Last night I had the privilege of attending the 12^th annual Oak Bay Young Exceptional Star (Y.E.S) awards ceremony at the Oak Bay Beach Hotel where 11 exceptionally talented youth in grades 6 to 10 were honoured for their achievements.

As noted by the YES Awards Committee, Chaired by Hazel Braithwaite, that administers the awards, “The goal of the awards is to emphasize the positive achievements of Oak Bay’s young people by recognizing those who have distinguished themselves in such areas as volunteerism, arts, citizenship, academics, athletics and/or who have overcome obstacles to achieve their goals.”

Congratulations to this year’s award winners: Griffin Arnatt, Michael Barber, Sola Dupain, Matthew Hinton, Luka Hurschler, Jessica Hutcheson, Ryan Killoran, MacKenzie Porter, Lauren Rust, Jessica Soule and Margot Wehrle.

I had the pleasure of presenting the award to Ryan Killoran from St. Michael’s University School who was nominated by his teacher Mr. Bell. Below is the text of my speech.

Text of Presentation Speech

A triple threat is not a term that can be given to many 14 year old’s,but Ryan Killoran is well deserving of that title! This year, Ryan was the captain and star of the grade 8 basketball team, the lead in the middle school musical and a model student in the classroom. Mr. Bell  – Humanities 8 Teacher and Basketball Coach says that this is his first year teaching and coaching Ryan at St. Michaels University School and he says that he is blown away by the poise and humbleness that Ryan comes into each day with.

On the basketball court, Ryan is a tremendous player who leads by example. He is a very cerebral individual, seeing plays that most cannot at the grade 8 level, which encourages his teammates to play in the same unselfish way. Ryan has shown that he is not only talented enough to play basketball at a high level but that he also possesses the desire to improve and the character needed to be a good teammate and competitor. He is a hard worker in both practice and games and is very coachable.

On stage, Ryan’s talent and confidence shines through. In this year’s middle school musical, Seussical, Ryan earned the lead role of Cat in the Hat and delivered his lines with humor and grace in front of a full crowd at the McPherson Playhouse. Ryan’s performing talents do not stop at his acting abilities however as he is a talented singer and flautist, with an impressive affinity for improvisation in the school’s Jazz Band.

In the classroom, Ryan is a confident and enthusiastic learner who excels in verbal debates and discussions in Humanities class. Ryan provides insight and shows excellent understanding in all aspects of the curriculum while also demonstrating respect to his peers and a willingness to help out around the classroom. Ryan’s report card confirms that his other teachers would tell you the same thing. In addition, he is a role model to younger students as he also participated in the school’s WEB (Where Everybody Belongs) program that welcomes the grade 6 students into the middle school to help with their transition from the Junior School. Ryan epitomizes SMUS’ four leadership pillars – Service, Honesty, Respect and Courage – and has so since he came to the Middle School.

Mr. Bell feels that Ryan is well deserving of the Y.E.S. Award as he excels in all aspects of his school and has the drive and character traits that make anything in his future possible.

Ladies and Gentlemen – please join me in congratulating Ryan Killoran on his achievements!

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 23: Land Owner Transparency Act, 2019 at second reading. This is an important bill that is aimed at increasing transparency in property ownership. The bill requires beneficial owners of corporations, partnerships and trusts to file a transparency declaration when there is a transfer of legal title of property or a change in beneficial ownership. It further requires pre-existing beneficial owners  to file a declaration. However, the bill will not affect individual property owners who are listed on title at the Land Title Office.

Transparency International Canada, the Canadian Chapter of Transparency International, is an anti-corruption NGO that recently published an extensive analysis of the scale of anonymous ownership of Canadian companies and Trusts. Their 2016 report states:

“Analysis of land title records by TI Canada found that nearly half of the 100 most valuable residential properties in Greater Vancouver are held through structures that hide their beneficial owners. Nearly one-third of the properties are owned through shell companies, while at least 11 percent have a nominee listed on title. The use of nominees appears to be on the rise; more than a quarter of the high-end homes bought in the last five years are owned by students or homemakers with no clear source of income. Trusts are also common ownership structures for luxury properties; titles for six of the 100 properties disclose that they are held through trusts, but the actual number may be much higher as there is no need to register a trust’s existence.“

For over five years I have been calling on government to plug a loophole that lets corporations and wealthy individuals avoid paying BC’s property transfer tax. Plugging this loophole would bring tens of millions of dollars into provincial coffers and correct an injustice that unduly penalizes ordinary BC families. While Bill 23 does not close the loophole, it does provide government with important information about beneficial property ownership in British Columbia. This will allow government  to get a sense of the scale of the problem without actually solving it. I am hopeful that once the data starts rolling in, government will quickly recognize that the bare trust loophole must be closed to ensure that property transfer tax is applied on a transfer of beneficial ownership not on a transfer of title.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my second reading speech in support of this important bill.

Video of Speech

Forthcoming

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: That took me a little bit by surprise, as it was so succinct, the previous speaker. She was so timely in her words that she was speaking in, I think, support — caveated support — to this bill, but I’m not quite sure. I was indeed listening.

It gives me pleasure to rise and stand in very strong — let me be very clear — unequivocal support of Bill 23, Land Owner Transparency Act, at second reading. This is something that is long overdue in British Columbia. I am absolutely delighted that the government is stepping up to create the important registry required to ensure that partnerships, trusts and corporations that own property in British Columbia have beneficial ownership registered in such a registry.

This legislation will require owners of such corporations and partnerships and trusts to file a transparency declaration when there is a transfer of legal title of property or change in beneficial ownership. Pre-existing beneficial owners will also be required to file a declaration. It doesn’t apply to individual owners. The ownership information of individuals is already publicly available through the land title office, as we know. You and I have to do that whenever we buy a property.

Therein lies the problem. This is an issue that I’ve been raising in this Legislature since not long after I got elected in 2013, within the context of what was going on, when I asked question after question after question to the then B.C. Liberal government about what they were going to do to close the so-called bare trust loophole, which is continuing to this day to be used to avoid paying property transfer tax and to avoid disclosure of who is buying or is not buying property in British Columbia.

This is a first step there. This is a requirement that beneficial ownership now be declared in the registry.

Let me give you an example about why that’s important. Let’s suppose I want to speculate in the Victoria or Vancouver real estate market. I assign somebody to go and buy a property — to buy that property and put it in a trust. I’m going to put it in a trust. There may be a corporation that owns that trust. The beneficial owners of that corporation may be some people who were there initially to buy that property and develop the corporation. Those individuals have no need to disclose the owners of the shares of the corporation that owns the trust. The trust is on title. The trust is all that’s on title. No matter how many times those shares in that corporation change, no matter how many times not only the beneficial but the majority ownership of that corporation changes, there is no change of the registered owner at the land title office. It is the trust, the bare trust.

We had examples of properties being flipped, typically high-end properties being flipped from owner to owner to owner, not through the sale and change of land title, but through the change of the transfer of the shares of the corporations that owned the trust that owned the land title. All the time avoiding property transfer tax, because you only pay transfer tax on transfer of title, not on transfer of beneficial ownership, which is an area that I hope government, at some point in the future, will move towards closing.

I understand the rationale that they’re bringing forward now. They want to gather the data first to see how the scale of the problem is, in order to deal with the problem rather than going straight to deal with the problem. I have some sympathy from that argument. It’s taken some time to get here, but we are here, and I’m absolutely delighted that we are here. The registry that will be here will be publicly searchable, but with some information only accessible by government and law enforcement for reasons that were articulated by the minister in her opening remarks.

The bill also allows individuals to apply to omit information if their health or, as the minister alluded to, safety is at risk from public disclosure. You might imagine, for example, the issue of someone fleeing domestic violence or someone in the witness protection program. It would be kind of odd to have the beneficial ownership of a property of someone in witness protection to be actually in their original name. So there are reasons that we have that.

Coming back to the background for this article, the confidence and supply agreement the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens signed back in 2017 states as follows: we will collectively focus on shared values to “make housing more affordable by increasing supply of affordable housing and take action to deal with the speculation and fraud that is driving up prices.” The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for this for I don’t know how long. We know we’ve been calling on government to eliminate the ability of buyers to hide their identities through shell companies, numbered companies and trusts.

We’ve been calling on them to improve transparency in the land title registry — not only this government, but the previous government before that — and to improve the land title and corporate registry by requiring the disclosure of beneficial ownership. Disclosure is critical to actually dealing with any issues that may be out there. We also have been, for quite some time, pleading with government to make existing and new data more regularly and freely accessible to researchers and the public. We hope that as the registry is created, and was promised in Budget 2018, that this will be the case.

This registry is, without a doubt, a significant step forward for transparency that ends hidden ownership. As we know, hidden ownership is intricately tied into speculation tax avoidance and money laundering in our housing market. One of the issues raised by the minister, and prior to that, by the member from Point Grey when in opposition, was the notion of shadow flipping, a notion where I put in a contract to purchase a property, but it’s me or my assignee who purchases that property. So I might, with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano…. I may buy his property. I may put an offer on his property with “the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, or assignee.” The member for West Vancouver–Capilano might say: “That’s a great offer. I want it.” But my “or assignee” clause is such that I could actually start assigning this contract to whoever I want, who can reassign it to whoever they want, who can reassign it to whoever they want, and they can jack up the price as we go along.

Now, steps have been taken. I think it was the previous government, or was it this government? I can’t remember. This place becomes a blur after a while. But certainly, we now have legislation that requires that any profits realized after the shadow flipping goes on actually go back to the original seller of the property.

So the member for West Vancouver–Capilano would not lose out if I were shadow flipping. Nevertheless, the transfer of the properties in between those stages would not be required even today to be disclosed.

This registry is critical. All stages of the process — transparency. The use of shell companies, as I mentioned, and trust and proxy ownership structures has obscured who has owned property in this province, undermining efforts at gathering and analyzing and allowing for an analysis of large-scale tax evasion and the data used to support this.

A report by Transparency International found that government can’t identify the owners — now get this — of almost half of Metro Vancouver’s most expensive homes. Government, whether it be Metro Vancouver or the city of Vancouver or the province or the federal government…. No government knows who more than half of the high-end properties in Vancouver…. We don’t know who owns them.

What a recipe for abuse. It’s just unbelievable this has been allowed to go on for so long. It’s absolutely unacceptable. This bill will close that. It will ensure that transparency is there.

We know that wise accountants, who know full well about the existence of the bare trust loophole, have been advising clients to avoid paying the property transfer tax by buying their property in a trust. If I, for example, were to buy a property in a trust…. Any house that I wanted to live in I buy in a trust instead of me. As soon as I buy it in a trust…. The very first time it happens, you will pay the property transfer tax. But every single time that that house is traded from thereon in, you will never pay any property transfer tax as you transfer the shares of the corporation that owns the trust from one to another.

This is one of the reasons why the higher-end homes, so many of them, have been put into trusts. When they flip, there is no property transfer tax, and the property transfer tax can be expensive.

There are also means and ways of hiding foreign ownership behind…. Some of that was indeed closed, again, by the previous government after much pestering.

We know that some of the money laundering has taken advantage of this, too, in Metro Vancouver. We still await Peter German’s report. We still await at least another chapter. We got one chapter. There’s got to be more coming. It’s clear…. We continue to push, and I will be doing so in the weeks ahead, for a public inquiry. We need a full-scale public inquiry into money laundering in this province. It is inexcusable that we have had as much as $5 billion laundered through Vancouver’s real estate market since 2012, distorting housing prices, particularly in the high-end markets.

We know…. I forget how many thousand homes are empty in the member’s riding, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I met with the council and mayor of West Vancouver–Capilano, who were at odds, not knowing what to do to actually go after the owners of these vacant homes that they simply are leaving there, not paying the social cost that has been historically developing by these homes being left vacant and distorting a market that would otherwise not be where it is, if it weren’t for someone laundering and nefarious activities going on.

We know, for example, just in 2016, over $1 billion of Vancouver’s property transactions have links to Chinese organized crime. Over $1 billion in one year alone had links to Chinese organized crime. That’s not counting any Russian organized crime, any Canadian organized crime, any American organized crime. Just one. It’s rampant in Vancouver, and we’ve sadly got a reputation internationally for being the home to the so-called Vancouver model of money laundering. Not a nice thing to be known for.

The president of the Law Society of B.C. stated: “This groundbreaking move by the B.C. government will increase the transparency of land ownership in B.C. and make it more difficult to use arrangements for tax evasion, fraud and money laundering. British Columbians will benefit from a fairer and more transparent real estate market.” Those are pretty powerful words of support from the president of the Law Society of British Columbia. I think that’s a strong independent endorsement of this legislation.

Transparency International has applauded the establishment of this registry — another pretty strong endorsement from an international organization. And a former director of FINTRAC has said that the province is now leading the country with this legislation. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if there is one thing I want British Columbia to be, it is a leader. We’re seeing, finally, leadership and transparency in the real estate sector in our province, and for that, the minister deserves a great deal of credit. I thank her, and I thank this government for bringing this forward.

You know, if ever there was a moment that we have second-guessed our decision in 2017 as to whether or not we support this side or that side in terms of a minority government, let me tell you that legislation like this makes us not question for a second that we did the right thing. The Liberals opposite had many, many years to deal with this, but they ignored it. I can’t remember how many times I stood up in this Legislature and posed questions to the then Finance Minister, asking him when he would take steps to deal with the transparency and beneficial ownership and close the bare trust loophole that was being used to avoid paying property transfer tax and also being used to launder money. The public record of this is available on my blog site. You can see it there, going back years. The answers I was getting were platitudes, because, to be honest, the members opposite simply had no idea. They had been in government too long. They’d lost ability to determine what the issues were. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this issue is before us.

S. Bond: Relevance.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Valemount for calling for relevance. Thank you. And the reason why I called it to your colleague — because every time anybody in our caucus stands up, you have the audacity to stand up and call relevance, yet you’re not willing to accept others calling relevance to the other side. So it’s part of the hypocrisy that we see. I enjoy the conversation, and I will make this relevant, hon. Speaker, before you must tell me to make this relevant.

Coming back to the bare trust loophole, as I noted, I’ve been calling on government for years to deal with this, and frankly, this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, government will move forward to closing this. I know that the market had discounted this, both the real estate market and the accounting market. They had both already discounted that government was going to close the bare trust loophole. They didn’t, but now they’re collecting data and that probably will lead it up to move for it.

Looking at this, we also need to expand this progressive approach to transparency, also to the corporate registry. Right now, the corporate registry is not searchable by director name, and as it’s hampering transparency and accountability, hopefully we’ll be able to see this transparency that we’re seeing here with respect to land-ownership move into the corporate registry as well. The Attorney General has called this issue a deliberate or grossly negligent decision that limits transparency, a benefit to firms and individuals who wish to evade accountability. I urge government as well to move beyond this and to change the corporate registry to fix this problem, in line with the spirit of the legislation before us today.

In conclusion, this legislation is an important step forward for opening up hidden ownership in real estate in British Columbia. And it’s timely. I’m very pleased the government has done it. And it’s just a shame that we’ve got to get to the position we’re in after so many years of neglect in this sector. We need to go further and crack down on tax avoidance, using the ownership structures that the data will be collected, and I’m looking forward to government stepping in to close that bare trust loophole, which many use to avoid paying property tax. I look forward to seeing information in the registry and will continue to push for action on this file and get to the root of the housing crisis.

With that, I do note the time. I would like to move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue at the next sitting of the House after today.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 28: Zero-emission vehicles act at second reading. This bill was introduced on April 10, 2019.  This bill sets into law the zero-emission vehicle mandate that was announced in the fall as part of the CleanBC economic agenda. It further outlines a credit/debit system, similar to what exists in California, that will allow new vehicle car dealers to meet the provincial compliance targets. In particular, the bill legislates that:

“(a) in 2025 and in each subsequent year, at least 10% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(b) in 2030 and in each subsequent year, at least 30% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(c) in 2040 and in each subsequent year, 100% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles.”

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech

Video of Speech

Forthcoming

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Obviously, I’ll be speaking in strong support of it.

Before I begin, please let me summarize the irony of what I heard during question period today. Question period — when we had a discussion, a discussion emanating from members of the opposition, questioning about the price of gas in British Columbia. We had suggestions from members opposite that one of the ways that we should deal with the price of gas is to bring in a price cap. That was a direct quote from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

You know, what we should have been talking about here is actually the opportunity that’s afforded us now, given the gouging that’s going on. We know that the price of gas in British Columbia, the 40 cent increase, is largely because of refinery margin, which in British Columbia is more than twice what it is in other jurisdictions in Canada. That’s what the real question is. And so, I could actually answer the question very simply that the members opposite asked in question period.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

A. Weaver: We’ll keep to the bill, but it’s really important to recognize that the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act…. Why it’s relevant to this bill is that we’re talking about bringing in legislation to move towards 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Right now we’re also in question period, talking about gas prices. What is remarkable is the disconnect between these two.

What we know — and what should have been said and what I was wishing government would have said — is that we do have a role for the B.C. Utilities Commission. Perhaps the B.C. Utilities Commission might start to look at this refinery margin that exists in British Columbia. That is something government could do, and perhaps they will do it in the fall, but now is not the time to be discussing that in detail, because of course, we’re discussing the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

In this act…. It’s emerging from CleanBC, which is part of the government and, in collaboration with us, a commitment to reducing emissions, but it’s not really a commitment just to reduce emissions. It’s an economic agenda. This is a flagship proposal in a larger economic vision to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.

What happens in this bill, of course, is it builds upon the structure of the pathway towards getting zero-emission vehicles by bringing in place new requirements for car sales in the province of British Columbia. What’s important in doing the car sales is creation of an additional wrapping-around credit-debit system — ZEV units, so to speak — and a whole accounting system, mirrored after what’s being done in California, is being done to ensure compliance and enforcement and allow uptrading and penalties for companies that are having some difficulty meeting the ZEV standard. They can work with other companies that perhaps have less difficulty.

The bill talks about provincial targets being at least 10 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold in British Columbia must be zero-emission by 2025. By 2030, that rises to 30 percent, and by 2040, that rises to 100 percent.

That’s the essence of the bill. The details, the important details and where the meat of the bill actually lies, is with respect to the ZEV units which are being created — ZEV, meaning zero-emission vehicle — to allow for the compliance of new car dealers in the province of British Columbia.

This is a very aggressive pathway to ZEV adoption. It’s one that we’re very supportive of. It’s one that is much stronger, in my view, than some of the other jurisdictions that have ZEV standards out there. It’s one that’s mirroring what’s happening elsewhere around the world, whether it be Netherlands or the U.K. or India or China, which are moving towards the rapid adoption of non-emitting vehicles and the elimination of gas as a fuel for such vehicles.

Therein lies the irony, which is why, again, coming back to the debate earlier today, it’s important to relate the two. Because here we see, around the world, car companies as well as consumers are moving away from emitting vehicles. They’re not there now, but they’re moving away towards it. Here we have, in British Columbia, an ironic debate, as we’re moving away, as we’re seeing oil companies gouge us with the refinery margin in B.C. that is more than twice the refinery margin of other jurisdictions in Canada.

There is a role for the BCUC to look into this, and perhaps we will look into this. But frankly, for us, in this place, to be debating the lowest-common-denominator politics — the lowest common denominator — talking about introducing price caps…. It’s the wrong conversation. The public…. Both sides of this House should be saying enough is enough to these oil companies.

Now, I recognize that they’ve just been given one of the greatest handouts of corporate welfare in Canadian history, through the LNG generational sellout that this government, supported by opposition, has moved forward. Now, I realize that they’re licking their lips at that corporate welfare, but enough is enough.

While this bill is important in taking us to the pathway towards zero-emitting vehicles, what’s equally important is that the public recognize that now is the time for us not to respond to this oil company gouging. Rather than playing on their terms, let us take this opportunity. Let us take this opportunity to British Columbia to join the rest of the world and show leadership by saying we are not going to play that game. We’re not going to play that game of price gouging.

Maybe we’re going to carpool less. Maybe we can’t afford a zero-emission vehicle. They’ll be coming down because of this bill in price, I can tell you that, because of the requirement to bring here, and there’ll be lots of capacity. The secondhand market is already flowing in British Columbia. Maybe they can’t go with that because they can’t afford it.

But what people can afford is, perhaps, carpooling. They can afford, perhaps, transit. They can afford, perhaps, riding a bike. In the market of supply and demand, if we reduce demand and there is the same supply, that’ll put less pressure on price.

Opposition’s response is to somehow have a massive market intervention by government — to somehow not deal with supply, not deal with demand, but put in a price cap, which is one of the greatest incentives you could give to an oil company to increase prices because the government is on the hook for any price increase. Outrageous. But that’s what we’ve come to expect.

In British Columbia right now, we are leaders in terms of zero-emission vehicle adoption, particularly in the metro Victoria region. One of the most common cars you will see on the road in Victoria is, in fact, the Nissan LEAF, a car that I own, a car that my friend from Saanich North and the Islands owns — he actually two of them, a new one and a secondhand one — and one that many, many people are owning.

In fact, I now own to EVs. We just bought a Hyundai Kona, the new Hyundai Kona which is a 415-kilometre-range non-emitting vehicle. It hasn’t arrived yet because there’s so much demand. We will have no more gas cars in my house.

Yes, we drive all over B.C., and we drive all over the place. We do so without range anxiety. The reason why is that no one should have range anxiety.

Let me say this to you, hon. Speaker. If you’re driving in the interior of B.C., where infrastructure charging is not as good but is growing, and you run out of gas, you’re in trouble. You’ve got to walk perhaps miles or get towed to a gas station.

If you’re driving a zero-emission vehicle and you see that you’re getting low on electricity, you don’t have to worry about a gas leak. That’s not going to happen in a zero-emission vehicle. Electrons don’t leak out of the battery per se.

But if you’re getting short and it’s desperate, just go to a farmhouse and say: “Hey, can I give you five bucks or ten bucks for a bit of electricity? I’m going to run out.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Or you can do jerry cans, sure. But you have to hope that the farmhouse has gas in the back. They might. They might, but they might have marked fuel, and that would be a problem if it was marked fuel. Marked fuel you can’t put in a car.

We also know that…. What I’m dealing with, to the member for Peace River South, is the issue of range anxiety. Range anxiety is really artificial. It’s being created by people who are afraid that they need to have a big thing to charge up. You actually don’t.

You can charge up at home on a 120 volt. It takes a little longer, but you often don’t need to charge up for12 hours. If you’re getting close, you plan your destination. It’s no different from planning where the gas stations are. You’re going to drive on a big highway, you notice “last gas station for 300 kilometres,” you check your gas gauge and say: “Nah, I better not go” or “I better fill up now.” It’s no different with an EV.

What has been happening in British Columbia and what is important to do and what I’m pleased to see is being done is that if you’re going to bring in a ZEV mandate — like we have here, an aggressive one — you must match it with a growing and increasing infrastructure. I’m very pleased to see that happening.

Particularly, I’ve experienced that on Vancouver Island with my Nissan LEAF’s 170-kilometre range. On the highway, you don’t quite get that. If you drive a little over 90 — on the highway on Vancouver Island, you can go 110 up by the Parksville area — it’s not as efficient.

However, we now have charging stations in Buckley Bay — fast chargers, multiple fast chargers, there. We have them in Courtenay, Comox. We have them in the Ucluelet and Tofino area. We have them up and down the Island.

So the infrastructure is coming in, and it’s being done in a very methodical pace that’s keeping up with demand. In cities like Victoria or Vancouver, there are so many charging stations that access to electricity is not a problem.

The problem that government is going to need to deal with in a shorter time frame than perhaps it’s thinking about is the fact that there are still far too many charging stations giving the electricity away for free. The reason why that might sound like a good idea is it’s an incentive. You get electric vehicles. That’s one thing. The problem with giving away electricity for free is that there are more and more EV adopters. As more and more EV adopters get into the market, many of them haven’t got the experience of recognizing the culture, the etiquette, the social norms that have been developed by longtime EV units.

That is, you don’t park in an EV parking space and use the electricity just because it’s a convenient parking space. You park in a parking space and use the electricity because you need it, because if you don’t have it, you won’t go anywhere.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. I call them freeloaders. They’re there charging up electricity not because they need it but because it’s free.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. And I call them freeloaders. They’re there, charging up electricity, not because they need it but because it’s free. That’s a problem, because it then takes up a perfectly good EV charging station from somebody who needs it. This is very problematic with the high-voltage DC chargers.

So it’s imperative that government bring in, now that we’ve got new BCUC analysis of this issue, a more rapid transition to charging — of all EV stations on Vancouver Island and the rest of B.C. — in order to ensure that they’re used when they’re supposed to be used.

When you’re paying 35 cents a kilowatt hour, which is the price that you pay at, say, a Greenlot station — the original Greenlot stations, a few of them that were installed. One’s at Wal-Mart. There’s one in Duncan, for example. You pay 35 cents a kilowatt hour. It sounds like a lot, but it translates to a little over 2 bucks to go from Victoria to Nanaimo. That’s not that expensive.

People have no problem paying 35 cents per kilowatt hour, which is more than three times the retail rate of electricity in British Columbia, to actually charge their vehicles. Because it’s insignificant. And because of the fact that you have no moving parts. You have no oil and gas filter. You have no radiator. You have no exhaust system. You have no moving parts. You have no maintenance.

My 2015 Nissan LEAF, bought in 2014, has had maintenance precisely zero times. I was required, under warranty for the battery, to take it in and have the battery tested — it’s still at 100 percent, no loss at all, and it’s still looking good — because I had to for warranty. But there has not been a single thing, apart from windshield wiper fluid change — not a single piece of maintenance that has needed to be done. No oil filter, no changing transmission fluid, no worrying about radiator, no worrying about coolant. It’s just windshield wiper fluid.

This is the way of the future, and this legislation is positioning us there. I recognize, too, that the single most frequently purchased vehicle in British Columbia is the Ford F-150. I recognize that. That is something that…. In phase two, as we move forward, we’re also seeing an enormous opportunity there. As battery technology continues to improve, as demand continues to grow, it makes sense to initially target the urban markets, where we’re driving, in Victoria, a maximum of, you know, 50 kilometres a day. That’s a lot in Victoria. In Vancouver, even if you drive from Abbotsford to downtown and back, you don’t need anything other than an EV.

So Metro Vancouver and metro Victoria — both of these areas are set up, ideally, for the widespread rapid adoption of electric vehicles. So this legislation, which is essentially enabling legislation that ensures that, if you want to sell new cars in B.C., a certain percentage of those car sales must be zero-emitting vehicles — 100 percent of which must be that by 2040, 10 percent by 2025, 2030 will be 30 percent. Given that we’re about 4 percent now, anyway — very meetable targets.

In fact, the problem is not meeting the targets. The problem is trying to get a car when you go on the lot, because there’s none on the lot. The Hyundai Kona I just bought. I bought it…. Well, I shouldn’t say I bought it. My wife bought it. It’s her car. The one she just bought, she bought a month ago, but we’re not getting it till June, and that’s lucky. We’re lucky we’re getting in June — a three-month wait. Others, a much longer wait.

I know the member for Vancouver-Langara drives a Volt, another excellent EV. I’m sure he’s very pleased with that, although I haven’t seen it on the precinct as often as I used to see it. I know the Minister of Environment drives, I think, an Ioniq, a Hyundai. I think that’s what he drives. I know that my friend here drives LEAFs.

It used to be I was the only person driving an electric vehicle in this Legislature. Now I can’t get in on that EV charging, which is probably a good thing, because I can charge at home, and I know the member for Vancouver-Langara probably has more important need for the electricity than I do here. So I haven’t been using it. It’s been free quite often for you.

Coming back to the CleanBC initiative that led to this ZEV mandate, as well as the timeline for the actual requirement of new vehicles to be zero-emitting vehicles. It’s being coupled, also, not only with the infrastructure rollout, which is going well. I’m very pleased. It’s very well done. It’s really good to see it.

In the Buckley Bay station, for example, there are two high-voltage level 3 chargers, as well as the level 2 chargers, as well as the Tesla charger. So you’ve got lots of options there.

As it’s rolling out, the government is also, as part of CleanBC and the CEV for B.C. program, putting point-of-sale incentives that are up to $5,000 for new electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. And we’re seeing a lot of people, especially with the gas prices…. This is coming back again, coming back to what we had earlier, the discussion in question period. We know for a fact that the price of gas is the single biggest driver of adoption of plug-in, hybrid, zero-emission-vehicle cars. The single biggest driver. We’re seeing that.

You just have to talk to any car dealer. Go to the Hyundai dealer in Victoria. They’re flying off the lot, the Konas, as people come and say: “I’m done with these gas prices.” And you know what? Isn’t that a way to actually drive change, if there are more and more people in British Columbia who say: “I’m done with paying these prices. I’m going to switch over to a non-emitting vehicle”? That reduces demand on the existing supply, and that’s a downwards price driver.

We know the price is going to come down in the fall anyway. The reality of the price of gas right now is that it’s become outrageous. But it’s become outrageous because we know we can charge outrageous prices. We don’t have to blame the little guy, the retailer. It’s not them. We know again, coming back to the refinery margin, it’s twice as much in B.C. relative to the rest of the country. The question the BCUC could and perhaps should be asking is: why is that? Perhaps there is a role for the BCUC at some point to say: “You know what? That’s a problem.” But certainly the carbon tax is something that cannot be touched, and it’s something that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians don’t want to be touched. It’s one cent, but it’s one cent increasing by one cent every year, and that price signal is a critical driver of innovative change.

Just yesterday, I heard the mayor of Langford, Stew Young, on the radio, being interviewed, discussing an industrial park, several hundred acres that have already been zoned, looking to attract, based on this legislation and based on seeing the innovative change that happening, electric vehicle manufacturing in Langford. In particular, there’s a company that wants to build trucks in Langford. This is exactly what legislation like this incentivizes. It incentivizes others to want to be part of this direction, this new economy, and it creates opportunity in areas that we historically did not have.

Electra Meccanica in Vancouver, a small…. To declare everything, Jerry Kroll was a former candidate of ours in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — the CEO of Electra Meccanica, an electric vehicle car company. They’re going to be building elsewhere. They wanted to build in B.C., but government in B.C. must now recognize that as we bring in these innovative programs that are driving change, there is a role for government to work with local government — that is, the provincial government work with local government — to ensure that we capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation brings forward. That is actually what we need to do next — capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation incentivizes.

You know, British Columbia already has the highest per-capita adoption of zero-emitting vehicles in Canada. There are over 17,000 of them in B.C., on the roads, and about 4 percent, as I mentioned, in 2018 were that. The particular driver of an EV saves…. I mean, the notes I’ve been given here suggest $1,500 a year. I can tell you it’s an awful lot more than that. Say you’re charging a car once a week, and let’s suppose you’re driving a four-cylinder car and you’re paying, say, 60 bucks a week. That’s not an F-150. Say 50 bucks a week. That’s 3,000 bucks a year in gas right there, and you’re paying zero for it because there is no gas.

But not only that. You’ve got to do an oil and filter every six months. You’re looking at 200 bucks there. You’ve got to start doing tune-ups and all that stuff, transmission fluid checks, all that stuff, moving parts. None of that’s there. So, in fact, the argument about electric vehicles saving money and paying off rapidly is often not including the additional savings that come from no maintenance. And there’s a reason why we need such standards. Dealers historically have been very reluctant to sell EVs. Not all, but many. The reason why they’re reluctant to sell EVs…. I mean, you can look at the famous documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car? as an example — a very good documentary.

You don’t want to sell an EV because as you buy your EV…. You pay your money, you buy the EV, you drive off the lot, and you’re never seen again. You’re never seen again until you buy your next car. That’s a little tougher for the kind of standard business model that some new-car makers are operating under today. However, those manufacturers and those dealers that recognize the opportunity that’s afforded us here by this legislation, would be the ones that are going to thrive and move forward as we enter.

And I’m pretty sure that Campus Nissan in Victoria will be one of them. They can’t keep LEAFs on the lot. A lot of people think you have to buy a new EV too. Sure, you have to buy a new EV to get some of the incentives, and sure, this legislation only applies to the sale of new cars in British Columbia. However, the secondary market also gets improved by introducing legislation like this. The reason why is that many of the fleets — some of the rental fleets in California, for example — are starting to see these emerging into electric. Or there are lease vehicles. More and more people are leasing electric vehicles.

As these start to build, the secondary market of lease vehicles and rental vehicles, etc., starts to develop as those get sold on the secondary market. You can get a second-hand Nissan LEAF. The LEAF that I bought for about $10,000 to 15,000…. I admit it’s a lot, but if you think of investing, let’s say, $14,000 — because you can easily get a 2015 LEAF for $14,000 on the secondary market — you save $3,000 a year in gas right there. Boom. So you’ve completely paid that off in 4½ years. However, you’re actually going to have no maintenance as well. And most batteries….

People worry that the batteries decay with time. Again, my 2015 LEAF — been driving since 2014 — still has 100 percent battery. I’ve done 70,000 kilometres on that in five years on that — zero CO₂ emitted and still 100 percent battery — going all over British Columbia. You can do this. And it’s fun. And it’s zippy. And they’re fast. The technology in these cars is amazing. I’m very excited by this legislation moving forward.

That was articulated in the media release that my office put out, where we were quite thrilled when the government introduced the bill on April 10. We put out such a release. In fact, I’m quoted in the release as saying: “I’m thrilled that B.C. is adopting a rigorous zero-emission vehicle mandate.” Again, there were lots of discussions with the Environment Minister as we were developing CleanBC, and I would suggest that the level of bold adoption that you see here is something that we were quite persistent on.

The reason why is that 40 percent of emissions for the average household in British Columbia comes from transportation. The average person has a difficult time reducing emissions without dealing with transportation. This gives them a means and a way to go to zero in transportation, relatively rapidly. We also know that without an aggressive ZEV standard, we won’t get the cars on the lots in B.C. because they’ll appear on the lots in California or Quebec instead, where ZEV standards exist.

With China, India and other jurisdictions moving this direction, essentially we know, I suspect, that these targets will end up being moot. If we’re at 4 percent already, getting to 10 percent in 2025, you put the cars on the lot, and we’re going to be there. No question. I would suggest that we’re probably well above 4 percent now with new-car sales. I don’t have the data, but knowing the price of gas at a buck-70 in Vancouver, why would you buy a new car that is not electric? Why would you not consider it? But they need to be on the lots to allow you to buy it, in the first place.

We know that within a decade, trucks, other cars, vans, will all be zero-emitting. That is the direction we’re heading in. I look forward to exploring the details of this further in the actual committee stage because there are complexities in the unit accounting for compliance. There will be questions that will need to be addressed there.

I congratulate government on this — in particular, CleanBC and the Minister of Environment, whose work in this area has been quite well received. And I look forward to the rollout implementation in the weeks, months and years ahead.

The BC NDP government today introduced Bill 30: Labour relations code amendment act, 2019. The BC Green Caucus issued a media release (reproduced below) in response to the Bill’s introduction. I look forward to debating this bill at second reading in the near future and I will provide a more comprehensive analysis of it at that time.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus Supports Labour Relations Code Amendments
For immediate releaseApril 30, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. Ending the pendulum swings that have defined labour policy the past 30 years is a priority for the B.C. Greens, and the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Code are a step towards reaching that balance while also enhancing important protections for workers.

“British Columbians deserve to expect certainty and stability in labour policy, which is what our caucus has advocated all along,” said B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. “For the past 30 years, labour policy in B.C. has been defined by pendulum swings between Liberal and NDP governments. Thorough our consultations with government, we made clear that progressive changes are needed to protect workers through moderate, evidence-based policy adjustments.

“The expert review panel made balanced and thoughtful recommendations on updating the labour code that are reflected in this legislation. Retaining the secret ballot while shortening the time frame for votes from ten to five business days, and enacting stronger protections against employer interference, is a reasonable path forward to maintain balance in workplaces and ensure workers are protected as they exercise their choice.”

The B.C. Green caucus supports other significant provisions of this legislation, which take important steps forward to better protect workers and ensure balance in workplaces. These include:

• Extending successorship provisions to protect workers in building cleaning/janitorial services, security services, bus transportation services, non-clinical health care services, and food services;
• Reducing the disruption caused by frequent raids by modifying the open periods;
• Removing education as an essential service.

“We think this legislation strikes the right balance and therefore better able to ensure fairness and balance in workplaces, which is in the interest of both workers and employers,” Weaver said.

These amendments are necessary adjustments to existing labour law, but they fail to address the more fundamental challenges facing the economy.

“Unfortunately, what continues to be missing from the conversation is a focus on how we can adapt our labour laws to support people grappling with the changing nature of work,” Weaver said. “From increases in precarious, gig-based jobs, to the increasing use of contractors instead of employees, British Columbians are dealing with huge changes to job stability and income security, and our laws aren’t keeping up.”

The B.C. Green caucus consults with government to improve fairness for workers and ensure balance in the workplace as part of the Confidence and Supply Agreement.

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
B.C. Green Third Party Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature we also debated at second reading Bill 18, Workers Compensation Amendment Act. This bill aims to expand the presumptive conditions that currently exist under the act to wildfire and indigenous firefighters and to fire investigators by broadening the definition of firefighter. Previously, these workers were not able to claim presumptive causes for illnesses (cancer, heart disease, mental health disorders associated with their work). A presumption under the act provides that, if a worker has been employed in certain occupations and develops a disease or disorder that is recognized as being associated with that occupation, then the condition is presumed to have been due to the nature of their work, unless the contrary is proved. With a presumptive condition, there is no longer a need to prove that a claimant’s diagnosis is work-related.

I took the opportunity at second reading to talk about what is not in the act. In particular, I argued that the presumptive clause for mental disorders needs to be extended to other workers in British Columbia. While two weeks ago the government extended the presumptive clause to include 911 dispatchers, nurses and some health care workers (an issue that I have been pestering government about in numerous meetings and in Question Period on May 31, 2018 and on October 25, 2018), I firmly believe we need to follow the lead of Saskatchewan and Alberta and extend it to all workers.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 18, Workers Compensation Amendment Act. While this bill is relatively without controversy, the lead-up to the implementation of the bill is not. I’ll come to that in a minute.

The bill before us expands presumptive conditions for forest fire fighters, Indigenous firefighters and fire inspectors, allowing them to more easily claim coverage for work-related illnesses like cancer, heart disease and mental health disorders that, already, a traditional municipal firefighter would be eligible for.

This was really an oversight in definition. I understand the rationale for bringing forward the amendments that we’re discussing and debating today, and of course, I support those amendments. The groups were previously exempt from the ability to claim presumptive clause for the listed illnesses for no other reason than oversight, frankly. The bill expands coverage by changing the definition of “firefighter” to include a person whose main job is to investigate or to suppress fires. It puts some context into the bill.

Let’s go back to 2017. The member opposite from Chilliwack articulated the B.C. Liberal government added presumptions for breast cancer, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma as occupational diseases for firefighters. This was back in 2017. This added onto several other diseases that fell under presumptive clauses for firefighters. However, forest fire fighters were not included in the definition of “firefighter” and did not receive the presumption.

Now, one might suggest or say that in fact fires in, say, a city, where you might have a chemical plant or a Home Depot, might be slightly more dangerous than forest fires, which are just traditional wood, etc. However, a carcinogen is a carcinogen, and the forest fires in rural areas are going far beyond rural areas these days.

We only need talk about the citizens of some of our rural B.C. communities and what they’ve had to deal with — and sadly, I suspect this summer, as well, in light of the fact that the seasonal forecasts are for much above normal temperatures and drier than normal conditions in British Columbia, both of which are setting the stage for yet another forest fire season. Let’s hope not, but sadly, it looks that from the seasonal forecast.

In 2018, the NDP government introduced changes to the Workers Compensation Act that would designate PTSD and certain other mental disorders as presumptive conditions that are linked to specific kinds of jobs. The changes applied to firefighters, police officers, paramedics, sheriffs and correctional officers. It did not include forest fire fighters or, more importantly, nurses, dispatch operators, teachers and others. Let me say why that was unacceptable in my view.

We know that there are traditional jobs that are male-dominated jobs: police officers, firefighters — strong lobbyists who come here and meet with us year after year, and they’ve been very effective at lobbying. However, jobs like nursing, teaching, 911 responders — which traditionally or historically have larger numbers of females — have not had the same success in having their working conditions dealt with through changes in law. To me, that’s unconscionable in 2019 that we still consider professions that are predominantly male-dominated as preferential in terms of the offering of amendments or support in legislation than those that are traditionally female.

Unacceptable. In fact, I conveyed as much to the deputy minister of the minister’s file over the last several weeks, suggesting to him that we may not support this bill if the government did not fix the error from the previous bill. And they did. For that, I am very, very grateful. On April 16 of this year, an order-in-council was signed that extended the mental disorder presumptive clause to emergency response dispatchers, which means a worker whose duties include one or both of the following: dispatching ambulance services, firefighters or police officers, receiving emergency calls, etc. It also included health care assistant and including the term “nurse.”

Now, this is really important, because when we talk about workplace trauma, particularly with the issue of mental health disorders, I frankly see very little difference between a first responder who happens to be a nurse in pediatric intensive care watching a child go through the trauma that it’s going through, than, say, perhaps a police officer who sees the same thing in the street. These are traumas.

I go to the teaching profession, and I look at the number of teachers. I know we have very high dropouts in the first five years of teachers because of the overbearing stress that new teachers are put into, the conditions, where they’re not given the support. And if they don’t have support of administration, this can lead to mental health disorders. Even today, the teacher has to go forward and actually argue that it is caused by work as opposed to have it presumed to be caused by work, if they have the appropriate designation from a professional, and workers compensation could still do that.

You know, I understand the importance of this bill. I understand the importance of fixing the errors that were created, but we must not forget that the errors that were created are not just in the context of the historical context of the bill but are in the historical context of society more generally. We often fixate on errors in a piece of paper, but there are systemic errors in our society that we need to address. This bill, while going a small way to fixing the errors in the previous bill, and the order-in-council going a longer way to actually bring into the fold nurses, emergency responders, health care assistants…. I still think that in the province of British Columbia, we have an awful long way to go to ensure that labour laws, workers laws, employment standards, are actually the same for women and men.

They may be the same for women and men who are forest fire fighters. They may be the same for women and men who are police officers. But where they’re not the same is in historically male-dominated professions compared to female-dominated professions. That’s a problem, and that problem has yet to be addressed in its entirety here in the province of British Columbia.

In April 2019, the NDP government introduced legislation, this bill, that expands cancer, heart disease and mental disorder presumptions to include wildfire and Indigenous firefighters as well as fire investigators who deal with the aftermath of often traumatic fire. I have no problem with the extension there. I have no problem with the correction of the error that occurred in the previous bill. Through regulation, as I said, nurses, emergency dispatchers and health care assistants were added. That’s also to be lauded, but as I said, there’s been no change or movement towards changes in teachers.

Social workers are yet another example of a profession that historically has been dominated by women, so we don’t have the squeaky wheels coming into the Legislature, lobbying us daily and so nothing gets done. But as legislators, it behooves us to think beyond what is lobbied and think about broader societal change that needs to occur.

I’ve said in the past that what’s wrong with this legislation is we’re not talking about teachers in this province, teachers who work in environments of bullying and harassment with unsupportive administrators, who struggle and take leave but are not covered by the WCB because they have to prove that their mental illness or disorder directly came from their workplace. Imagine that, working in an environment, an abusive environment, one where going to work each day requires you to build up the courage to get out of bed., to show your face in that class knowing that you have no support from your administrators, knowing that you have children who you’re seeing in conditions that you cannot control. You know what they’re going through when they go home. You know they may be coming from an abusive family. You know you have a duty to respond. But you know you feel frustrated by an inability to actually get a solution there.

That can lead to stress. That can lead to systemic stress that can lead to mental disorders. Now you have to start to recant this and prove it. It’s devastating for people. I hope that we can move forward as we go on.

Again, last October, this is what I said: “While I’m pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out. In particular, I’m profoundly troubled that professions such as teaching and social work, professions that employ disproportionate numbers of women compared to men, are being left out.”

I’d suggest that, perhaps, a number of us in this Legislature should actually think a little beyond the immediate and start thinking about gender-based analysis with some of the legislation we’re bringing forward. Is the legislation we’re bringing forward to deal with this problem really creating other problems because it’s not dealing with systemic other issues, or is it just dealing with this one here? I think there’s some work that needs to be done.

There’s absolutely no question, as I said, in my mind that we need to have presumptive clauses in place for police, firefighters, correction officers and sheriffs. But there’s also no question in my mind that we need to include more workers. We need to include teachers. I’ve said it probably three or four times. Social workers. Even on construction sites, the Speaker, you yourself — or was it the minister? One of you two were on a construction site. Was it construction site union leader? One of you two. I’m not sure. Perhaps it was the Speaker or perhaps….

Can you imagine if you’re on a construction site and you’re a crane operator. The crane falls over, and it’s your best friend. That crane operator falls over, and you’re the first responder there on the ground to scrape the person out of the crane cabin on the ground. Now you have to prove if you have PTSD from that result. You have to prove that that’s a direct consequence of your accident, as opposed to being presumed that it would be coming from that accident. I don’t see much difference there.

During the debate on the Workers Compensation Act last year, I moved to grant the presumptive clause for work to all workers. I actually didn’t get a chance to move the amendment because games were being played by members of the official opposition who, despite an agreement before lunch that they still had further questions to go, decided not to ask any questions after lunch and so shut down debate, which I thought was quite deplorable at the time. I still do. I would hope that we wouldn’t stoop to such levels as we move forward.

I like to think that we could at least bring ourselves to the standards already in place in Alberta or in Saskatchewan. These are provinces where all employees are covered. It’s likely that had my amendment gone forward, it would have been ruled out of order. Nevertheless, the point of doing it was trying to raise it to debate. Why is it we are picking winners and losers in society? Why don’t we recognize that mental illness is an issue that recanting and trying to prove, on the work-related side, that it’s because of your work can actually be a very troubling process to go through.

We know the WCB, the Workers Compensation Board, can, at any time, challenge anything that is brought forward, but at least the presumption clause is there. In fact, by actually requiring a presumptive clause for all workers, the premium that is based on your claims will ensure that bad-apple employers get their act together to start dealing with some of these issues, particularly in office work, where systemic bullying and harassment can lead to stress, anxiety, mental illness and mental disorders that are not dealt with by the institutions because they’re afraid to create waste. If they start seeing their WCB premiums go up, oh, boy, they’ll have to start dealing with it.

In 2018, the government did not include 911 dispatchers in their Workers Compensation Act. Again, I pleaded with the Minister of Labour, both in question period as well as in the third reading of the bill — the previous Workers Compensation Amendment Act — that they actually be included. I am pleased to see that they have been, through order-in-council.

I read a compelling testimony about a nurse who no longer practised because she couldn’t after the horror she experienced — she was in the audience there as I read her story — being a front-line nurse. Again, a traditional woman’s occupation that we have now included through order-in-council. But surely, as a province that claims to have progressive leadership, we should be taking a card from Alberta. Can you imagine thinking of Alberta as the progressive? Or Saskatchewan? These are the progressive examples of labour presumptive clauses that we’re seeking to bring to B.C. Saskatchewan and Alberta, for heaven’s sake. Surely, progressive government here in B.C. could extend the presumptive clause beyond what it is now.

While, obviously, my second reading remarks have extended more broadly beyond the actual content of this bill which I speak in support of, I think it’s important to caveat our support in the broader context that we still have a lot of work to do. While this bill is a very fine step in the right direction for those workers it is affecting, there are so many other workers in our economy, so many others that I believe should be considered through an extension of those professions included.

I have no intention of not continuing for it. I intend to continue advocating for those workers to be treated with the same fairness as we treat our firefighters and our police officers. I agree that we need to look after the well-being of our firefighters and our police officers, but we also need to look after the well-being of our teachers, our social workers, our nurses — which we are, to some extent —  and so many other professions that often go unrecognized because they’re not squeaky wheels. They’re not here en masse lobbying us, because they’re not organized. I think that’s a shame.

I and my colleagues, I’ll note in conclusion, will be supporting this legislation, clearly. We’ll continue to advocate, hoping we’ll extent the presumptive clause, moving forward, to other professions