Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 38: Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act at second reading. Working with government to develop this bill required a lot of work, including many hours of discussions with the Minister of Environment and his staff about the importance of transparency, regular reporting and setting sectoral targets and interim targets. Climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless without legislative accountability. Bill 38 is important in this regard as it incorporates a rigorous accountability framework into the climate policies my office and I have jointly developed with government.

Without a doubt, a highlight of my time in the Legislature has been the pleasure of working with the Minister of Environment in developing both this climate accountability legislation as well as CleanBC before that.

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

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It’s a great honour for me to be able to stand here to speak in support, at second reading, of Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act.

Let me start by saying…. I thank the Minister of Environment for bringing this in. This was a lot of work, I know, bringing it in. There were many, many hours of discussions about the importance of various targets, the sectoral targets and interim targets. One of the highlights of my time in this Legislature has been the pleasure of working with the Minister of Environment in developing both this climate accountability legislation as well as CleanBC before that. I mean that in all sincerity. I raise my hands and thank the minister for his work in this effort.

You know, incorporating a rigorous accountability framework into the climate policies we have jointly developed with government was not only a key priority for me. It was a clear condition of our continued collaboration with this government. I’m very pleased that it has continued to this day and will continue in the foreseeable future.

As a climate scientist, I know that transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data is absolutely crucial to achieving our climate commitments and, actually, to ensuring that the public trusts that government will deliver into it, for words like “trust us” are simply not good public policy.

Now, throughout my scientific career, I’ve advised and criticized numerous governments on their climate policies. The member from Langley just discussed some of the earlier issues with respect to his government under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, where indeed very fine climate policy, quite internationally leading at the time, was brought into the province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, many other jurisdictions, as well as in B.C., bring these policies forth and then fail to live up to the commitments that they brought them forward to actually address. That is true not only of the previous government, where in 2010 the commitment to this issue essentially fell by the wayside as the leaders changed. Ultimately, that’s what prompted me to run for politics.

What prompted me to run for politics was being part of the previous administration’s Climate Action Team, meeting with the Premier at the time, numerous times, on an ongoing basis, meeting with the cabinet to have presentations on climate science, really fruitful discussions with stakeholders. To me, that was a government that understood the direction that this needed to go and recognized, as all governments should, that every single environmental challenge really is nothing more than an opportunity for innovation and prosperity in addressing that challenge.

I ran, as you know, in 2013 because I felt that we’d lost our way in B.C. I’m very pleased to say that I think now we’re seeing the way actually moving forward in a direction that will address this problem, perhaps not to the extent that I’d like, perhaps not to the extent that some others would like, but certainly as a leader in North America in terms of pathways to emissions reductions.

Let me consider a couple of major reports that have been published this last year to put some context of why we need to deal with this and why the accountability act is so important to ensure that transparency, moving forward, is there for not only government but also for the people of British Columbia.

As you will note, in 2018, the IPCC released a special report, in which the world’s leading climate scientists warned that we don’t have a lot of time if we want to keep warming to below 2 degrees. To be perfectly blunt, we know that the world has already warmed by over a degree. We know that we have a committed warming of about 0.6 degrees to existing levels of greenhouse gases.

Now, my friend opposite from Langley mentioned the importance of reducing coal emissions from China, and I concur. Coal is a significant source of greenhouse gases. But what is not often said is that coal is also a significant source of particulate matter and black carbon. Now, particulate matter, these so-called aerosols in the atmosphere, actually cool the planet.

One of the ironies of actually replacing coal with natural gas is that particulate matter decreases. When the particulate matter decreases, its effect on not only cloud formation but also on the direct scattering of radiation back to the sun is that we get an amplification of the warming. So in fact, it’s not quite as simple as saying: “Replace coal by natural gas. We get less warming.” Because, in fact, replace coal with natural gas, and there’s a warming jump as the particulate matter associated with the coal is scrubbed out of the atmosphere.

As I said, we’ve already warmed by one degree. We have 0.6 degrees committed warming to existing levels of greenhouse gases, and not a single climate model in the world has actually accounted for the permafrost carbon feedback, which we know will add another 0.2 to 0.3 degrees. So even this notion that somehow we’re going to keep warming to below 1½ degrees is really not on.

You can see that in the IPCC reports. The IPCC report, this special edition one, quite clearly indicates that negative emissions are required in order for us to meet the 1½ degree target. That doesn’t mean we can’t meet the 2 degree target — but negative emissions.

Some might take this as something to be distraught about. But rather, again, we should be viewing this as an incredible economic opportunity. Negative emissions means economic opportunity, means taking carbon out of the atmosphere and means companies like Carbon Engineering in Squamish are potentially game-changers in our broader society. That’s the kind of technology and knowledge — initially started by a friend of mine, David Keith, who’s now at Harvard — that can actually game-change the world. And it’s here in B.C. I’ll come back to that in a bit.

A few months after that IPCC report Canada’s Changing Climate Report was published by the federal government. It noted what the scientific community has known for a very long time — that northern Canada is warming at twice the global rate, and that’s no surprise to anybody who has been in this field.

It also talked about B.C. as being particularly vulnerable to drought. We’ve seen that in recent years. Glacier loss — well, I can tell you, from the work done by a fellow friend of mine named Shawn Marshall at the University of Calgary, that all southern glaciers in British Columbia will be gone this century. That’s really something we can’t stop. There are very profound effects with that that will occur as a direct consequence of that.

There are also issues with respect to sea level rise. It’s quite complex because of the way that sea level rise is not a global rise. There are regional differences. I suspect there’ll be issues moving forward in the delta, in terms of salination of existing farmland.

Now, shortly after that report, the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services put out a report and stated, in stark terms, that we’re in the midst of an extinction crisis, with a million species likely disappearing within the next few decades. Again, if you’ve been working in this field since the 1980s like I have, there’s nothing new in that report. The report is essentially pointing out that the sixth-greatest extinction event in Earth’s history is occurring as we speak, in the Anthropocene — a profound consequence of global warming.

The consequences are not only on land but in the oceans, in particular, as a direct response to ocean acidification. The single biggest sink for the carbon in the atmosphere is the ocean. When the ocean takes up that carbon, it becomes less…. Well, it acidifies. What that does is it makes it very difficult for calcium carbonated shell–bearing species to make their shells. In some cases, they dissolve, which is one of the reasons that most of the world’s reefs will go extinct in the next couple of decades. There’s very little we can do about that.

Again, when we look in historic times, the last time we had the kind of acidity levels change like this as a direct consequence of volcanism — that’s volcanos for many tens and hundreds of millions of years — we saw 80 percent to 90 percent of marine species going extinct. Because what happens is when you kill the corals, and they’re going in a century, you kill the life around the corals and the biodiversity food chain starts to collapse. This is yet another consequence that was warned by the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Again, a very significant challenge. Also could be viewed as a very significant opportunity for innovation for those jurisdictions that recognize this for what it is: a challenge that is also an economic opportunity.

Then we get, of course, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Professor Alston said that the world is on course for climate apartheid — quite strong words. What Professor Alston is saying is that the rich will be able to buy their way out of the worst effects of global warming, and the poor will suffer the most. “Even under the best-case scenario,” he wrote, “hundreds of millions will face food insecurity, forced migration, disease and death.”

Again, another stark warning, and again, for those in the field, it’s no surprise that this came out, because there’s nothing new in that as well. If you simply plot GDP as a function of latitude, ignoring a few outliers like Singapore, you find that those jurisdictions that are economically prosperous tend to be further away from the equator.

Then if you ask the question, “Where will climate change, global warming, manifest itself the worst?” of course it will be in the sub-Saharan areas, the subtropical areas, which will get drier. It will be with the desertification of southern Europe — very profound problems there — the potential changes to the Indian monsoon and sub-Saharan Africa, places like that. So there are some very serious consequences.

But these jurisdictions, you can imagine, have not been part of the problem, because the climate system does not actually care about emissions in any given year. It cares about the cumulative emissions. It’s a stock-and-flow problem, in the language of economics. We know how much more we can build, put into the atmosphere, to keep warming in a probabilistic sense before some level. We know how much is coming in, and we know how much we can take out.

So the question then comes: do we, as a collective society, believe that we should be dealing with this problem, yes or no? I’m pleased that this government is suggesting the answer to that should be yes and is hoping to do its part in that regard.

Moving through the reports. This past summer, we had the province quietly releasing a strategic climate risk assessment for British Columbia, a really interesting report. I would quibble with one of the potential conclusions of it, the low risk to Lyme disease, when, in fact, we’ve known within the scientific community for quite some time that vector-borne diseases are moving northwards simply because the carriers of such diseases, whether it be mosquitoes or ticks, are moving northwards as well, as a direct consequence of warming and warmer winters.

We then can move to last week — the Climate Transparency analysis of the G20 nations. They found that Canada is in the top three countries furthest off track from meeting their emissions-reduction targets. The Canadian target really hasn’t changed since Mr. Harper was our Prime Minister.

It’s ironic that we went through this last federal election, with parties climbing over themselves trying to argue they have the most progressive policies towards greenhouse gas reduction when, in fact, the targets that we’re aiming for were put in place by the Conservative government, have been unchanged and very little has actually been done to reduce emissions nationally in Canada, although some good work has been done in terms of movement towards phasing out coal-fired electricity plants.

The replacing of coal-fired with natural gas, particularly when that natural gas comes from horizontal drilling and fracking, highly subsidized…. It’s not clear to me that, in fact, you’re actually getting ahead in the greenhouse gas game because of the fugitive emissions associated with horizontal drilling.

Our per-capita emissions are 18.9 tonnes. The average per-capita emission in the G20 is 7½ tonnes.

You know, we talk a really good game in Canada, and in B.C., we are very environmentally conscious. But the data often tell a different story from the game we talk, particularly at the national level. Although the country is looking to the leadership of Quebec and British Columbia, Quebec has actually continued to be the leader in per-capita emissions in this country.

British Columbia was on track to recognizing the economic opportunity associated with decarbonization until about 2010. Then we started this quest for the impossible. Even to this day, there are still people believing that our economic prosperity lies somehow in staying stuck and chained to the economy of the last century through natural gas extraction, as the rest of the world has a glut in said product.

In 2016, in the most recent global data available from the International Energy Agency, the United Kingdom’s per-capita emissions were 5.65 tonnes per capita of CO2 equivalent. New Zealand was 6.45 tonnes CO2 equivalent. Norway, 6.78.

Now, Norway is actually a very northern nation and a strong oil and gas producer. They followed the lead of people like Peter Lougheed in Alberta, recognizing that the prosperity that they gained from the extraction of this resource, which they knew was a sunset resource, should be put aside for tomorrow so that their society could benefit from the ways of the former governments and people who didn’t have alternatives before them. They are a very prosperous nation now, poised very well to take advantage of the opportunities moving forward with greenhouse gas emission reduction.

Denmark is 5.84. Sweden, 3.83 — Sweden, another northern nation. This puts the average British Columbia carbon footprint at 2.32, 1.9, 2.2 and 3.4 times larger than that of the average person living in the U.K., Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden respectively. If we go to a country in Africa — say, Chad, for example — the multiples are hundreds, not two to three, which brings me back to my opening sentiment.

Climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless without legislative accountability. It is for exactly that reason that this bill, in my view, is so important.

It gives the public the transparency, as I’ll outline in a second, the information on which they can hold government to account. Frankly, it can give opposition parties the transparency and information that can hold government to account. It signals out the direction that government wishes to take to see sectoral reductions, recognizing that such reductions will not be legislated but are guiding principles. This sort of transparency is important for holding government to account and, frankly, for government to actually think this through in a greater sense to ensure that they’re following the path to which they’ve committed.

It’s my sincere hope that the transparency and accountability mechanisms in the bill, if passed, will last well beyond the current government and set an evidence-based foundation from which future climate policy can be built with whatever government happens to be in place at that time.

We have an awfully long way to go, but the amendments included in this bill add some real credibility to the CleanBC plan. Again, I come back to these last two years. I go back to 2018, when I’m sitting on holiday and I read the newspaper and I hear that the Premier is off to Asia to stump for LNG. I would describe those times as the challenging times for the relationship between the B.C. Green caucus and the present government.

But what has happened in the two years since then is really quite remarkable. I’ve seen a government actually recognize that challenge is an opportunity. We’ve seen CleanBC come through. I recognize that there’s an LNG plant embedded with that, and I’m very cynical about the ability to deliver our targets with that. That’s for me to take with me when I move on, as I’m not running again.

However, government has actually had to balance the competing interests and has done a good job in B.C. It’s been an honour working with the Premier and the Minister of Environment in helping develop that plan — and particularly the civil service as well and the staff in my office.

But that wasn’t enough. I mean, that happened after legislating some targets. What’s really important is this bill here, because CleanBC gives some guidance as to what government is going to do. But it is the reporting measures and the transparency and the accountability component of that which will allow others to judge whether government is or is not successful. Again, it was a great pleasure working with government on this bill.

I will say that one of the highlights — in fact, the highlight of my time in this office…. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend. It was quite ironic, actually. It was receiving, as a co-recipient, a clean capitalism award. I love the fact that the Minister of Environment also was a co-recipient of a clean capitalism award, for a government not often known for capitalism, from the Delta group in Clean16, an award we received on October 7 of this year.

That showed that others recognize that when people work together on issues that transcend traditional partisan boundaries, you can get a lot done. And actually, the whole is certainly much greater than the sum of the parts.

If we had been government, I don’t think we would have done what was being done. And I don’t think the NDP, frankly, would have done what they’ve done if we weren’t in this situation, being forced to work together. That has led, actually, to what I believe is some good public policy in this regard.

Again, I come back to how pleased I have been to work with the minister. I think I’ve said that enough now; I think that’s on record.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: And with the member for Vancouver–West End. It’s always a pleasure working with the member for Vancouver–West End as well.

We’ve got a long way to go, of course, but the amendments included in this bill actually do, as I say, add real credibility to the CleanBC plan. The main components of Bill 38, which we’re debating at second reading here, is as follows. There’s a requirement for government to set an interim emissions target on the path to a legislated 2030 target, which is 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions below 2007 levels.

Now, why this is important is that this parallels exactly what happened back with the previous Liberal government under Gordon Campbell, when the Climate Action Team was put together. They were tasked with coming up with said interim targets, which were legislated. We’re not requiring the government to legislate but, rather, to come up with targets.

The reason why these are important is because you can actually assess the trajectory to where you want to go in a time frame that’s relevant to electoral cycles. Obviously, a ten-year target is several electoral cycles from now. When you start to have interim and sectoral targets, you’re starting to be held more accountable. In fact, under the leadership of Gordon Campbell at the time, the 2012 target was actually met, and we were on track to meet the 2016 target — until this folly of pursuing the impossible and the complete abandonment of climate policy occurred, just after 2010.

The bill also includes a requirement for governments to set separate 2030 sectoral targets following engagement with stakeholders, Indigenous peoples and communities throughout the province. Now, this, again, is also important. This isn’t about legislating a sectoral target. It’s about providing the transparency to ensure that the public and the sectors have a sense of what government is thinking. This is a signal to broader society that this is the direction and we’re going ahead.

Now, I recognize there’ll be some industries out there absolutely beside themselves, thinking that somehow they’re going to be targeted. This is not about legislation. This is about guidance and about sending a signal to which government will be held to account. As well, industry will be able to see the direction and the signal that government is sending.

It’s going to ensure that the responsibility to reduce carbon pollution is effectively distributed across B.C.’s economy and between ministries. The Minister of Environment alone, of course, cannot tackle the entire challenge, as much as some of us would like him to have this multiministerial portfolio embedded in others as well.

There’s also a requirement for government to table an annual report on actions taken to reduce carbon emissions, along with their cost and how they will achieve government’s legislated emission reduction targets. This annual report — or these reports every year — will outline the latest emissions data and projections, as well as actions planned for future years and the effect they are expected to have.

Imagine that it’s sort of like the budget process, whereby we put out a three-year fiscal review in the budget. Here government will put out a multi-year kind of assessment as to where emissions will go on an annual basis. The report will also include a determination of climate risks our province is facing. That’s not going to have to be changed every year. I mean, the first one is going be written, and then they’ll be increased incrementally as time goes on. It’ll include a discussion of risk reduction policies that are to be taken, and any mitigation or adaptation plans.

To be perfectly blunt, I think we need all hands on deck on the adaptation side. I’ve been watching this file since the 1980s, and I’ve watched, year after year, emissions target after emissions target being ignored. I’m hoping British Columbia will continue down that path, but we cannot ignore the fact that adaptation is going to be critical.

Embedded in the report is also a requirement for government to establish an independent advisory committee that will be modelled on the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council now that the council has fulfilled its mandate. Again, this is an important external agency that’s not just a validation group but rather is a group that would be engaged with a variety of stakeholders to ensure that stakeholders are engaged in government’s thinking as they move forward in terms of reporting and accountability, and that any issues, which often are not the sole purview of one minister but actually are brought to the government by stakeholders, can have a conduit to get there in a timely fashion.

The committee will hopefully be made up of members from diverse areas of expertise and regions from across the province. They’ll be providing the minister advice on things like policies that can lead to further reductions. Some of that…. I mean, I recognize that many people who sit on these committees are not actually policy experts — they have good ideas — and that we must rely upon the civil service to develop the said policies. However, a lot of good ideas can be brought forward from these stakeholders from which the government can actually develop the necessary policies.

This group will also examine progress towards targets and raise opportunities for sustainable economic development, opportunities for climate change mitigation and adaptation among other matters that are related to this act. Lastly, this bill gives government the ability to set more detailed targets and other environmental standards for publicly owned buildings and vehicular fleets to help reduce emissions, improve environmental performance, save money and support innovations.

Again, coming back to what the member from Langley pointed out, many of these amendments build on policies that were actually first introduced under Premier Campbell’s Liberal government. That’s not to say that, you know, one government is better than the other. What I’m trying to point out here is that it’s very positive when we can recognize that issues like this transcend political boundaries. We have good work done by the Liberals in 2007-08-09. We have good work being done by the B.C. NDP in 2018, 2019 and, soon to be, 2020. That is a testament to the desire within British Columbia for climate policy to be central to our decision-making. I’ll come to that later.

As I mentioned, I was a member of Gordon Campbell’s advisory council in 2007-2008 when he first introduced the first comprehensive price on carbon to set greenhouse gas reduction targets as well and also developing interim targets — the first proper, revenue-neutral, celebrated carbon tax. I remember the cynicism at the time. I was quite upset when many people that I knew who were with the now government were riding this Axe the Tax kind of rhetoric. It was particularly upsetting.

But frankly, I knew it was going to flop. That campaign started in the summer, right in the peak driving season, and everyone knows gas prices are going to drop in the fall. So the campaign was initiated just as the gas prices went up, and when the fall came, the campaign fell through the floor because the gas prices had gone down. Frankly, I think the now government learnt from that and have been quite progressive in terms of pushing for this ever since.

There’s no doubt that what Campbell did in 2007 and ’08 was groundbreaking. But now, honestly, it’s due for an upgrade. That is what the present government is doing — taking that to a whole new level. One of the first signs of that in our confidence and supply agreement was the actual continuation of the carbon tax from $30 to $50 — to show Canadian leadership, to meet the $50 target that Trudeau is going to bring forward — a year before the rest of Canada, but at the same time recognizing the importance of giving price certainty to the business sector. That is done through incremental $5-a-year changes. The government deserves a lot of credit for following through with that.

Frankly, I have not heard complaints from the general public, because the general public actually believes in that. What they do have some reluctance in believing in is corporate subsidies that allow other certain polluters to not pay the carbon tax whereas individual citizens must continue to pay it. I’ll come back to that too.

I’m the designated speaker, and I’m getting really into this speech, so a little bit more.

British Columbia has already legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets, as well as a requirement to collect data for tracking emissions, but they’ll try to say we can do better. Our targets are set ten years apart, and data is published on a two-year delay. Combine that with a four-year government mandate and you create a situation where political parties, as we all know, blame each other, and spend the first two years blaming their predecessors for bad results and the next two years saying that they’re just getting started while making promises that they can only fulfil if you vote them back in. Then before you know it, a ten-year target is within sight and, by that time, it’s too late to substantially change the emissions trajectory and we don’t meet it.

Bill 38 is important in that regard as it aims to cut through those excuses and get right to the heart of the matter, shortening the time scale and increasing transparency on an annual basis. For example, with the interim targets, again, we’ll be able to, through them, evaluate progress before 2030. They’ll show whether or not we’re on track. If we are, great. That adds credibility to the government plans so that they can continue their course. If not, they’re going to have to explain to the general public why they’re not on track and what they’re going to do to get on track, or what has changed since they initially said they would be on track.

By reporting emissions annually, the public will get a better sense where emissions originate, what policies are being worked on, what are not being worked on — equally as important — how they all align amongst themselves and how they align in terms of the next fiscal forecast.

The existing Climate Change Accountability Act also already has a provision that allowed the minister to establish sectoral targets. But it’s written as an option. That’s in section 1.4, I think it is. It says, “The minister may, by order, establish greenhouse gas emissions targets for individual sectors,” instead of a requirement. That hasn’t been used to date, and so this act is actually requiring it and is actually important in terms of ensuring that.

That’s particularly relevant as we know that a commitment to set sectoral targets was included in the minister’s mandate letter and in the 2017 B.C. NDP election platform. So it should be no surprise that it’s included in Bill 38, although, admittedly, there was some to-and-fro trying to ensure that this actually happened over the last few months.

The idea of sectoral targets is not new. It’s being used in places like New Zealand, Australia, Germany and the U.K., for example, to help to guide government, guide policy-makers and give transparency so that people know the direction government is heading in. In New Zealand and Australia — Victoria, the state of Victoria — they have some very good proxy policies that compare well and directly with the policies here, particularly to what’s being done in this bill but also in terms of the size of the population of the jurisdictions there.

I understand that government has extensive consultation plans to ensure the targets are set at a correct level, these sectoral and these interim targets, and that these balance the realities of our current emissions rates and the reduction rates necessary to meet our legislative targets. But ultimately this bill is about good governance in the face of what can only be described as the single greatest challenge this planet has ever seen. I spin that and say that it’s also the greatest opportunity for innovation humans have ever seen and, frankly, our province has ever faced.

We’re so fortunate to live in a province like British Columbia, which is, quite literally, the most beautiful place in the world to live. Now, I’ve lived in a number of….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I agree.

I’ve lived in many countries in the world, whether it be in Germany, England, Scotland, Australia or the United States, even other parts of Canada. I’ve travelled extensively around the world, from Asia through all of the world. I can say unequivocally, in my view, this is the best place to live. This is a beautiful jurisdiction.

That is one of our strategic advantages. We literally can attract and retain the best and brightest in the world to British Columbia because of the quality of life and the stable democracy that we can offer. This is a strategic choice that I’m hoping this government will continue to build on as we start to deal with the climate issue and through the transparency associated with this bill.

We also have a highly skilled and educated workforce. As we all know from the international PISA assessment exams, British Columbia ranks at the very top, above the much-touted Finland, in reading, writing and mathematics. Remarkable that we have some of this quality education here.

We also have outstanding post-secondary institutions, so we know that companies not only can attract and retain the best and brightest, but they have access to a highly skilled and educated workforce. We also have boundless renewable energy, fibre and water — like no other jurisdiction in the world. What an incredible opportunity for innovation using these strategic strengths, and I pivot back to exactly that.

When I just met today with the Canadian manufacturing association…. For so long, I’ve been trying to get both this and the previous government to recognize the opportunities for manufacturing in this province. Imagine this. We’re fixated on delivering corporate welfare to LNG Canada, where we actually give them steel tariff exemptions — try the manufacturers getting steel tariff exemptions — exemptions from carbon tax, below-market electricity. I could go on and on and on.

What we’re not doing is sending the signal that, look, there is clean manufacturing that happens in the world. We should be doing it in B.C. And we should be doing it in rural B.C., because we have a railway line that connects Prince Rupert’s deep port, closest port to Asia on the coast, and Chicago — the same line goes between the two — in the eastern U.S., which is the gateway to eastern America. What a strategic opportunity for manufacturing and clean manufacturing, because we have access to renewable energy like no one else does.

But that requires a vision. That requires a signal to be sent to industry that we’re not just hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we actually believe in value-added and innovation. We actually believe in recognizing that environmental challenges are really nothing more than economic opportunities.

We have the wherewithal, the skill, the innovation, the creativity, the people and the smarts to deal with these challenges here in B.C. if, and only if, government sends the right signals. It doesn’t send the right signals when it continues to provide subsidies for sunset industries that benefit a few multinational shareholders and maybe, in the short term, give a small economic stimulus to a region that will then suffer shortly thereafter because of the traditional economic booms and busts of commodity cycles.

You know, transitioning to a carbon-free world, a carbon-neutral world, doesn’t mean we have to go back to the Dark Ages. It means transforming and transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable society where economic, social and environmental concerns are central to all of our decision-making.

There should be a time when we don’t actually need a Ministry of Environment, where we actually think about the Ministry of Finance as thinking about general progress indicators that span beyond the single silo that is GDP and move beyond to recognize that we judge success as a society not so much by the GDP-per-debt ratio but more so by general progress indicators that talk about things like the quality of the education, the quality of the environment, whether people can live and work in the same community, the child welfare rates. This is what successful societies will be defined on. But that requires, again, a change in the thinking of many of our decision-makers today.

What I’m describing here is not impossible. It’s grounded in current economic trends, scientific evidence and, frankly, best practice in jurisdictions. We have so much to gain. It’s not just possible that the transition to a clean economy could create jobs; it’s, frankly, inevitable — jobs that are inspired, important, sustainable and valuable.

You just have to go to a place like Portable Electric in Vancouver and see the smiles on the faces of the people who work there, the young millennials who come to work every day and feel like they’re making the world a better place, building replacements for diesel generators based on lithium-ion storage technology that’s B.C.-based. Sadly, if we don’t actually start to nurture these B.C.-based companies, they’ll fall into the valley of death and not get out of it. So let’s start to think about the opportunities we have here.

It’s an incredible company that is a B.C. success story that we must nurture instead of having it, as so many of our companies do, get bought up and moved to other jurisdictions. B.C.-based innovation. B.C.-based families got together. B.C. engineers, B.C. people, working there. High-paid jobs. Excited to go to work. They even have a Hawaiian shirt day that I was able to participate in. It’s a great place to work, I’m sure.

This is what Bill 38 is about, frankly. It’s to assist a process that allows us to focus on transitioning our economy, which works for all of us, in a manner that is transparent. And governments will be held accountable, as through the measures outlined in Bill 38. These are policies that must be based on principles and evidence, not political calculation and opportunism. As government leaders, we must collectively do everything we can to develop policies that promote rather than hinder innovation in our economy.

Governments often talk a lot about competitiveness, saying: “If we ask too much of companies, they’ll leave.” But I’ve never understood why we want to be competing with other jurisdictions who are willing to sacrifice their clean air, their land and their water or willing to commit human rights abuses all in order to see if you can extract their resource cheaper and faster. Our resource sector, as we’re setting the sectoral targets embedded within Bill 38, should view this not as something to shy away from but as an incredible opportunity yet again.

Tech, one of our staple industries in B.C., can start to think about ways that it can do what it’s doing in more efficient and cleaner ways, knowing that if they can dig dirt out of the ground in a more efficient and cleaner way, they’re saving money and they’re developing technology that others will want to use as well. This is what innovation…. This is where signals like this send to innovation. It’s not about telling mining companies: “Begone.” It’s about saying to companies: “Innovate, and we’re there to support you in that, and we’re there to ensure that you’re successful in doing so.”

Again, I come back to tech. When you go into the communities whose livelihoods depend on the mining there, they are the strongest advocates for these companies because they understand that they have to live there. We have good corporate citizens, like tech, for example, in the Elk Valley. The people of the Elk Valley will have some complaints about this and that, but by and large, they like the fact that their company is concerned about the environment in which they live, and they’re some of their strongest advocates.

With that said, I’m confronted and deeply challenged by the knowledge that, as we stand here debating what I believe is a truly valuable piece of legislation, work is beginning on LNG Canada, the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in provincial history.

The irony is not lost on me, and frankly, I don’t think it’s going to be lost on others. The disconnection between politicians’ words and actions on climate is something I hope will be addressed by this bill so that people can point to this later and say: “You said this, and look at this. You did not follow through. You claimed you could get us a 40 percent reduction by 2030, and you claimed you could also add the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.’s history. Look what you’ve done.” History will judge those leaders accordingly.

I’m tired, frankly, of hearing touching speeches from members in this room and elsewhere when communities are threatened by forest fires or when species are threatened to extinction, only to see every single member in this House, whether they be on government’s side or the opposition side, stand to advance the corporate subsidy that embodies the past for the future as well — the corporate welfare associated with things like LNG Canada.

Now, I spoke to a clean energy conference last week, and I asked them: “How many of you wind energy companies have ever had a steel tariff exemption on your windmills?” Zero. Yet we think what we need to do here is to give a major…. These are small companies. They’re not the big Shell Internationals. But we think it’s okay to give billions of dollars of subsidies to multinationals whose interests are not ours. Those interests are clearly the shareholders of the multinationals, and many of those shares reside in other jurisdictions.

I just give my head a shake. I know history will judge, very harshly, legislators in this place for the decisions that they didn’t make — not so much for the decisions that they did make but for the decisions that they didn’t make. That will be one that I think will come back to haunt people in the years ahead.

As I was writing this speech with my staff, I received a copy of a Globe and Mail article, and this is what the heading said: “Alberta, B.C. to Advocate for Canadian Natural Gas in Asia,” The subheading was this: “Two provinces which are in ‘absolute alignment’ over the matter will send officials to Tokyo to make the case for accessing the Asian market.” Really?

We have a government that has committed to 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 bringing in important legislation to ensure accountability, and we have Canadian, British Columbian people going out there, touting enhanced expansion of LNG. There needs to be some internal soul-searching, because I’m not sure that the left hand of this government actually knows what the right hand is doing or whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Clearly, you can’t have it both ways.

It was also published in…. That same day, actually, there was an article in Reuters about Sweden. Think about this. This is the signal we’re sending. The article in Reuters said this. “Sweden’s central bank sells off bonds from Canadian province over climate concerns,” further stating: “Sweden’s central bank said on Wednesday it had sold off bonds from the oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta and parts of Australia because it felt that greenhouse gas emissions in both countries were too high.” This is the actual economic dilemma that we are facing as we continue to think that somehow we’re going to build an economy on the resources that others are weaning themselves off.

Riksbank deputy governor Martin Flodén said the bank would no longer invest in assets from issuers with a larger carbon footprint, even if the yields were high. You’re seeing the divest movements across North America. You’re seeing other jurisdictions move in this regard.

The article continues. It said this. “Australia and Canada are countries that are not known for good climate work.” Imagine that. We are known internationally as brokers of peace — or historically, we were — and now we’re known not as jurisdictions with good climate policy. The article says this. “‘Greenhouse gas emissions per capita are among the highest in the world,’ he said in the speech to Örebro University in Sweden.”

I think, frankly, as a society, and particularly as government, we need to grow up a little bit and recognize that what was once good for us is not good for us anymore. I’m sad to say that for fossil fuels, we’re at that point. The writing has been on the wall. Again, I’ve been in this field since the 1980s. It’s not like I’ve seen anything that we haven’t been saying for — what? — almost 35 years. Politicians have a moral responsibility to think further into the future and govern not just for their term but also for their children and grandchildren, for those who are not here to be part of the decision-making process today.

We make decisions that they have to live the consequences of, yet we don’t have to live those consequences. For me, what matters is how history judges us. I will say, sadly, in Canada, in this building, that history will look very sorely on a number of people who have not made this a priority and continue to push the fossil fuel agenda.

Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act before us today, does demonstrate that minority governments, despite glaring differences, can move beyond political rhetoric and collaborate on ambitious climate legislation. I truly believe that the minister has the very best intentions with this legislation and that government has come to recognize now that in fact, economic prosperity is not going to be found in the continuing corporate welfare that is the natural gas sector in our province.

But we can’t leave those jurisdictions high and dry. That is why I’ve continued to try to articulate the importance of issues like forestry, value-added, mining, innovation in those sectors and the manufacturing sectors and our use of and access to clean energy like no other jurisdiction. But the barriers for innovation in there lie squarely within B.C. Hydro and the fact that the standing offer program has been shut down and that jurisdictions and Indigenous communities from north to south and east to west have projects stalled where they wanted to get themselves off diesel, where they wanted to bring prosperity into their communities.

That will be my next challenge over the coming months — to try to ensure that we get on track with B.C. Hydro, to ensure that we actually start to allow for the innovation in that sector, because the days of big dams are gone. Big dams are good for storage, sure, but so are old rock quarries that you can fill with water and have pumped hydro. There are lots of brownfield sites in this province that could be used for water storage, as well, some of which are right near the ocean.

Our federal leaders have been similarly called upon, just recently now, to unite in a minority government to address the issue of climate change, as we have done here in this province with CleanBC. Hopefully, it too will try to stimulate innovation in industry to compensate for jobs being shed in the sunset oil and gas sector: direct clean tech advancements in transportation, housing, to conserve energy in our daily lives and harnessing the advancements in clean tech to cut emissions and reduce pollution.

You know, I reluctantly began this journey from a climate scientist to a politician. In 2012 I first announced. But when I did, I told myself that I would speak truth to power on this file. I would call the government out if they weren’t following through with that. That’s something that I think I’ve done over the last six years.

You don’t need me to do that anymore. There are millions of students in the streets now calling out governments around the world, led by Greta Thunberg. In my view, the single most rewarding thing that I’ve had, as a climate scientist, was to be able to stand in the back on that legislative lawn a few weeks back — with my cane, because I had double vision, and I was dizzy as anything — watching what must have been 20,000 students and others on the lawn calling upon government for climate action.

The children have spoken. The people have spoken. The voters have spoken. Chantal Hébert summarizes it best. She said this on election night federally: “This should be the last election that any party in this country believes it can win without having a serious plan for climate change.”

Now, I would say that that’s true in the province of British Columbia as well. I look forward, as we watch as the next provincial election comes, and I’m on the sidelines — being a member of no party, because I’ll go back into a non-partisan role — to watching the B.C. Liberals, the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens fight each other as to who has got the best climate plans. Rest assured, I’ll provide a very frank, non-partisan assessment of all three.

I hope that each one strives to be better than the other, and the arguments then end up being: who has got the best plan? “Ours is better than yours because,” not “axe the tax.” Not “yours is terrible,” but “ours is better.” Given the tripartisan creation of this amended bill over many, many years with respect to the legacy that was shown by the B.C. Liberals in 2007 and 2008, I trust that it will be passing with all-party support.

Again, I conclude by thanking the minister and the Premier for taking this issue seriously and putting together the transparency, the accountability and the substance in this bill to ensure that not only this, but future governments are held accountable for their promises and words on this very important file.

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.