Today in the legislature I rose during budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Finance to ask about the growing liability that British Columbia is incurring through the deep well royalty credit program. Last spring I extensively canvassed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on the same topic. It was revealed that that as of December 31, 2017 there are $3.1 billion in unclaimed credits. It turns out that another $383 million was added last year.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. The BC Green Caucus remains profoundly troubled by the generational sellout embodied in the BC NDP corporate welfare aimed at trying to attract LNG to BC.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: This is for the benefit of the children in the gallery from, I believe, Surrey Christian School. What we’re doing here in the Legislature is we’re debating estimates for the Ministry of Finance. It’s a time for opposition MLAs, the Liberals or the Greens here, to pose questions to the minister about various budgetary issues that are related to her file. I’ll be asking about some finance questions with respect to natural gas royalties.

The reason why I’m posing these to the minister is that I did ask last time: the deep-well royalty credit program is actually administered by the Ministry of Finance. The qualified wells receive these credits automatically, and they don’t need to apply separately.

The credit was first created in 2003, expanded in 2014, and in last year’s public accounts, the unclaimed balance of deep-well credits totalled $2.59 billion. A further $3.5 billion has already been cashed in to reduce royalties that would otherwise have been payable. This program has reduced gas producers’ existing and future royalty liability to the Crown by nearly $6 billion.

My questions in this area are this: how many deep-well credits were issued over the past year and to whom?

Hon. C. James: The member asked how many deep-well credits. We don’t have the information around the breakdown of which are new credits and which are continuing credits with us, but I’m happy to get that information for the member of which are new. We don’t have that breakdown with us, and we’ll get that information.

On page 120, it identifies the number for new, and that would be $383 million. Then the identifier — the member asked how many and who got them — is personal tax information so we can’t provide that. But we’re happy to get the information and get it back to the member around the number of new credits for this year.

A. Weaver: Further on…. I suspect I’ll get a similar answer, and I welcome the information at a later date. How many deep-well credits have been issued since 2014 and to whom?

Hon. C. James: We’ll add that to the information for the member. We don’t have that information with us.

A. Weaver: My question, then, is: why is there not a standard public disclosure of these credits and royalties that are received? There is, for example, for stumpage fees in the province, under the harvest billing system. Why are we not making public the royalty credits that are being claimed here?

Hon. C. James: This credit, the deep-well credit, fits under FOI, and under FOI, we can’t release taxpayer information. I can’t give an explanation around why it would be different, as the member talks about, in stumpage. But the requirement is under FOI to protect individual taxpayer information, which would include, of course, the names and the identifiers.

A. Weaver: The inconsistency, as was noted, is with respect to the harvest billing system, so perhaps we could explore that at some other date.

What’s the total value of deep-well credits that are still outstanding and that could be claimed against?

Hon. C. James: As the member pointed out, $2.6 billion in ’17-18. The ’18-19 numbers get reported out in Public Accounts. That tracking is just being done now, and they get reported out in Public Accounts.

A. Weaver: My final question is with respect to FOI, freedom-of-information, requests that went to the Ministry of Finance. The file number, for reference, is FIN-2019-90584. This was a freedom-of-information request put in by an independent person outside of the Legislature. What was being requested there was a list showing the total royalty credits granted to each company that applied for such credits in the most recent fiscal year.

Now, the freedom-of-information requests from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and from the Ministry of Finance provided completely different answers. The Ministry of Energy and Mines had no issue and provided, actually, the detailed credits, by whom and to whom, whereas the Ministry of Finance withheld all information.

So my question to the minister is: why is there a discrepancy between information we’re getting from the Ministry of Energy and Mines versus the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. C. James: The FOI request that the member is referring to was asking about the infrastructure royalty credits. The infrastructure royalty credits actually have a provision where when someone applies for the credit, they give permission for their information to be shared. That’s why Energy and Mines was able to share the information, because the infrastructure royalty credits have that application for the individuals when they apply. So that’s, obviously, a different program than the deep-well credits

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations two distinct questions. In the first, I asked how he reconciles his Ministry’s efforts to preserved at-risk caribou herds while at the same time issuing more hunting permits for the same caribou.  In the second question I ask him what he plans to do to preserve the last remaining old growth valley-bottoms on Vancouver Island.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: I’ve just been walking around with a smile on my face today from ear to ear, and I continue to ask that question in that spirit.

There are 54 caribou herds in British Columbia, 30 of which are at risk of extirpation. Fourteen have less than 25 animals, and the B.C. Government website lists that one of these herds has precisely one individual, whereas another has three. Since the information was posted on the site, it’s likely that they’re gone as well.

British Columbia’s caribou herds are in crisis, and scientists have been raising the alarm for many, many years. After nearly managing the species into oblivion, we’re now desperately trying to save them by any means possible. Yet, at the same time as we try to avoid extirpation in one area, in a neighbouring area, the government issues and permits a legal caribou hunt.

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations: aside from the First Nations’ food, social and ceremonial hunt, how many caribou is he permitting to be hunted in British Columbia in the 2019-2020 limited area hunt and general open season in management units 617 to 620 and 622 to 627?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question to talk about an important animal, an iconic species in B.C. and across Canada and internationally. That is the caribou.

I think it’s been pointed out already in question period so far that unlike the old government, we take the decline in caribou populations very seriously. Going back to 2003, the previous government ignored calls for action to protect caribou habitat for over a decade and kept in place a patchwork of measures that don’t meet federal standards, putting jobs at risk and caribou at risk.

As far as the hunting of caribou that the member asked about, we know that the Chase, Wolverine and Itch-Ilgachuz herds are classified as threatened, and the herd populations continue to decline. That’s why we closed the caribou hunt for these three herds this past March, and this hunt will remain closed until further notice. There are some herds that are still available for hunting, and those are the Carcross and Atlin herds in my constituency, in the northwest corner of B.C. Both herds have in excess of 800 animals.

The member is right. When it’s based on the best available science, and when conservation is the top priority, followed by First Nations’ food spiritual and ceremonial needs, only then is hunting allowed. There are very few animals available for hunt — approximately ten.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Well, that’s inconsistent with the information I have here, where it looks like 268 permits have been issued for caribou in Skeena region 6, which would be ironic in light of the fact the minister just mentioned 800-some animals in and around that area.

The point I’m making here is we’re hunting caribou while we try to save caribou. There’s no overall strategy. Caribou, as we know, are dependent on old-growth boreal and mountain economic systems. For many herds, their main food source is lichen that grows on old trees, and cutblocks and logging roads make them much more vulnerable to predators, as we all know.

Yesterday the United Nations released a landmark study reporting that over a million species are now at risk of extinction, and habitat loss is the driving factor. In B.C., we only act when it’s already too late. For example, our invaluable Vancouver Island valley-bottom old growth is globally rare and is an essential habitat for many species.

My question is again to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Will this government stop its Loraxian approach to resource management and step in to protect the last intact, productive valley-bottom old growth on Vancouver Island?

Answer

Well, I understand we were talking about caribou. There are no caribou on Vancouver Island. I’m sure the member knows that. As far as old-growth forests go on Vancouver Island, we’re committed to creating an old-growth plan in consultation with industry, in consultation with environmental NGOs and in consultation with communities.

We know that old-growth forests provide incredibly important habitat for biodiversity. There are over 500,000 hectares of old growth already protected on Vancouver Island through protected areas and parks. We also know that old-growth forests provide important revenue for communities and important jobs for forestry workers. We’ll continue to manage old growth in a sustainable way, and we’ll continue to work on the caribou file to protect jobs and to protect caribou.

Yesterday during question period yesterday I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources questions about the ever increasing liability British Columbians are taking on as the number of orphan gas wells grows out of control. I remain deeply concerned about the Minister’s grasp of the file and profoundly troubled by the lack of substance in her answers to our questions.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday my colleague from Cowichan Valley asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how many gas wells in British Columbia are leaking, and she didn’t know. Well, here’s some information for her: out of the 134 wells in the province with confirmed gas migration — that’s leaking problems, as documented by the Oil and Gas Commission — almost half are owned by one company, the Shanghai Energy Corporation.

This company, which has strong links to the Communist Party of China, is buying up wells in our province at an alarming rate. They now own 1,128 wells, with 863 active, 184 inactive and 13 that are being decommissioned.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: does she think that the Communist Party of China buying up stranded assets in B.C. is concerning, and does she think that the Shanghai Energy Corporation will be a good corporate citizen and clean up their activity and all their leaky wells when the time comes?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: We have an open marketplace for tenures and for gas wells. That means that companies from around the world are able to purchase these tenures as well as the wells and so on. They then have the duty to be good corporate citizens, no matter who they are, no matter where they come from. We have the Oil and Gas Commission, as well as this government, who is taking its role as a regulator very seriously to ensure that, again, no matter who they are, no matter where they’re from, that any corporation who’s doing business in British Columbia and business in our oil and gas sector is following the rules.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I’m not sure I understood what the answer to the question was there, but nevertheless, let me try again.

Ranch Energy was one of three companies that became insolvent last year, leaving a forecasted $12.3 million deficit in the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s orphan reclamation fund. Currently — I know these facts are troubling to the minister — there are 310 sites designated as orphan sites, requiring further restoration. But there are 300 to 500 Ranch Energy wells that could be added to this, creating a further potential liability of $40 to $90 million.

Yesterday the minister told the chamber that things have gotten a lot better since her government was sworn in. Yet over the last two years, B.C.’s orphan well sites have increased by — get this — 48 percent. Bankrupt companies have left the province with massive cleanup bills.

Last month we heard from the Auditor General. There are more than 10,000 active wells, with a $3 billion price tag for decommissioning them. All the while, her ministry is giving massive handouts, corporate handouts. It’s not an open market. It’s a subsidized market by this government because the market would not exist in a free and open market, because it does not compete on the international scene.

What is the minister’s plan? Please, please, I beg you — no more non-answer, no more rhetoric, no more 16 years nonsense. Answer the question for a change.

What is the minister’s plan to ensure British Columbians are not on the hook for the cleanup costs of this industry? There is no excuse for not hearing an answer here.

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: The member might recall that just over a year ago we passed legislation — it was Bill 15 at the time — to address the issue of orphaned wells. We have done a considerable amount of work. Part of that bill was to address how we are funding the orphaned well reclamation fund.

The previous government had it funded through a taxation on production. We have moved from that because that was not an effective way to fund this fund. We’ve moved away from that, and we have a liability levy so we’re actually able to get the financial resources so that we can start reclaiming the orphaned well sites.

We have a multi-year plan to reclaim all of these sites. It involves Treaty 8 First Nations, who are doing a wide array of work to do this reclamation, including having nurseries with the appropriate vegetation of native plants so that we can truly reclaim these sites and the land to the state that they need to be in for future generations

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

Media Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

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

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

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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