Today Minister George Heyman and I had the distinct honour of receiving Clean16 and Clean 50 awards from the Delta Management Group for our collaborative efforts that lead to the creation of British Columbia’s CleanBC economic plan.

As noted on the Clean50 website,

“Canada’s Clean50 annually offers recognition to Canada’s leaders in sustainability for their contributions over the prior two years.”

“The Clean50 Individual awards – or just “the Clean50” are selected from 16 diverse categories that transcend numerous  industries, academia, different levels of government, thought leaders and advocates, and are based on accomplishments delivered over the prior two years.  The leader in each of the 16 categories is also declared to be part of the Clean16, depicting those 16 Honourees as the top contributor in their respective  categories.”

The citation for the award states:

“A climate scientist and a climate advocate walk into a Legislature… They may represent different political parties, but that hasn’t deterred these champions of the environment from close collaboration. The BC MLA and Minister for the Environment have worked together to design “CleanBC,” an ambitious economic plan to build a thriving, climate-responsible and climate-resilient economy through incentives and goals: transitioning to all zero-emission vehicles by 2040, demanding far greater energy efficiency in both new and existing buildings, and investing significantly in training workers for a low-carbon economy. The ultimate goal: a net 40% reduction in BC’s 2007 GHG emissions by 2030. BC once again leads Canada in the fight against climate change.

Dr. Weaver also introduced the Business Corporations Amendment Act (passed unanimously, the first non-government bill to pass into law in BC history), which provides a legal framework for businesses committed to pursuing a triple bottom line to incorporate as Benefit Companies. It is the only law of its kind in Canada.”

Unfortunately I was unable to travel to Toronto with Minister Heyman to accept the award due to my recent bout with vestibular neuritis. Nevertheless, I was able to prepare an acceptance video which I reproduce below.

In the government’s press release, as well as our own press release (reproduced below), both Minister Heyman and I emphasize the power of collaboration. We believe CleanBC and this award are evidence of what political leaders can accomplish when they work together. But that collaboration doesn’t end now.

For CleanBC to be effective, government must implement the first phase of emissions reductions and quickly identify how they will fill in the remaining 25%. And, it must be matched with legislated, ambitious accountability and transparency mechanisms. ‘Trust us’ is not good climate policy. That’s why I have been working with Minister Heyman on the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, to be tabled this fall. It will provide an evidence-based foundation to the work done by this government and all to come.

Acceptance Video

Media Release

BC Green Party Leader, Minister recognized for CleanBC collaboration
Climate change policy now front and center in provincial political conversation

For immediate release

October 3,2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, and George Heyman, B.C.’s Minister of
Environment and Climate Change Strategy, have received Canada’s 2020 Clean50 and Clean16 honours for
demonstrated leadership in sustainability through the development of CleanBC .

“Over the last two years, my team and I have been working with Minister Heyman to design CleanBC, our
economic plan to build a thriving, climate-resilient society. It has been the hallmark of our minority government
and will continue to be my top priority as we ensure it is fully implemented to reach our 2030 targets,” said MLA
Weaver. “CleanBC is an important starting point and our ambitions must continue to rise. It is time we reimagined
the climate crisis not solely as an environmental problem, but an incredible opportunity for innovation and the
advancement of our society.

“For CleanBC to be effective, government must implement the first phase of emissions reductions and quickly
identify how they will fill in the remaining 25%. And, it must be matched with legislated, ambitious accountability
and transparency mechanisms. ‘Trust us’ is not good climate policy. That’s why I have been working with Minister
Heyman on the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, to be tabled this fall. It will provide an
evidence-based foundation to the work done by this government and all to come.

“More than 100,000 British Columbians – many of them children- participated in last week’s global climate strike to
shame world leaders for their inaction and demand better. We need to prove that we hear them. We need to
prove that their BC government cares about protecting their future.

“Receiving this recognition is more than a personal achievement; it represents something much greater than one
climate scientist’s life’s work. Hanging in the B.C. Green office in the legislature is a framed official report from
February 17, 2014, that documents an amendment I brought forward to the Throne Speech debate. It reads,

‘…that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest issues
facing our province and that this government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent
with the current expansion of United States sourced thermal coal exports coming through British Columbia
harbours, and therefore calls upon government to follow the lead of our Pacific Coast Action Plan Partners,
Washington, Oregon, and California, and explore all means by which the government may halt the expansion of
thermal coal exports in British Columbia.’

The amendment failed with 73 nays that day; I was the only yea.

“Today, that political conversation has changed. That photo is now historical record, but it is no longer our future.
Climate change is now a top concern of all British Columbians, and indeed all Canadians, and this minority
government is listening and acting.”

Minister Heyman says their collaboration is evidence of what political leaders can accomplish when they work
together.

“The important collaborative work to develop the real and measurable CleanBC climate and economic plan –
between Dr. Weaver and me and our two parties – is a clear demonstration that legislators can work together to
address critical issues and to respond to the urgency expressed by young people around the world demanding
that we act to secure a safer future,” Minister Heyman said.

The Clean50 awards are presented every year by Delta Management Group, an executive search firm for
professionals working in the environmental sector. Previous Clean16 award winners include Tamara Vrooman,
president and CEO of Vancity, Craig Ryan, director of Social Entrepreneurship at Business Development Bank of
Canada, and Matt Jamieson, president and CEO of Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation,
among many others.

Announced annually by Delta Management Group and the Clean50 organization, Canada’s Clean50 Awards
recognize those 50 individuals or small teams, from 16 different categories, who have done the most to advance
the cause of sustainability and clean capitalism in Canada over the past two years. The top recipients in each
category compose the annual Clean16.

“The 2020 Clean16 are truly leaders in sustainability in Canada. Both Minister Heyman and Dr. Weaver have
made significant contributions through CleanBC by working collaboratively to help make B.C. and Canada a better
place,” said Gavin Pitchford, CEO of Delta Management Group. “Canada’s Clean16 awards recognize these
achievements to support a low-carbon future that creates new clean growth opportunities and benefits people.
The competition for the top spot this year in every instance left us with many great choices – and to be selected
from amongst such a strong group of peers is truly a testament to the contribution Dr. Weaver has made to
helping make Canada more sustainable for all Canadians.”

CleanBC is a pathway to a more affordable, safe and sustainable future. CleanBC was developed in collaboration
with the BC NDP government and supports the commitment in the Confidence and Supply Agreement to
implement climate action to meet B.C.’s emission targets.

-30-

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

Today I was afforded the opportunity to present to delegates at the 116^th Union of BC Municipalities Convention in Vancouver. Below I reproduce the complete text (with links) of this speech.

Text of Speech

It’s a great honour for me to be able to once more address you, the delegates to the UBCM.

You know, two weeks ago, and just 15 minutes before I was supposed to give a keynote at the Canadian Propane Association BC Seminar in Langley, I was hit with acute vestibular neuritis which put me in hospital for 5 days.

The irony is not lost on me…but you can imagine how grateful I am to be up and on stage here today.

While I am expected to make a complete recovery in a few weeks, I had to limit my activities which meant that my scheduled meetings with local government representatives this week were all cancelled. For that I sincerely apologize.

In the audience today there are many politicians.

Some of you lean left.

Some of you lean right.

In my case, the vestibular neuritis has left me tilting right and left on a second by second basis but I look forward to stabilizing somewhere in the middle shortly.

The one silver lining in all of this is my incapacitation couldn’t have come at a better time… right at the start of the 2019 Rugby World Cup!

————

There’s a lot of new faces in the crowd this year so for those of you who don’t already know my background I’d like to add that prior to joining the legislature in 2013 as the lone BC Green MLA, I was the Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria.

I served as a Lead Author in the last four United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment reports.

I ran for election in 2013 as I could no longer watch what was happening to our province from the sidelines.

I ran as a point of principle, never actually expecting to get elected (after all no Green Party politician anywhere in Canada had ever before been elected at the provincial level).

I ran on a platform of evidence-based decision-making to counter the decision-based evidence-making rhetoric espoused by so many of our political leaders.

I ran on a platform of ensuring that we focus on the long-term consequences of our decisions instead of solely being fixated on what it would take to get reelected.

I ran to offer British Columbians a vision of social, economic and environmental prosperity grounded in the incredible opportunity afforded us by the challenge of global warming.

And here we are today, two years after the 2017 election delivered a minority government with my two BC Green Caucus colleagues and I holding the balance of responsibility. It’s been a remarkable journey.

Keeping with this year’s theme of ‘resilience and change’, I want to speak to you both as a climate scientist and as a political leader.

In doing so I hope to convince you that each and every challenge our province faces needs to be embraced and thought of as an incredible opportunity for innovation.

And innovation is the foundation of any modern economy.

First, the science.

Since we met last year, a number of sobering reports have been released:

The first was the 2018 IPCC special report in which the world’s leading climate scientists warned there are only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5°C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

A few months later, Canada’s Changing Climate was published by the Federal government.

The report noted that Northern Canada is warming at twice the global rate and highlighted BC as being particularly vulnerable to drought, glacial loss, sever wildfires, and to sea level rise, which will salinate farm land.

Shortly after that we had the report from the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services that stated, in stark terms, that we are in the midst of an extinction crisis with a million species likely disappearing within decades.

The consequences of which would be devastating for ecosystem stability and food production.

Then we got the report from the UN’s special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.

Professor Alston said the world is on course for “climate apartheid,” where the rich will buy their way out of the worst effects of global warming and the poor will suffer. Even under the best-case scenario, he wrote, hundreds of millions will face food insecurity, forced migration, disease, and death.

Staying the course will be disastrous for the global economy and pull vast numbers into poverty.

Most recently, the province quietly released their Strategic Climate Risk Assessment for British Columbia.

In it, severe wildfires, seasonal water shortages, and heat waves are the three highest-ranked risks facing the province in terms of severity, magnitude, and likelihood. Ocean acidification, glacier mass loss, and long-term water shortages also top the list.

In the span of just a few centuries, Earth has made a transition from a past, when climate affected the evolution of human societies, to the present, in which humans are affecting the evolution of the climate.

Starting in the late Paleozoic, more than 300 million years ago, and extending through Mesosoic (known as the Age of the Reptiles), the world’s great coal, oil and natural gas reserves were formed. In doing so, carbon dioxide was drawn down from the atmosphere over a period of tens of millions of years.

Today, we are turning back the clock by returning that carbon to the atmosphere in a matter of a few decades.

As I stated in last year’s address: elected leaders are at a pivotal moment in human history. We are responsible for deciding what path the future climate will take.

That is not something I say lightly. I feel the pressure of that responsibility in everything I do. It weighs heavily on me. But I know I am not alone in that and, while unpleasant, it’s also a good sign.

I can sense, for the first time in my career, that a change in the tide is coming.

In every challenge, there is opportunity. The greater the stakes, the higher the potential. British Columbians are eager for innovation and excited about building a sustainable economy.

Young people, in particular, have made this abundantly clear over the last year.

Millions of students, including many hundreds on the lawn of the legislature last Friday, are demanding elected officials protect their future.

You will die of old age, one sign read, I will die of climate change.

People are ready to support leaders who take climate action seriously.

Change is coming whether we like it or not, so let’s choose to be courageous.

To the opportunities I promised you earlier:

We are immensely fortunate to live in British Columbia. It is quite literally one of the best locations on the planet from which to navigate the climate related challenges ahead.

To start, BC has three strategic advantages over virtually every other region in the world.

1. The quality of life and natural environment allows us to attract and retain some of the best and brightest minds from around the globe — we are a destination of choice.
2. We have a highly skilled and educated workforce. Our high school students are consistently top ranked internationally. They are smart, well trained and they are ready to go to work. And we have exceptional post secondary institutions throughout our province.
3. We have access to boundless renewable energy, fibre and water like no other jurisdiction in the world. We have incredible potential to create clean, renewable energy and forestry sectors to sustain our economy.

Transitioning to a carbon neutral world doesn’t mean going back to the dark ages. It means transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable society where economic, social and environmental concerns are central in all our decision making.

In fact, if we start right now, we stand a decent chance of transforming society without huge disruption.

What I am describing is not an impossible utopia. Every example listed is grounded in current economic trends, scientific evidence, and already established best practice.

We have so much to gain. It’s not just possible that the transition to a clean economy could create jobs. It is inevitable – Jobs that are inspired, important, and valuable. This shift can be the vehicle to deliver a more just, equitable, and healthy society.

To capitalize on these possibilities, we need to start planning beyond the next election cycle. We need to focus on building a new economy that works for all of us — not just the privileged few.

Policies must be based on principles and evidence, not political calculation and opportunism.

And as government leaders we must collectively do everything we can to develop policies that promote, rather than hinder innovation in or economy.

Over the last two years, my team and I have been working with Minister Heyman to design CleanBC, our ambitious economic plan to build a thriving, climate-responsible and climate-resilient economy.

With no silver-bullet solution to solving climate change, it is a collection of policies, incentives, targets, and regulations that will revive our economy and, if fully implemented, collectively achieve a 40% reduction in GHG emissions (from 2007 levels) by 2030.

It includes transitioning to 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2040, demanding far greater energy efficiency in both new and existing buildings, and investing significantly in training workers for a low-carbon economy.

Governments talk a lot about competitiveness, saying if we ask too much of companies they will leave.

But I have never understood why we want to be competing with other jurisdictions who are willing to sacrifice their clean air, land and water or willing to commit human rights abuses, all in order to see who can extract their resources cheaper and faster.

I believe government should be playing a more active role in supporting the type of economy we want to build. Not simply managing the one we have, ignoring the challenges on the horizon.

I don’t want to drag BC into a race to the bottom by subsidizing the tired, and dwindling industries from the last century.

I want to compete in an entirely different arena – for who can be the best, leanest, most efficient, with the healthiest, happiest citizens.

Thoughtfully designed policies can send signals to the market and spur innovation.

Many companies in BC are already leading the way within their sector.

At the tech summit earlier this year, I had the opportunity to moderate a panel with a number of inspiring companies who are pushing the envelope – creating high quality jobs and harnessing the power of innovation to help us respond to the climate crisis.

MineSense, for example, is one I talk about often because they epitomizes the type of approach I am talking about. Their real-time, sensor-based ore sorting technologies allow them to analyze a rock face and determine whether it is economical to ship it to the crusher, or if it should be put aside for fill.

Investing in innovation has made their process smarter, more efficient, and saved them money along with saving water.

They can export their product, but they have also been able to export the technology.

Another inspiring BC company is General Fusion. General Fusion is a truly groundbreaking company, at the forefront of clean tech.

Based in Burnaby, they are working towards commercializing affordable, abundant, safe and emission-free electricity from fusion energy. This company has the potential to transform the world through transforming our energy supply.

Carbon Engineering is a Canadian company that has developed innovative technology to create liquid fuels from atmospheric carbon dioxide, who set up shop in Squamish a few years ago.

Their potentially revolutionary technology also has the ability to capture and sequester human produced carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. A BC company that has become famous around the world.

Then there are Portable Electric and Corvus Energy, two Vancouver-based success stories delivering mobile and marine electricity storage systems, respectively.

Portable electric’s battery power stations are a clean alternative to diesel generators are already being used to power everything from festivals to film sites.

And let’s not forget Unbuilders, a growing team of highly skilled tradespeople who have recognized opportunity in deconstruction.

Instead of demolishing old homes, they deconstruct them piece by piece and salvage vast quantities of historical old growth and other used building materials.

The sale of the residuals means it ends up costing less to deconstruct an old building than demolish it.

What an incredible example of innovation in the building sector. And it is all BC-based.

I could talk about my favorite BC-based, 21^st Century companies all day, but noting the time, I’ll just mention one other.

Structurlam: What an amazing example of a thriving BC based business in the value-added forest sector.

Their two main products Glulam and Crosslam are 100% engineered-wood laminations that are used as replacements in building construction for steel and cement, respectively.

And they are committed to source lumber from BC-based companies like Kaleshnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd., a family owned business located in Tarry’s BC that was started in the late 1930’s by the children of Doukhobour immigrants who came to Canada in 1911.

These companies form the foundation of a strong, resilient, economy. Prosperity and jobs remain local as they they build on our strategic strengths ensuring that value added, technology and innovation are what we export.

Local governments, too, are already proving what is possible.

Last year, 50 local governments reported achieving carbon neutrality.

Last summer, the City of Surrey broke ground on the first community centre in North America to achieve Passive House certification.

In the District of Lillooet, community leaders implemented a plan to improve road safety for pedestrians and cyclists by expanding infrastructure and enhancing bike lanes.

Cities including Victoria, Vancouver, and Tofino are leading the way on taking action on single use plastics – a policy, the courts have made clear, that requires provincial leadership.

Paving the way for you to succeed is something I take very seriously.

I have been working with Minister Heyman on the Climate Change Accountability Act, to be tabled this fall, in the hopes that it, too, will bolster and support your ability to tackle this head on.

I look to you, as local leaders, to pick up the work I have started and make it better. Take in further, adapt it to the opportunities and needs in your community.

You know better than anyone how to be a champion for your constituents. I am asking you today, to be courageous, ambitious, and innovative.

Think further into the future and govern not just for your term, but for your children and grandchildren.

This is the moonshot of our generation.

I’d like to end by reading the concluding paragraph of my book Generation Us: The Challenge of Global Warming that I wrote nearly a decade ago:

“Global warming has been branded an environmental problem. But it is really an economic and social problem. We’ve spent too much time living within a culture of global warming fear and denial. It’s time to recognize global warming for what it is: the most self-empowering issue we will ever face. Every consumer of energy is part of the problem. Every person is therefore part of the solution. We are entering an age of creativity and innovation unlike any that modern society has experienced before. Rather than fearing this change we need to embrace it. And the change starts in each and every one of our households. The time for Us is now.”

Thank you.

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.

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

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Weaver: Sorry, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of Order

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

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

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

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

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

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

Debate Continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today I rose during committee stage debates for Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 to explore how government could possibly suggest that LNG Canada’s facility in Kitimat would be the cleanest in the world and so exempt from increases in the carbon tax above $30/tonne. As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, LNG Canada have no intention of using electricity in the compression of natural gas. They will burn natural gas, thereby emitting vast quantities of CO₂ in the process.

Yet Freeport LNG in Texas is already using GE electric compressors thereby eliminating greenhouse emissions in that phase of LNG production. It is unclear to me how it will be possible for LNG Canada to claim that they are the cleanest facility in the world. The responses I received from the minister were entirely unhelpful in shedding light on this issue.

I reproduce the text and video of our exchange below.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Langley East for those questions.

I have a number of questions to build on this theme. I, too, am having a very difficult time understanding how LNG Canada could make a set investment decision with the uncertainty in terms of what is, in fact, the cleanest LNG in the world. My first question to the minister is: is she aware of Freeport LNG in the United States?

Hon. C. James: I know the member will have had many of these conversations, I’m sure, with the Minister of Environment, as well, as he looks at developing the specifics. The specifics aren’t developed as yet, but obviously, the Freeport LNG and the coal-fired electricity that they utilize will be part of the range of plants that will be looked at and the indicators that will be developed by the minister.

A. Weaver: Again, so we’re going to define an LNG plant as an LNG plant. We’re not defining an LNG plant as some hypothetical production upstream where someone gets electricity from or not, because there are a multitude of ways. You can go on the spot market, and you can buy wind power at 2½ cents a kilowatt hour. You can go on the spot market, and you can by coal power at night pretty cheap. You could buy natural gas from Alberta and avoid the carbon tax.

The relevant question in defining “cleanest LNG in the world” is the facility, and as we know, Freeport LNG uses General Electric compressors, electric compressors, to compress the natural gas.

We know, under the B.C. Liberals, that they initially signed an agreement with LNG Canada. I believe it was 8.2 cents a kilowatt hour to get electricity if they moved forward, and there was the industrial rate if they actually used electricity in the compression. We also know that the B.C. NDP basically exempted LNG Canada from the requirement of using electricity in the compression and gave them the same 5.4 cents a kilowatt hour, I think it is, industrial rate.

We know that we could not, today, deliver into that industrial rate for the requirement of LNG Canada unless two things are done: either (1) we call upon the Columbia River entitlement, or (2) we build enhanced capacity. This government has chosen to build that enhanced capacity through the building of Site C, as opposed to distributed renewable at a fraction of the cost. So we know that the ratepayer is going to end up paying ten to 15 cents a kilowatt hour for the electricity produced at Site C to sell it to LNG Canada for its other operations at 5.4 cents a kilowatt hour. It’s pretty crazy economics.

Even with that, LNG Canada will be using natural gas in the compression — not electricity, natural gas. That natural gas has been given to them for free, in essence, because of the royalty structure in place, again, by the B.C. Liberals at the time to incentivize deep wells, which were difficult and were risky back it must be almost 20 years ago, 18 years ago. But now it’s applied to 99 percent of wells, including all shallow wells.

So we give them the natural gas essentially royalty free — 3 percent or something ridiculous — to actually use in compression, a Crown resource being given away to this company to use in the compression. Now we’re hearing that we’re going to actually exempt them for carbon tax increases above $30, and we are hearing that LNG Canada have actually made a final investment decision. Yet they’re doing so under this cloud of uncertainty, which is also….

I come back to the first question here. How is it that the minister can now suggest at all that LNG Canada have any hope to have access to $30 a tonne, in light of the fact that they are not using electric compression? Because there is no way you can weasel out of any other way but saying they are not the cleanest in the world. How can the minister, other than trying to redefine what an LNG plant is by assigning coal-fired electricity emissions hypothetically, by forgetting about the fact that a lot of the gas in the U.S. is conventional, as opposed to unconventional gas up in B.C., which has rather much larger fugitive emissions…?

How can the minister actually stand here and tell this House that LNG Canada has some certainty that they’ll make the $30 limit on carbon tax? What other agreements have they signed?

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the information that the member is providing. I know that consultations, as we’ve talked about, continue to go on. The Minister of the Environment is working on the specifics, and I know the Green caucus is part of those consultations, as industry is part of those consultations. So certainly, I know those discussions will occur.

I’m obviously not going to talk about the specifics that the minister is in the process of developing. That’s for the minister to discuss. I know there’ll be lots of opportunities for those conversations both in the consultations that will occur but also in estimates, if the member feels there are opportunities there.

To the member’s specific question around the agreement: were there additional pieces written into the agreement? The agreement is the agreement. It is in front of the members. It is in front of the public. These are the measures that we have agreed to. Again, they’re LNG Canada’s estimates, and their estimates that they believe they will fit the criteria of the program. That’s the determination they utilized.

A. Weaver: It would be a fair question to ask this: how are you defining — when I say “you,” it is the government, not the minister — what an LNG facility is for the purpose of calculating emissions? We actually have definitions in existing legislation. Are you changing those definitions? How is it possible that you could allude to electricity — which has been done — produced through the burning of coal? How could you possibly include that in a definition of what an LNG facility is?

Hon. C. James: I refer the member to page 22 — the last paragraph, which talks about LNG facilities. It says about the LNG facility: “It will include fugitive emissions, venting, natural gas combustion at the LNG facility and emissions from electricity supplied to the facility from the British Columbia electrical grid.” That’s in the agreement. But again, specifics are being developed by the minister and will be determined as that process continues.

A. Weaver: How are you going to compare this in LNG Canada, in B.C., to another facility not in B.C.? Is it also from natural gas supplied by B.C.? To what extent is there a requirement to actually use gas from B.C.? There is no requirement in the legislation. We can use gas from Alberta.

To me, there’s just nothing defined here. We’re actually being asked to take a leap of faith. We’re asked to take a leap of faith: “Trust us. We know that LNG Canada can meet the $30 a tonne exemption, because they think they can.” We’ve got no articulation of any rules at all.

We’ve got no mention of electric compression. We’ve got no mention of where the gas will come from in that calculation. Is it sourced gas from B.C., or is a fraction from Alberta? Is it fracked shale gas, or is it conventional gas? Is it Horn River gas, which is dry? Is it Montney play gas, which is wet? Is it gas from the U.S. that’s coming up? It’s just a grand leap of faith.

Like the member for Langley East, I cannot believe that LNG Canada signed on to this unless they were given specific certainty that, in fact, the only carbon tax they will pay is the first $30, and everything above that will be exempt. I cannot believe that they signed this. So I ask the minister this: has the minister at any point, or anyone in her government, assured LNG Canada that all they will pay is $30 a tonne of carbon tax, yes or no?

Hon. C. James: No.

Video of Exchange