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

Media Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

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

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

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today in the legislature we debated at second reading Bill M209: Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019. This is my Private Members’ bill that proposes amendments to the Business Corporations Act and will create a new Part 2.3 in the Act that enables companies to become benefit companies. The bill passed second reading today and moves on to committee stage shortly.

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I move that Bill M209 be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak at second reading to Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act. I will outline my speech in four different sections. I’ll start by giving a brief introduction as to the purpose and the intent of the bill — what it does — moving on to the process by which it was created and finishing with a conclusion and the type of the economy it’s trying to encourage and build.

This is a bill that my office has been working on for quite some months since May of last year, and I’m thrilled that we’ve been given the opportunity to debate it today. I’m, frankly, grateful to government for providing us and members of the opposition access to legislative drafters to allow us to bring this bill in the form that we know has gone through the formal legislative drafting process.

I’ve talked a lot about the emerging economy and the fact that the government needs to be prepared and resilient amidst the rapid shifts that are occurring in our society and our economy. These include, but are not limited to, things like climate change, environmental degradation, changes to the nature of work, rapid technological advance, the whole increasing disparity between those who have and those who don’t have income security and so forth. I believe that, frankly, business must play a central role in helping us tackle these enormous challenges and find solutions. It is not only up to government to find the solutions. It is also up to business.

That’s why we created this legislation to create benefit companies in British Columbia. The idea for this legislation was brought to us from the business community, from both small and large companies that are already using their business to do good and wanted a clearer legal framework under which to operate. I think government, frankly, needs to do more to encourage and support these types of businesses that have chosen to go beyond the pursuit of profit to also pursue critical social and environmental values.

What does the bill do? I want to start by highlighting some of the key elements of the bill. One, it adds a new part to the Business Corporations Act, enabling companies to incorporate as benefit companies. It would provide a legal framework for companies that are committed to pursuing a triple bottom line to embedding social responsibility and environmental sustainability into their companies’ DNA. These companies could take on expanded purpose, accountability and transparency.

The bill would require companies to change their articles to enshrine a commitment to act in a responsible and sustainable manner. This means they must — that’s important, the word “must” — take into account the well-being of persons affected by their conduct and endeavour to use a fair and proportionate share of available environmental, social and economic resources and capacities. They must, again, also pursue one or more specific public benefits of a positive effect on society or the environment.

Another key component of the legislation is that it creates new duties for directors of benefit companies. They must — again I use the word “must” — balance their duty to act in the best interests of the company with the new duties to act with a view to operating their business responsibly and sustainably, as well as to promote specific public benefits. I want to come to highlight this a little bit more because I think this is an important element, a key element, that we need to highlight.

Right now it’s clear. Our case law already makes it very clear that directors may — the very important word “may,” as opposed to “must” — consider broader stakeholders as they consider their duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. The federal government recognized this and is now codifying this into the Canada Business Corporations Act. That’s a very welcome move, frankly, that the federal government is doing in making it clear that all directors have the ability to consider broader stakeholders in their decision-making — that they may consider. That’s based on the case law that arose from the very famous BCE case that enshrined at the Supreme Court level that directors may in fact go broader than just fiduciary responsibility.

We also know that considering broader stakeholders in their decision-making is one thing but also that Canadian directors are not bound by a shareholder primacy rule. This bill does something different. It does something very different: it goes further. It creates a duty for directors of benefit companies to act responsibly and sustainably to promote public benefits. More than this, it requires directors of benefit companies to balance their existing duty to act in the best interests of the company with these new duties to act responsibly and sustainably and promote public benefits. I’m going to come back to this. This was an issue brought to us by small and large business looking for certainty, looking to do a reduced risk as they move forward in these directions.

It’s important to note that nothing in this legislation precludes the directors of an ordinary company from also considering other interests, like employees or the environment, when acting in the best interest of the company. This is not preclude any existing company from doing that. But benefit companies must also report their performance against an independent third-party standard which must be developed by a person or entity that is unrelated to the benefit company.

The reporting must be done annually and must be available to the public. This element is important to ensure transparency for suppliers, purchasers and customers that the company is indeed living up to its stated goals. I hope that this requirement will spur innovation in B.C. and that strong local standards will emerge for benefit companies to use, as put forward and adjudicated by strong, B.C.-based, third-party verifiers.

The legislation creates clear expectations about the nature and mandate of the company and provides protections for directors who choose to prioritize public benefits and not only profit.

This legislation would help mission-driven companies stay true to their mission as they grow and protect the vision of the founders of benefit companies by embedding the environmental and social benefits into the companies’ actual mandate.

It would provide more certainty for impact investors, another critical aspect of this bill. The impact investors are looking to invest in mission-aligned companies of the nature and the mandate of a company, but what’s critical to them is that they not have an asset lock that existed in very fine enabling legislation for the creation of what are called C3s in the province of British Columbia, put forward by the B.C. Liberals in the last session. That doesn’t affect that at all.

But what it does here…. The asset lock associated with those C3s precluded impact investors from actually moving forward, because you invest and you can’t get your investment back out. This would allow impact investors to actually know that the company is triple-bottom-line and is one focused on a much broader mandate than just fiscal benefit for the shareholders.

The act would provide more certainty for impact investors looking to invest in mission-aligned companies, as I said. And moreover, this legislation would provide a simple framework for companies to adhere to that is legally and commercially recognized.

The choice to become a benefit company is completely voluntary. There’s no requirement. There’s no impact on existing corporations and no tax implications at all. Although the government down the road may view some kind of change in the way it incorporates tax to benefit companies versus other companies, if a government moving forward sees that this is something they wish to encourage…. But that is up to government and not something that we’ll be bringing or discussing in a private member’s bill.

I also believe that the benefit company legislation would be complementary to existing structures in place. And I want to recognize again — come back to this — the leadership and initiative put forward by the previous government in creating the so-called C3, or community contribution companies, that I spoke about. I see C3s and benefit companies as different ways, on a spectrum, for government to support socially and environmentally responsible business forums.

Now, I’ve heard, and we’ve consulted extensively, from many businesses that the C3 structure is simply too restrictive for many for-profit businesses, since they would need to fundamentally change their corporate structure and reduce their ability to attract investment. We can and should, frankly, provide another option to support sustainable and responsible businesses in B.C.

The C3 structure works wonderfully if a not-for-profit is looking to create a business arm that is permanently associated with the not-for-profit because the asset lock of the company associated with a not-for-profit is the not-for-profit. So any profits must be flowed back to the not-for-profit. That works well in that case. It does not work well for a for-profit business venture which is seeking to do more than just fiscal bottom line.

I’d fully support any efforts to continue the work started by the previous administration to support C3s. Steps in this direction could include, for example, doing more to promote the C3 brand, enhancing public awareness of C3s and providing tax incentives and benefits for investments in C3s.

So this, again, is not something that we believe competes with C3s. It’s something that we believe is very complementary to C3s. But it gives certain classes of companies, those that are looking to the triple bottom line and not have to worry about the asset lock associated with the C3 to actually incorporate and move forward in that manner….

I’d like to take a few minutes on section 3 here to discuss the process that led to the position we’re in now. As many, obviously, who are aware, I first introduced this bill for debate last May with the purpose of starting a conversation of that legislation.

We had a discussion and a debate and passed second reading, and over the following months, we worked as a caucus very hard to consult stakeholders and experts from across Canada, frankly, and elsewhere to make sure that we got the details right. We met with many, many business leaders, as well as leaders in social enterprise and owners of C3s, about their goals for a sustainable economy and how this legislation would fit in or what we needed to do to ensure that we were able to build support.

We also undertook an extensive consultation with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association to get insight from them as to the various legal questions that might be arise from this.

Throughout this process, we worked closely with the legislative drafter, the one that we’ve assigned to this project, to craft this amendment in order to ensure that it is legally enforceable and that it works well and is consistent with existing B.C. laws. And, of course, we consulted with government through the confidence and supply agreement secretariat.

In conclusion, I’m very proud of this piece of legislation, and I’m very glad to see that we’re debating it at second reading today. I’m grateful to government for bringing this forward to the order papers to actually allow us to have this debate. I think it bodes well for working across party lines to see private members’ bills discussed in this fashion. I hope we’re able to move forward both with opposition bills as well as other bills from others in this chamber.

We will have a rather interesting and novel process in committee stage. I look forward to articulating that as we move towards that. This hasn’t been done before in this Legislature, as far as we can tell, where an opposition member is in committee stage. That will be a unique experience. I think we might point to some revisions in standing orders that we might want to discuss collectively as we move forward, as we move to this committee phase, an odd committee phase that it is, in the B.C. Legislature compared to other jurisdictions.

I believe that, frankly, becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to champion benefit companies is a huge opportunity. We know that Quebec is right behind us here and likely going to follow through shortly thereafter. But we’re leaders here in B.C. We don’t follow others. I think British Columbians enjoy being leaders, and that’s why I’m excited that government has continued to support this effort moving forward.

B.C. is already, like Quebec…. We’re sort of a mirror of Quebec in that regard. We are home to many, many socially responsible companies. It’s part of our, frankly, stellar brand as one of the greenest places in the world. “Super, natural British Columbia” and “Beautiful British Columbia” are monikers on our licence plates, for years have been focusing on our natural beauty and what brings people to our lovely province.

We’ve been seeing, also, shifts in consumer patterns and behaviour, particularly among younger demographics sensitive to social and environmental impacts. We know, again, from our extensive consultation, that the millennial group — the category, however you want to call them — millennials in this area, are very concerned about social enterprises. They’re very supportive of and look actually to buy from and invest in social enterprises or triple-bottom-line companies. Benefit companies allow those companies, from small to large, to actually demonstrate, distinguish and be publicly transparent about their overall mission in a triple-bottom-line sense.

Frankly, we’re struggling as a society to adjust and respond to massive technological, social and environmental shifts that we’re facing — whether it be, as I said earlier, from climate change to automation. We need, frankly, I think, to think differently in order to turn our challenges into opportunities. This is one of the things this bill does here.

We need the partnership and to engage with the business community to help us deal with these challenges. Not to prescribe solutions to business but to work with business to allow the innovative ideas in business to flow through in an environment that seeds and nurtures this innovation. That’s how we’ll be successful.

Government and the non-profit sector cannot, by themselves, respond to the challenges that we face before us; frankly, nor should they. Businesses play an incredible and a huge role in our society, and they must be part of any solution to any problem that we see emerging. Companies that pursue a triple bottom line, frankly, are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century.

Now, some are doing so voluntarily. Others wish to do so, and they wish to be protected. This legislation gives them protection and gives them the ability to follow a suite of rules that are set out to ensure that what they do is enshrined in their articles and protected moving forward.

You know, businesses know that acting in the best interests of people and the planet is the best way to build a thriving economy for the long term. If B.C. had this legislation on the books and if companies were able to incorporate as benefit companies, with an explicit social or environmental benefit baked into that purpose, it would send a very strong signal to the market that the government supports this approach to business, and British Columbia is a home and wants to seek and attract new business in this area.

We look forward and encourage more companies to incorporate social and environmental values into their own business, empowering them to create change in our province and to help us to solve many of the challenges that face us all.

I look forward to listening to the other comments and the deliberations at committee phase.

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

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

Media Statement

Employment Standards Amendment Act
For immediate release
April 29, 2019

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

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

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

Video of Exchange

Question

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

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplementary Question

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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