Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 30: Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 at second reading. This bill amends the labour relations code to make a number of changes to enhance protections for workers and implement the recommendations of the independent expert review panel.

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and take my place in the debates on second reading of Bill 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019.

Ending the pendulum swings that have defined labour policy for the last 30 years or so in British Columbia has been a priority for the B.C. Greens. The proposed amendments to the labour relations code are, in our view, a step forward in the right direction — a step forward to reaching balance that’s required while also enhancing the important protection for workers.

British Columbians deserve to expect certainty and stability in labour policy. That is precisely what our caucus has advocated for all along. For the past 30 years, labour policy in B.C. has been defined by pendulum swings between Liberal and NDP governments. Through our consultation with government, we made it clear that progressive changes are needed to protect workers, through moderate, evidence-based policy adjustments. We were thrilled and delighted to work with government to move that forward.

The basic starting point for this was the expert panel review that government commissioned. That panel made balanced and thoughtful recommendations on updating the labour code that are reflected in this legislation. We conveyed to government that we support the recommendations of the expert panel in their entirety.

One of the things that the expert panel talked about was the secret ballot. Retaining the secret ballot while shortening the time frame for the vote from ten to five business days and enacting stronger protections against employer interference, in our view, is a reasonable path forward to maintain balance in the workplace and to ensure that workers are protected as they exercise their choice as to whether or not they wish to unionize.

We support the other significant provisions in this legislation as well. They take important steps forward to better protect workers and to ensure balance in the workplaces. The changes we’re seeing here include extending successorship provisions to protect workers in a number of sectors — I’ll expand on that later — reducing the disruption caused by frequent raids by modifying the open periods, and removing education as an essential service — although that, too, I’ll come to later.

Let’s go back to what the bill does. I’ll start with union certification to provide some context.

The bill retains a secret ballot while making a number of changes to strengthen the regime to ensure that the votes take place in an environment free from interference. The key elements of this regime are canvassed below.

Retains the secret ballot. One of the most contentious issues in labour relations over the past three decades has been precisely that — retention of the secret ballot. As the panel noted, there have been four swings on the code on this issue. Basically, every time government switches from one to the other, the secret ballot comes or gets taken out. Ending these pendulum swings, for us, was critical. A reason why that’s important is that if you start to have these pendulum swings, all sorts of other things start to change as well.

Now, I note that not everybody is pleased that the secret ballot remains. We know that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians support the secret ballot. We know, and I know, from the exchanges of emails, letters and phone calls and conversations I’ve had, that a large number, if not the majority, of union workers actually support the secret ballot as well, including some leaders in the field.

We know that the issue of secret ballot is one that’s very easy to defend, but, and in that context, we also recognize that there have been examples, particularly with the extended time of ten days, of employer interference and intimidation. This is why we felt that it’s important to retain secret ballot while supporting the recommendations of the panel to do so, as well as to support recommendations to shorten the time. Clearly, I recognize that certain of the union leadership are really in favour of the secret ballot, because, for example, we know that, as reported by the panel, the success rate in card check is about 9 percent higher than under secret ballot.

Again, you can imagine, while we hear stories, often, about how the employer has intimidated workers…. It’s true. No doubt, it’s true. There’s lots of examples, and these have been brought to me. They’re examples of shenanigans that have gone on. As certification drives start, we start to have a bunch of new employees hired who vote against it. There are all sorts of shenanigans that have gone on, and I appreciate that. But at the same time, I’ve also had stories conveyed of intimidation to actually sign cards as well. So it’s actually a good thing, I think. The fair compromise we’ve got here, is where we shorten the time frame, which mitigates the ability of employers to interfere in a certification drive or a secret ballot but, at the same time, ensuring that workers have the right to express themselves free from external influence as they mark an X.

The panel also noted that secret ballots are integral to our democratic political system, but they also recognize, as I do, that certification votes take place in a context of power imbalances between employers and workers, so protections are necessary, as I noted, to ensure the vote is conducted in a fair way and employees are able to exercise their choice to join a union, or not — from all interference. The panel found in the majority decision…. It wasn’t unanimous; it was 2 to 1. The majority decision was that the secret ballot “is the most consistent with our democratic norms, protects the fundamental right of freedom of association and choice.” Those are the words of the panel.

The panel said that it’s important to keep the secret ballot, paired with updates to the code that “effectively limit and fully remediate unlawful interference,” and that ultimately is why we supported retention of the secret ballot. Hopefully, as we move forward, recognizing that this is not what everyone wanted and that there are those in the union movement who still, and continue to pressure, for a card-check certification. We hope that the balance here is such that if government were to switch, we might actually collectively agree that this labour code can preserve, and that would preserve stability in labour in British Columbia, which I think would be a good thing.

The bill strengthens rules to restrict what is lawful communication during an organizing drive or certification application through repealing and replacing section 8 of the act. The current section establishes a broad right for employers to communicate as long as they do not use intimidation or coercion. Therein lies the difficulty. And there is process, but actually determining what is viewed as intimidation or coercion can be somewhat difficult and requires some additional oversight. What’s happening now, of course, is that these words are being replaced with narrower language recommended by the panel, allowing persons to communicate “a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held.” That’s important. We don’t want to limit the ability of free speech or the conveyance of facts and opinions that are reasonable, however, intimidation tactics like, “If you vote for this, you’re going to be fired,” or intimidation tactics whereby, in a workforce of maybe eight people in the place, all of a sudden, nine temporary foreign workers show up, and suddenly you’re outnumbered there. These kinds of things, we believe, are actually forms of undermining the democratic process of allowing individuals to unionize.

The change was a recommendation of the panel as part of their recommendation on restricting employer communication with employees during organization, so we’re pleased that government has adopted that. As I noted currently, the language in the code allows broader employee communications during an organizing drive or certification application in every other Canadian jurisdiction. Again, this is something that we believe is not balanced, and what is happening in this legislation is that balance is restored in British Columbia.

The pendulum is not swinging, and this is what I am most pleased about. I don’t view this as a pendulum swinging from the far right to the far left yet again. I view this as the pendulum stopping in the middle in a balanced fashion to ensure that labour policy changes moving forward are ones that reflect the importance of protecting the workers’ rights to unionize, as well as to ensure that the employer has a chance to convey information in a manner that’s factual as opposed to framed in intimidation.

This change, actually, that’s happening returns the code to the pre-2002 language in some sense. In the words of the panel, this is “consistent with virtually all other Canadian jurisdictions and strikes the appropriate balance between employer speech and the prevention of undue interference with employee choice.”

The bill also provides the Labour Relations Board with broader discretion to impose union certification when an employer is found to have unduly interfered with the certification process. That, too, is something we’re proud to support, again, because of the threat of the big stick. You never want to use the big stick. The big stick is something that you have on the side that you hope to never use. But if there is no stick, often people can move forward, recognizing there are no consequences for their behaviour. But now there are such consequences.

So combined with the shorter time period, retention of the secret ballot, the improved regulations in terms of employer communications as well as the ability of the Labour Relations Board to step in if the employer is unduly influencing the certification process, we think this strikes a fair balance — a balance articulated by the committee, brought forward by government — and hopefully, we can unanimously support this in this House.

Section 5 of the bill allows the Labour Relations Board to certify a union when there has been a prohibited act, if the board believes it is just and equitable. The section also lowers the threshold required for remedial certification. Previously, the board had to determine that the union would likely have obtained the support it needed if not for the prohibited act. That’s a very difficult test.

How can you say…? The employer does something — let’s suppose, hypothetically — through messaging and communication that unduly influenced people. The union would have to prove to the Labour Relations Board that this act, this form of communication, if it had not occurred, would otherwise have allowed the union process to go through.

That’s a difficult bar to set. I, again, don’t believe that that’s a very big stick at all. In fact, frankly, I think it’s not even a twig. That’s, basically, not very prohibitive at all.

Again, we are pleased that the threshold required for remedial certification has been lowered. The board simply has to be satisfied that the prohibited act did occur and that it’s just and equitable to order remedial certification — a fair process, as recommended by the panel.

As I mentioned, the bill also shortens the requirements for the on-time between an application for union certification and an employee vote. It was ten days. Now it’s going to move to five business days. Five business days — basically, it has to happen in one week. And it also specifies that mail votes can only be conducted if agreed by the both employer and the union and the board is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to require a mail-in vote.

Again, both these changes were recommended by the panel. The shorter time frame limits the opportunity for improper interference while permitting sufficient time to arrange the vote. It also allows employees time in a protected environment to decide whether or not to join said union. The change actually aligns British Columbia more consistently with other jurisdictions in Canada, most of which have time limits of five business days or seven business days. Ontario recently made the change to five days, excluding holidays and weekends, which is, in essence, five business days.

To the issue of successorship. Let’s start with what the bill does. The bill now extends the issue of successorship protection to re-tendering of service contracts in specific areas or future areas that may be prescribed by regulation. These include building, cleaning, janitorial services, security services, bus transportation services, non-clinical services in the health care sector and food services.

This goes slightly beyond what the panel recommended. The panel recommended successorship protections to most of these sectors, and government also added the food services outside of the health care sector in addition to the panel’s recommendation. We support that.

A very real example you might imagine is at YVR, Vancouver International Airport. When you have service workers in the food sector being employed by one contractor and then the bidding process comes up again and some other contractor undercuts and wins the bid, claiming it’s going to deliver the services at a lower cost, the only way they can do it is to rehire back the same people at lower wages. This is not fair, and nor is this right.

We don’t believe that the tendering process should undermine the ability of the people who’ve been there for many, many years to actually retain their job or build on their seniority. Ultimately, they are the heart of the food sector, and were they to not be given this protection, a new contract comes in and all their benefits are gone. All their salary negotiations have gone. They have to start again. That’s not right.

The panel actually recommended a measured approach that addresses the problem in an incremental sustainable manner. In fact, their exact words were: “…a measured approach that addresses the problem in an incremental sustainable manner. Successorship protection should be extended to re-tendering of contracts for specified services.” They gave some examples. There may be other examples that we haven’t thought through, but again, you can imagine security services or janitorial services, or, in health care, food services. To have a new contract bid and having the same workers doing the same job just a day later now, suddenly having to take a salary cut because the new contract came in at a lower bid and ultimately, it threw those workers under the bus. If they want their job, they have to take a pay cut. That’s not right.

The employers recommended a conservative measured, approach to any extension of successorship protections. The code, section 35, already provides that collective bargaining rights and obligations are assumed by a successor employer where a business, or part of it, is sold, leased, transferred or otherwise disposed of. The changes outlined in this bill will have a huge impact on the lives of many people. Often, these are people who are working at the lower end of the wage spectrum. That means that these workers will be able to build up fair wages and job security over years of hard work and dedication. They won’t see those stripped away when contracts are re-tendered.

There was a story from the Globe and Mail where a woman named Mary Jane Bayangos, who works as a contractor cleaning B.C. Hydro’s downtown Vancouver headquarters, said the low-wage workers like her desperately need the proposed changes. Mary Jane said in the Globe article that her wages at her previous second job, cleaning nearby St. Paul’s Hospital, temporarily lowered when the complex’s cleaning contract flipped four years ago, and she was rehired to do the same job for less pay. She says this. I quote directly from the Globe: “‘It was very stressful, fearing losing our job and our benefits,’ she told the Globe and Mail. ‘I had co-workers who were close to retirement age. If we lose our jobs, they cannot just look for another job that quick.'” Can you imagine? You’ve been working there for 20 years, and you’re the age of 62. That’s just not fair.

According to the review panel, what they said is: “When contracts are re-tendered, often the same workforce continues to provide the same service to the same customers or clients with the same working conditions at the same location using the same equipment. The existing collective agreement ends, the employees are required to reapply for their jobs, the union is required to organize the workforce, and a new collective agreement must be negotiated.”

Several Canadian jurisdictions have realized long ago that this isn’t right, and they’ve enacted successorship provisions dealing with the contracting out and contract re-tendering. For example, Nova Scotia authorizes a successorship declaration where an employer contracts out or agrees to transfer a bargaining unit in order to defeat or undermine collective bargaining rights or avoid collective agreement obligations for many years. Not currently, though.

Saskatchewan extended successorship to building cleaning, food services and security services provided in a building owned by a provincial or municipal government or in a hospital, university or other public institution. They unfortunately don’t have to it now, but similar to what is being proposed here in B.C.

The Canada labour code provides limited protection for employee remuneration when contracts are re-tendered in security or other designated services. In the case of Ontario, they recently re-enacted successor rights when contracts are tendered and re-tendered in the building cleaning, food services and home care sectors with provisions for extension by order-in-council to other service providers that directly or indirectly receive public funds.

Coming to the issue of education as an essential service, section 16 of this bill removes education as an essential service, instead, keeping only the reference to whether a dispute poses a threat to health, safety or welfare of British Columbians. The panel actually recommended removing education as an essential service. The panel found that the reference to the education programs in the act is very vague and overly broad. Instead, they found that: “Restricting essential services to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of B.C. residents is more consistent with the nature and purposes of essential service designations, legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Those were the views of the expert panel that were so succinctly worded in the document that they provided publicly to government and others. Education services may well be…. Frankly, all of us would consider them essential to the betterment of the next generation of citizenship. Aspects of education services would still be captured within legislation. For example, grade 12 exams. They’d still be captured by the board’s interpretation of the term “welfare” in its decision on what constitutes an essential service. That justifies a restriction on striking.

Historical changes. We should note that in 1992, the code amendments adopted the 1992 report recommendations that education be removed as an essential service, and the board subsequently concluded that some elements of educational services could be included in the term “welfare.” For example, final exams for grade 12 students. In 2002, section 72 was amended to expressly refer to the provision of educational programs to students and children.

In conclusion, I would argue that this is a very fair and balanced piece of legislation. It’s focused primarily on implementing the recommendations of the expert panel, and it will better ensure fairness and balance in workplaces in the interests of both workers and employers. However, while these amendments are necessary adjustments, in our view, to existing labour law, they fail to address some of the more fundamental challenges facing our economy. Those will continue, and my colleagues from Cowichan Valley and Saanich North and the Islands will address this more in detail when we get to that section.

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. 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, frankly, aren’t keeping up. We continue to look forward to working with government to ensure that we are responding to the changes in workplaces that British Columbians are facing.

I look forward to the deliberations at committee stage of this legislation and supporting the advancement of good, balanced labour code public policy in British Columbia. I want to thank the minister, who was very gracious in his discussions and deliberations with our caucus. I wish to thank the ministerial staff, who we met with frequently, and the many, many thousands upon thousands of British Columbians who emailed us, both in support of and in opposition to the issue of card check versus secret ballot.

I think the legislation has got it right. I’m very pleased to support this. I think British Columbians overall, looking back on this — some won’t be happy, some will be very happy, some will be upset. This is a balanced piece of legislation. We’re delighted to support it. I look forward to further deliberations as we move forward.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 8: Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019 at second reading. This bill amends the employment standards act to make a number of changes to enhance protections for workers.  The proposed amendments touch on four priority areas of employment standards, with changes to:

• better protect children and youth from dangerous work;
• make it easier for workers to get help when they feel their rights have been violated;
• provide more job protection to people dealing with difficult personal circumstances; and
• ensure people are paid the wages they are owed — and that those that violate the law do not have an unfair economic advantage.

The amendments incorporate recommendations from the BC Law Institute, as well as from the BC Employment Standards Coalition, the BC Federation of Labour, and feedback from workers, employers and the public.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my speech. The reader will notice that I twice had to move adjournment of the debate so that progress could be reported out from Committee A.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in second reading to Bill 8, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019. The member from Chilliwack covered many of the points I was going to address, so a bit of a “me too” would probably summarize where I’m going to go with my remarks here at second reading. I share the same concerns, but also the same thoughts with respect to those aspects of the bill that are relatively straightforward.

The bill makes a number of changes to the Employment Standards Act. It improves fairness for workers and ensures a balance in workplaces. Frankly, part of our confidence and supply agreement actually stated that we would take steps to improve fairness for workers and ensure balances in the workplace. In essence, you could say that government is delivering on a commitment in the confidence and supply agreement.

Our caucus’s position and how we approached this was from the starting point of focusing on good public policy that puts the health and well-being of people at its core. Our goal has been, at all times, to try to stop the pendulum swings that have been going on in British Columbia labour policy for decades, from one extreme to the other. We wanted to see a thoughtful approach to policy development that actually is something we can all be proud of and is not something that will change the second the next government changes. Always, government changes at some point in the road.

This bill actually does a very good job, in my view, in listening to stakeholders and in coming up with a very reasonable approach to modernizing our employment standards in British Columbia. Many of the steps are indeed very positive, and we’re delighted to support them. A key element to this legislation is to better protect the health and well-being of some of the most vulnerable people in our community. In particular, the changes will give job security to workers fleeing domestic violence and protect children from dangerous work. I’ll come to that in a minute when I address the issue of light work versus dangerous work.

The bill also modernizes the employment standards branch complaint resolution process and ensures people are paid the wages that they are owed — again, welcome additions in this amendment act.

It implements commonsense, reasonable changes to improve fairness and balance in the workplace, and I’m glad it’s been receiving support from both the employer and the labour community. You know you’ve done something right when both of these groups of stakeholders are supportive of the change, so the minister deserves some credit in this regard.

Jock Finlayson, for example, is not known to be someone who’s advocating for tighter labour code changes. He’s from the B.C. Business Council. He said that they generally agree with almost all of the changes proposed in the bill, while labour advocates are also celebrating these changes. That’s a good thing.

I’ll speak to the changes the bill makes in a little more detail as we come up. Let me start with child employment. This was an issue that the member for Chilliwack focused extensively on.

In sections 6 and 7 of the bill, it’s changing the rules regarding the hiring of children. Right now in British Columbia, children under 15 can be hired with written parental consent, and the director, the so-called director, must permit the hiring of a child under 12. But under the new rules in this bill, there are different criteria for light work, for hazardous work and all other non-prescribed work. Non-prescribed means those jobs that are not listed in the examples that are given.

The definition of “light work” and “hazardous” work, of course, has been left to regulation. Therein lies, I think, some of the concerns of the member for Chilliwack, which I share. We hope — and I expect, and I’m sure the minister will do this — that during committee stage, he’ll flesh out some of the examples of what he’s thinking in terms of what this means. That will give the public a sense of comfort that the directions he’s proposing are, indeed, common sense and not more draconian, as some people might assume it’s going.

Under the new rules, as I mentioned, there are different definitions of light work and hazardous work. The act raises the age that a child may work with the director’s permission from 12 to 14. Children aged 14 to 15 will be able to perform light work — which will also be defined, as I mentioned, through regulation — with the written consent of their parents.

Children aged 14 to 15 will be able to perform other non-hazardous work only with the director’s permission, and children under 16 now will be prohibited from being hired in a hazardous industry or for hazardous work. Children aged 16 to 19, who have not attained a prescribed age in respect to a specific hazardous work, will also not be able to work in those industries.

Hazardous industries and hazardous work will be defined, as I mentioned, through regulation, and they’re likely to be harmful to the health, safety or morals of a person under 16.

In theory, this is eminently sensible. I think I heard that from the member for Chilliwack, and I heard the intent from the minister. The danger, of course, is that given the fact that we have not seen the regulations, there are examples that one could conjure up that are somewhat troubling.

My first job was, indeed, at the age of about 13, cutting lawns. I was actually quite a big guy when I was 13. I grew fast. I was the big kid in the class. For me, pushing a lawn mower around would have been like a 17-year-old. I didn’t grow much from about 13 to about 18, but I was very large at the age of 13.

I know many people have done…. I would hope that lawn mowing would be considered something that we might open up. Because for many, doing some light gardening work or helping out their aging neighbours, which I did as a child too…. You often don’t even do it for work. You do it just because you’re helping out your neighbour, who happens to be a senior, who’s not got the same physical abilities that they used to have. You go and cut their lawn, maybe, and maybe you do some grocery shopping for them or maybe you fix something or even change a lightbulb. These are things that you may not get paid for. You may even get paid, but you may not have asked for pay.

Again, I hope, in the committee stage, we get a fleshing out of the minister’s intention. I feel quite confident…. I’m not worried too much that we’re going to be too draconian here. But that will give him the opportunity to clarify this.

Our current rules don’t actually comply with the International Labour Organization’s standards. In fact, the ILO, as it’s known, sets international standards for minimum age of employment at 16, except for light work. Canada ratified the convention in 2016.

Hon. Speaker, I believe the House Leader for the government needs to make a brief interjection, so I move adjournment of the debate, and I’ll reserve my right to continue in a few moments once we proceed further.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 7 — BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 7, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage Bill 27, and in this House, I call continued debate on Bill 8. I thank the member for his indulgence.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS  AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

A. Weaver: I’ll continue. I was talking about the International Labour Organization standards and the fact that the minimum age of employment was 16, except for light work, according to their standards, which Canada ratified in 2016. We are signatories of this. However, we’re not in line with ILO standards. So the legislation is bringing British Columbia in line with ILO standards. Frankly, B.C. is the least restrictive jurisdiction in Canada with respect to child employment, possibly with the exception of Yukon. I’m not sure. But it seems that we may be behind Yukon.

Anyway, disability claims. The statistics show that over $1 million was paid out in job-related claims for workers aged 14 and under between 2007 and 2016. Think about that. Over $1 million paid out in job-related disability claims by workers age 14 and under. In fact, every year between 2005 and 2016, workers aged 14 and less have been injured seriously enough on the job to qualify for a long-term disability pension. Imagine that. Thirteen years old, doing some hazardous work that you probably shouldn’t have be doing, and you get injured. Now you’re on long-term disability and a pension for the rest of your life.

I would suggest that this legislation is designed specifically to ensure that these children are not working in such positions so that we’re not actually having to deal with disability pensions being offered to 13 year olds. There will always be freak examples. Hopefully, we’ll actually take this to the same level as the rest Canada and meet the ILO standards, internationally, that Canada is a signatory to.

If we continue on then, in our view, it’s important that the policy work to define the types of work children may do is undertaken carefully. That’s as raised by the member for Chilliwack. We’ve heard, as the member for Chilliwack has also heard, from people who are worried that the changes to child employment will actually prohibit their children from doing the jobs they’re already doing, like working at their corner store or, perhaps, McDonald’s. One of my first jobs, I was working at an equivalent in England. It was like a McDonald’s. Beefeater it was called.

Again, is flipping at the grill considered hazardous work, or is it not considered hazardous work? The grill is hot. If you put your arm on it, you can get third-degree burns. However, I would suggest that we need to flesh this out a little more to get an idea of what the minister’s thinking.

You know, these sorts of jobs are quite important for young people to get experience and financial independence. For me, it was the ability to actually have some spending money to do things that I wanted to do with my friends. I think it’s good training for youth and young teenagers to actually have a paper route, for example. Is that considered hazardous? I suspect not, but we’d need to get some clarification as we move forward.

We’ll explore this committee stage. Well, I’m hoping I’ll be able to explore this committee stage. It’s quite difficult in light of the fact that, as I’m speaking here today, I’m supposed to be in three places. The civil forfeiture bill, which we we’re discussing…. Clearly, I couldn’t participate in committee stage. Also, estimates for the Ministry of Energy and Mines is happening now, and I can’t participate there. So we’ll try to participate in committee stage, but unless I clone myself two other ways, it’s going to be difficult if it’s happening at the same time.

A second aspect of this bill that we support is the job-protected leaves for critical illness and domestic violence. It’s in section 18. It creates unpaid critical illness or injury leave. This is important because it grants leave for up to 36 weeks to care for a critically ill child under 19 and up to 16 weeks to care for a critically ill adult family member. This is important. I have a personal story that I’ll come to. It also expands the definition of immediate family to include a parent or child of the employee’s spouse. It requires a certificate from a nurse practitioner or medical practitioner to actually do this.

In my case, twice I’ve had to deal with this. In both times, our children were born. My wife, sadly, spent an awful long time in hospital after both of these — one month, in fact, in hospital after the first one and similarly with the second one. The chair of my department where I was working was very open-minded. He recognized — and he didn’t have to — that with a brand-new baby at home and a wife in critical condition in the hospital, this is not exactly the type of time that you want to be demanding 9-to-5 working. I was given, because of the grace of my employer, the time off to actually look after a newborn.

But that was because my direct employer, my direct person that I reported to, was a good person. He, basically, talked with my colleagues, and people juggled the situation around to cover my teaching and to cover my other stuff so that I could be with the family. It was simply not an option for my spouse, who was in hospital, to care for a brand-new child. Let me tell you, I can redefine that the definition of stress is when you have a new child and your wife is very ill in hospital.

So I’m all for this — 100 percent. At the time, of course, I could have done the same thing with parental…. Well, actually, there was no parental leave. I wouldn’t be able to take that, because back in the day, there was no parental leave for fathers. That’s also new legislation that’s been brought in. We’re modernizing, and we’re doing it here. These kinds of changes are bringing us into the 21st century, and it behooves us to support them and celebrate the successes that we have.

To give more information here, this change that we’re doing is actually important, because it’s aligning British Columbia with the EI benefits that were introduced in December 2017 by the federal government. It provides financial support there to those caring for a critically ill child or adult family member. We’re coming into step with the federal legislation. The change, here in B.C., ensures that workers are able to take advantage of EI without the risk of losing their jobs. Of course, I think most people in this House would support that.

Section 19 of the bill adds some important changes to create leave in the case of domestic violence — physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse by an intimate partner or by a family member. In this case, it’s going to be up to ten days of intermittent continuous leave and up to 15 weeks of continuous unpaid leave.

I note that the House Leader of the government has once again entered, and I suspect that he’s wishing to move forward one of the committee stages. I would like to move adjournment of the debate for the second time and reserve my right to continue forward in the debate when it is next called.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and Third Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — TICKET SALES ACT

Bill 27, Ticket Sales Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for his indulgence. I am pretty sure that this will be the last time his speech gets interrupted. I thank you for that.

With that, I call, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 8. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Health.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

A. Weaver: I’m delighted to rise and continue, but let me say that I’m thrilled to have taken my place to allow Bill 27 to move and be enacted. Bill 27, of course, is the Ticket Sales Act. The only thing I’m troubled by is that I wish we’d done that two months ago, because I recently acquired two tickets to Paul McCartney in Vancouver. I had to pay far too much money for those tickets, because I got them on a resale site. Had this bill passed two months ago, my Paul McCartney tickets — he’s coming to Vancouver in June or July; I can’t remember — would have been an awful lot cheaper than I had to pay. But you don’t get to see Paul McCartney very often in your life, and I figure this is a once-in-a-lifetime event, so we forked out the dough. We may live to regret it, but hopefully not. Anyways, thank you for passing this bill.

I continue on with section 19 in the Employment Standards Amendment Act that we’re discussing. This was the section that created leave for domestic violence, for physical, sexual or psychological or emotional abuse by an intimate partner or by a family member. I mentioned that it created up to ten days of intermittent or continuous leave and up to 15 weeks of continuous unpaid leave. I also was about to say, and now I can complete this section, that it clarifies that a child who is an employee or eligible person is also deemed to have experienced domestic violence if they are directly or indirectly exposed to domestic violence experienced by an intimate partner or family member of the child.

This requires the employee to request leave for specific purposes, including medical attention, victim services, counselling, relocation, law enforcement or prescribed purposes. Such prescribed purposes come forward in regulations. The bill requires the employee, if requested by the employer, to provide reasonable sufficient proof that they’re entitled to the leave.

This mirrors a private member’s bill that I brought in, which is on the papers, where we were attempting to provide an ability for people to break a lease if they were subject to domestic violence. In this spirit, obviously, I and my colleagues support this.

To give some background, the Parliamentary Secretary on Gender Equity, who cannot be here now, because I understand…. I shouldn’t be commenting on this, but she’s in another committee, just like me, and you can’t be in two places at once. With that said, she recommended the domestic violence leave but recommended that it be a mix of paid and unpaid leave.

The B.C. federation also advocated for paid domestic violence leave. The B.C. Law Institute, which the minister referred to, did not recommend further changes to leave entitlements and didn’t explore this type of leave specifically, although, as pointed out by the member from Chilliwack, both Manitoba and Ontario have enacted similar leaves. In Manitoba, it was 2016, and in Ontario, it was 2018. But in both of those cases, they provided five days of paid leave in a 52-week period.

Unpaid leave is a good start. It’s important to ensure victims of violence have job security — that’s the critical aspect of this — and are able to take the time they need to address medical, psychological, legal and other issues. But the leave should be paid, frankly, I would argue. It’s unlikely that many people could afford 15 weeks unpaid leave from their work. I’m hoping that as we move forward and as we start to improve this benefit, it expands to protect people for longer periods.

The requirement on the employee to provide sufficient proof of their entitlement raises some questions about privacy. If I’m able to be here, I will be exploring that a little more at committee stage, although the member from Chilliwack seems to be following similar lines of questioning.

Also, we want to ensure and explore why this leave is only granted to survivors of sexual assault in an intimate relationship and why those who are assaulted outside of an intimate relationship are not receiving similar protections. An example I could imagine, of course, is the case of somebody living in the same building as you. It may not be intimate, but it may be a situation whereby you have somebody in your apartment building, and there has been a sexual assault from somebody in the building. There may be issues there that need to be dealt with as well.

Changes to the employment standards branch. This is coming under section 25. These changes are how the director must deal with complaints under the act that are brought to his or her attention. It requires directors to review all complaints as long as they are made within the required time period. Previously, the director could refuse to accept to review complaints if they didn’t meet certain criteria. Now they must review these complaints, but may cease to continue forth with the review if they meet the criteria — i.e., if it’s decided that the complaint is frivolous or if there isn’t enough evidence.

This bill then removes the requirement that employees use a self-help kit. That was quite prohibitive to many people — this so-called self-help kit — and before they were able to access the branch for complaints.

Why this is important, and why it’s sensible to make these changes to improve fairness in the complaints resolution process, is that the complaints noticeably declined with the introduction of the self-help kit. In fact, in its 2003 employment standard changes, the previous government required workers to use this self-help kit and present it to their employer before they could submit a formal complaint to the employment branch.

Imagine. If you believe you haven’t been paid for something, and you want to go to the employment standards branch, you have to go through the self-help kit. Then you have to take your complaint to the employer first. At that stage, you have to sit face-to-face with the employer and hash it out a bit before you can even take it to the employment standards branch. Clearly, the data will show that this was prohibitive to actually moving forward in many cases.

This change proposed by government was a unanimous recommendation by the B.C. Law Institute. They did not like the self-help kit, and they did not believe it should be a prerequisite to accessing the branch. In fact, in the consultation paper they wrote, they stated this: “A marked and suspicious decline in the number of complaints filed” was noticed after the introduction of the mandatory self-help kit.

The data they provide is that complaints declined from 11,311 in 1999-2000 to 4,839 in 2003 to 2004. What’s the difference there between 1999 and 2000 and 2003 to ’04? Of course, the 1990s — the so-called dreaded 1990s that we heard, for so years many, about — was a previous NDP government. In 2003, we’re in the 16-year period that we’ve also heard a lot about. The government changed, the act changed, and the number of complaints declined from 11,311 to 4,839. That’s not because employers were suddenly not having complaints. That’s a direct consequence of the introduction of the self-help kit, which, for many, was prohibitive.

The B.C. Law Institute found that cases of employees being dismissed after presenting the self-help kit to their employer were rather troubling. You fill out this self-help kit, you take it to your employer, and you’re summarily dismissed. And then you have to go through the process to continue to fight. For many people, it’s just too much. The B.C. Law Institute also found the mandatory self-help kit to be a barrier, as I mentioned, to accessing the employment standards branch.

Moving to the wage recovery and rules for gratuities. These are other changes in the act. The bill makes a number of changes in this regard. It expands the wage recovery period from 6 months to 12 months and creates a director and liability officer for wages in bankruptcy and insolvency situations. It’s in section 15 that the rules respecting gratuities are set out. What they’re doing here — and again, this is an important change — is prohibiting employers from withholding gratuities, making deductions or sharing in a gratuity pool, and sets rules around redistributing gratuities.

We all know examples of people who have worked in restaurants or bars where the employer collects the tips on behalf of everyone and redistributes them in a fair manner to ensure that people like the cooks, the bus people, the hostess or hosts, the bartenders, everybody, has equal access. Because in a restaurant, you rise and fall collectively. The success of the restaurant is based on everybody, not just one. So it’s not uncommon to pool tips, in a fashion, and redistribute, but it’s also not uncommon for certain employers to believe they have a share in that tip process. This bill is saying: “No. Not unless you’re participating.”

If the owner of the bar is actually the bartender, sure. You can participate, under this legislation, in the tip sharing and tip pools. But if the owner is sitting at home in Vancouver while the bar is in Victoria, no, you can’t. It’s obviously not happening everywhere, but it cracks down on any specific examples in this case. It also provides that the employer may share in gratuities, as I mentioned, if they regularly perform, to a substantial degree which will need to be defined, the same work performed by the employees.

There are a number of other changes. These are more minor, in general. Section 3 of the bill sets the Employment Standards Act as the floor for collective bargaining. It provides that collective agreements replace the act only if their provisions meet or exceed the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. Now, this is fine. It only applies to collective agreements now once they are renewed. It doesn’t go back and supersede existing agreements. But after they’re renewed, and once this section comes into force, then it will apply moving forward. Under this change, if the provisions of an agreement do not meet or exceed the act, then the act prevails.

The B.C. Business Council, in this case, has raised some concerns, noting that this is the only change that they have some significant troubles with. The reason why is not so much what’s in the act now. It’s about what’s enabled through regulatory power or what may come down in the future.

Right now the Employment Standards Act, providing the floor, is a provision that existed under the NDP in 1994. It was one of these pendulum-swing things that was eliminated when the B.C. Liberals came in 2002 — from one extreme to the other. What Jock Finlayson noted in his analysis of this was that he was concerned that if government makes major changes to the act in the future — such as to hours or coffee breaks or overtime changes — this will have a significant impact on collective agreements.

I concur with him, but I would suggest that as it stands now, the bill before us does not go that far, so as it stands right now, I’m less troubled, and I would continue to mirror and watch, moving forward, what changes government is proposing. But certainly the bill as written now is not leading to a situation that I think is overly concerning. Those might be famous last words. We’ll see where government plans to take this in the months ahead. The provision we will look at very carefully, as I noted, and will be watching for future changes in this act to ensure that this doesn’t occur.

Section 5 in the act is going to require employers to make information about employees’ rights available to employees — perfectly reasonable. Employees should know what their rights are, and now employers are required to let them know. Section 9 of the act requires that operators of temporary help agencies must be licensed. That, too, is important because we want to ensure that fly-by-night operations are not operating without the proper regulatory oversight. The B.C. Employment Standards Coalition and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called for this change, arguing that employees of these agencies are often in particularly vulnerable and precarious work situations.

In conclusion, in my view, all of the changes in this bill are common sense. They’re important. They’re needed. They incorporate recommendations from the B.C. Law Institute, which undertook a consultation on updating the act and issued a final report. It also takes into account recommendations from the B.C. Employment Standards Coalition, the B.C. Federation of Labour and feedback from workers, employers and the public at large.

The upcoming months will require government to engage in a thorough consultation process to establish clear, fair and balanced regulations that businesses can follow and to give parents of teenagers clarity about what work they will be able to do in the future. That is the single most important thing missing from the bill itself now. It’s the clarity that parents of teenagers want in terms of what is considered light work versus hazardous work. We look forward to that being expanded upon in committee stage.

The ministry has indicated that it’s planning to do a more comprehensive review of employment standards and introduce more transformative legislation later in their term. We’re looking forward to see where government is planning to go with this. I’ve received a number of questions from people about this bill and particularly, issues that are missing from the bill — for example….

I’ll just note quickly here, hon. Speaker — I believe I will finish before the light goes on — that I am designated and only speaker. If I go 30 seconds over, I’m designated speaker on this.

The example I wanted to give was the Supreme Court of Canada rule in 2016 that federally regulated employers cannot terminate employees without cause. Why hasn’t this legislation created any improved protection for workers who are fired without cause in British Columbia? Why aren’t we updating our legislation to reflect the Supreme Court of Canada ruling? These are questions that we have that might be addressed in future amendments to this act. I hope government will consider that such amendment as they move forward.

It’s extremely important that we start in earnest and to do the work earnestly 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. Our laws need to be responsive to the changing world of work and what people are dealing with. How are we supporting people as they deal with the most precarious of work? How should the laws be updated to deal with the increasing use of independent contractors?

One of the cases we’ve heard is Uber, which has used independent contractors as drivers. Are they employees or not? What are the laws, and how should we update these? Or should we update these? These are questions that are missing in the debate, and hopefully, as we move forward, an extensive analysis of our labour codes will start to reflect upon the changing nature of work and, in fact, the growth of the gig economy.

Another example is how can we be supportive of innovative business models and support emerging business realities, ensuring we retain our business competitiveness in the 21st century? But at the same time, how do we protect against the erosion of rights and the deepening of inequality as this shift happens?

There’s no doubt that the growing inequality between those who have and those who don’t have is troubling. It’s troubling in that we know that in human history, each and every example of such growing inequality continuing unbounded has led to the collapse of that society. I would suggest that it’s much more prudent for us to recognize that fairness and equality are important values and attributes that we want to ensure follow through in our employment standards and labour code.

So these questions and others need to be grappled with carefully as government considers further changes to the act, and we look forward to the committee stage and participating in that in the days ahead.

Today my BC Green caucus colleagues Adam Olsen, Sonia Furstenau and I held a press conference at the BC Legislature. We were joined by Metchosin Councillor and forest ecologist Andy MacKinnon, Kathy Code Vice-Chair and Director of Communications for the Ecoforestry Institute Society (the Trustees of Wildwood Ecoforest), and Rachel Ablack, Andrea Inness and Stephanie Korolyk from Ancient Forest Alliance. We called on the BC government to impose an immediate moratorium on logging of Vancouver Island’s last remaining old-growth whie at the same time as assisting existing mills to retool so they can focus on processing second-growth.

For those interested in further information on this call, I encourage to visit the BC Green Party website where more details and background are provided.

Below I reproduce the media release that we issued in response to this call for action.

Media Release

B.C. Greens call for immediate moratorium on logging of VI old-growth, support sustainable second-growth industry
For immediate release
May 13, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Today at the Legislature, forestry and community stakeholders joined the B.C. Greens in calling for a moratorium to protect Vancouver Island’s vital old-growth ecosystems and to develop more sustainable forest practices that B.C. can depend on for generations to come.

“Our coastal old-growth is not a renewable resource – and there’s not much left,” said MLA Sonia Furstenau, deputy leader of the B.C. Greens. “Stakeholders and experts are clear that the government is inflating the amount of productive old-growth that’s protected from logging. These globally rare ecosystems support threatened species – including wild salmon – and keep our water and air clean.

“We are demanding that the provincial government immediately halt logging in old-growth hotspots on Vancouver Island and invest in transitioning to a sustainable second-growth economy.”

The B.C. Green caucus is calling on government to protect “hotspots”- the few remaining intact, pristine old-growth forests – on Vancouver Island and the people, species, and businesses that depend on them.

“Last year, hundreds of scientists from around the world wrote the NDP government and asked them to protect our rainforests,” Furstenau said. “Last fall, a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for the same was delivered to the Legislature. Our B.C. Green offices have received more than 20,000 emails from concerned British Columbians asking why the province continues to eradicate its old-growth. We need to take action now.”

At present, 79 per cent of the original productive old-growth forests on Vancouver Island have been logged, including 90 per cent of the valley bottoms where the largest trees grow. Yet according to multiple reviews of their sales schedule, the provincial timber agency is actively auctioning off the remaining old-growth for logging. Despite its 2017 campaign rhetoric, the NDP government is continuing to pursue the Liberal government’s old- growth logging legacy.

“Forestry jobs are of critical importance to B.C., but thousands have been lost over the last few decades. That’s because we haven’t been managing our forests sustainably or promoting value-added manufacturing,” said B.C. Green MLA Adam Olsen, who shares the role of forestry spokesperson. “We want high-paying jobs that are not vulnerable to boom-bust economics. There are mills on Vancouver Island that can only process old-growth. But old-growth is a finite resource, and most of it is already gone. That means those forestry jobs are at risk.

“There are so many solutions available,” Olsen continued. “We can invest in value-added manufacturing and refit our mills. We can sustainably harvest using practices informed by scientific evidence and traditional knowledge. We can collaborate with local communities and Indigenous people who have an intimate knowledge of their landbase.”

“Logging old-growth is short-sighted,” added Furstenau. “It jeopardizes the job stability, local economies, and ecosystem health. The government cannot continue to talk about a future strategy while actively logging these endangered forests. They must act now, or British Columbians and future generations will suffer consequences.”

Quotes:

Andrea Inness, Ancient Forest Alliance Campaigner –

“Old-growth hotspots represent the very best of what remains of B.C.’s unprotected and endangered ancient forests. But thanks to B.C.’s destructive forest policies, they’re disappearing before our eyes. Although we desperately need long-term, science-based solutions for all of B.C. old-growth forests, it is imperative the B.C. government immediately halt logging in hotspots to ensure those areas with the highest conservation value receive the protection they deserve.”

Josie Osborne, Mayor of Tofino –

“We can have healthy, vibrant forest-based economies in Vancouver Island communities while conserving intact, high-productivity hotspots if we have strong leadership, a bold vision, and a plan for a fair transition to a new way of conducting forestry. I believe that industry, First Nations, and communities share the right values to make this transition successfully.”

Lisa Helps, Mayor of Victoria –

“I’d like to add my voice to the chorus of municipal and business leaders on the island calling for the protection of some of the island’s most precious ecological assets and for the preservation of biodiversity. As serious climate leaders, we must protect Vancouver Island’s remaining old-growth forests for generations to come.”

Andy MacKinnon, Forest Ecologist –

“For millennia B.C.’s magnificent coastal old-growth forests have provided us with a wealth of social, economic and ecological benefits. Logging old-growth forests is not renewable resource management – once these old-growth forests are gone, they’re gone forever. And if we’re logging 10,000 hectares of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island every year, we’re certainly the last generation that will have a chance to save these forests for our children.”

Barry Gates, Ecoforestry Institute Society Co-Chair –

“Wildwood Ecoforest serves an example of what forests on Vancouver Island might have looked like had government not engaged in a management policy of old-growth elimination and the replacement of these magnificent forests by short rotation, mono-species stands. In the face of climate change, this decision will have devastating consequences.”

-30-

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

On Thursday last week I was up during budget estimate debates to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum resources a series of questions pertaining to BC Hydro, the standing offer program for clean energy, and Site C. As you will see from the exchange (reproduced in text and video below), I was quite frustrated with the lack of substance in the answers I received to the questions I posed.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: A thank-you to the member for Shuswap for his thorough canvassing of the issue of the Zapped report. I’d like to pick up on this a little bit. The member was able to canvass the procurement process, which I was as equally troubled by as the member was. The answers drawn from that were very troubling.

What I’d like to do is come up to some of the comments that are in the report and fill in some additional detail, building on what the member for Shuswap has asked. For example, the report noted that the average surplus per year that B.C. Hydro acquired was “9,500 gigawatt hours of blended energy.” However, the Clean Energy Association of B.C. highlighted that the average surplus that B.C. Hydro recorded was closer to 1,532 gigawatt hours. They base this off the number shown on B.C. Hydro’s website.

My question to the minister is: could the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro actually did acquire, as stated in the report, 9,500 gigawatt hours per year of unneeded energy?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry for the length in trying to sort this out, but I just want to make sure that I completely understand what the member is asking and understand the analysis and the expertise those who are sitting with me have to offer.

Basically, what happened was that the way the previous government defined what B.C. Hydro could do in being self-sufficient is what drove what ultimately would be this surplus — B.C. Hydro having to buy power that was surplus to their needs. As I stated earlier for the member’s benefit, shutting Burrard Thermal, saying that only very modest upgrades to existing assets plus Site C were allowed…. That all constrained B.C. Hydro’s ability to meet the demand of its customers throughout the province.

So it forced B.C. Hydro into a position where they had to buy power from private power producers, which therefore created this market for private power producers to develop their generation assets and then sell that power back to B.C. Hydro. As I’ve stated earlier and as Mr. Davidson pointed out in his report, much of that power was expensive and was also coming on line at the wrong time of year — namely, during the spring freshet, when B.C. Hydro just didn’t need it.

A. Weaver: I shake my head every time I get an answer. The minister is saying what the report concludes, but the report assumed the conclusion that it concluded. So it’s kind of circular to suggest that the report is concluding that the surplus required them to go to the IPPs. It’s just circular logic.

I’ll ask another question, then. What is the total surplus energy that is produced in British Columbia each year, on average? Simple question.

Hon. M. Mungall: From year to year, the total that the member is asking about does vary. But we can give him that, on average, it’s 4,000 gigawatt hours per year.

A. Weaver: Does that report also note that the value for energy would be its market value? The member for Shuswap talked about this — mid-C, basically.

I understand that since 1989, British Columbia Hydro has entered into quite a number of long-term contracts. Can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate?

There’s no excuse for this delay. It’s a simple yes-or-no answer. I asked the question: can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate, yes or no? It’s not a complex question.

Hon. M. Mungall: In every estimates, I feel like we go through this with the Leader of the Opposition. Honestly, Member, I’m just doing my best to make sure that I provide a fulsome answer. I’m not trying to delay or scoop up any of his time. I’m just trying to be fulsome. So please, just give me a moment to be able to do that for you.

In that, B.C. Hydro does buy energy, as he’s asking, at mid-C price. Only one project, though, as pointed out in Mr. Davidson’s report. Yes, B.C. Hydro does have contracts, many multi-year contracts, that are for above the mid-C price. That’s exactly the point of Mr. Davidson’s report, because the IPPs are all well above mid-C price. We know that.

For example, a lot of the IPPs are coming in at $100 per megawatt hour. Compare that to what Alberta is now doing for their wind projects, at $40 per megawatt hour. So you can see that there’s still quite a difference, even if we’re not going to be comparing it with the mid-C price. But I do want to highlight that the mid-C price is a benchmark for what ratepayers can get for surplus energy when B.C. Hydro has to sell that.

A. Weaver: Again, I shake my head. I ask a question, and I get a response to a question I didn’t ask. I was asking about long-term mid-C market value rates. Maybe the minister can say why Mr. Davidson didn’t consider these. I’m not talking about the IPPs. I’m talking about whether or not B.C. Hydro, since 1989, long before the IPPs were ever even talked about, has bought energy through long-term contracts. Yes or no? And if so, why were they not discussed and mentioned at all in the Davidson report?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, B.C. Hydro does have long-term contracts. I did mention that in my previous answer. I am sorry I don’t have the report right in front of me, but I do recall Mr. Davidson talking about some of those. I did already mention, as well, that he noted that there is one project that does have a long-term contract for mid-C prices.

A. Weaver: In the Zapped report, there was a line that caught my attention. It was based on the interviews. The report claimed that the 2007 energy plan was created with the intent to “create the appearance of an energy shortfall.” It is remarkable that an independent consultant would provide value-added commentary like that in a so-called independent report. I’m shocked, to say the least.

Anyway, I continue. However, I was under the impression that much of the 2007 energy plan — and frankly, I was here and working with government at the time on that energy plan — was designed to get British Columbia to be self-sufficient in its energy production.

Can the minister confirm that prior to 2007, there were several years of high net energy imports and a strong domestic load growth projected? It’s a simple question. Prior to 2007, can the minister confirm that there were several years of high net energy imports and strong domestic load growth projected?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member wants yes-or-no answers, so I’ll just say yes, and I will not endeavour to seek further information unless he specifically asks for it. Pardon me for doing that in the past.

A. Weaver: I’m going to continue on this theme, because there are a lot of assumptions that have been stated here as facts and conclusions from the report that were not conclusions. They were assumptions. Here are some others. I’m going to discuss the issue of importing power.

The minister has said that we have a surplus of energy produced over the last number of years. However, the large fluctuations that happen from year to year, based on water levels, can dramatically change how much power we produce.

In B.C. Hydro’s compliance filing form F17-19 revenue requirement application, it stated: “In the past ten years, there has been a difference of 12,000 gigawatt hours between low and high water…requiring surplus sales or market purchases.” There’s a slight missing word in there.

Anyway, the reality is the 12,000 gigawatt hours between high and low waters is the key number there. It’s a very big difference.

My question to the minister is this. I’d like to know if we were a net importer of energy in British Columbia over the last year? Yes or no? Or in any of the other previous years? Yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

A. Weaver: Can the minister please tell us how much B.C. Hydro paid to import energy in March or this past quarter?

Hon. M. Mungall: We spent $54.9 million net importing energy in March.

A. Weaver: So we spent $54 million importing energy. We had too much energy surplus, that we didn’t need these projects. Very interesting.

Can the minister please provide how much power, on average, we have been importing over the last ten years?

Hon. M. Mungall: I did say that I would only provide the yes-or-no answers that the member wanted and the very short answers that he would like, but I feel like I’m doing a disservice to the British Columbians who might be watching this, as well as to the member to not inform him that the reason why there was an import of energy recently is due to low water levels.

For example, in my riding, I can look not too far down the hill and see exactly what those water levels are because the Kootenay Lake is, essentially, a reservoir for B.C. Hydro, along with Duncan Lake and so on. So those are the parts in my riding.

But generally, over the last decade, we’ve actually be exporting energy, not importing it.

A. Weaver: I’ll come to that shortly — maybe now. Pushing on, first I’d like to ask… The $54 million — what was the price that you were selling it at in March of this year?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member might have misspoken, but he can correct me if that’s not the case. I think he meant what we were buying it at, the price that we were buying it at.

A. Weaver: Sorry, yes.

Hon. M. Mungall: Okay. In March, we were buying it at $57 per megawatt hour, Canadian.

A. Weaver: So the average price was $57 per megawatt hour.

I understand that Powerex is the key trading arm of B.C. Hydro. Well, it is a trading arm of B.C. Hydro, but I know it’s separate. It imports and exports power when it’s financially advantageous to do so. It brings money directly into the provincial coffers — a good thing, I would suggest.

However, the power we import comes from Alberta and the U.S. I’m concerned that much of it, if not all of it, is brown power, despite the rhetoric we hear from this minister. That’s power created by burning natural gas or coal, which emits high levels of CO₂. Over 80 percent of Alberta’s electricity is coal- or gas-generated. In Washington state, there are over a dozen coal and natural gas plants. Can the minister confirm that the majority of the power that B.C. Hydro, via Powerex, imports to B.C. is from natural gas– and coal-fired plants?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I appreciate the member’s concern about exactly what type of power is coming to B.C. I know that he knows that electrons aren’t tagged one way or another, except in the situation with the Canadian entitlement, which is the Columbia River treaty. When we’re getting that power coming up from the United States, that is hydroelectric power. We know that that particular power is not generated by using coal or natural gas. In terms of in March, it’s hard to say whether it was natural gas–fired or coal-fired if it was not the Canadian entitlement, power that we were purchasing at that time. We were purchasing at that time, as I said earlier, because of low reservoirs.

That being said, it’s important to note that in Alberta, they’re increasing their wind generation. Solar is increasing as well in Alberta. Wind and solar as well below the 49th parallel is also increasing.

As more renewables come on line, we are obviously trading in more renewables. What I would say is it may be not the case for March, but in general, when we are buying power from other jurisdictions, it’s normally when they have an excess of wind, or an excess of solar, and they’re putting that on to the grid.

What is likely coming into B.C. is power generated from those avenues.

A. Weaver: I’m getting very close to calling for the resignation of this minister, hon. Chair, based on the lack of substance of these answers. This is a minister who clearly does not understand the file, clearly does not understand how electricity is produced and shipped. This is a minister who is responsible for the oversight of B.C. Hydro’s next review? It’s just shocking.

Let me explain to the minister how the power comes through. Coal and natural gas plants typically run, not on natural gas, 24-7. Powerex recognizes that, at night, coal power, which is going 24-7, is really cheap, because demand is low. But it doesn’t need to actually need to sell the power from it’s hydro dams, so it saves that for the day. We’re importing coal power and making money by shipping off clean power.

The minister should know that. The minister should not be trying to imply to British Columbians that somehow we’re buying wind and solar, intermittent sources. But we’re not. It is shocking, just shocking, that we’re hearing this in estimates today. I’m stunned. I almost feel like sitting down. I cannot believe that this is what we’re hearing.

Anyway, I’ll continue. I think it’s fair to say that based on these aspects of how the U.S. Pacific Northwest and Alberta generate their power, particularly their low-cost power, that the majority share of it will come from coal and natural gas. I think that’s safe to say.

Can the minister give an estimate of how much emissions were generated based on B.C.’s import of this brown power over the last year? What the emissions input…? That’s leakage into our province from emissions, because we’re buying brown power in this province.

Hon. M. Mungall: The Ministry of Environment does work with Powerex to calculate the carbon intensity of the energy that British Columbia imports. I’m happy to get that number for the member.

In terms of my previous answer that has clearly sparked outrage from the other member, I want to be clear that I’m just trying to share information that is coming to me from our experts at B.C. Hydro who are working on these issues every single day and trying to share that with the member so that he has a better understanding but also a bit of comfort in terms of where we are getting our electricity from when we are importing. The world is changing, as we know. We know that coal-fired plants are starting to be shut down in favour of renewables or lower GHG emission plants. I’m just wanting to share that information with the member.

A. Weaver: I so very much appreciate the minister providing the information on a file that I’m not certain she understands, frankly. I’m not certain she has a grasp of this most important file in our province, based not on the answers of the last question but the answers that I’ve been getting throughout estimates here, both this time and last time and in question period — time after time after time.

And to throw the good people of B.C. Hydro under the bus, to suggest that she is conveying the information to me about wind and solar in the U.S. from the good people at B.C. Hydro — that’s just ludicrous.

Coming to energy self-sufficiency. In 2012, the provincial government changed the regulation that forms the basis of electrical generating and planning criteria that B.C. Hydro uses. Historically, the definition of “critical water conditions” was used to ensure that there would always be a certain amount of power available. The previous government changed that metric. Instead of using critical water conditions, they now use the average water conditions. Overnight the amount of energy that B.C. Hydro could reliably produce went up by 5,600 gigawatt hours, through the definitional change there.

With climate change and variability predicted to continue, this change to using average water conditions for planning does not seem to be very prudent. Instead of being self-sufficient when a drought happens, we could be faced with a real possibility of importing large amounts of power if such a drought were to happen, because of poor planning.

Has the minister considered the impact of using average water conditions to forecast energy generation potential? I can maybe do two at once: given the variability in water flows this province is facing, is it prudent to continue to use average water flows as the basis for predicting the amount of power that we can generate?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question is if using average water flows for predicting energy generation is good, if it’s the right way to go. I think that is a very important question, and it’s actually one that we’re going to be looking at in phase 2 of our B.C. Hydro review. It is going to, ultimately, feed into the integrated resource plan, the IRP.

As we continue on in this process, I very much appreciate the member’s knowledge on this file. I very much appreciate the member’s expertise in this area and that he is seeking more information. I am doing my best to offer it to him. I know he doesn’t like me personally, but I don’t know that personal attacks are helping the estimates process at all.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: May I ask that you please, as a point of order, ask the minister to withdraw that? That is outrageous. This has nothing to do with personal and everything to do with lack of substance in the answers that we’re getting on a file that’s very, very important. I find it offensive that the minister would stand and try to deflect from the criticism and concerns I and my friends here have had on the answers that we’re getting and turn it into an ad hominem.

The Chair: I think that in the best interests of everyone, we should take a five-minute break. So I’m going to recess the committee for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: Prior to the recess, the Leader of the Third Party raised a point of order relating to comments made by the minister. Upon consideration of the point of order and the circumstances leading to it being raised, I note that both the Leader of Third Party and the minister expressed some frustration with this debate.

I recognize in this committee room that any criticism within the debate can escalate and be amplified, particularly in this small setting. So it’s my expectation that we can now resume debate on Vote 22 with all members treating each other with respect.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I’m going to move to final questions on Site C. As Site C progresses, we learn more and more about the shady nature of what occurred and continues to occur to get the project past the point of no return.

Between 2016 and 2018, no fewer than 38 contracts were directly awarded, avoiding a more transparent and competitive tender process. Close to $90 million has been awarded from B.C. Hydro to a variety of companies, some with close ties to the official opposition, with respect, and some that are simply numbered companies. Transparency is lacking, and awarding public funds to numbered companies is, frankly, somewhat suspect.

Site C is a huge undertaking that has already cost the citizens of British Columbia an enormous amount. For contracts to be awarded directly, without due process or justification, frankly, I would argue, is unacceptable. Can the minister please explain why the awarding of direct contracts like this was occurring under her watch?

Hon. M. Mungall: The percentage of contracts that are direct award is 3 percent of all the contracts since July 2015 that B.C. Hydro has procured. Many of those contracts that are direct-awarded are to Indigenous businesses.

The numbered company that the member spoke of…. That direct-award happened in January 2017, prior to the 2017 election. It’s pursuant to B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy, and it is for road remediation and various erosion and sediment control works.

That company was designated by the Doig River First Nation as their business partner to complete the work. As I said, it falls in line with B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy as well as their IBAs.

A. Weaver: The government announced a Site C project assurance board to oversee the project and ensure it stays on time and on budget. But what is the point, frankly, of having a private board issue reports that no one can have access to, other than government?

When the government was in opposition they rightly criticized the previous government for excluding Site C from review by the BCUC. However, now that they’re in control, they’ve set up their own board to oversee the project — a board that is not accountable publicly, a board whose members were handpicked and a board that is anything but independent. I understand that even a year after this project assurance board was created, the government has still not determined if the public will be privy to what it’s reporting on. Can the minister please let us know if the project assurance board will have any accountability to the public?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I know the member recalls that our government did have the B.C. Utilities Commission review the Site C project, and it continues to review quarterly reports about Site C. Those reports are reviewed and approved by the public assurance board — PAB is the acronym — and I would mention that PAB is accountable to government, and it reports regularly to Treasury Board as well.

A. Weaver: My question was not that, hon. Chair. My question was: can the minister let us know if the project assurance board will have accountability to the public — yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member may have a different view of how that accountability occurs than it currently does. Perhaps he would like to lay out what he thinks might be a better strategy or a better process than what we have right now, which is going to Treasury Board, accountable directly to government as well, in that it is reviewing all of the quarterly reports on Site C that are ultimately delivered and deposited with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

A. Weaver: Well, I’m not the minister. Therefore, I’m not able to answer the question as to whether or not the reports and recommendations written by the project assurance board are made public or not. That is really a question of her ministry. It’s not for me to say we would…. Yes, if I were Minister of Energy, we would make those reports public if there are such reports. That’s all I’m asking.

Is there going to be…? As I pointed out, the public assurance board was created by government, appointed by government. There’s nothing reporting out from government. It’s a simple question. Will there be a public transparency component to the assurance board?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that maybe the member would like to see reports put on line or so on. The reports that are made to the public are the quarterly reports on Site C that are approved by the public assurance board and then delivered to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Those reports are available to the public on their website.

A. Weaver: We’ve heard directly from residents on the ground who are monitoring the progress of the dam and the work on the diversion tunnels. It has been on hold for quite some time now, I understand. Can the minister please provide an update as to what is going on and if this is further delay to the construction schedule?

Hon. M. Mungall: There was a two-week stand-down. This was because WorkSafe was investigating an electrical incident that happened with a worker. The worker is fine — so that everybody knows that he’s fine — and that’s very good news for that worker, but it required a two-week investigation by WorkSafe following up on that.

The tunnelling does still continue, and Hydro is still projecting to achieve river diversion by September 2020.

The BC Government today released two new reports outlining the scale of money laundering that has been rampant in British Columbia over the last few years.

The first report was coauthored by Professor Maureen Maloney (SFU School of Public Policy), Professor Tsur Somerville (UBC Sauder School of Business), and Professor Brigitte Unger (School of Economics, Utrecht University). It painted an extraordinarily grim picture of widespread money laundering through British Columbia’s real estate sector totalling upwards of $7.3 billion in 2018 alone. In making 29 recommendations this expert panel noted that “a strong government response is urgently required.”

The second report comprised Part 2 of Peter German’s comprehensive three-part analysis into money laundering in BC. Part 2, entitled Dirty Money — Part 2.  Turning the Tide – An Independent Review of Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate, Luxury Vehicle Sales & Horse Racing, expanded upon his initial analysis into money laundering in BC casinos released on March 31, 2018. The release of Part 2 followed on the heels of government releasing Part 3 of German’s analysis (on Tuesday) into money laundering in luxury cars.

Money laundering through the purchase and sale of luxury automobiles formed the basis of my questions to the Attorney General today during Question Period today. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. I also reproduce copies of the media statement we issued in response to government’s release of today’s reports and my statement delivered at today’s press conference.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Earlier this week the Attorney General confirmed that money laundering goes beyond our casinos. Our biggest city is not just known for the dubious criminal distinction as the Vancouver model for money laundering, it’s also known as the luxury car capital of North America, fuelled, in part, by suspected criminal activity. Indeed, provincial employees identified numerous red flags connecting money laundering to the luxury vehicle export market, and despite these flags, the province issued over $85 million in PST refunds since 2013 to many suspicious individuals.

My question is to the Attorney General. He has said he has taken action on this finding, but why was this suspicious activity allowed to persist for so long? And why did it take this special report to highlight what government officials have known for many years?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. This is obviously a very serious issue, and I’m very grateful to Dr. German and his team. Former chief LePard was a key part of this report that uncovered this troubling information: among other things, car dealers saying they’re in the middle of money laundering; uncovering the use of straw buyers to purchase luxury cars; thousands of straw buyers acting on behalf of exporters who are the true purchasers, claiming PST rebates; people with extensive criminal backgrounds running resale operations of luxury cars, people who wouldn’t qualify for a liquor licence or other government licences but allowed to operate and run these businesses — obviously, major issues.

The member asked why it has taken so long to uncover these things. One of the major reasons that has been a theme throughout Dr. German’s reports is a lack of oversight, a lack of enforcement. We are moving quickly to address those issues. The Finance Minister is, obviously, reviewing this program, making sure that criminals don’t get PST rebates, for a starter, which seems like a pretty good start. The second piece is we’re working with RCMP, with police and with the Solicitor General’s office to ensure that the provincial government can do everything we can in terms of enforcement. We’re working with regulators in terms of their mandates.

There is a lot going on in this file to respond, and I’m very grateful that Dr. German’s bringing this stuff to our attention so that we can take action on it. And I agree with the member about: why did it take so long?

Supplementary Question

Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer. One quote in the German report on luxury cars, the section released earlier this week, stood out for me. A car dealer said: “I’m right in the thick of money laundering here.” He also said: “It’s unequivocally money laundering.”

It’s not surprising he came to that conclusion when it appears to be a regular occurrence for cars to be bought with bags of cash, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with zero reporting requirements in the industry. It’s absolutely crazy, what’s happening in B.C., not just in casinos but in the luxury car sector. We know the next chapter of the German report will tell us the extent of money laundering in our real estate sector.

To the Attorney General: the more we learn about this, the more we know how important it is now to have a public inquiry. The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for one for months now. Thousands upon thousands of British Columbians have been calling for a public inquiry, and just last week I introduced a petition from a federal EDA of the NDP calling on this government to bring forward a public inquiry.

My question to the Attorney General is: will this government launch a public inquiry, and if so, when?

Answer

Thank you very much to the member for the question. The member knows — and I’ve outlined for him and for the Legislature — our government’s approach on this, which has been to identify what’s happening right now and move as quickly as we can to stop it. We’ve had some success in the casino sector, stopping the bulk cash transactions. We will have success in the luxury car sector, addressing the issues that have been raised here.

The issue around public inquiry is really more aimed at: who knew what when, and are there any issues related to corruption? People want to know the answers to those questions. I understand why people want to know that. I mean, this went on for a long time. It’s the decision that is in front of cabinet, and cabinet will have a decision, and government will have a decision for British Columbians very shortly.

I thank the member for that.

Media Statement

Most recent money laundering reports support BC Green call for public inquiry
For immediate release
May 9, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The two reports into money laundering in B.C. directly support the value of a public inquiry, reinforcing the B.C. Green caucus’ call for government to act.

“We saw in German’s report a direct rationale for a public inquiry. Namely, that it would improve public awareness, play a crucial role in fault finding, and would help to develop full recommendations,” said B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. “The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for a public inquiry for months, as have thousands of British Columbians. It is time for this government to start a public inquiry so that the public can get the answers it deserves and B.C. can move forward.

“Today, we discovered a much fuller picture of money laundering going on in our province. It is no surprise, but we can now be confident that illicit money has been influencing Vancouver’s housing market.

“One of the key findings of both reports was the issue of beneficial ownership. This is something I have been raising in the legislature under both the BC Liberal and BC NDP governments as a huge loophole in our system that should have been fixed long ago. Recent steps by government to address beneficial ownership through establishing a registry are encouraging, but we need to go further and end the use of beneficial ownership as a tax avoidance tool.

“We also saw that there are many sectors of our economy that have lax financial regulation, leaving them vulnerable to money laundering: from bags of cash being used to buy luxury vehicles, pianos and even to pay post-secondary fees. To deal with all of this the report recommended a ‘system-wide reset’ in criminal prosecution.

“With each new finding and each new report, we learn more about how our province has been exploited by criminals and how the systems and people charged with protecting us have failed over and over again. It is time to remove this investigation from any possible political influence, to get to the bottom of what happened, and to ensure this assault never happens again. British Columbians deserve to have their public interests protected and their trust in government restored.”

-30-

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

Speaking notes

Today we discovered a much fuller picture of money laundering in BC –  it is clear that illicit money has been influencing our real estate market as British Columbians struggle with the impacts of the housing crisis.

One of the key findings of this report was the issue of beneficial ownership. This is something I have been raising in the legislature under both the BC Liberal and BC NDP governments as a huge loophole in our system that should have been fixed long ago.

Aside from real estate, the German report showed that there are many sectors of our economy that have lax financial regulation, leaving them vulnerable to money laundering: from bags of cash being used to buy luxury vehicles, pianos and even used to pay post-secondary fees. To deal with all of this Germans report recommended a ‘ system-wide reset’ in criminal prosecution.

With each new finding and each new report, we learn more about how our province has been exploited by criminals and how the systems and people charged with protecting us have failed over and over again. It is time to remove this investigation from any possible political influence, to get to the bottom of what happened, and to ensure that this assault never happens again. British Columbians deserve to have their public interests protected and their trust in government restored.

We have a clear rationale for a public inquiry. German himself referenced a positive change that came out of the Charbonneau Commission in Quebec. Clearly public inquiries can be useful and result in real change.

My colleagues and I have been calling for a public inquiry for months, as have thousands of British Columbians. The housing and opioid crises have impacted every single community and it is unacceptable that criminals have been profiting from these very personal, heartbreaking challenges. We need to work together. It’s time for a meaningful, independent explanation – we need a public inquiry.

Thank you.