Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Premier what his government is doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in British Columbia.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: We’ve talked about the last 16 years. We’ve talked about the 1990s. Let’s talk about the future now. In the second quarter of 2018, British Columbians bought 2,564 electric vehicles, more than three times the amount bought in the previous year. Across our province, dealerships can’t keep EVs on their lots. Backlogs and waiting lists vary from three months to a year, even up to 18 months, and the clean growth strategy to be released later this fall will bring in an aggressive ZEV standard to B.C.

Charging infrastructure remains a barrier for widespread EV adoption, and B.C. Hydro, which has installed a few fast-chargers recently, has done so by giving away the electricity for free. This has led to large lineups as locals get electricity for free while those who need it and those who want to pay for it have to wait in line, hoping to get a charge at some point down the road.

B.C. manufacturing companies like Electra Meccanica, Envirotech Electric Vehicles and Environex Inc. are looking to set up here in British Columbia — manufacturing facilities that want to grow our economy and meet global demand.

My question is to the Premier. What is his government doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in B.C.?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It’s nice to have forward-looking questions on how we’re going to build a better, stronger British Columbia, how we’re going to meet our objectives with respect to climate action, and I appreciate the question.

First of all, British Columbia does lead the country in charging stations, some 1,500. And now you can travel from Golden…. The member from Golden can travel all the way to Tofino in his electric vehicle and not have to stop and charge. As the member quite rightly says, though, we do have some challenges.

That’s why the B.C. Utilities Commission has opened up a review on their own initiative to ensure that we find a way to get electricity into electric vehicles in a way that’s cost-effective, a way that’s fair to the travelling public and allows us to build even more capacity going forward.

Lastly, I would say, with respect to electric vehicle uptake in the economy, we had to increase…. The Minister of Finance found an additional $10 million to put into the clean energy vehicle program in September because it was already oversubscribed from February. That speaks to demand in the economy. That speaks to a responsive government that’s listening to people and putting in place programs and services that will help them and help all of us meet our climate change objectives.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: As the Premier mentioned, obviously there are nearly 1,500 EV charging stations in British Columbia. Almost all of them give away electricity for free. Some are private; most are not. The free model is rapidly becoming unsustainable as more and more British Columbians move towards EVs.

To sell someone electricity in this province, you must be registered as a public utility unless you get some very-difficult-to-get exemption. Oregon, California, Washington, Ontario, New York and a number of other U.S. states have already exempted EV charging from energy regulation. Resale of electricity is permitted, like a gas station, without prior approval, and prices are set by the market. Of course, safety, consumer protection and other considerations are indeed regulated.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The type of approach that encourages private investment in vehicle-charging infrastructure in British Columbia is exactly the direction we want to go. Will the Premier commit his government to updating B.C.’s regulatory environment for EV charging stations immediately after receiving the recommendations from the B.C. Utilities Commission report he referred to?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his interest and passion on this subject. I also want to say that we are utilizing the B.C. Utilities Commission, unlike the previous government that sidelined this very useful regulatory body. We’re using the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine the best way forward.

The member is quite correct. He’s looked into this diligently. We do have some challenges with respect to giving away energy in some places and overcharging in others. A regulatory framework that meets the needs of the travelling public and allows us to meet our climate objectives over time is the right way forward.

I look forward — as all members, I’m sure, do — to the Utilities Commission reporting back in the fall — or in the next number of weeks, I expect — on their proposals going forward.

But I also want to touch on another component of the question that the member asked and that is how can we incent and attract the development of, the creation of construction and the implementation of a program that has a clean, green, innovative tinge to it. That would be left to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Jobs, Training and Technology, who appointed the first innovation commissioner in B.C.’s history so that we can have an economy that works for everybody and looks forward, not backward, like the people on the other side.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 41: Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill repeals the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, brought in by the BC Liberals in 2002. The original version of the bill included language stripping class size and composition rights from teachers’ collective bargaining.

That version led to the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation going on strike, and created a decade-and-a-half long dispute ending with the legislative change being deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once the original version of the bill received royal assent the School Act amendments came into force. This is why they are no longer seen in the present version.

The powers granted to postsecondary institutions that remain in the original version have never been used. Nevertheless, in light of the recent Supreme Court of Canada BCTF decision, if a postsecondary institution were to invoke the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, it is likely it would be deemed unconstitutional, as it is very similar language to what has already been deemed unconstitutional.

Below are the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous government in 2002.

Within the language of that bill brought in in 2002, restrictions were removed, in particular the clause:

Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has the right to

(a) establish the size of its classes, the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, a term or an academic year,

(b) assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,

(c) determine its hours of operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters during which instruction is offered to students,

(d) allocate professional development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of instruction, and

(e) provide support for faculty members, including, but not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contractors and support staff members.

This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually challenged and never actually used, because universities and colleges recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing — related to class size and composition.

Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, which started major labour disputes in our province with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same time. It was rather a classic example of a pendulum that swings, when we have governments shift from one to the other side of the political spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why proportional representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming in, being repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in, in the first place.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised, that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many hours lost, how much stress put on teachers, how much education was not delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly, punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K-to-12 or post-second institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It was legislation that caused, as I mentioned, a decade of turmoil, including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and speaking about the approach of the previous government toward education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward between the BCTF and the government would require trust — mutual trust. It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of the previous government.

At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government was providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say, that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous administration spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dollars in doing so — creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF.

They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I use this example because the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar language in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states here, as well: “Despite any other Act or collective agreement, an institution has the right to…assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,” and to establish class sizes and “the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member….”

The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member — this shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students. What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators noted this, and they stated that this act overruled provisions of their collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time, their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read: “Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employers from using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the legislation should be scrapped all together.” That was with respect to a ruling, one of the many rulings that came in the BCTF’s favour.

The Public Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal challenges that could arise.

Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C. Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought. Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say is we support repealing it, in essence.

I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years of actually not putting education as a priority in this province. This bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and, frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been unconstitutional. My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and with that, I thank you for your attention.

Video of Speech

True to form, the BC Liberals once more stood up today and voted against taking big money out of BC Politics. Recall last year they also voted against taking big money out of our provincial election campaigns. This time it was at First Reading of Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. This bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

I’m not sure what, if anything, the BC Liberals have learned since the last election. British Columbians were well and truly fed up with the “wild west” of BC political financing: Any person, union or corporation anywhere in the world was able to donate any amount of money to any political party any time they wanted.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3: Election Amendment Act, 2017 and Bill 15: Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017 which were passed last year to ensure provincial, local government and school board elections were free from the influence of big money.

Below I reproduce the press release my office issued on this topic.

Media Release

Weaver: Taking big money out of recall campaigns will strengthen our democracy
For immediate release
October 30, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today commended the government’s legislation that would take big money out of recall campaigns. Weaver says the legislation builds on the work the B.C. NDP government and his Caucus are doing to make the B.C. political system more responsive to voters rather than special interests.

“Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents – not to making them subject to big money-funded hit jobs,” said Weaver.

“These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power. This legislation will ensure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials, without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters – plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support the elected official or the recall effort in any given campaign.

“I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the “wild west” of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer 2017 throne speech in a desperate attempt to cling onto power. They continue to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests to pay more.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 48: Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act at second reading. This legislation seeks to improve protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and employers. It requires the licensing of foreign worker recruiters and employers; establishes a criteria for issuing registrations; and imposes tougher penalties for recruiters and employers who violate the legislation. It also allows government to recover and return to workers illegal fees charged by recruiters. Finally, this bill creates two registries (one for foreign worker recruiters and one for employers) via a cost-free and accessible online process.

Below are the text and video of my speech in support of this bill.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in second reading debates on Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, an act that’s been introduced by the minister to ensure protection for temporary foreign workers.

I rise to speak in support of this bill. Like the member for Chilliwack, we, too, raised a number of questions and concerns that I hope to see or be explored further in committee stage. Overall, I think this is good legislation and takes us generally in the right direction.

Temporary foreign workers play a critical role in our economy and our society, whether they’re working in the agriculture sector or as home care aides, whether they’re filling seasonal employment. For example, recently, many of us attended the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting in Whistler. The hotel I was staying at was clearly largely employed by temporary foreign workers from New Zealand and Australia, who clearly were coming to British Columbia to gain some experience and gain some expertise in skiing.

I have a great deal in common with them. When I was their age, I was a temporary foreign worker in Australia. I was there for a year, getting the better of the surf and the sand and the Aussie rules football. It was a very rewarding experience for me back in 1988, as I’m sure it was for those young people in Whistler today.

Temporary foreign workers play many critical roles in such trades as the seasonal employment, and for many, actually, we find that it’s a pathway for eventual citizenship. Canada, as a nation — built on the hard work of immigrants — welcomes new Canadians on an ongoing basis.

In fact, just this morning, a young boy in grade 5 at a school that was visiting this Legislature, from Glenlyon, in my riding, just literally became a Canadian citizen. This was a very big deal for him — that today, he became Canadian.

Temporary foreign workers come to B.C. through multiple programs, including the temporary foreign worker program, the seasonal agricultural worker program and the international mobility program. As the member from Chilliwack pointed out, in 2017 alone, the federal government issued over 47,000 work permits for foreign nationals destined for B.C., and 17,000 of these were temporary foreign workers.

We’re second only to Ontario in terms of the total number of temporary foreign work permits that have been issued. Industries like agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting account for nearly half of the temporary foreign workers in British Columbia — like 9,000 workers. Eighty-three percent of those permits are located in the Lower Mainland, 5 percent in Thompson-Okanagan and 4 percent on Vancouver Island.

Again, as somebody…. When I was at the University of Victoria, and my wife was also faculty there, and we had young children, we, too, took advantage of the temporary foreign worker program and were able to bring to Canada a now-Canadian, somebody who was working in Hong Kong as a nanny. She was able to come to British Columbia on such a caregiver program and spend three years with us before becoming a Canadian citizen. Now she’s married here. She’s contributing to the Canadian economy. Her husband is here as well.

We benefited greatly, as a family, from being able to bring a temporary foreign worker here. I’m sure other members in this chamber have similar stories about the importance of temporary foreign workers.

One of my son’s friends had very serious health issues and required 24-hour care — his father did, rather — in the home. And, again, that care was provided by live-in, temporary foreign workers, 24 hours a day. Again, it was simply not possible to find the people, Canadians, who would be able to or willing to serve in such a capacity. Again, in this case, we had a loving home. Temporary foreign workers come, spend a few years, are now Canadian and contributing to our economy and bringing their rich, diverse cultures to Victoria, in this case, but British Columbia and Canada in general.

However, not everyone has the kind of employer that provides a nurturing, safe environment. Temporary foreign workers can be amongst some of the most vulnerable in our society. In a new country, many will face a language barrier. They may be unfamiliar with their rights and our laws, and they are at risk for exploitation and abuse.

For this reason, the legislation before us is important to support, because it addresses this particular aspect. It begins to put in place a means and mechanism to actually ensure that temporary foreign workers are not exploited. The legislation will improve protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and employers.

For example, it will do a couple of things. It’ll create two registries, one for foreign worker recruiters and one for foreign worker employers, via a cost-free — that’s important — on-line process. It’ll allow, also, government to recover and return to workers illegal fees charged by recruiters. In particular, government could impose tougher penalties for noncompliance, including a loss of licence or registration, financial penalties — $50,000 for an individual, $100,000 for a corporation; that’s an awful lot of money — and up to one year imprisonment. The legislation will improve government information about temporary foreign workers, and recruiters and employers will also be required to disclose their relationships with recruiter organizations in various companies.

These are important, some of these changes. We know of, or we’ve heard stories of, examples where recruiters collect a fee from temporary foreign workers. They end up working here. There are examples we’ve heard stories of where passports are held from temporary foreign workers, and exploitation sets in.

Much of this bill, obviously, is modeled after the employer standards act, and it follows the lead of other jurisdictions like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which already have temporary foreign worker registries in place. Last week one of our press gallery, Les Leyne, reported out that B.C. is considered to be well behind the pack in upholding standards and pursuing complaints. This was reported out in one of his articles he wrote. This is important to note, that this legislation does actually deal with bringing us in line with some of the other jurisdictions.

In 2018, the B.C. budget for the Minister of Labour received a $3 million increase in funding over three years to support initiatives for compliance and enforcement, improve protections for vulnerable workers and support fair and balanced treatment of workers and employers in B.C.

Within that context, we know that the legislation coming before us is legislation that has got monies associated with it to ensure that it’s delivered in a manner that will actually meet the objective it is being put together to address. Most recruiters and employers will seek to do their best for employers. We know that. But this legislation is targeting those who try to skirt the rules a little bit to ensure that there is unsafe working and living conditions, for example, are dealt with to ensure that temporary foreign workers cannot be treated inappropriately for fear of complaining about their jobs, they might lose their jobs. So they might be sent home in debt. There is a whole bunch of issues that are being dealt with here that for which this bill is trying to ensure safe conditions exist.

This bill will require recruiters and employers who seek out and hire temporary foreign workers. Registration. They will require them to register. By doing so, the government will be able to identify and respond to bad operators for the benefit of all stakeholders involved. In essence, this levels the playing field for both employers and recruiters by addressing the few bad operators out there who take advantage of temporary foreign workers and hence, reap the benefit.

When this first came in, I feared that this bill to establish the temporary foreign worker registry would have created an unfair burden for employers — the small employers, not so much the bigger employers, but the small employers — the employer who is perhaps a spouse who is looking for help for a caregiver for their ailing partner or a family who is looking for a caregiver for their child.

Small business. I was initially concerned that this might be regulatory red tape but oversight and costs. I was reassured after receiving a briefing from the ministry that this is, indeed, not the case. In fact, the fact that is free is not a financial burden, and the fact that it’s looking like it will be an online process that will take 15 minutes or so to fill out in terms of the registry. It seems to me that that is not onerous in light of the fact as an employer of a temporary foreign worker in a caregiver capacity you already have to register for a GIC number. You have to register with CPP and EI deductions, etc. So this is relatively pale in comparison to what already exists.

Overall, I am pleased with this legislation. Again, creating a safer environment and a safer experience for temporary foreign workers will have a net positive impact on B.C. I will also agree with the member for Chilliwack who spoke about some of the work that was done by the previous government in this area.

I remember very fondly working with the then-minister of, I guess it was Jobs, now the member for Prince George–Valemount, who together and collectively, we were able to introduce legislative change to no longer make it allowable for an employer in British Columbia to require an employee to wear high heels or footwear otherwise deemed to be unsafe.

In fact, I can tell you if you go to bars around this area you will find that most people are no longer wearing high heels. Very often, people come up and are very pleased by that legislation. Government listened, government responded, and now you’ve got soft flats happening in bars across British Columbia. That’s actually an important health and safety achievement that we’ve got here.

Finally, I’ll say that I do commend the minister for looking out for workers. But I hope the minister can also recognize that we have to look out for not only temporary foreign workers but our own workers in British Columbia. The fact that British Columbia is dragging its heels in terms of introducing legislation or introducing now order-in-council to actually address the presumptive clause for mental illness in a number of professions. Frankly, we could follow the lead of some provinces and actually assume a presumptive clause for all mental illness for all workers covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

The reason being, of course, is if you have exposure to mental illness having to recant and retell your stories time and time again in order to prove that it is your workforce that actually is the result of or caused that mental illness, can be very onerous, and frankly, can be detrimental to the overall well-being and subsequent recovery of workers in B.C.

So I look forward to further efforts that the Minister of Labour will have in this regard in the weeks and months ahead

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature the premier rose to deliver a Ministerial Statement on the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh. Both the leader of the official opposition and I delivered responses to the premier’s statement on this tragic event.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my remarks.

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

Thank you to the Premier and to the Leader of the Official Opposition for your thoughtful words moments ago.

News of the Tree of Life Synagogue massacre — the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in U.S. history — prompted condemnation from around the world. Today we add our voices to that chorus. I stand with my colleagues from all sides of the House in solemn solidarity against hatred, intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism and violence.

The victims of this horrific attack were cherished community members, respected elders, dear friends and beloved family members. Reading about their lives this morning, I was humbled by their devotion to serving others, their kindness, generosity, compassion and love for those around them.

To echo our Premier, we know that the rise of intolerance isn’t just in the United States. It’s here in Canada too. We know that the words of elected representatives can fan the flames of hatred.

In memory of those lost, we renew our devotion serving others and commit to embodying the compassionate values of:

• Bernice and Sylvan Simon;
• David and Cecil Rosenthal;
• Melvin Wax;
• Jerry Rabinowitz;
• Joyce Fienberg;
• Daniel Stein; Rose Mallinger;
• Richard Gottfried; and
• Irving Younger.

I’ll also add 69-year-old Maurice Stallard and 67-year-old Vickie Lee Jones to the list of people murdered in hate crimes this week. A shooter attempted to enter the Jeffersontown, Kentucky First Baptist Church, which has a predominantly African-American membership, before turning to a nearby grocery store and racially targeting victims. Maurice was shopping with his grandson, helping him get a poster for a school project. He died shielding the 12-year-old during the attack. Vickie was shot walking to her car.

We must be vigilant in our communities and fight against the hatred that can fester and rot into violence. We stand with the government of British Columbia, the official opposition and all British Columbians, united in love and compassion. Our thoughts today are with the loved ones of those targeted.