A further act came into being in 1917, at a time when, across the country, there was a discussion aboutboth how to protect workers from workplace injury but also how to deal with what happened to workers when they were injured at work.

I think we all know about the dangers of industrialization, of the industrial revolution and the kinds of circumstances that many workers found themselves in, particularly in British Columbia. I mean, we had one of the very worst industrial disasters in 1887 in Nanaimo at the No. 1 Esplanade mine, where 150 workers died as a result of an explosion of coal dust.

Today, we know, and the member was referencing earlier, that we just marked, commemorated the annual Day of Mourning, which is a national opportunity to pause and reflect, all of us together, on those lives that were lost over the previous year and to really recommit to doing everything that we can to make sure that every single worker comes home safe at the end of their shift. Last year we lost 146 workers, and that’s 146 too many. We all, I know, agree on that point.

The evolution of workers compensation was really influenced by work that was done here in the 1910s by William Meredith, who really challenged this notion that there was sort of a joint negligence approach. He really kind of, in doing his work for the Ontario government that wound up becoming the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Act, really shifted the debate to one of a more mutual insurance approach. We really recognized that it was important that we work together and that we provide a collective approach to ensuring workers at work.

In exchange for the establishment of a framework, of a process in which…. There was the establishment of a board to oversee the collection of funds, to ensure the establishment of reserves, and then to assess employers and companies based on kind of the degree of hazard of various industries.

[3:15 p.m.]

This board would then be responsible for paying claims to workers if they were injured or acquired an illness at work and, of course, the whole system of pensions that also kind of evolved from that.

and companies based on the degree of hazard of various industries, and that this board would then be responsible for paying claims to workers if they were injured or acquired an illness at work. And of course, the whole system of pensions also evolved from that.

In exchange for that system, workers surrendered their right to sue employers for damages under common law. I think this is a very critical point that we cannot forget, because it is actually at the very heart — it continues today to be at the very heart — of how this no-fault insurance system operates for workers. Workers do not have the right to sue.

We’ve invested in this system to do everything that we can to keep working people safe at work. And I mean, we are always learning new things and learning better ways, and technology opens up new pathways for safer work all the time. But I think that framing is a critical one to never forget.

WorkSafe, what has eventually become WorkSafe, is the regulatory agency for workers’ compensation in British Columbia. It operates under the Workers Compensation Act. It’s an independent agency, and it has the mandate and the statutory obligation to, essentially, oversee what is a no-fault insurance system.

The Ministry of Labour is responsible for the WorkSafe Act, in terms of…. Its statutory home is with the Ministry of Labour. We do ongoing work and ongoing dialogue with WorkSafeBC with respect to the safety of working people across the province.

That ranges from issues with respect to current concerns or current problems that may be emerging and providing an indication of policy advice on what areas are particularly important to working also as a convener between different ministries and WorkSafe, because of course there are a number of different areas of government that interface with WorkSafe and there are a number of different issues that require cross-ministry involvement. I would point to crane safety as an area where there’s a lot of interest and discussion happening amongst different parts of government right now. That’s something that, certainly, I’m quite concerned about.

So that is the relationship between WorkSafe and government.

In the 2024 year, the number of workers covered by WorkSafe was 2.7 million. That is, about 99 percent of British Columbia’s workers are covered by WorkSafe. The WorkSafe Act articulates what is a worker and an independent contractor. If an individual is working as an independent contractor, they are not considered a worker. So 99 percent of people working in British Columbia are covered, and there are 285,000 employers registered with WorkSafe.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for a very fulsome history of WorkSafe. I think that’s helpful for the public and certainly helpful for some of the colleagues that may be new to the Legislature, private members that may be here today.

Just for the minister’s benefit — perhaps she has seen it — I was recently on the Knowledge Network, and there was a documentary that went into B.C.’s labour history. It was quite a fascinating…. It talked about some of those exact same pieces that were just described.

[3:20 p.m.]

So for all members and the public benefit, that might be something worth getting from the Legislative Library, just to learn a little bit more about….

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Dad vibes.

Kiel Giddens: Dad vibes. Yeah, exactly.

And I appreciate something else the minister really said that hit

something worth getting from the Legislative Library, just to learn a little bit more about….

Interjection.

Kiel Giddens: Dad vibes. Yeah, exactly.

I appreciate something else the minister really said that, you know, hits all of us close to home. I’m thinking about someone dying simply because they went to work. The number of 146 workers, I agree, is too many.

In one of my early jobs in my career, I was attending the University of B.C., and I worked as a research assistant for a professor in the department of forest resource management. The first task I was given was to do research related to an increase in fatalities in the forestry sector, particularly in the tree-felling and logging side of the business.

Obviously, there was a trend at that time, something that had materially changed. It was at the time of the mountain pine beetle uplift in logging activity and some changes that were happening in the industry. It was important to get on top of it.

I do think for that, as we’re looking at trends, I think that one year there were 175 fatalities; last year there were 146. Over those two years — maybe it even could be spread over three years, if that’s easier — are there rate classifications that we can point to? Can those 146 be broken down further into what areas those fatalities actually took place in — maybe just with that example in mind that I used in the forestry sector there?

I know that WorkSafe does have different classifications, obviously. If the minister could provide a little bit more granular update, I think that would be helpful for the House.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the member’s question about which specific classification units and which specific classifications there are, I don’t know. There are hundreds of actual classifications under WorkSafe, and then those classifications are refined into broader sectoral areas.

[3:25 p.m.]

We don’t have, just at our fingertips, how those 146 fatalities are broken down by sector, because the tendency within WorkSafe is to look at the nature of the injury or illness. What I can say to the member is that in 2024

how those 146 fatalities are broken down by sector, because the tendency within WorkSafe is to look at the nature of the injury or illness.

What I can say to the member is that in 2024, there were 37 deaths due to asbestos-related disease. Of course, those are actual incidents that would have occurred, in many cases, decades ago potentially. And the member will be aware that there are many workers who were exposed to asbestos over the course of their careers that are in surveillance programs and are tested regularly and wait for the news about whether or not they have an asbestos-related disease.

There were 41 deaths due to other diseases. The occupational cancers, for example, would be covered under that category. Under occupational disease, a total of 78. There were 30 deaths attributed to motor vehicle incidents and 38 attributed to other traumatic injuries. Those would be falls, for example, and those would be the kinds of injuries that you would see in construction at times, in forestry at times.

With respect to the technical team’s observation about the sectors where we tend to see the highest number of fatalities, it does tend to be construction — that is in part due to the latency related to asbestos-related diseases — and transportation with respect to where we’re seeing traumatic injuries. We can provide more refined data with respect to sectors, if that’s helpful to the member.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for that breakdown. I’m going to learn about some of the WorkSafe, remind myself of some of the WorkSafe terminology, going forward, to make sure I can explain their various classifications properly, so I appreciate that update and clarification.

Since the minister raised in her opening remarks, crane safety, I’m maybe going to start there. Obviously, as we look at what fatalities happened in the province…. I know many of them were asbestos-related, but for some of the others, obviously, we want to start looking into the prevention side and what steps we can take as a province. So maybe crane safety is a good place for us to start on that topic. It’s one that I know we have discussed a little bit already.

It has been, of course, nearly four years since the tragic crane collapse in Kelowna that claimed five lives. For members from Kelowna, I know this would have hit pretty close to home for folks, those friends and family and all indeed in the community there.

I know that WorkSafe completed its investigation back in May of 2023 but has not released the report. They’ve cited ongoing legal proceedings, but the family, industry and stakeholders and the public are still really wanting to know what learnings need to happen from that particular incident, since it was pretty unprecedented and devastating.

I’m wondering what steps the ministry is taking to ensure the timely release of this report and to really inform some of these safety improvements that could be needed.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the Kelowna crane incident, I just want to reflect on how incredibly moving and heartbreaking it was to stand with Cailen Vilness’s father, Chris, at the Day of Mourning ceremony and to hear firsthand from Mr. Vilness about the impact of losing Chris on their family, and of course, not just Chris, but the four other workers who were killed in that incident. I know that the whole province mourns with the community in Kelowna at that monumental and terrible, terrible loss.

With respect to the report, the RCMP investigated, WorkSafe investigated. The RCMP have, as I understand it, referred their report to the B.C. prosecution service for a determination about charges, and the Crown has requested that WorkSafe not release their investigation report until a determination is made about charges. That’s really to protect the integrity of the judicial process with respect to the determination of charges.

I just want to say that I understand it’s been four years. I understand it’s a long time. I understand it’s hard for the families to wait for the answers. But, in these incidents, it is so important that we allow the judicial process to unfold with its full integrity so that, as they go forward, we can respond appropriately and learn what we need to learn from that process.

I will say that, of course, it’s not as though anyone has waited to implement learnings from the investigation, because we know that it is critical to act on what we know. That’s kind of the precautionary principle, right? We know what we know. Know better, do better, is the approach.

[3:35 p.m.]

That incident spurred a number of regulatory changes to ensure that we improve the safety of workers who are both operating cranes and operating the rigging associated with cranes. There has been a

is the approach. That incident spurred a number of regulatory changes to ensure that we improve the safety of workers who are both operating cranes and operating the rigging associated with cranes.

There has been a notice of project provision put in place to require that when cranes are being put up on sites, there is notice to WorkSafe so that they can be inspected. There has been a significant increase in the number of inspections of cranes. There has been, also, an increased number of resources added to WorkSafe’s internal crane safety team in order to ensure that there’s more support to operators, to employers and to ensure that there’s more oversight of crane safety across the province.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the response.

I do think it’s so important that we learn from these incidents. Obviously, we’ve talked about this tragic incident in Kelowna, but the Oakridge incident last year…. Again, we’re aligned on trying to make sure that we prevent these incidents from happening.

I recognize some of these new regulations that have come into effect, like the notice of project that came into effect last October. But there are still some concerns about the adequacy of the measures.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide a little bit more detail on how WorkSafe is monitoring the implementation of these regulations, since they are new. Are there plans to assess their effectiveness?

I recognize that the minister referenced the fact that there are a lot of cranes — by what I’ve been told, up to around 400 cranes — operating across the province. It sounds there are resources being allocated, but maybe the minister could elaborate a little bit more, put some numbers into that. How many resources are there that WorkSafe has added to this, and how is that implementation actually happening to inform these improvements?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the work that WorkSafe undertook in light of the Kelowna tragedy, there was the pulling together, really, of the construction sector — a number of stakeholders, labour representatives, tower crane operators, employers, prime contractors, rental companies, the B.C. Association for Crane Safety — to really look at what measures needed to be taken immediately in order to improve crane safety across the province.

The work of those 150 people who got together resulted in the initial development of a crane safety program, which led to some regulatory change, such as the notice of project provision, an increase in the inspection team from 10 to 17 FTEs and a significant increase in the number of inspections. I can just tell you that in 2019, for example, there were 763 inspection reports. In 2024, there were 1,001.

I think what’s really significant, though, is what we’re seeing in terms of increased orders, because the process of a WorkSafe officer writing an order, having found a violation and writing an order identifying a problem that an employer has to correct, that number has increased significantly. There were 310 orders written in 2019. There were 802 orders written in 2024.

I will just say that I think with respect to… There was also, I will just note, a process implemented to require the certification of crane operators. And I will say that there certainly is more work to do in this regard to ensure that we have of all of the…. And the member rightly identified approximately somewhere between 350-400 tower cranes in operation across the province but probably an equal number of other kinds of cranes as well, mobile cranes, gantry cranes, etc., a number of other sorts of cranes also in operation.

I would just say that we have, our government has a very ambitious agenda to build B.C. We need more hospitals, more schools, more mines, more bridges, more of everything. That work of actually building British Columbia absolutely relies on skilled trades, and it relies on cranes. We know the cranes have got to be safe, and the crane operators have got to be supported.

I assure you that, from my perspective and where I sit in this ministry, that is the direction to WorkSafe, that this is a top priority. We’re going to make this occupation safe in British Columbia.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that fulsome answer. I do think it’s something that we have to monitor pretty vigilantly. I’ve spoken with both labour groups, employer groups, and I know that there’s a lot of — everyone is on the same page that this is an issue that we need to put some extra attention on right now.

Just with cranes operating in the province, some of them are components that are built from different jurisdictions, for example, and making sure that each crane is... So I think know some of the steps are good, but let’s keep on this, I think, together as a province, so appreciate that.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m going to just move forward a little bit more quickly, noting the time, where we’re at right now. So I’m going to skip a little bit of what I was intending to cover, but I’d like to get into…. Obviously, we have this

I appreciate that.

I’m going to move forward a little bit more quickly, noting the time and where we’re at right now. I’m going to skip a little bit of what I was intending to cover, but I’d like to get into…. Obviously we have this workers compensation system. It’s important that it’s there for workers when they need it. It’s also important to understand that for employers, this is a fund that’s financed entirely by their premiums. So it’s important to really have a discussion about what what’s going on.

Can the minister maybe provide the current value of WorkSafeBC’s reserve fund and how much was collected in employer premiums last year?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to be clear about, again, the structure, the framework that WorkSafe operates in as the regulatory body responsible for workers compensation…. Again, I’ll just take us back to the great compromise and the fact that the reason why WorkSafe is funded by worker premiums is because workers don’t have a right to sue their employers.

That is always, I think, an important framework to bear in mind when we’re talking about what are the needs of the system, the needs of workplaces with respect to investing in prevention, in education, in inspection, in enforcement and, of course, in the provision of claims and pensions.

Last year there was $2.4 billion collected in premiums, and the current reserve sits at $5.4 billion.

Kiel Giddens: I understand some of the history, and we’ve talked about that, but I think it is important for us to put this in context — that this is employers paying into it. We want a sustainable fund, but we also want it to be fair for all who are, especially…. It essentially ends up being from the employers’ side. What they pay on their payroll rolls into this, so it’s, in effect, a payroll tax on their part.

[3:50 p.m.]

So it is making sure that we have a fair model for them that is going to be there for workers, but in a time when we’re in this economic uncertainty, we want to make sure that those jobs are actually going to be there, that those employers aren’t going to go out of business. Are we doing the things that we can?

I know we canvassed this in question period, but I would like to ask again about the WorkSafeBC premiums and the surplus funds. The surplus — it does belong to employers, in effect. The premiums, as I’ve talked about

Are we doing the things that we can? I know we canvassed this in question period, but I would like to ask again about the WorkSafeBC premiums and the surplus funds. The surplus does belong to employers, in effect — the premiums, as I’ve talked about.

I’m wondering. In question period, the minister said it’s not possible, but other jurisdictions have done this. Why not return surplus employer premiums to employers at this time?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I have to say I could not disagree with the member more. WorkSafe premiums are manifestly not a payroll tax — absolutely not.

Premiums are paid by employers, as part of the bargain that was struck when workers gave up their right to sue their employers for injury and illness at work. There is no way in which that can be construed as a payroll tax; that is just simply not correct.

This is an insurance system; it is a no-fault insurance system. It is based on a mutual insurance model — again, one in which workers do not sue their employers. I mean, I guess that’s an option, if we want to have that conversation about going back to those times, but this is the system that we have.

I would say that it’s a bargain at half the price for employers. Frankly, there has been a significant return to employers, in the order of $2.4 billion over the last five years, due to the very prudent management by WorkSafe of the claims rate. The rate has remained flat over the last eight years, at $1.55 per $100 of assessed payroll, when the actual cost of providing the services that are provided by WorkSafe would actually be $1.78 per $100 of assessable payroll.

WorkSafe is working very hard to provide stability and predictability to employers by taking an approach to rate-setting that smooths the rate, and it has been successful — largely due, frankly, to returns from investments, which we’ve seen in many parts of the economy. Many funds that are held, of course, have seen, in the pre-COVID period and in the COVID period, increases in investment income.

I would say that in terms of who’s benefiting here, I think that this is a good system for employers. It is a slightly different system. We have slightly different legislation here than we do in other provinces, so we have to be careful to compare apples to apples.

[3:55 p.m.]

Other provinces have higher rates; employers pay more than they do in this system. We are very committed to and interested in stability and predictability for employers, and we’re interested in doing what we can to ensure that we don’t have rate shock.

other provinces have higher rates. Employers pay more than they do in this system. We are very committed to and interested in stability and predictability for employers, and we’re interested in doing what we can to ensure that we don’t have rate shock.

I think WorkSafe is to be commended in that regard in terms of their approach.

Kiel Giddens: I guess I look at other jurisdictions in Canada that are taking a different approach. I’ll focus on Ontario. The Ontario Minister of Labour said: “In the last year, the WSIB provided historic, 50-year-low premiums to over 320,000 employers and surplus rebates to over 280,000 safe employers.” Very similar to the messages just heard, but obviously, they are going with a rebate in this case. He went on to say: “Ontario is looking to provide relief to employers through an additional distribution that will help them keep workers on the jobs whatever comes our way from President Trump.”

I think we can all agree right now we want to keep workers on the job in a time of economic uncertainty. Again, what is the difference between B.C. and Ontario in this case? Why isn’t B.C. looking at something similar?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Well, I’ll just say that with respect to Ontario, I’m not an expert on the Ontario system. I know that their legislation is considerably different than British Columbia’s. I don’t think it is a fair comparison with respect to how we are applying our approach to rates here.

I would say, for example, that in 2021, employers across the province saved $423 million by the fact that their rates were kept stable. In 2022, employers saved $368 million because their rates didn’t change. In 2023, employers saved $408 million because the rate didn’t change. In 2024, $348 million was saved. And the projected savings to employers in British Columbia for 2025 is $457 million. I would say that is a pretty good return to employers.

Absolutely, we are all invested in ensuring that we do everything we can to keep producers producing and workers working in these very challenging economic times, for sure. And we also want to make sure that we have the resources that we need to keep workers safe at work.

Kiel Giddens: I can appreciate that we’re trying to keep rates affordable here, but we are in an unprecedented economic time as well, and employers are stretched at this time. Maybe New Democrat Manitoba could be a better example. They just recently announced that eligible employers will receive a credit equivalent to 50 percent of their 2024 premium. That’s worth about $122 million that will be actually returned in a credit, so that is another option, obviously, for the government.

I look at the government’s policy at ICBC of issuing rebates. Again, this is from a Crown corporation that has an accident fund, and I’m wondering why WorkSafe’s fund in this case is being considered different from ICBC. given they are both a no-fault model. Could it not return funds to small- and medium-size employers in particular?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I want to, just in exploring this issue, really, I think, maybe disabuse folks of the notion about how any sort of a rate reduction would work.

You know, I think the problem here is that if you start rebating or cutting cheques, that’s going to large employers, right. Because we have a system….

The whole WorkSafe system is really based on hazard rating, right. I talked about that way at the beginning, the whole origins of how we determine safety risks in different industries, and their rates are set. The rates that a business actually pays are dependent on what’s the experience rating in that sector.

The basic principle, really, is that if there’s a high injury rate, those employers are paying higher premiums because they have less safe workplaces, and they’re generating more business for WorkSafe. Employers who have lower injury rates, they pay lower premiums. Really, small businesses, happily, are reasonably safe places to work in British Columbia.

If you work in an actuarial service, your rate is 16 cents per $100 of assessable payroll. If you work in accounting, it’s 16 cents of assessable payroll. Those aren’t necessarily always small businesses but, you know, often. My accountant is a sole, kind of, operator.

[4:05 p.m.]

If you work in appliance for sort of, you know, service or repair, your rate is 15 cents per assessable payroll. If you work in an auto dealership in sales and service, it’s $1.18 — still way under, kind of, the average of 1.55, right. A big-box retail store, $1 per $100 of assessable payroll; a blind manufacturer, $1.02; a carpet manufacturer, 93 cents

of $1.55, right? A big-box retail store, $1 per $100 of accessible payroll; a blind manufacturer, $1.02; a carpet manufacturer, $0.93; a computer consultant, $0.16; and a drugstore, $0.58.

I think you take my point that if you’re going to make a move on something as sensitive as the approach that WorkSafe has crafted over many years, again, to ensure stability and predictability for employers, we need to be very, very careful about what outcomes it is that you are looking for.

Again, different provinces have different approaches, legislation and targets. It happens that British Columbia and Manitoba have the same kind of target level for the accident fund. We both want it to be funded at a minimum of 130 percent. It so happens that Manitoba’s is far in excess of that right now, and ours is not. There, again, you have to be very careful to be comparing apples to apples.

What we do not want to do is start issuing cheques to big employers at that risk of having to increase rates overall for those very small businesses that we are seeking to support. There would be a very perverse and adverse outcome if we followed the advice of the member.

I guess, again, I would just come back to the importance of the prudent approach that WorkSafe has taken to manage rate-setting and to ensure that, in fact, employers have received a significant benefit — a $2.4 billion benefit over the last five years by the fact that their rates have been kept stable. There is no change: 2018 and 2025 — the same rate.

I think we want to be careful that we’re not making any moves that kind of put more pressure on future rates down the road, particularly in a time where we’ve got such economic uncertainty.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, respectfully, I think the minister and I are, perhaps, in a bit of a disagreement here on this particular topic.

The only thing is that I didn’t get an answer to the question on what makes ICBC different from WorkSafe in this case. The minister also missed the second part of my question. I wasn’t talking about large employers in this case. My question specifically was: could WorkSafe not consider returning funds to small and medium-sized employers in particular?

There are options that WorkSafe could have, and for a small and medium-sized employer, it could be the difference between someone keeping their job or not, if the employers have to make tough choices in their small business, in particular. There are other options that WorkSafe could consider as well: tiered models, rewarding companies with rebates for safety, premium discounts and rebates based on safety or things like that.

Are there other things that have been considered that could be structured into the premium program, if it’s not going to be a rebate in this case?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would just point out, again, that I…. Actually, I found in preparing for estimates, reviewing the classification and rate list really interesting reading because it does really give you a sense of the length and breadth of work that’s done in our province, in our incredible province, and it gives you a really good sense of where the riskier work is and what are the riskier workplaces.

I have to say that I did not find, in going through the classification and rate list, a whole lot of red flags around business undertakings that I think would normally be captured by the small business category. To suggest that there’s any sort of big savings there for businesses who have 15, 20, 25 cents per $100 of assessable payroll in premiums…. I don’t think that’s where the savings are for anyone and, again, at the risk of destabilizing WorkSafe’s approach to rate setting, which could result in higher rates for everybody down the road.

I would say that these are issues that the board takes into serious consideration when they undergo their statutory responsibility to determine rate setting, which they do every year, which they consult with the community on, with the province on. They’ll be doing that for setting the 2026 rate in the coming months.

I would just note, as well, that…. I mean, frankly, there are ways that employers can lower their premium costs. They can create safe workplaces. That is the number one driver of a low rate cost: a safe workplace.

They can work to, you know, support workers’ return to work in a timely way. That also reduces claim costs and therefore reduces their experience rating. We know, of course, there’s a delicate balance here when it comes to return to work. We don’t want to be pushing workers to return before they’re able to, but we also know that it’s really important to get workers back to work when we can. They do better. Workers do better if they get back to work within six months of an injury, if they’re able to.

[4:15 p.m.]

So there are ways that employers can lower those costs by ensuring that they are creating safe work environments.

All of these factors are related to how their experience rating is assessed

there are ways that employers can lower those costs by ensuring that they are creating safe work environments. All of these factors are related to how their experience rating is assessed.

Again, I think the very fact that there has been a stable rate, a rate that is below the actual cost of delivering services…. The actual cost of delivering services is $1.78 per $100 of assessable payroll, not $1.55. There is already a significant subsidy, if you will, going to the employers community by the prudent approach of WorkSafe around how they set rates.

The fact that $2.4 billion has essentially gone back into employers’ pockets, or $457 million this year…. I would say again: this is a good system for employers.

Kiel Giddens: I actually agree with one of the minister’s points on…. There are things that we can do collectively and employers can do collectively to keep premiums low and safe workplaces. But there are also things we can do collectively as a province within this context of Team Canada to help these employers actually stay in business. It’s part of the reason I’ve been asking this line of questions right now.

Maybe just moving a little bit forward, though, is the ministry or WorkSafe concerned at all that rising claim costs — particularly complex, long duration ones that could be there — are at any risk of eroding the fund’s long-term stability at this time?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’m sorry, Chair. Can I just ask for a two-minute recess?

The Chair: Absolutely. We will take a five-minute break, returning at 4:22. Thanks so much.

The committee recessed from 4:17 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:17 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, we’re back in session.

Minister, go ahead.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you, Chair.

With respect to the member’s question about the increased pressure resulting from more complex claims, it is true that WorkSafe has seen an increasing trend in the number of claims with complex injuries, particularly related to psychological injury and complex pain. Those are injuries that tend to attract higher claims costs because they tend to be longer in duration, and they tend to require more health care costs. That trend could potentially put pressure on rates in the future.

I think what we’re seeing around psychological injury in particular is part of a trend around increase in mental health claims across Canada and in many other countries. And the allow rate…. Just to note that the allow rate on psychological injury claims has increased since 2018 with the introduction of presumption and policy and practice changes that have clarified how the evidence of traumatic event and significant stressors are assessed.

And of course, we introduced psychological presumption, because we know how important it is to be supporting psychological health and safety in the workplace, and particularly for those occupations like first responders and folks who are working in situations where they are regularly exposed to traumatic events.

So for sure, this is an area that needs very close monitoring, very close support and a lot of work around supporting employers, providing employers with tools and employees with tools to maintain psychologically healthy work environments.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that answer from the minister. I think I’ve heard some of the same things around the psychological claims, so it’s something for us to monitor going forward.

I think maybe I will skip a little bit to some of the psychological claims in particular. I know this has been canvassed in past years in estimates as well, but we’ve also talked about it a little bit in this House during this session, during question period. I know I’ve shared a couple of personal stories, but another personal side of this is the fact my mom was a nurse, so nurses have a pretty special place in my heart.

I know that I’ve heard since getting into this elected role from many frontline nurses who are reporting increase in violence and threats in hospitals, and they’re reporting psychological claims. I’ve read that WorkSafe accepted nearly 3,000 violence-related injury claims in 2023, and a growing number from nurses. Some of those end up leading to other psychological claims afterwards, PTSD and things like that as well.

[4:30 p.m.]

B.C. nurses and health care workers…. Sometimes this could be verbal or emotional abuse. It can be exposure to weapons. We’ve heard stories of even things like machetes and a crossbow that have been in hospitals. All this is very traumatic and quite dangerous.

Can the minister table how many health care workers have made a claim to WorkSafe in the last year and for each of the last five years?

like machetes and a crossbow that have been in hospitals. All this is very traumatic and quite dangerous.

Can the minister table how many health care workers have made a claim to WorkSafe in the last year and for each of the last five years?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In 2024, there were 3,611 claims for acts of violence or force. That was a 3 percent increase over 2023.

By subsector, 55 percent or 1,979 of the claims allowed were from health care and social services subsector.

By occupation, 17 percent or 605 of the claims allowed were from nurse’s aides, orderlies and patient services associates — those are, basically, care aides and community health workers — followed by 16 percent or 566 claims for social and community service workers and 14 percent or 504 claims for nurses, including RNs, LPNs and registered psych nurses. That is for 2024.

Just by way of a changeover over the last five years…. For nurses, for example, in 2020 there were 497 claims versus 504 in 2024. For nurse’s aides, orderlies and patient service associates, there were 503 in 2020 and 605 in 2024. For social and community service workers, there were 386 in 2020 and 566 in 2024.

Kiel Giddens: I do recognize that the minister shares my deep concern with health care workers here. I don’t doubt that at all. Again, this is an area where we can agree to work together on finding ways to keep health care workers safe. These are front-line workers that we do need. I think WorkSafe has an important role in this, of course.

Could the minister…? I appreciate all the stats provided. I think that’s useful for the public. Are regular WorkSafeBC inspections being conducted in hospitals and care facilities where violence has been reported? I’m wondering if there are numbers on how many inspections have occurred and if they’re broken out by health authority.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the question about regular inspections: yes, absolutely. In fact, during 2024, in the health care and social services sector, WorkSafeBC officers conducted 1,970 inspections and issued 138 violence-related orders and seven warning letters.

I note, as well, that health care has long been identified as a high-risk occupation, and it is a part of WorkSafe’s high-risk strategy. There is a dedicated team of 35 prevention officers who specifically work with the health care sector. So there’s…. What I would say, in addition to that, just in terms of the data, is that it is…. Well, we don’t have the data by health authority available, and, of course, that would be subject to levels of injury and privacy and whatnot. I can ask WorkSafe to take that away and see what they are able to produce by way of a health authority breakdown.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for those numbers. I think that’s quite useful to understand. I think it would be helpful to see that by health authorities. If that could be something we could follow up on later, that would be very much appreciated.

Once those orders and letters and post-inspection reports…. I’m wondering if there’s a…. That’s the enforcement side of things, but is there a formal mechanism for WorkSafe to coordinate with the Ministry of Health and health authorities on improving safety standards in high-risk settings like ERs and psych units, for example? And if there is, how is WorkSafe monitoring how that’s going? How are they monitoring the performance on that? Because I do think that continued relationship between WorkSafe and the health authorities is going to be critical to them providing actual recommendations and actual improvements that matter in this case and for that to actually have some benefit in the system.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: As I mentioned, health care is one of the largest employers in the province. It is also, as we know, one of the riskiest employers in the province. There is regular contact in a formal and a really systematic way between WorkSafe and the health authorities, both at a senior executive level.

I’d say that the leadership council of health authorities, all of the CEOs are regularly being briefed on talking about occupational health and safety issues. But also, really, at the operational level, those executive directors who are responsible for occupational health and safety are in regular communication with the WorkSafe officers that are assigned to their sites to facilitate all of the work that WorkSafe is doing with respect to monitoring and inspecting.

I think the member well knows that, you know, where there is an incident, an incident report is filed by a worker. That goes through a whole very rigorous process and winds up with WorkSafe. WorkSafe will come, and they will interview the parties involved. They’ll interview the worker, they’ll review the incident report, and they’ll take what they learn from that and determine whether there are penalties or orders to be written or more work to do to help the employer.

I mean, I think there’s always an opportunity, clearly, for learning about how to make workplaces more safe, particularly in those areas we have that are particularly risky in health care. WorkSafe is, in an ongoing sense, kind of assessing for performance and compliance.

I think we understand that in health care, for sure there’s more to do.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the minister. I agree that in health care, there’s more to do. I’m sure this is an issue we’ll continue having discussions on, going forward.

[4:45 p.m.]

This next one is just a topic that I had committed to the B.C. Teachers Federation that I would raise. I’m wondering what WorkSafe is doing to respond to the rising number of workplace violence incidents reported by teachers across B.C., including verbal threats and physical assaults.

Some of these can even be happening in elementary schools. In my own riding, I’ve had teachers approach me about this topic, actually. So if the minister could respond to that.

violence incidents reported by teachers across B.C., including verbal threats and physical assaults. Some of these can even be happening in elementary schools. In my own riding, I’ve had teachers approach me about this topic, actually.

If the minister could respond to that. Also, how many claims related to violence against teachers were accepted by WorkSafe last year? Lastly, what proactive steps that WorkSafe may be taking in this regard….

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I have such incredibly deep gratitude for the work that educators, educational assistants, everybody in our K-12 system do to support kids in British Columbia. I served for two years as Education Minister at the height of the COVID pandemic, and it was a real eye-opener in terms of just how the conditions of work really have changed in our schools. I know that many folks working in those areas are taking on…. Everything that happens out in the world lands in a classroom at some point or other, and their jobs have become very challenging, and I’m very grateful for all of the work that they do.

There’s no question that there has been a rise in violent incidents in school. I hear that from the same stakeholders that the member does. I hear it from teachers and EAs in my own community. For teachers and assistants, which includes elementary and secondary teachers and teachers assistants, there were 503 violence-related claims in 2024. What public-facing and front-line workers are experiencing in terms of the rise of violent incidents has prompted a review of the violence regulation.

[4:50 p.m.]

I think part of what we really want to achieve with that is to really have a good look at what we need to be doing upstream by way of risk assessment and building in protections at that point. And those will be issues that WorkSafe will be having conducting public consultations

what we really want to achieve with that is to really have a good look at what we need to be doing upstream by way of risk assessment and building in protections at that point. Those will be issues that WorkSafe will be conducting public consultations on in the reasonably short term.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much to the minister. I will agree that we have a lot to be grateful for, for the educators that teach the next generation and look after our schools.

I’ll maybe correct that the question was not just on behalf of the BCTF. It was also CUPE. They discussed the matter with them together. I appreciate the minister’s response. I think that’s helpful for their knowledge, and I sincerely appreciate that.

At this time, I’m going to…. We’re running low on time. I may not have time for more questions, so I do want to thank the minister and thank all of the staff, especially in unique circumstances today with being by video, for all these questions.

The member for Langley-Abbotsford would like to ask a couple of questions on a different topic, but we can’t tell if the other ministry staff are still here because we can’t see them physically. Just wanted to clarify with the minister whether they’re still available. This is not a WorkSafe topic that we’re bringing up right now.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, they are available to us. We’ll just go across the hall and get them.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister…. I just want to give you a little background about the collective…. It’s the community benefits agreement program. I would like some clarification on which union…. I am a part of the Teamsters 213, and I can never, ever recall them ever giving me a whiff of even going to a job like this.

I know when this all was being created, we had a meeting at the Sheraton, back in 2018, when everything was going to go about. We all put our names on the list, but what has happened is that they’ve created their own internal dispatch system where they pick and choose. There are people who literally got their memberships a couple of months ago, and they’re going out before members who’ve been there for 20, 30 years.

There’s a lot of conflict that’s been happening there too. A lot of these jobs are cherry-picked. There seems to be a union rep named Amneet Sekhon, who has a dad in the business, Pumne, Paul, Sekhon, P. Sekhon trucking. He also has a brother Rocky, Rockban trucking and contracting. So what’s happened…. I can tell you the whole storyline.

Amneet Sekhon used to drive. He used to work for a company, B.A. Black Top, for his dad. All of a sudden he gets into the union. The next thing that happened was, his dad ends up getting a direct-hire program to B.A. Black Top in front of other members who are going and working for this company. The next thing you know, they get a brokerage. Then the brother gets a brokerage. Then the union goes towards a system where you have to go through a broker.

There’s a collective bargaining rate that’s involved here at Teamsters 213, but none of the members seem to be getting paid that rate. They go through a broker. They take off a service fee, and they send the other truck out. Why are the members losing on this? Where is the oversight by the Labour Ministry?

I actually had brought this up with the previous Labour Minister as well. You know, I didn’t get any answers, but I wasn’t in the House back then. This is something that’s really, really near and dear to a lot of the truckers out there right now who can’t even work on a job.

I also know that at the end of the day, if a company doesn’t get enough union trucks, what happens is they get a special agreement, a hiree for the next day that only the brokers can put forward. And it always seems to be that a certain select few brokers are the ones who get the call-outs for this. I can get you several firsthand witness testimonies. I can bring in anyone that you’d like to speak to on this.

This is a huge concern. This is the systemic nepotism that actually makes unions look bad. I come from a union. I do like the model. I do like workers’ rights. I agree with that. But this is blatant corruption and systemic nepotism.

I just want to know. What is the ministry doing with this? I know that several members have contacted their MLAs over the years. They’ve been neglected. I was one of them, and I know several others.

[4:55 p.m.]

So I’d like to know: what are the processes that you’re doing to keep every check and balance, to make sure these unions operate properly under a collective bargaining agreement? It comes off as a great thing, but I’m telling you. It is not being handled properly. I’d like to know: what is the oversight? What does this ministry plan to do? There are a lot of truckers out

I’d like to know: what are the processes that you’re doing to keep every check and balance, to make sure these unions operate properly under a collective bargaining agreement? It comes off as a great thing, but I’m telling you it is not being handled properly.

I’d like to know: what is the oversight? What does this ministry plan to do? There are a lot of truckers out there that are struggling, that have paid dues to this union, that have provided a lot — worked on the streets, the critical infrastructure that has built this province — and now, at the end of their work life, they’re being kicked to the curb. I don’t think that’s fair, Minister.

I’d like to know: what is the plan? If you can’t answer it all, I do understand. I would like something written in response that can clarify all of this.

This is a major issue in the trucking community. When you have rookie drivers that don’t even know about paving…. They can’t even back into a paver and keep it in there, and they’re hitting power lines. This is a huge concern. This drives up costs for jobs. This makes a huge safety concern for every community trucks go and work in.

I would really like a detailed explanation on this. And I thank you very much for taking this question, Minister.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. There was quite a lot in there. It’s quite a detailed case that obviously has some history to it that I think we would benefit from having more detail on.

What I would suggest that we do is that somebody from my office reach out to the member, get the details so that we can determine whether that’s a question that the Ministry of Labour can answer with respect to oversight under the collective agreement — has there been a breach? Is there an unfair labour practice? — or whether there’s an issue related to transportation that should go to the Ministry of Transportation.

If that works okay for the member, that’s what I’d suggest we do by way of follow-up.

Harman Bhangu: I would like to know: if we do have a meeting, and there is some stuff that doesn’t seem right, would you commit to doing an audit? I do believe there needs to be somewhat of an audit done here and some checks and balances.

These are hard-working British Columbians, salt-of-the-earth-type people that have one truck to provide for their families. We saw what happened on Highway 1. I can assure you that not a single truck dispatched by those family brokers were sent to that job, because that agreement was supposed…. Usually the Teamsters pays within 30 days. There was a special agreement given for 45 days. There are a lot of things, inconsistencies we can get into in depth in that meeting.

I thank you very much for taking the question.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What I would just say to the member is that I think the first step is, like any grievance file, we’ll go, we’ll sit down and get all of the details about what the case is. It’s not clear to me whether this is a case for Labour or for another ministry, and I want to make sure that we get the member directed to the correct ministry.

I certainly appreciate the member’s advocacy for truckers.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the member for Langley-Abbotsford for his passion for truckers in the province, as well, and I appreciate the minister taking that question.

In guidance from the Chair, I think we have time for a few more questions, so I’ll just quickly move topics here. In December of 2023, administration costs for WorkSafe overall were up $50 million dollars — or 8.8 percent up from 2022, by my count — for a total of $618 million. What I’ve read, it says as a result for planned increase in staffing and negotiating increases in salary.

Are there updated numbers for 2024? What is WorkSafe’s projected administration costs for 2025? Of that, how many FTEs would that include?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The number of FTEs, the full-time-equivalent employees at WorkSafe for 2024 is 3,794. Just for comparative purposes, in 2023, it was 3,593. Now, that’s an increase in staff, to be sure, and there are a number of reasons why there’s an increase in staff and an increase in administrative costs. It has to do with an increased number of claims with an increase, as the member had noted earlier in our discussion, in the complexity of claims.

In response to our government’s determination to do everything we can to create safe work environments and to improve safety protections and provisions in the WorkSafe act for workers, that has resulted in a need to have more officers and to have more work being done, both on the prevention side and the claims side. That accounts for what the member sees with respect to the increase.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just a follow-up question to that. In the last public report by WorkSafe that I was able to review, corporate administration increased from $78 million to $92 million. So that was of the total amount that we just talked about there. Can the minister maybe explain the $14 million increase in a single year? And are there any updated numbers for this year?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Apologies if I didn’t quite understand the member’s question or the specific reference. I’m not clear about where there is specifically a $14 million increase, but I’d be happy, if my answer doesn’t answer the question, just to take that on notice and get the information to the member.

But I’m advised by the team that, again, the increases that you’re seeing in administrative corporate costs are related to salaries. They’re related to increased FTEs. I think, as the member will understand, there has been an increase in FTEs with

to the member. But I’m advised by the team that, again, the increases that you’re seeing in administrative corporate costs are related to salaries. They’re related to increased FTEs.

As the member will understand, there has been an increase in FTEs with respect to the work our government has done around providing protections for app-based workers, which has required additional resources, as well as more work being done with respect to claims suppression in addition to the additional resources in prevention and claims that I previously mentioned.

Kiel Giddens: I think that’s something we could follow up on after, for that specific corporate administration piece. Maybe one other, one last question on WorkSafe’s accounts. I noted that WorkSafe adjusted their accounting measures. They found that premium income significantly increased, from $2.278 billion to $2.686 billion. I’m wondering if the minister can explain why there was a $408 million discrepancy based on the accounting system and how that worked.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’m actually going to ask if the member would agree to just sending that question to us in writing so that I can have WorkSafe respond to it appropriately. We’re unsure about what accounting change the member may be referring to, and I want to make sure that we get the right piece of information back to him.

Kiel Giddens: I’d be happy to share that and follow up afterwards.

I think, with that, I’ll conclude my questions today. I want to thank the minister for this discussion we’ve had all afternoon today. I also want to thank the entire ministry and staff for all of the hard work to look after a fair and balanced employee and employer relationship, whether that’s from the safety of workers, how our workplaces are governed in a fair way, and the dignity of workers.

I appreciate this work, and look forward to the time ahead when we can continue to have some of these conversations. I know we had some points of debate, but that’s part of what this is all about.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you again to the minister.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if you would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would. Just a few remarks. First, I just want to express my gratitude to the critic for his patience with this this unusual process, and my gratitude to the various Chairs that we have had this afternoon and to the Clerks who are supporting this process.

It’s definitely not an ideal way, and I would much prefer that we could have conducted estimates in person, because frankly, I really enjoy the estimates part of the job. I think it’s really important to talk about the work that we do, and I regret that you didn’t have an opportunity to actually lay eyes on the staff who are behind the scenes in the public service, both in the ministry and on the WorkSafe side, doing the work day in, day out to provide important services to British Columbians.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m very grateful for all of their efforts this afternoon to support me through this process.

I really just want to reiterate that in these times when…. We live in such volatile times, and we

But I’m very grateful for all of their efforts this afternoon to support me through this process.

I guess I really just want to reiterate that in these times, when we live in such volatile times, and we have sort of bounced from an existential crisis in the form of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which WorkSafe, for example, played a very critical role…. Our employment standards branch played a very critical role in supporting working people.

We have now found ourselves in the midst of a complete reformulation of our global economy, and we’ve found ourselves the targets of a trade war that we certainly didn’t ask for and certainly didn’t want. I think we’re all concerned about the impact that these times have on working people — people who are looking for a decent life, for good jobs, who want to earn a living and provide for their families.

Again, there are areas where it is our relationships that will sustain us through these difficult times. There are so many challenges, to be sure, but important work ahead to make progress on the key objectives that we have around growing our economy, making sure it’s based on good jobs and making sure that those jobs are safe and that everybody comes home at the end of the day.

That is what I have dedicated a good part of my life to, and in any forum I’m working in, it is always top of mind for me. It’s what I’m going to spend my time primarily concerned with as I’m occupying this role.

Again, thank you very much to everyone for the conversation. Thanks to the critic, to his members who asked questions, to stakeholders who reached out to him and put questions forward through him.

I look forward to the work ahead, and with that, if I had a vote in the chat, I could move a vote.

The Chair: Minister, I will be moving the vote, so don’t worry.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: You’re going to move the vote? Okay. There you go.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and all members. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $25,986,000 — approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The committee is now adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:12 p.m.