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.

I had the distinct honour of addressing delegates at the British Columbia Wildlife Federation (BCWF) Annual General Meeting & Convention in Fort St. John today. Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

Introduction:

Hello and thank you for inviting me to join you here today at your AGM.

I’m glad to be here again to hear first hand from you about the challenges you see on our land base.

As many of you know I live and work in the Victoria region, well removed from the day-to-day experiences you have with your land and the wildlife you share it with.

That’s why I think it’s so important for me to come here and listen to your experiences. We are currently in the midst of the Spring legislative session, which means I have to be within 3-minutes of the legislative chamber at all times when the House is sitting in case there is vote – so that makes leaving Victoria quite tricky, but I’m glad I was able to fly up for today, even though it is a quick turn around.

I have been an MLA for almost 6 years now, and am grateful for every trip I get to take to Interior and Northern communities. Every time I am here I am reminded that there are no better caretakers of the land than those who have lived on it for generations.

You are impacted by the policies passed in Victoria, and see the consequences firsthand when they have been built on inadequate consultation or when they lack necessary local and traditional knowledge.

I think this is something that government and politicians of all stripes need to do better- myself included. That’s why I’m here today. And it is why I’ll be back with my colleagues again this summer as we travel through the Interior and Northern BC, learning from people who aren’t able to meet with us very easily in our community offices.

With wildlife policy, the importance of linking science with local and traditional knowledge is even more important. While we must all be guided by evidence about the state of our province’s wilderness and wildlife, that doesn’t replace the engagement of communities and the conversations that must take place about what the reality is on ground where the policies will apply. You cannot effectively have one without the other… As we’re seeing with the mess government has made of the caribou recovery situation.

To start, I will give a quick recap about the status of this minority government and revisit some of the remarks I made at last year’s AGM about wildlife population trends generally, because, unfortunately, things have not substantially improved since then.

I will also talk about the work my colleague Adam Olsen has been doing on wild salmon.

And, finally, I will provide an update on my perspective on glyphosate – touching on issues concerning climate change, cumulative effects, and the importance of stewardship along the way.

CASA/Minority Government:

Back in Spring 2017 – When the election results came in, indicating a minority government, with the BC Greens holding the balance of responsibility- we felt an enormous weight on our shoulders. We took our decision very seriously.

In the end, we decided to go with the party that was open to working on climate policies and that is why we chose to support a BC NDP minority government over the BC Liberal minority government.

There have been ups and downs in our relationship, and there are things we simply won’t ever agree on.

My Green caucus colleagues and I don’t have the power to dictate the NDP’s agenda. We are consulted on policy and we bring our concerns, solutions, and perspective to the table. We collaborate on certain files like climate policy, professional reliance, child care, and initiatives to build a sustainable economy. But, ultimately, at the end of the day they are government, and we are in opposition.

In that role, we are also the recipient of a staggering amount of correspondence about environmental, economic, and social concerns from people all across the province. Anyone with environmental concerns that they feel aren’t being adequately addressed by the NDP or Liberals – which is pretty much all of them – comes to our office for support. I wish we could lean into every case and solve every problem, but there are only 3 of us and we have a very small, though determined, team.

It has been a learning experience.

For the first while after the election we tried to tackle every case, but we quickly learned that we were spreading ourselves so thin that we were no longer being effective. Instead, over the last year and a half, we have tried to focus strategically on our foundational issues and overarching policies. For that is where we can do the most good and have the biggest impact.

For example, rather than taking on every incidence of companies harming the environment by cutting, polluting, or contaminating, we made government review the overarching professional reliance model that governs industry’s work. This strategic focus means we can advance big picture policy changes that will restore some of that critical oversight and regulation back to government. Likewise, our work on the new Environmental Assessment Act requires early and upfront involvement of First Nations and better evaluation of cumulative and climate impacts before projects are approved.

This work isn’t as catchy or captivating as fighting every case of environmental injustice, but, from a governance perspective, it is more effective and more responsible.

And as I said, one of the main reasons we decided to form the agreement with the NDP is because I wanted to work on meaningful policies to address the looming climate crisis.

I know many of you see this firsthand – In many respects, your communities are on the frontline of climate change.

You are directly impacted by the pressure that climate change is putting on the forestry industry through pests, droughts, and fires, for example.

Where we only see the smoke of wildfires in Victoria or Vancouver, many of you actually fight the flames and experience the evacuations, displacement and devastating loss of property that can come with it.

I do not underestimate the physical, mental, emotional, and financial toll that can take on a person or on a community.

Ensuring that you live in a healthy environment – that you can hunt and fish and live on the land with your children and grandchildren – that is what motivated me to sign with a party that I thought was more likely to take climate action and environmental stewardship seriously.

While most politicians seem to be governing exclusively for the next election cycle, my Green caucus colleagues and I are trying to also govern for future generations and the long term well being of the environment we all depend on.

Science and state of the environment:

Prior to running for office, I was a climate scientist. So, while I do not have specialized knowledge about all species or ecosystems the way a biologist, forest ecologist, or someone with deep local or traditional knowledge might, I do share that commitment to trying to solve problems from an evidence-based perspective.

I have dedicated my career to understanding our world and its problems through science and have been surprised at how difficult it is to convince governments to consistently follow scientific reasoning. While the concept of science-based wildlife management has generally been endorsed in B.C., it has not always been applied.

There have been some successes. But the selective application of even sound policy has led to more disasters.

Many wildlife populations are in jeopardy today. Mountain caribou are facing extirpation, wild salmon – a foundation species – are in shocking decline, spotted owls are virtually extinct, and moose populations, which many families rely on, are in trouble across the province.

What we find in almost all of these instances is that there has been inadequate science, particularly concerning cumulative impacts, and that an unacceptable loss or alteration of vital habitat has occurred.

The management of wildlife, and the application, or not, of scientific principles, continues to stir great controversy and emotional debate in B.C. Understandably so.

Wildlife management conflicts in which species are pitted against one another are truly challenging, but I have always maintained that humans – elected representatives in particular – have a moral obligation to prevent endangered species from going extinct.

Often, extreme situations are created because government has failed to act. They are typically situations that – for a variety of industrial, social, or budgeting excuses – have been allowed to escalate far past a point of simpler intervention.

Some say that humans should not interfere with nature, but sadly, intervention is sometimes necessary. Simply put, many ecosystems have been altered so drastically that we can no longer just stand by and let nature take its course.

Predator control, hunting closures, and restrictions that stop industries from undertaking resource developments are all difficult matters for governments to deal with.

But things aren’t going to get easier. The management of wildlife is becoming increasingly complex and fraught with risk.

Habitat loss is mounting.

The human population is growing.

Roads and pipelines have been spreading into the farthest reaches of the province, and researchers have discovered how such developments increase predation, shift wildlife distribution, and impact abundance.

Adding to all these other stressors is climate change. The full implications aren’t yet clear, but we cannot situate our wildlife strategies in the past. Our environment is changing and will continue to do so.

Government must be prudent and precautionary as we manage our changing landscape as the planet warms. The timing and abundance of food availability, for instance, will shift for some plants and animals. Species reliant on their stability will need space and additional resources if they are to adapt.

In many respects, Northern BC, the Interior, and the people who live off those lands are on the front lines of climate change.

You are the ones fighting forest fires and flooding.

You are the boots on the ground when government is slow to act.

For far too long government has shortchanged wildlife management in B.C.

It’s fine for Ministers to say they support science-based decisions – but where is the science? Where are the field researchers? Where are the basic boots on the ground that are needed to keep a close watch on our wildlife populations and habitat? I’d say many of them are in this room.

The necessary funding just isn’t there.

B.C. ranks behind its neighbours in the northwest when it comes to investment in wildlife management. Alberta, Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Utah – all spend more on managing less.

The shameful underfunding of wildlife management has taken place under successive Liberal regimes. Now we have a new NDP government, but it has yet to fully embrace – or fund – science-based management.

B.C. is Canada’s most ecologically diverse province but if we are to maintain that rich biodiversity, we need to see a serious commitment to science-based, evidence-based wildlife management – and we need to have dedicated wildlife funding put in place, so managers have the budgets, and the staff, required to do the job.

As the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended in its Report on the Budget 2017 Consultations, license fees collected from natural resource users (hunters, anglers, ecotourists, etc.) should be directed into conservation and wildlife management services, rehabilitation, enforcement and education.

Effective natural resource management is reliant on funding, science, and social support. We seem to have consensus on this within the B.C. government, but it needs to be put into action.

Prior to the election, I campaigned on establishing a Natural Resource Commissioner who could lead a Natural Resources Board responsible for establishing sustainable harvest and extraction levels and reporting on the state of B.C.’s environment and natural assets. The NRB, I proposed, would conduct cumulative impact assessments, and oversee the application of the professional reliance model.

There is much we can do to advance the values of scientific monitoring, reporting, and cumulative assessment.

Managing wildlife has always been difficult, but never more so than now, in the face of climate change.

We need a comprehensive science- and ecosystem-based approach to wildlife management. We simply cannot continue to perpetuate the slow, methodical extirpation of native species in B.C.

Ecosystem-based management calls for natural resources, habitat, and species to be managed collectively, over a long time frame, rather than just looking at a single sector or single species.

Cumulative impacts are assessed – an approach which B.C. urgently must follow because of the sweep of industrial development now taking place in many sectors of the province.

Given the countless challenges facing wildlife in our province, two of the most important things we can do to protect biodiversity is to work with local communities to leave key habitat areas intact and restore and improve funding to conservation, monitoring and scientific management efforts.

As British Columbia continues to warm and precipitation patterns continue to change,

as flooding and drought becomes more frequent and extreme,

as out of control wildfires become more common and more damaging,

as pest infestations become more diverse,

and as between 20 and 30 percent of the world’s plants and animals becoming at risk of extinction by mid century,

we have a responsibility to take steps now.

It won’t be easy. But proactively protecting ecosystems to improve resiliency and adaptive capacity to the changes a warming climate will bring is vital.

Salmon:

My colleague Adam Olsen, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, has dedicated much of his time to fighting for the protection and restoration of wild salmon in BC.

Adam made it his mission to speak for the salmon in the BC Legislature; raising their challenges repeatedly in question period and canvassing the six Ministries with salmon jurisdiction in estimates. Nearly every Minister’s answer was some version of… ‘I care about wild salmon too, but, unfortunately, that’s not my job.’

Amidst the finger pointing and confusion about who is doing what, Adam identified a possible path forward and called on the government to establish a Wild Salmon Secretariat to streamline all the work being done within the BC government and – importantly – be a strong defender of wild salmon in negotiations with the federal government.

After all, he reasoned, good salmon policy is good environmental, social and economic policy.

Last Spring, Adam organized a special forum that brought together a wide range of stakeholder groups to discuss his proposal in greater detail.

Representatives of First Nations, fish and wildlife organizations, conservation groups, non-profit advocacy agencies and a commercial fishing union met to discuss how the province could play a more effective role in the management of wild salmon. BC Wildlife Federation, of course, was in attendance.

Salmon are largely a federal responsibility, but several speakers at the forum highlighted the province’s responsibility for watersheds. Salmon are vitally important to British Columbians, they said, and the province should prioritize their well being.

The majority of participants also relayed frustration in trying to deal with the provincial government on salmon issues, having been passed from department to department because there was no single ministry in charge of the file.

When government tries to balance every competing interest, wild fish are the losers. Adam argued instead that when we put wild fish first, long-term benefits flow to all interests.

With six different provincial ministries, in addition to DFO federally, involved in the management of salmon and steelhead proactive protection is very rarely achieved. These ministries (the Ministry of Environment being the exception) all have mandates to advance development that is detrimental to salmon.

They are tasked with mitigating damage where possible, but it is not the priority. In addition, no one in government is tracking the cumulative impact of all these activities.

Even if each ministry only has a moderate impact on fish habitat, it can add up to salmon being hit at every stage of their development: spawning grounds are constrained by municipal expansion, streams are channeled under roads, rivers are polluted with agricultural runoff, watersheds are logged causing waterways to cloud with silt and get too hot, migratory routes are lined with fish farms… No one in government is taking the perspective of the salmon.

With the encouragement of stakeholders and First Nations, Adam released a report and challenged the government to pick up his proposal to create a wild salmon secretariat for the province, based in the premier’s office.

Government agreed… but then put their own spin on it. They did create a wild salmon secretariat in the premier’s office, but instead of giving them a mandate to streamline and coordinate the work being done for salmon and steelhead, they struck a 14-person wild salmon advisory council and tasked the salmon secretariat with coordinating their work…

It wasn’t exactly what we were going for: we wanted one leader and more coordination – not 14 additional voices.

We were told the Wild Salmon Advisory Council would write a report and then refer it to a legislative committee for official public consultation around the province.

To keep the work moving, we agreed to support the Council on the condition that their assignment be done with urgency. Adam was on the council and advocated to have more conservation representation. When that didn’t happen he worked to represent that voice himself.

Other challenge came when government decided to scrap the idea of having the legislative committee do the consultation and instead got the council to hold last-minute town halls. We disagreed with that approach because it lacked official transparency and was disproportionately focused on coastal communities at the exclusion of inland areas that also rely on salmon.

We declined to attend any of those town halls.

Despite the disorganized process, the Wild Salmon Advisory Council drafted a strong report and submitted their final recommendations to government this winter. Glad to have their work completed Adam focused on the next hurdle: getting government to action and fund the salmon restoration and protection measures we all know are needed.

In our 2019 budget submission, four of our top five requests were salmon and habitat restoration focused. Adam tweeted a salmon and steelhead demand at government every day – threatening to keep going until they found some money for wild fish.

He repeated, countless times, his demands:

1. Government needs to protect vital and intact ecosystems (like the Heart of the Fraser acquisition BCWF has been working on),
2. Government needs to restore habitat by funding local restoration projects, and
3. Government needs to coordinate and streamline the responsibility for wild fish within the provincial government – if we allow 6 ministries plus DFO to all take a “lead role” on fish we will manage them to zero.

I was getting sick of hearing Adam rant about salmon all day every day, so gratefully, this March we got notice that the money was coming and the tweets could stop. The province and federal governments came together to allocate $142 million dollars over five years for salmon in BC.

The first round of applications have been submitted (on an expedited timeline because of the federal election) and there are some really exciting projects in the mix.

Adam recently got an update from government on the funding and is feeling cautiously optimistic that some strong community and First Nations-led habitat restoration projects will be approved.

The next phase of his salmon and steelhead work will focus on making sure government approves and funds projects in a coordinated, strategic manner so that the money is actually effective at restoring or protecting fish. If we approve a million dollar spawning ground restoration project, for example, but continue to allow gill netting downstream or clear cutting upstream we won’t achieve much… So the work continues.

I really appreciate Adam’s dedication to this file and his willingness to stay at the table focused on the end goal.

In regards to the recent chinook closures, our position was similar to BCWFs, I believe. Obviously, we support conservation closures for species at risk of extinction (especially of gillnet fisheries which are non-selective), but we also call on both governments to reconcile their ongoing contributions to climate change and ecosystem destruction that has led to the decline of wild salmon in the first place.

Governments have to go beyond partial measures to address the more systemic problems limiting salmon productivity so that theses sacrifices from hard working British Columbians and local communities are not made in vain.

Yes, we are at a point with many of these salmon and steelhead stocks where everyone has to make sacrifices and all of the stakeholders and First Nations we’ve spoken to are willing to go without to support recover. But, in our perspective, that needs to be everyone – governments and industry included.

They need to address the root causes of their declines: climate change effects (ocean acidification, extreme weather, floods, mega-wildfires, drought and increased water temperatures) and land management effects (over logging of watersheds, which leads to hotter, siltier rivers; water pollution from mines, other industry, and agriculture; and the destruction of habitat, especially key spawning grounds).

As it currently stands, it’s hard not to feel that Ottawa is making British Columbians pay for their decades of mismanagement.

Glyphosate:

To glyphosate, my colleagues and I have been challenging government on this issue in question period and estimates since it was brought to my attention by your leadership.

As you well know, every years tens of thousands of hectares of forest in British Columbia are aerially treated with glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the weedkiller at the centre of the Monsanto case that recently revealed a corporate campaign to cover up the risks that this chemical poses to plant, animal, and human life.

We’ve been treating forests with glyphosate because it kills off broadleaf plants, allowing trees that are valuable for logging, such as lodgepole pine, to proliferate. In other words: it creates monocrops rather than the diversified forests that our landbase is supposed to support. In turn, monocropped forests are vulnerable to more frequent and destructive wildfires and beetle infestations.

For decades researchers have also been reporting reduced numbers of rodents, moose, insects, and birds in forests that have been sprayed.

In other words, there is overwhelming evidence that we shouldn’t be treating our land base with glyphosate. Our environment is facing many challenges in this era of climate change: we shouldn’t be adding a harmful chemical on top of that.

I’m keen to continue to work with you on this file and appreciate the input you’ve given me so far.

Conclusion:

Our province, and indeed our world, are facing more challenges than ever before. And you are at the front lines of these challenges as the environment changes in unprecedented ways. We need your perspectives; we need your expertise. Combined with scientific evidence, I believe your local and traditional knowledge holds the answers for the big problems we face.

If there’s one thing my colleagues and I have learned since the election of 2017, it’s that the best solutions come from collaboration. The best solutions come out of meaningful consultation with all stakeholders involved; from collaborating with parties with whom you may not always agree. When we stop listening to one another or overlook one group’s opinion, we impede our ability to leave a better world for future generations to inherit.

I’m hopeful that in the face of mounting environmental challenges, we’ll be able to adapt and thrive.

Thank you for your continued stewardship and guidance.

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.

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.