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

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What continues to be missing from the conversation is a focus on how we can adapt our labour laws to support people grappling with the changing nature of work. From increases in precarious gig-based jobs to the increasing use of contractors instead of employees, British Columbians are dealing with huge changes to job stability and income security, and our laws, frankly, aren’t keeping up. We continue to look forward to working with government to ensure that we are responding to the changes in workplaces that British Columbians are facing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

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

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

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS  AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and Third Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — TICKET SALES ACT

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

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

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s extremely important that we start in earnest and to do the work earnestly to modernize our laws, to better support workers as they are forced to adapt to the changing nature of work and the growth of the gig economy. Our laws need to be responsive to the changing world of work and what people are dealing with. How are we supporting people as they deal with the most precarious of work? How should the laws be updated to deal with the increasing use of independent contractors?

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

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

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

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

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) today released its landmark assessment detailing the world’s declining state of biodiversity. Remarkably, British Columbia’s government has still not announced how it plans to deliver on its 2017 mandate to enact an endangered species law. Below I reproduced the text of our media release in response to the IPBES report.

Media Release

Humans threaten 1 million species with extinction worldwide, B.C. still without any endangered species legislation
For immediate release
May 6, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – One million of the planet’s eight million species are threatened with extinction, according to a comprehensive report released today from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a UN committee, and yet British Columbia’s government has still not announced how it plans to deliver on its 2017 mandate to enact an endangered species law.

“The report identifies habitat loss, sustainable exploitation, climate change, and pollution as the main culprits, which are all areas that we can and should focus on in British Columbia to protect our at-risk species and the health of our province,” B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver said.

“I drafted and introduced an endangered species act for British Columbia twice in the legislature, most recently in November 2017. British Columbia is the most bio-diverse province in Canada, but it is also home to more at-risk species than any other province with 1,807 species at risk of extinction. In addition to detailing policies to identify, protect and rehabilitate at-risk wildlife populations and habitats, my Endangered Species Act introduced proactive measures that would prevent healthy species from declining in the first place.”

The world is in the midst of the sixth great global extinction event, and humans are the driving force. Proactive protection and active restoration are key to the resiliency of British Columbia.

Humans are part of nature and inextricably linked to its deterioration. As stated in the IPBES report, some 70 percent of drugs used for cancer treatment are natural or synthetic products linked to nature, and 75 percent of global food crops rely on animal pollination. In B.C., in 2017 nearly 10,000 people were employed in fisheries-related jobs and other 141,000 worked in forestry-related positions.

“If our ecosystems collapse, so does our economy,” Weaver said. “We need biodiversity for pollination, flood prevention, water and air purification, climate change resiliency, and social and cultural well-being.

“The IPBES report makes it abundantly clear governments must act urgently to change the trajectory of global extinction. My B.C. Green caucus colleagues and I will fight for the same in British Columbia.”

-30-

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

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 23: Land Owner Transparency Act, 2019 at second reading. This is an important bill that is aimed at increasing transparency in property ownership. The bill requires beneficial owners of corporations, partnerships and trusts to file a transparency declaration when there is a transfer of legal title of property or a change in beneficial ownership. It further requires pre-existing beneficial owners  to file a declaration. However, the bill will not affect individual property owners who are listed on title at the Land Title Office.

Transparency International Canada, the Canadian Chapter of Transparency International, is an anti-corruption NGO that recently published an extensive analysis of the scale of anonymous ownership of Canadian companies and Trusts. Their 2016 report states:

“Analysis of land title records by TI Canada found that nearly half of the 100 most valuable residential properties in Greater Vancouver are held through structures that hide their beneficial owners. Nearly one-third of the properties are owned through shell companies, while at least 11 percent have a nominee listed on title. The use of nominees appears to be on the rise; more than a quarter of the high-end homes bought in the last five years are owned by students or homemakers with no clear source of income. Trusts are also common ownership structures for luxury properties; titles for six of the 100 properties disclose that they are held through trusts, but the actual number may be much higher as there is no need to register a trust’s existence.“

For over five years I have been calling on government to plug a loophole that lets corporations and wealthy individuals avoid paying BC’s property transfer tax. Plugging this loophole would bring tens of millions of dollars into provincial coffers and correct an injustice that unduly penalizes ordinary BC families. While Bill 23 does not close the loophole, it does provide government with important information about beneficial property ownership in British Columbia. This will allow government  to get a sense of the scale of the problem without actually solving it. I am hopeful that once the data starts rolling in, government will quickly recognize that the bare trust loophole must be closed to ensure that property transfer tax is applied on a transfer of beneficial ownership not on a transfer of title.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my second reading speech in support of this important bill.

Video of Speech

Forthcoming

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: That took me a little bit by surprise, as it was so succinct, the previous speaker. She was so timely in her words that she was speaking in, I think, support — caveated support — to this bill, but I’m not quite sure. I was indeed listening.

It gives me pleasure to rise and stand in very strong — let me be very clear — unequivocal support of Bill 23, Land Owner Transparency Act, at second reading. This is something that is long overdue in British Columbia. I am absolutely delighted that the government is stepping up to create the important registry required to ensure that partnerships, trusts and corporations that own property in British Columbia have beneficial ownership registered in such a registry.

This legislation will require owners of such corporations and partnerships and trusts to file a transparency declaration when there is a transfer of legal title of property or change in beneficial ownership. Pre-existing beneficial owners will also be required to file a declaration. It doesn’t apply to individual owners. The ownership information of individuals is already publicly available through the land title office, as we know. You and I have to do that whenever we buy a property.

Therein lies the problem. This is an issue that I’ve been raising in this Legislature since not long after I got elected in 2013, within the context of what was going on, when I asked question after question after question to the then B.C. Liberal government about what they were going to do to close the so-called bare trust loophole, which is continuing to this day to be used to avoid paying property transfer tax and to avoid disclosure of who is buying or is not buying property in British Columbia.

This is a first step there. This is a requirement that beneficial ownership now be declared in the registry.

Let me give you an example about why that’s important. Let’s suppose I want to speculate in the Victoria or Vancouver real estate market. I assign somebody to go and buy a property — to buy that property and put it in a trust. I’m going to put it in a trust. There may be a corporation that owns that trust. The beneficial owners of that corporation may be some people who were there initially to buy that property and develop the corporation. Those individuals have no need to disclose the owners of the shares of the corporation that owns the trust. The trust is on title. The trust is all that’s on title. No matter how many times those shares in that corporation change, no matter how many times not only the beneficial but the majority ownership of that corporation changes, there is no change of the registered owner at the land title office. It is the trust, the bare trust.

We had examples of properties being flipped, typically high-end properties being flipped from owner to owner to owner, not through the sale and change of land title, but through the change of the transfer of the shares of the corporations that owned the trust that owned the land title. All the time avoiding property transfer tax, because you only pay transfer tax on transfer of title, not on transfer of beneficial ownership, which is an area that I hope government, at some point in the future, will move towards closing.

I understand the rationale that they’re bringing forward now. They want to gather the data first to see how the scale of the problem is, in order to deal with the problem rather than going straight to deal with the problem. I have some sympathy from that argument. It’s taken some time to get here, but we are here, and I’m absolutely delighted that we are here. The registry that will be here will be publicly searchable, but with some information only accessible by government and law enforcement for reasons that were articulated by the minister in her opening remarks.

The bill also allows individuals to apply to omit information if their health or, as the minister alluded to, safety is at risk from public disclosure. You might imagine, for example, the issue of someone fleeing domestic violence or someone in the witness protection program. It would be kind of odd to have the beneficial ownership of a property of someone in witness protection to be actually in their original name. So there are reasons that we have that.

Coming back to the background for this article, the confidence and supply agreement the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens signed back in 2017 states as follows: we will collectively focus on shared values to “make housing more affordable by increasing supply of affordable housing and take action to deal with the speculation and fraud that is driving up prices.” The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for this for I don’t know how long. We know we’ve been calling on government to eliminate the ability of buyers to hide their identities through shell companies, numbered companies and trusts.

We’ve been calling on them to improve transparency in the land title registry — not only this government, but the previous government before that — and to improve the land title and corporate registry by requiring the disclosure of beneficial ownership. Disclosure is critical to actually dealing with any issues that may be out there. We also have been, for quite some time, pleading with government to make existing and new data more regularly and freely accessible to researchers and the public. We hope that as the registry is created, and was promised in Budget 2018, that this will be the case.

This registry is, without a doubt, a significant step forward for transparency that ends hidden ownership. As we know, hidden ownership is intricately tied into speculation tax avoidance and money laundering in our housing market. One of the issues raised by the minister, and prior to that, by the member from Point Grey when in opposition, was the notion of shadow flipping, a notion where I put in a contract to purchase a property, but it’s me or my assignee who purchases that property. So I might, with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano…. I may buy his property. I may put an offer on his property with “the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, or assignee.” The member for West Vancouver–Capilano might say: “That’s a great offer. I want it.” But my “or assignee” clause is such that I could actually start assigning this contract to whoever I want, who can reassign it to whoever they want, who can reassign it to whoever they want, and they can jack up the price as we go along.

Now, steps have been taken. I think it was the previous government, or was it this government? I can’t remember. This place becomes a blur after a while. But certainly, we now have legislation that requires that any profits realized after the shadow flipping goes on actually go back to the original seller of the property.

So the member for West Vancouver–Capilano would not lose out if I were shadow flipping. Nevertheless, the transfer of the properties in between those stages would not be required even today to be disclosed.

This registry is critical. All stages of the process — transparency. The use of shell companies, as I mentioned, and trust and proxy ownership structures has obscured who has owned property in this province, undermining efforts at gathering and analyzing and allowing for an analysis of large-scale tax evasion and the data used to support this.

A report by Transparency International found that government can’t identify the owners — now get this — of almost half of Metro Vancouver’s most expensive homes. Government, whether it be Metro Vancouver or the city of Vancouver or the province or the federal government…. No government knows who more than half of the high-end properties in Vancouver…. We don’t know who owns them.

What a recipe for abuse. It’s just unbelievable this has been allowed to go on for so long. It’s absolutely unacceptable. This bill will close that. It will ensure that transparency is there.

We know that wise accountants, who know full well about the existence of the bare trust loophole, have been advising clients to avoid paying the property transfer tax by buying their property in a trust. If I, for example, were to buy a property in a trust…. Any house that I wanted to live in I buy in a trust instead of me. As soon as I buy it in a trust…. The very first time it happens, you will pay the property transfer tax. But every single time that that house is traded from thereon in, you will never pay any property transfer tax as you transfer the shares of the corporation that owns the trust from one to another.

This is one of the reasons why the higher-end homes, so many of them, have been put into trusts. When they flip, there is no property transfer tax, and the property transfer tax can be expensive.

There are also means and ways of hiding foreign ownership behind…. Some of that was indeed closed, again, by the previous government after much pestering.

We know that some of the money laundering has taken advantage of this, too, in Metro Vancouver. We still await Peter German’s report. We still await at least another chapter. We got one chapter. There’s got to be more coming. It’s clear…. We continue to push, and I will be doing so in the weeks ahead, for a public inquiry. We need a full-scale public inquiry into money laundering in this province. It is inexcusable that we have had as much as $5 billion laundered through Vancouver’s real estate market since 2012, distorting housing prices, particularly in the high-end markets.

We know…. I forget how many thousand homes are empty in the member’s riding, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I met with the council and mayor of West Vancouver–Capilano, who were at odds, not knowing what to do to actually go after the owners of these vacant homes that they simply are leaving there, not paying the social cost that has been historically developing by these homes being left vacant and distorting a market that would otherwise not be where it is, if it weren’t for someone laundering and nefarious activities going on.

We know, for example, just in 2016, over $1 billion of Vancouver’s property transactions have links to Chinese organized crime. Over $1 billion in one year alone had links to Chinese organized crime. That’s not counting any Russian organized crime, any Canadian organized crime, any American organized crime. Just one. It’s rampant in Vancouver, and we’ve sadly got a reputation internationally for being the home to the so-called Vancouver model of money laundering. Not a nice thing to be known for.

The president of the Law Society of B.C. stated: “This groundbreaking move by the B.C. government will increase the transparency of land ownership in B.C. and make it more difficult to use arrangements for tax evasion, fraud and money laundering. British Columbians will benefit from a fairer and more transparent real estate market.” Those are pretty powerful words of support from the president of the Law Society of British Columbia. I think that’s a strong independent endorsement of this legislation.

Transparency International has applauded the establishment of this registry — another pretty strong endorsement from an international organization. And a former director of FINTRAC has said that the province is now leading the country with this legislation. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if there is one thing I want British Columbia to be, it is a leader. We’re seeing, finally, leadership and transparency in the real estate sector in our province, and for that, the minister deserves a great deal of credit. I thank her, and I thank this government for bringing this forward.

You know, if ever there was a moment that we have second-guessed our decision in 2017 as to whether or not we support this side or that side in terms of a minority government, let me tell you that legislation like this makes us not question for a second that we did the right thing. The Liberals opposite had many, many years to deal with this, but they ignored it. I can’t remember how many times I stood up in this Legislature and posed questions to the then Finance Minister, asking him when he would take steps to deal with the transparency and beneficial ownership and close the bare trust loophole that was being used to avoid paying property transfer tax and also being used to launder money. The public record of this is available on my blog site. You can see it there, going back years. The answers I was getting were platitudes, because, to be honest, the members opposite simply had no idea. They had been in government too long. They’d lost ability to determine what the issues were. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this issue is before us.

S. Bond: Relevance.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Valemount for calling for relevance. Thank you. And the reason why I called it to your colleague — because every time anybody in our caucus stands up, you have the audacity to stand up and call relevance, yet you’re not willing to accept others calling relevance to the other side. So it’s part of the hypocrisy that we see. I enjoy the conversation, and I will make this relevant, hon. Speaker, before you must tell me to make this relevant.

Coming back to the bare trust loophole, as I noted, I’ve been calling on government for years to deal with this, and frankly, this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, government will move forward to closing this. I know that the market had discounted this, both the real estate market and the accounting market. They had both already discounted that government was going to close the bare trust loophole. They didn’t, but now they’re collecting data and that probably will lead it up to move for it.

Looking at this, we also need to expand this progressive approach to transparency, also to the corporate registry. Right now, the corporate registry is not searchable by director name, and as it’s hampering transparency and accountability, hopefully we’ll be able to see this transparency that we’re seeing here with respect to land-ownership move into the corporate registry as well. The Attorney General has called this issue a deliberate or grossly negligent decision that limits transparency, a benefit to firms and individuals who wish to evade accountability. I urge government as well to move beyond this and to change the corporate registry to fix this problem, in line with the spirit of the legislation before us today.

In conclusion, this legislation is an important step forward for opening up hidden ownership in real estate in British Columbia. And it’s timely. I’m very pleased the government has done it. And it’s just a shame that we’ve got to get to the position we’re in after so many years of neglect in this sector. We need to go further and crack down on tax avoidance, using the ownership structures that the data will be collected, and I’m looking forward to government stepping in to close that bare trust loophole, which many use to avoid paying property tax. I look forward to seeing information in the registry and will continue to push for action on this file and get to the root of the housing crisis.

With that, I do note the time. I would like to move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue at the next sitting of the House after today.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 28: Zero-emission vehicles act at second reading. This bill was introduced on April 10, 2019.  This bill sets into law the zero-emission vehicle mandate that was announced in the fall as part of the CleanBC economic agenda. It further outlines a credit/debit system, similar to what exists in California, that will allow new vehicle car dealers to meet the provincial compliance targets. In particular, the bill legislates that:

“(a) in 2025 and in each subsequent year, at least 10% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(b) in 2030 and in each subsequent year, at least 30% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(c) in 2040 and in each subsequent year, 100% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles.”

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

Video of Speech

Forthcoming

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Obviously, I’ll be speaking in strong support of it.

Before I begin, please let me summarize the irony of what I heard during question period today. Question period — when we had a discussion, a discussion emanating from members of the opposition, questioning about the price of gas in British Columbia. We had suggestions from members opposite that one of the ways that we should deal with the price of gas is to bring in a price cap. That was a direct quote from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

You know, what we should have been talking about here is actually the opportunity that’s afforded us now, given the gouging that’s going on. We know that the price of gas in British Columbia, the 40 cent increase, is largely because of refinery margin, which in British Columbia is more than twice what it is in other jurisdictions in Canada. That’s what the real question is. And so, I could actually answer the question very simply that the members opposite asked in question period.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

A. Weaver: We’ll keep to the bill, but it’s really important to recognize that the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act…. Why it’s relevant to this bill is that we’re talking about bringing in legislation to move towards 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Right now we’re also in question period, talking about gas prices. What is remarkable is the disconnect between these two.

What we know — and what should have been said and what I was wishing government would have said — is that we do have a role for the B.C. Utilities Commission. Perhaps the B.C. Utilities Commission might start to look at this refinery margin that exists in British Columbia. That is something government could do, and perhaps they will do it in the fall, but now is not the time to be discussing that in detail, because of course, we’re discussing the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

In this act…. It’s emerging from CleanBC, which is part of the government and, in collaboration with us, a commitment to reducing emissions, but it’s not really a commitment just to reduce emissions. It’s an economic agenda. This is a flagship proposal in a larger economic vision to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.

What happens in this bill, of course, is it builds upon the structure of the pathway towards getting zero-emission vehicles by bringing in place new requirements for car sales in the province of British Columbia. What’s important in doing the car sales is creation of an additional wrapping-around credit-debit system — ZEV units, so to speak — and a whole accounting system, mirrored after what’s being done in California, is being done to ensure compliance and enforcement and allow uptrading and penalties for companies that are having some difficulty meeting the ZEV standard. They can work with other companies that perhaps have less difficulty.

The bill talks about provincial targets being at least 10 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold in British Columbia must be zero-emission by 2025. By 2030, that rises to 30 percent, and by 2040, that rises to 100 percent.

That’s the essence of the bill. The details, the important details and where the meat of the bill actually lies, is with respect to the ZEV units which are being created — ZEV, meaning zero-emission vehicle — to allow for the compliance of new car dealers in the province of British Columbia.

This is a very aggressive pathway to ZEV adoption. It’s one that we’re very supportive of. It’s one that is much stronger, in my view, than some of the other jurisdictions that have ZEV standards out there. It’s one that’s mirroring what’s happening elsewhere around the world, whether it be Netherlands or the U.K. or India or China, which are moving towards the rapid adoption of non-emitting vehicles and the elimination of gas as a fuel for such vehicles.

Therein lies the irony, which is why, again, coming back to the debate earlier today, it’s important to relate the two. Because here we see, around the world, car companies as well as consumers are moving away from emitting vehicles. They’re not there now, but they’re moving away towards it. Here we have, in British Columbia, an ironic debate, as we’re moving away, as we’re seeing oil companies gouge us with the refinery margin in B.C. that is more than twice the refinery margin of other jurisdictions in Canada.

There is a role for the BCUC to look into this, and perhaps we will look into this. But frankly, for us, in this place, to be debating the lowest-common-denominator politics — the lowest common denominator — talking about introducing price caps…. It’s the wrong conversation. The public…. Both sides of this House should be saying enough is enough to these oil companies.

Now, I recognize that they’ve just been given one of the greatest handouts of corporate welfare in Canadian history, through the LNG generational sellout that this government, supported by opposition, has moved forward. Now, I realize that they’re licking their lips at that corporate welfare, but enough is enough.

While this bill is important in taking us to the pathway towards zero-emitting vehicles, what’s equally important is that the public recognize that now is the time for us not to respond to this oil company gouging. Rather than playing on their terms, let us take this opportunity. Let us take this opportunity to British Columbia to join the rest of the world and show leadership by saying we are not going to play that game. We’re not going to play that game of price gouging.

Maybe we’re going to carpool less. Maybe we can’t afford a zero-emission vehicle. They’ll be coming down because of this bill in price, I can tell you that, because of the requirement to bring here, and there’ll be lots of capacity. The secondhand market is already flowing in British Columbia. Maybe they can’t go with that because they can’t afford it.

But what people can afford is, perhaps, carpooling. They can afford, perhaps, transit. They can afford, perhaps, riding a bike. In the market of supply and demand, if we reduce demand and there is the same supply, that’ll put less pressure on price.

Opposition’s response is to somehow have a massive market intervention by government — to somehow not deal with supply, not deal with demand, but put in a price cap, which is one of the greatest incentives you could give to an oil company to increase prices because the government is on the hook for any price increase. Outrageous. But that’s what we’ve come to expect.

In British Columbia right now, we are leaders in terms of zero-emission vehicle adoption, particularly in the metro Victoria region. One of the most common cars you will see on the road in Victoria is, in fact, the Nissan LEAF, a car that I own, a car that my friend from Saanich North and the Islands owns — he actually two of them, a new one and a secondhand one — and one that many, many people are owning.

In fact, I now own to EVs. We just bought a Hyundai Kona, the new Hyundai Kona which is a 415-kilometre-range non-emitting vehicle. It hasn’t arrived yet because there’s so much demand. We will have no more gas cars in my house.

Yes, we drive all over B.C., and we drive all over the place. We do so without range anxiety. The reason why is that no one should have range anxiety.

Let me say this to you, hon. Speaker. If you’re driving in the interior of B.C., where infrastructure charging is not as good but is growing, and you run out of gas, you’re in trouble. You’ve got to walk perhaps miles or get towed to a gas station.

If you’re driving a zero-emission vehicle and you see that you’re getting low on electricity, you don’t have to worry about a gas leak. That’s not going to happen in a zero-emission vehicle. Electrons don’t leak out of the battery per se.

But if you’re getting short and it’s desperate, just go to a farmhouse and say: “Hey, can I give you five bucks or ten bucks for a bit of electricity? I’m going to run out.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Or you can do jerry cans, sure. But you have to hope that the farmhouse has gas in the back. They might. They might, but they might have marked fuel, and that would be a problem if it was marked fuel. Marked fuel you can’t put in a car.

We also know that…. What I’m dealing with, to the member for Peace River South, is the issue of range anxiety. Range anxiety is really artificial. It’s being created by people who are afraid that they need to have a big thing to charge up. You actually don’t.

You can charge up at home on a 120 volt. It takes a little longer, but you often don’t need to charge up for12 hours. If you’re getting close, you plan your destination. It’s no different from planning where the gas stations are. You’re going to drive on a big highway, you notice “last gas station for 300 kilometres,” you check your gas gauge and say: “Nah, I better not go” or “I better fill up now.” It’s no different with an EV.

What has been happening in British Columbia and what is important to do and what I’m pleased to see is being done is that if you’re going to bring in a ZEV mandate — like we have here, an aggressive one — you must match it with a growing and increasing infrastructure. I’m very pleased to see that happening.

Particularly, I’ve experienced that on Vancouver Island with my Nissan LEAF’s 170-kilometre range. On the highway, you don’t quite get that. If you drive a little over 90 — on the highway on Vancouver Island, you can go 110 up by the Parksville area — it’s not as efficient.

However, we now have charging stations in Buckley Bay — fast chargers, multiple fast chargers, there. We have them in Courtenay, Comox. We have them in the Ucluelet and Tofino area. We have them up and down the Island.

So the infrastructure is coming in, and it’s being done in a very methodical pace that’s keeping up with demand. In cities like Victoria or Vancouver, there are so many charging stations that access to electricity is not a problem.

The problem that government is going to need to deal with in a shorter time frame than perhaps it’s thinking about is the fact that there are still far too many charging stations giving the electricity away for free. The reason why that might sound like a good idea is it’s an incentive. You get electric vehicles. That’s one thing. The problem with giving away electricity for free is that there are more and more EV adopters. As more and more EV adopters get into the market, many of them haven’t got the experience of recognizing the culture, the etiquette, the social norms that have been developed by longtime EV units.

That is, you don’t park in an EV parking space and use the electricity just because it’s a convenient parking space. You park in a parking space and use the electricity because you need it, because if you don’t have it, you won’t go anywhere.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. I call them freeloaders. They’re there charging up electricity not because they need it but because it’s free.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. And I call them freeloaders. They’re there, charging up electricity, not because they need it but because it’s free. That’s a problem, because it then takes up a perfectly good EV charging station from somebody who needs it. This is very problematic with the high-voltage DC chargers.

So it’s imperative that government bring in, now that we’ve got new BCUC analysis of this issue, a more rapid transition to charging — of all EV stations on Vancouver Island and the rest of B.C. — in order to ensure that they’re used when they’re supposed to be used.

When you’re paying 35 cents a kilowatt hour, which is the price that you pay at, say, a Greenlot station — the original Greenlot stations, a few of them that were installed. One’s at Wal-Mart. There’s one in Duncan, for example. You pay 35 cents a kilowatt hour. It sounds like a lot, but it translates to a little over 2 bucks to go from Victoria to Nanaimo. That’s not that expensive.

People have no problem paying 35 cents per kilowatt hour, which is more than three times the retail rate of electricity in British Columbia, to actually charge their vehicles. Because it’s insignificant. And because of the fact that you have no moving parts. You have no oil and gas filter. You have no radiator. You have no exhaust system. You have no moving parts. You have no maintenance.

My 2015 Nissan LEAF, bought in 2014, has had maintenance precisely zero times. I was required, under warranty for the battery, to take it in and have the battery tested — it’s still at 100 percent, no loss at all, and it’s still looking good — because I had to for warranty. But there has not been a single thing, apart from windshield wiper fluid change — not a single piece of maintenance that has needed to be done. No oil filter, no changing transmission fluid, no worrying about radiator, no worrying about coolant. It’s just windshield wiper fluid.

This is the way of the future, and this legislation is positioning us there. I recognize, too, that the single most frequently purchased vehicle in British Columbia is the Ford F-150. I recognize that. That is something that…. In phase two, as we move forward, we’re also seeing an enormous opportunity there. As battery technology continues to improve, as demand continues to grow, it makes sense to initially target the urban markets, where we’re driving, in Victoria, a maximum of, you know, 50 kilometres a day. That’s a lot in Victoria. In Vancouver, even if you drive from Abbotsford to downtown and back, you don’t need anything other than an EV.

So Metro Vancouver and metro Victoria — both of these areas are set up, ideally, for the widespread rapid adoption of electric vehicles. So this legislation, which is essentially enabling legislation that ensures that, if you want to sell new cars in B.C., a certain percentage of those car sales must be zero-emitting vehicles — 100 percent of which must be that by 2040, 10 percent by 2025, 2030 will be 30 percent. Given that we’re about 4 percent now, anyway — very meetable targets.

In fact, the problem is not meeting the targets. The problem is trying to get a car when you go on the lot, because there’s none on the lot. The Hyundai Kona I just bought. I bought it…. Well, I shouldn’t say I bought it. My wife bought it. It’s her car. The one she just bought, she bought a month ago, but we’re not getting it till June, and that’s lucky. We’re lucky we’re getting in June — a three-month wait. Others, a much longer wait.

I know the member for Vancouver-Langara drives a Volt, another excellent EV. I’m sure he’s very pleased with that, although I haven’t seen it on the precinct as often as I used to see it. I know the Minister of Environment drives, I think, an Ioniq, a Hyundai. I think that’s what he drives. I know that my friend here drives LEAFs.

It used to be I was the only person driving an electric vehicle in this Legislature. Now I can’t get in on that EV charging, which is probably a good thing, because I can charge at home, and I know the member for Vancouver-Langara probably has more important need for the electricity than I do here. So I haven’t been using it. It’s been free quite often for you.

Coming back to the CleanBC initiative that led to this ZEV mandate, as well as the timeline for the actual requirement of new vehicles to be zero-emitting vehicles. It’s being coupled, also, not only with the infrastructure rollout, which is going well. I’m very pleased. It’s very well done. It’s really good to see it.

In the Buckley Bay station, for example, there are two high-voltage level 3 chargers, as well as the level 2 chargers, as well as the Tesla charger. So you’ve got lots of options there.

As it’s rolling out, the government is also, as part of CleanBC and the CEV for B.C. program, putting point-of-sale incentives that are up to $5,000 for new electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. And we’re seeing a lot of people, especially with the gas prices…. This is coming back again, coming back to what we had earlier, the discussion in question period. We know for a fact that the price of gas is the single biggest driver of adoption of plug-in, hybrid, zero-emission-vehicle cars. The single biggest driver. We’re seeing that.

You just have to talk to any car dealer. Go to the Hyundai dealer in Victoria. They’re flying off the lot, the Konas, as people come and say: “I’m done with these gas prices.” And you know what? Isn’t that a way to actually drive change, if there are more and more people in British Columbia who say: “I’m done with paying these prices. I’m going to switch over to a non-emitting vehicle”? That reduces demand on the existing supply, and that’s a downwards price driver.

We know the price is going to come down in the fall anyway. The reality of the price of gas right now is that it’s become outrageous. But it’s become outrageous because we know we can charge outrageous prices. We don’t have to blame the little guy, the retailer. It’s not them. We know again, coming back to the refinery margin, it’s twice as much in B.C. relative to the rest of the country. The question the BCUC could and perhaps should be asking is: why is that? Perhaps there is a role for the BCUC at some point to say: “You know what? That’s a problem.” But certainly the carbon tax is something that cannot be touched, and it’s something that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians don’t want to be touched. It’s one cent, but it’s one cent increasing by one cent every year, and that price signal is a critical driver of innovative change.

Just yesterday, I heard the mayor of Langford, Stew Young, on the radio, being interviewed, discussing an industrial park, several hundred acres that have already been zoned, looking to attract, based on this legislation and based on seeing the innovative change that happening, electric vehicle manufacturing in Langford. In particular, there’s a company that wants to build trucks in Langford. This is exactly what legislation like this incentivizes. It incentivizes others to want to be part of this direction, this new economy, and it creates opportunity in areas that we historically did not have.

Electra Meccanica in Vancouver, a small…. To declare everything, Jerry Kroll was a former candidate of ours in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — the CEO of Electra Meccanica, an electric vehicle car company. They’re going to be building elsewhere. They wanted to build in B.C., but government in B.C. must now recognize that as we bring in these innovative programs that are driving change, there is a role for government to work with local government — that is, the provincial government work with local government — to ensure that we capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation brings forward. That is actually what we need to do next — capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation incentivizes.

You know, British Columbia already has the highest per-capita adoption of zero-emitting vehicles in Canada. There are over 17,000 of them in B.C., on the roads, and about 4 percent, as I mentioned, in 2018 were that. The particular driver of an EV saves…. I mean, the notes I’ve been given here suggest $1,500 a year. I can tell you it’s an awful lot more than that. Say you’re charging a car once a week, and let’s suppose you’re driving a four-cylinder car and you’re paying, say, 60 bucks a week. That’s not an F-150. Say 50 bucks a week. That’s 3,000 bucks a year in gas right there, and you’re paying zero for it because there is no gas.

But not only that. You’ve got to do an oil and filter every six months. You’re looking at 200 bucks there. You’ve got to start doing tune-ups and all that stuff, transmission fluid checks, all that stuff, moving parts. None of that’s there. So, in fact, the argument about electric vehicles saving money and paying off rapidly is often not including the additional savings that come from no maintenance. And there’s a reason why we need such standards. Dealers historically have been very reluctant to sell EVs. Not all, but many. The reason why they’re reluctant to sell EVs…. I mean, you can look at the famous documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car? as an example — a very good documentary.

You don’t want to sell an EV because as you buy your EV…. You pay your money, you buy the EV, you drive off the lot, and you’re never seen again. You’re never seen again until you buy your next car. That’s a little tougher for the kind of standard business model that some new-car makers are operating under today. However, those manufacturers and those dealers that recognize the opportunity that’s afforded us here by this legislation, would be the ones that are going to thrive and move forward as we enter.

And I’m pretty sure that Campus Nissan in Victoria will be one of them. They can’t keep LEAFs on the lot. A lot of people think you have to buy a new EV too. Sure, you have to buy a new EV to get some of the incentives, and sure, this legislation only applies to the sale of new cars in British Columbia. However, the secondary market also gets improved by introducing legislation like this. The reason why is that many of the fleets — some of the rental fleets in California, for example — are starting to see these emerging into electric. Or there are lease vehicles. More and more people are leasing electric vehicles.

As these start to build, the secondary market of lease vehicles and rental vehicles, etc., starts to develop as those get sold on the secondary market. You can get a second-hand Nissan LEAF. The LEAF that I bought for about $10,000 to 15,000…. I admit it’s a lot, but if you think of investing, let’s say, $14,000 — because you can easily get a 2015 LEAF for $14,000 on the secondary market — you save $3,000 a year in gas right there. Boom. So you’ve completely paid that off in 4½ years. However, you’re actually going to have no maintenance as well. And most batteries….

People worry that the batteries decay with time. Again, my 2015 LEAF — been driving since 2014 — still has 100 percent battery. I’ve done 70,000 kilometres on that in five years on that — zero CO₂ emitted and still 100 percent battery — going all over British Columbia. You can do this. And it’s fun. And it’s zippy. And they’re fast. The technology in these cars is amazing. I’m very excited by this legislation moving forward.

That was articulated in the media release that my office put out, where we were quite thrilled when the government introduced the bill on April 10. We put out such a release. In fact, I’m quoted in the release as saying: “I’m thrilled that B.C. is adopting a rigorous zero-emission vehicle mandate.” Again, there were lots of discussions with the Environment Minister as we were developing CleanBC, and I would suggest that the level of bold adoption that you see here is something that we were quite persistent on.

The reason why is that 40 percent of emissions for the average household in British Columbia comes from transportation. The average person has a difficult time reducing emissions without dealing with transportation. This gives them a means and a way to go to zero in transportation, relatively rapidly. We also know that without an aggressive ZEV standard, we won’t get the cars on the lots in B.C. because they’ll appear on the lots in California or Quebec instead, where ZEV standards exist.

With China, India and other jurisdictions moving this direction, essentially we know, I suspect, that these targets will end up being moot. If we’re at 4 percent already, getting to 10 percent in 2025, you put the cars on the lot, and we’re going to be there. No question. I would suggest that we’re probably well above 4 percent now with new-car sales. I don’t have the data, but knowing the price of gas at a buck-70 in Vancouver, why would you buy a new car that is not electric? Why would you not consider it? But they need to be on the lots to allow you to buy it, in the first place.

We know that within a decade, trucks, other cars, vans, will all be zero-emitting. That is the direction we’re heading in. I look forward to exploring the details of this further in the actual committee stage because there are complexities in the unit accounting for compliance. There will be questions that will need to be addressed there.

I congratulate government on this — in particular, CleanBC and the Minister of Environment, whose work in this area has been quite well received. And I look forward to the rollout implementation in the weeks, months and years ahead.