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

Today the BC Government tabled Bill 8: Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019. Improving fairness for workers and ensuring balance in workplaces are part of the Confidence and Supply Agreement we signed with the NDP. Our caucus has approached this issue from the start by focusing on sensible policy that puts the health and well-being of people at its core. Our goal is to see an end to the pendulum swings that have marked labour policy in our province over the past three decades. Many of the changes in this legislation appear to be positive steps in that direction. In particular, the changes will give job security to workers fleeing domestic violence and protect children from dangerous work.

Below is our initial statement released in response to the Bill’s introduction. We look forward to debating this bill at second reading in the near future. I will provide a more comprehensive analysis of it once we have had a chance to examine it in detail.

Media Statement

Employment Standards Amendment Act
For immediate release
April 29, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green caucus supports government’s legislation amending the Employment Standards Act, which aligns the province with United Nations standards to better protect children and youth, protect workers facing domestic violence, and improve balance in workplaces.

“Key elements of this legislation better protect the health and well-being of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities,” B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver said. “This legislation will improve safety for children and youth in the workforce, and it allows survivors of domestic violence to take time off when they need it, knowing they will have a job to return to, which can make all the difference to those living in dangerous circumstances. We should take this a step further and provide paid leave for people fleeing domestic violence, to support them as they find safety.

“We have approached this issue from the start by focusing on sensible policy that puts the health and well-being of people at its core. Our goal is to see an end to the pendulum swings that have marked labour policy in our province over the past three decades.

“The upcoming months will require government to engage in a thorough consultation process to establish clear, fair and balanced regulations that businesses can follow. We must also start earnest work to modernize our laws to better support workers as they are forced to adapt to the changing nature of work and the growth of the gig economy.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

On April 11, the day before the legislature rose for a two week break, I stood during Question Period to ask the Minister of Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology whether he was aware of the critical services and programs provided by BC Tech at the Cube and the Hub in Vancouver and the positive impact they have on our innovation community. In response, the Minister spoke passionately about the good work and leadership of the B.C. Tech Association. Yet just five days later, the BC Tech Association announced the impending closure of the Cube due to their inability to secure provincial (and federal) funding to enable it to remain open.

Today I rose during question period to ask the Minister how he reconciles his stated support for the tech sector with the fact that the BC Tech Association is being forced to close the doors of this facility. In addition, I asked the Minister why the Ontario tech sector was getting a $90 million investment the same week that the BC Tech sector was making its announcement. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, if you or other members in the gallery thought that they were participating in an episode of The Twilight Zone, I share their concerns. Here we have the official opposition and their leader arguing for Marxist policy to bring in a price cap, and we have the leader of the socialist party arguing for free market economics. What has B.C. politics come to?

We now have a new level of standard for research by the official opposition. Oil apologist, gasbuddy.com, providing the official opposition official research on their efforts. I cannot wait till the next episode comes forward.

Two weeks ago I asked the minister if he was committed to ensuring that programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech Association at The Cube and The Hub were able to continue. In his response, the minister spoke about how The Cube had provided many opportunities and shown leadership in the sector.

However, since that time, The Cube has now announced it is closing its doors in May because it was unable to secure either provincial or federal funding. This closure sends a wrong signal — the exact wrong signal as to where we should be headed.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. How can the minister reconcile his stated support for the tech sector with the fact that the B.C. Tech Association is being forced to close the doors of The Cube facility?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I would like to thank the Leader of the Third Party for his question and for his continuing support for the tech sector. It’s a growing, vibrant sector here in our province.

We spoke last time about The Cube, and The Cube’s source of funding came from the federal government, from the western diversification fund. They decided to discontinue that funding. As part of the transition, our government gave them $500,000 to point themselves in a new direction. That did not result in their ability to continue it.

But at the same time, in the same sector — the virtual reality, augmented reality sector — just on Tuesday, April 16, I was there…. Actually, Ms. Tipping, the head of the Technology Improvement Association, was there at the launch of a new incubator, the Launch Academy, in the very same sector, the VR-AR sector — very successful, couple of hundred companies there.

This is the biggest AR-VR sector in the world. Perhaps maybe second, although one would be permitted, as an advocate, a little bit of boasting, I think. That sector is world-leading. We are doing well.

The vibe at that place was really good. I spoke with Alex Cheong, cofounder of Shape Immersive. They are very enthusiastic about the possibilities.

This is a sector where there is change. Things change. The Cube didn’t work out. This sector is taking over. I’m very confident about that sector and its future here in British Columbia — indeed, its future globally.

Supplementary Question

Well, I, too, am excited about the prospects for tech in British Columbia. I’m profoundly concerned that B.C. is not stepping up to draw the federal dollars that are available that jurisdictions like Ontario have done. In fact, the same week that the Cube was being closed, the federal government announced in partnership with Ontario a $90 million investment in innovation in Ontario.

Both B.C. and Ontario have burgeoning innovation sectors that drive economic growth and create high-paying, good-quality jobs. The sectors in both provinces have huge potential for growth, and our sector has some of the best potential of all. It will help us transform our economy and drive prosperity for British Columbians from north to south and east to west.

The only difference is that in Ontario, they’re at the table and willing to invest substantially in this new, up-and-coming sector, whereas B.C. appears to be the absent. We’ll be left in the dust behind other jurisdictions if it doesn’t back up its words with actions to ensure that we’re there able to leverage those federal moneys to ensure that we get the innovation centres in B.C. that are so instrumental to the development of the new economy.

My question is again to the minister. Why is the Ontario tech sector getting $90 million as an investment the same week as the B.C. tech sector is being forced to close a facility for innovation in B.C.?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate that the member is particularly enamored of the initiatives taken by the Ford government in Ontario. But the reality here in British Columbia is that we are investing a huge amount in the tech sector here.

Let’s begin with 2,900 new tech spaces in institutions across the province. We are investing $110 million in innovative research in B.C.’s leading post-secondary institutions through the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund. We are investing $12 million in graduate scholarships for students, including science- and tech-related disciplines, as well as $500,000 for women in tech scholarships.

We are making the commitments. Those commitments are going to be renewed through a new Innovate B.C., which has a fresh mandate, a new CEO who comes from Accelerate Okanagan. I’m very optimistic about the future of the tech sector and the investments that come not only from the start-up environment here, which is booming from global companies which are choosing to locate here. Jiu-jitsu was mentioned in the two-minute statements, and there are many others.

People want to be and tech companies want to be in British Columbia. They are coming here, and they will continue to come here because of what we have to offer.

Today in Question Period I rose to ask the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology whether he was aware of the critical services and programs provided by BC Tech at the Cube and the Hub in Vancouver and the positive impact they have on our innovation community.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I must say it is a kinder and gentler question period in the Legislature here today.

On that note, I will note that on February 5, 2018, the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology announced the appointment of B.C.’s first innovation commissioner. The announcement was at B.C. Tech’s Cube. This was widely celebrated as a significant step forward for innovation in our province. I was present at the announcement.

Just two weeks ago, at the B.C. Tech luncheon, the minister and I met some B.C. leaders in the tech sector. Companies that have grown and thrived thanks to the programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech Association.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Is the minister aware of the critical services and programs provided by B.C. Tech at the cube and the hub in Vancouver and the positive impact they have on our innovation community?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. I too share his optimism about the growth of the technology sector here in British Columbia. Certainly the augmented and virtual reality sector, which the cube is a start-up laboratory for, is a very strong one. It’s a very strong sector — in fact, globally leading.

Since we have the ambassador for Korea here, on a recent trip with the Minister of State for Trade to Korea, we met with companies that are well aware of the opportunities here in British Columbia. In fact, there are exchanges, business exchanges, between the Giyungi Content Organization in the sister province to British Columbia and the sector here.

The B.C. Tech Association has provided leadership in that sector, I’m well aware of the opportunities that the cube has provided. Indeed, our government, in December, provided the sum of $500,000 to assist them in preparing as they move to a new funding model.

The initial funding for the cube came largely from the federal government, from the western diversification fund. They underwent a review of their funding of these incubators and have decided that they are heading in a different direction. So as the organization works out its approach, we have provided that money to assist the transition.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you for that very, very comprehensive answer.

The programs and services provided by B.C. Tech help people to take their ideas and turn them into companies. They help existing companies bridge what’s commonly known as the “valley of death.” That is, they help them manage the hyper-growth that these companies often encounter.

Programs and services are an essential engine for innovative growth in our economy, and they rely upon government and industry funding to be able to continue. But in the absence of provincial funding, these programs could be at risk.

Once again, my question is for the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Supporting innovation in our economy is a critical priority for the B.C. Green caucus.

Is the minister equally committed to ensuring the programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech Association at The Cube and the Hub are able to continue?

Interjections.

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I wish the answer were that simple.

The member has referenced the appointment of the innovation commissioner. In a recent report to the Legislature, he set out what he thought were important directions for government policy in the future. He recommends an economic and technology strategy that supports increased business investment in research and development, developing talents at post-secondary institutions and scaling up small businesses with huge growth potential. He’s suggested three different kinds of clusters, whether they’re regional community clusters, emerging technology clusters or scale-up, market-driven clusters.

Certainly, the B.C. Technology Industry Association is a strong leader in providing policy advice to the government. I think they have adopted and would recommend very similar solutions to those that the innovation commissioner put forward, particularly in relation to scaling up companies, taking companies from the start-up environment and building big companies here that are global leaders. And there are lots of opportunities to do that, given the strength of our sector here.

I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about those policies, and I look forward to developing those policies with all members of the Legislature in the future.