Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 13, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 255

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill M216 — Defibrillator Public Access

Act

S. Bond

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

CleanBC program and housing projects in

Nanaimo

S. Malcolmson

B.C. EggFest barbecue festival in

Chilliwack

J. Martin

Victoria Community Leadership Awards

M. Dean

Moose Lake wind power project

M. Bernier

Sanctuaries for farm animals and work of Hugo and

Sarien Slabbert

R. Glumac

Deb Fisher and Summit Youth Centre

D. Clovechok

Oral Questions

Use of email and messaging by Citizens’ Services

Minister

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

Protection of old-growth forests

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Allegations regarding communication practices of

Citizens’ Services Minister

M. Polak

Hon. D. Eby

P. Milobar

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

Closing of Quesnel mill and government policies on

forest industry

C. Oakes

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Thomson

Hon. D. Donaldson

Wages for community social services

workers

J. Martin

Hon. S. Simpson

T. Shypitka

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

Hon. G. Heyman

J. Tegart

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Amendment Act, 2019

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

A. Weaver

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Ticket Sales Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

A. Weaver

S. Malcolmson

L. Throness

R. Singh

S. Cadieux

J. Thornthwaite

D. Davies

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

A. Weaver

Hon. J. Sims

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act,

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 7 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Amendment Act, 2019

R. Coleman

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 27 — Ticket Sales Act

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. A. Dix

L. Reid

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (continued)

T. Shypitka

L. Throness

Hon. M. Mungall

S. Furstenau

P. Milobar

E. Ross

M. Bernier

MONDAY, MAY 13, 2019

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have some great guests today from the Canadian Association of

Executives. I’d like the House to be introduced to Douglas MacLaren, Ron Tu,

Steve Backlock, Cathy Hunter, Seth Li, Giovanna Boniface, Kerry Simmons,

Michelle Kozma, Annabree Fairweather, Janet Morris-Reade, Toby Kirshin,

Thomas Foreman, Colleen Foreman, Marcus Ewert-Johns, Diane Gaudet and Gary

Pooni.

We also had guests from the Capilano Students Union. They would be

Shanti Scarpetta-Lee, Happy Singh, Tristin Greyeyes and Noah Berson. They

were all at a luncheon today celebrating the Canadian Association of

Executives, B.C. chapter, and many MLAs were there.

Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Sims: As a teacher, it’s always a delight for me when students come to visit

the Legislature and see democracy, with all its warts, at work. It also

reminds me of the time I used to bring students to visit these hallowed

halls so that they could watch the democratic process.

Well, today I have, in the precinct, two classes visiting from Hyland

Elementary School in my constituency of Surrey-Panorama. I had a chance to

visit with one group this morning, and I’m going to be meeting with the

other class this afternoon. They are accompanied by a number of parents and,

of course, Mrs. Erin Potts, their teacher. These are grade 5 students. There

are two grade 5s there. Will the House please join me in welcoming these

students to the precinct.

S. Sullivan: I have two special guests today from Vancouver. One is Pamela

Groberman of the Pamela Groberman Media and Public Relations company. She’s

very involved in so many things that go on in Vancouver — housing,

buildings, hotels, art shows, etc. I know she’s very active with the

Aboriginal Mother Centre as well. With her is David Goldberg, who is with

Kuehne and Nagel, the largest freight-forwarding company in the world.

Please make them feel welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Child and family development centres across the province promote

healthy child development by identifying children at risk for developmental

delays at an early age. They help children achieve their fullest potential

with early intervention. In my community, we have a very strong child

development centre with the Ridge Meadows Child Development Centre. We have

some guests here today from there who are meeting with the minister. Can we

all please make Shawn Matthewson, Susan Carr and Brent Fawdry feel very

welcome.

S. Bond: I have three guests to introduce today. First of all, I want to

welcome Mark Collinson, who is the director of government relations and

health promotions with Heart and Stroke. Of course, he’s joined by Mary

Stambulic, who is the manager of advocacy and government relations. I know

that every member of the House would know how very hard these two

individuals work on behalf of Heart and Stroke right across the province.

They do an exceptional job.

Sitting right beside them today is actually my husband, Bill. Most of

you would know that Bill went through some very difficult circumstances with

heart health. We are very grateful for the exceptional care that he

received, giving us a chance to just recently reach our 40th wedding

anniversary. So we’re very thankful for that. As a result of that, we have a

very close tie with Heart and Stroke across the province, and we’re very

grateful for the support they’ve provided.

Please join me in welcoming my three special guests this

afternoon.

N. Simons: I have the pleasure to introduce a guest from the Sunshine Coast in

the House today — Noel Muller, a former district of Sechelt councillor, an

active citizen. He’s job-shadowing today. I hope he’s not after my job. I’m

not teaching him much so far. I’d like to ask my colleagues in the House to

make him welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Today B.C. members of Citizens Climate Lobby are in Victoria to speak

to MLAs. It’s a grassroots, non-partisan, volunteer-run organization. Since

2010, groups of Citizens Climate Lobby across Canada have been lobbying

governments and elected representatives, encouraging action on climate

change. They’ll be in the Hemlock Room from 2:30 to 3:30, I believe, this

afternoon. I encourage my colleagues to go and meet with them. I’ll be

meeting with them later this afternoon.

Will the House please welcome Paul Campbell, Grace Campbell, Kathryn

Oldfield, Keith McNeill, Judy O’Leary, Laura Sacks and Marlo Firme from

Citizens Climate Lobby B.C.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two people. Of course, the

first is Noel Muller, who was actually already introduced by the member from

Sunshine Coast. I couldn’t help but stand and also welcome him, in light of

the opening that the member gave, with respect to his job position in the

future.

Noel is a former member of the B.C. Green provincial council. We’re

very grateful that he is attending today and thank the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast for getting him ready to take that seat at some point

in the future.

It also gives me enormous pleasure to introduce Andy MacKinnon, a

forest ecologist and Metchosin city councillor. He was a B.C. Green

candidate in the last provincial election. Andy has co-authored six

best-selling books about plants of western North America. He truly knows the

importance of preserving Vancouver’s old growth and the importance of the

biodiversity that survives within that old growth. Would the House please

make him feel very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member, Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Sorry. Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I think Powell River–​Sunshine

Coast has already had his turn.

D. Routley: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I like sharing my time with the

member.

Right now I’d like to ask the members of the B.C. Legislature to help

me introduce and welcome two of my constituency assistants, Patty McNamara

and Cayla Masur. Accompanying Cayla and Patty are Cayla’s children: Brook,

who’s 11; Farren, who’s eight; and Mallen, who’s six.

We say we live, work and play in the communities that we come from.

These three live to play, and they work at playing all the time. Can we

please welcome all five.

T. Redies: I just wanted to welcome two people who are fairly familiar with this

House: Blair Qualey, the CEO of the B.C. New Car Dealers Association, and

Jeff Hall, also of the association.

[1:45 p.m.]

Some of us were out there at lunch looking at all the lovely new

electric vehicle cars and hoping that we can get into one, I think, in the

not too distant future.

Thanks for bringing the cars today, gentlemen, and for reaching out to

us to show what your industry is producing.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a family that’s visiting here

from Fort St. John. They’re also joined by their family, who is visiting

from the Philippines today. They must still be in line somewhere, probably

waiting to get in. I’d like to welcome Charles Santa Maria, Ching Santa

Maria, Joseph, Jose, Joseph Sr., Prudence and Dr. Christine Santa Maria.

Would the House please make them all feel welcome today.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome two classes from the Vancouver French

immersion Catholic school, Blessed Sacrament, here to the Legislature. They

are the grade 5 class led by their teacher Mr. Marc Tremblay and teaching

assistant Mr. Hervé Pélager. The grade 4 class is led by their teacher Mr.

Luc Bengono. Parent volunteers are also with them. Accompanying we have

Aljonita Montinola; Michelle Villaverde with her daughter Jade; and Maita

Santiago with her daughter, also my goddaughter, Lexie.

The visit at the Legislature…. I spoke to their classes last January.

The group spent the morning at the Royal Museum of B.C., where they

participated in the EAGLE program, a cultural awareness program that teaches

a series of interpre­tive tours of the Royal B.C. Museum’s First

Peoples gallery from a First Nations perspective.

Blessed Sacrament is celebrating their 65th anniversary this year.

When it was formed, it was located in the heart of Vancouver’s French

village on Heather Street and East 16th Avenue. I’d ask everybody to please

join me to recognize the 65th anniversary of Blessed Sacrament, and please

give a warm welcome to all the students, teachers and parents here with us

today.

J. Rustad: Today I have two guests down from my riding, from Vanderhoof. It’s

rare to have people come this far, down to the Legislature, but they’re down

visiting family and also on a little bit of a holiday break. One of them was

my former CA, Nadine Frenkel. She just retired at the end of April.

Congratulations to Nadine. She served with me for quite a few years. Her

husband, of course, Brian Frenkel, who was a councillor in Vanderhoof, is

also now retired.

They’re learning how to try to adjust to a bit of retirement life.

They’re down here in the Legislature, of course, visiting. I suspect they

may be back and wanting to do a little bit of work down the road. But who

knows? To both of them, would the House please make them welcome.

R. Glumac: I’d like to welcome some of my family that’s visiting today. They came

to see me. They’re directly above me, so technically, they can’t see me. But

trust me. I’m here. My aunt Sandra, my brother Ray and niece Cassandra.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

A. Olsen: I’d like to introduce four guests to the Legislature this afternoon.

Kathy Code is the vice-chair of the Ecoforestry Institute and Wildwood

Ecoforest just north of us here. As well, I’d like to introduce three

friends from the Ancient Forest Alliance: Andrea Inness, Rachel Ablack and

Stephanie Korolyk. I’d like to thank them for their hard work protecting old

growth. Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’d like to say a special thank-you to Blair Qualey, who’s president

of the New Car Dealers Association, and Jeff Hall, who’s the chairperson of

the New Car Dealers of Canada. Both of them were instrumental in making our

EV Day today at the Legislature such a success. They are here in the

gallery. May the House please make them welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M216 — DEFIBRILLATOR

PUBLIC ACCESS

ACT

S. Bond presented a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access

Act.

S. Bond: I move that a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access Act, of

which notice has been given in my name on the order day, be introduced

and now read for a first time.

Sudden cardiac arrest can happen to anyone, anywhere and at any

time without warning. Only one person in ten will survive their cardiac

arrest. We know that when CPR and an automated external defibrillator,

or AED, are used, the chance of survival improves dramatically. AEDs are

safe, simple and easy to use. They guide users with a step-by-step voice

instruction and will only shock if needed.

This bill, if passed, would require AEDs to be available in public

spaces, such as libraries, airports and recreation centres; for there to

be signage indicating the exact location of AEDs; and for all AEDs to be

registered, regularly inspected and maintained so that a 911 dispatcher

can direct bystanders to the nearest AED. In addition, the bill would

introduce clear civil liability protection so that no one feels

uncertain as to whether or not to use one in a cardiac

emergency.

Likely all of us here know someone who has died from a cardiac

arrest. No one in British Columbia should have to die as a result of a

cardiac arrest in a public gathering space. Rapid access to

defibrillation or AEDs could mean the difference between life and death

in a cardiac arrest situation, yet far too few public places are

equipped with one. Too many are stowed away in offices, behind counters

or in other inaccessible locations. Too few are regularly maintained and

registered with B.C. emergency health services’ AED database. Too many

British Columbians are fearful of using an AED.

This bill builds upon the important work done through the B.C.

public access to defibrillation program, which was a partnership between

the province and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Together, we can

ensure that a widespread, predictable and life-saving network of AEDs

exists in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

S. Bond: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M216, Defibrillator Public Access Act, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CLEANBC PROGRAM AND

HOUSING PROJECTS IN

NANAIMO

S. Malcolmson: On Nanaimo’s Bowen Road, there’s a new affordable housing complex

unlike anything else around. Nuutsumuut Lelum, a joint project from the

Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre and B.C. Housing, is culturally designed,

cedar-sided and built to use 90 percent less energy in its passive house

design. It’s home to 25 Indigenous families. It’s beautiful. Last

weekend the Canadian Home Builders Association of Vancouver Island

awarded it the high performance award at the VIBE gala in

Nanaimo.

At Nuutsumuut Lelum, I met Sandra, so proud about her new home. In

the past, Sandra’s kids were taken from her because of flooding in her

unhealthy rental housing. Now she’s in the nicest place she’s ever

lived, with multiple generations of her family living together under one

roof.

The stories like this shock and inspire me. Bad housing really

harms. Making our buildings and communities more environmentally

friendly builds health, jobs and affordability, plus it cuts carbon

emissions. This idea that the transition to a low-carbon economy also

improves quality of life is at the heart of CleanBC, our government’s

new climate plan.

Nanaimo’s got $200 million of new builds in the first month of

this year alone. That’s equivalent to all of last year’s construction

value. The green-building industry employs 32,000 people in B.C., in

jobs like architecture, manufacturing and installation.

CleanBC builds on that. We’ve got new incentives for owners in the

construction industry to build more high-efficiency buildings. Three

hundred new affordable housing units in Nanaimo will be built to step 2

or 3 of the new B.C. energy step building code.

[1:55 p.m.]

Folks renovating private homes can receive rebates for electric

heat pumps, for installing insulation, for replacing older, draftier

windows and doors with better insulated ones. Energy incentives and

rebates are a win on multiple fronts — healthier homes, more jobs,

savings on bills and cutting carbon emissions.

B.C. EGGFEST BARBECUE FESTIVAL

CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: Well, hon. Speaker and colleagues, it’s just about that time of

year once again. You knew I wasn’t going to keep you waiting much

longer. Everyone’s favourite barbecue food festival, the B.C. EggFest,

is just around the corner, and once again, it promises to be eggsellent.

Roughly 20 teams will be barbecuing all day long on the Big Green Egg

ceramic cooker. They’ll be grilling and smoking their specialties to

feed the hungry public.

Among the cooks once again will be BBQ Brian Misko from the House

of Q, one of the most accomplished and decorated pitmasters in North

America. There’ll be pork shoulder, chicken thighs, beef brisket,

tenderloin, pork belly, wings, bacon, things wrapped in bacon, tri-tip,

duck legs, cold beef ribs and so much more. There’ll be barbecue on a

plate, barbecue on a stick, barbecue in a bun, barbecue on a pizza,

barbecue in a tortilla. There’ll even be specialty grilled non-meat

items for the vegetarians.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to withdraw that last remark.

There’ll be nothing of the sort. My apologies for misleading this

House.

Each team will be cooking multiple items generously donated by

Johnston’s Pork, Meadow Valley Meats and Fraser Valley Specialty

Poultry. There’ll be cooking demonstrations, live entertainment. Will

there be axe throwing? Well, darn right there’s going to be axe

throwing. What a silly question.

It all happens Sunday, May 26, in the parking lot of Grand Pappy’s

Home Furniture in Chilliwack. I hope you have a chance to come by my

tent and check out what’s smoking.

Just a couple of words of barbecue wisdom before I wrap it up: a

hog has one job in this world, and that is to be delicious.

VICTORIA COMMUNITY

LEADERSHIP

AWARDS

M. Dean: The Victoria Community Leadership Awards are a celebration of the

people who make greater Victoria a vibrant, healthy community. Since

2004, the awards have highlighted the hundreds of thousands of community

volunteer hours that build our community.

The event is a chance to show the region’s appreciation of the

dedication and contribution made by each of the featured community

leaders. With sponsorship from the Victoria Foundation, the 2019 awards

are taking place on May 23.

I’m very proud to recognize that Jane Devonshire, a resident of

Esquimalt-Metchosin, will be receiving an award for healthy, safe

environments. Jane loves our west coast environment, and she’s

passionate about protecting the local ecosystem. Not only does she take

action herself; she also inspires and supports others to take action

too. Jane recognizes the urgency and threats of the climate crisis and

works to mobilize support for tangible change that will take care of our

local environment as well as the global one.

Another recipient from Esquimalt-Metchosin is 13-year-old Rebecca

Wolf Gage, also winning in the healthy, safe environments category. She

has spent more than half her life as a tenacious advocate for our

climate and recently hosted the Victoria climate strike here on the

front lawn. Inspired by Greta Thunberg, Rebecca wants people to know

that her generation cares about the climate crisis.

I also want to especially mention Ruth Mojeed, who created the

inclusion conference.

I want to say congratulations to everyone who is deservedly

recognized by the Victoria Leadership Awards. Thanks to all of them for

all of their work and leadership across our region.

MOOSE LAKE WIND POWER PROJECT

M. Bernier: My riding, Peace River South, is home to the very first wind

project in British Columbia, the Bear Mountain Wind Park. Now the most

recent wind project to be commissioned in B.C. is also in my riding and

has set another record by installing the largest onshore turbine blades

in all of North America. On April 4, the Moose Lake wind farm near

Tumbler Ridge started spinning, with 71-metre blades, which, on a

high-wind site, provides a gross capacity factor of almost 50

percent.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Moose Lake site will produce approximately 60 giga­watt

hours of power in a year, which is enough to power around 5,000 homes or

take about 160,000 cars off the road. It’s a four-tower project, a

product of 22 months of construction, employing the equivalent of 50

full-time workers. On-site tradespeople range from roadbuilders to crane

operators, raising the 99-metre-tall towers, to electricians for the

underground power cables.

The project was designed and constructed with input from local

First Nations and communities and will bring almost $15 million of

economic benefit to the region. The 15 megawatts of clean, emission-free

energy, commissioned under the standing offer program, will support

B.C.’s transition to a low-carbon energy.

The Moose Lake site was developed by Aeolis Wind Power, a

Victoria-based renewable energy company employing residents for over 15

years, and the Vancouver office of Boralex Inc., a Canadian renewable

energy company.

I want to congratulate all involved for reaching this milestone

and for the ongoing support of energy opportunities that support

communities and families in the South Peace.

SANCTUARIES FOR FARM ANIMALS AND

WORK OF HUGO AND

SARIEN SLABBERT

R. Glumac: It all started with Big Mama, a fearless pig that one day leapt

from the back of a pickup truck, once and for all proving that pigs

cannot fly. Port Moody couple Hugo and Sarien Slabbert had a friend that

owned an animal sanctuary and needed help transporting the injured pig

from Saltspring Island to Langley. Sarien has a background in project

management and event planning and a passion for animals, and she was

able to help her friend coordinate the transportation.

One month later the couple became aware of a baby calf that needed

transportation to an animal sanctuary in Kelowna. When no one was

available over Christmas to transport the animal, they laid some straw

down in the back of their van, turned up the music and drove the calf up

themselves.

There’s no SPCA for farm animals. There are only people with big

hearts and a bit of land. There are about 16 animal sanctuaries across

the province. Many are self-funded and don’t have a lot of time to

coordinate getting animals to their farms or to find ongoing, stable

sources of food for these animals when they get there.

That’s where Hugo and Sarien came in. They have now started an

organization called People Ensuring Animal Care Exists. They’re helping

these sanctuaries find sustainable ways of doing their work —

coordinating transportation, finding grants, finding food and other

logistics. Hugo and Sarien have found a way to take their skills and

their passions and bring them together to make a difference.

I want to thank Hugo and Sarien for all that they do.

DEB FISHER AND SUMMIT YOUTH CENTRE

D. Clovechok: I rise today to celebrate and honour both an organization and an

individual from Invermere: the Summit Youth Centre and Deb

Fisher.

The Summit Youth Centre has just recently had a dinner celebrating

its 25th anniversary and also launched the Summit’s new focus on youth

mental health. It’s an organization that has stood the test of time and

invested in youth, providing a place where they can just hang out and

have fun in a safe learning environment, an environment that is

bully-free, drug-free, alcohol-free and led by marvellous staff

dedicated to the well-being of the Columbia Valley’s youth. The Summit

provides our youth with learning and growing opportunities through the

outstanding programs that they offer.

Each year the Summit recognizes an individual who has gone above

and beyond to inspire, support and love youth in their journey to

adulthood.

Deb Fisher spent many years as one of the Aboriginal education

support workers at David Thompson Secondary School, which has seen

graduation rates for Indigenous youth rise from 20 percent to over 90

percent. Additionally, she has formally and informally fostered over 35

youth and has been an ally for many more as a foster parent, an

international student parent and a youth ally in every sense of the

word. Her compassion has been soul food for the many youth struggling

with issues and a guiding light for many, many more.

Deb is a very humble person who will tell you without hesitation

that it was her family that enabled her to do what she has been able to

do, and she’s grateful to her family and her husband. Deb is also the

president of the Columbia Valley

chapter of the Métis Nation and served

as a team member of the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket residential school trauma

team. Deb and her mom are also passionate and regular volunteers at the

local Three Voices of Healing addiction and rehabilitation centre for

Indigenous men.

Joining the celebration at the dinner was Canadian actor Tom

Jackson. He said: “When I read about this, I knew I had to be there. I

have a history, in my younger days, that mirrors a lot of the young

people served by the Summit. It created a shift in their lives, a

cornerstone, a fortress that amounts to one verb — love.”

[2:05 p.m.]

If love were a person, then that person would be Deb Fisher’s

twin. I’m proud to say she’s my friend. I thank her and the Hub for all

they do for youth.

Oral Questions

USE OF EMAIL AND MESSAGING BY

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER

S. Bond: A year ago, the Minister of Citizens’ Services admitted to and

apologized for using a personal email account for government business.

On May 14, 2018, she said: “I should not have used my personal email to

contact staff, and I’ll be more diligent in the future.”

Could the minister tell the House today what steps she has taken

since that time to fully comply with her FOI obligations?

Hon. J. Sims: What we have done on the government side is we have made sure that

there is ongoing training for our staff in our minister’s offices, for

ministers as well as for our public service. That training continues,

and there is the appropriate use policy for government

business.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer. The question was about

her specific actions related to her commitment to this House.

The government guide to transitory records provides nearly a dozen

examples of what are non-transitory records. They include things like

work schedules, assignments, information about a decision, documentation

of a policy matter, instructions, advice, meeting minutes, agendas or

useful information that helps explain the history of a relationship,

decision or project.

Can the minister confirm for the House that it is unacceptable to

delete any such records, even if it is on a private email account,

WhatsApp, BBM or a text message?

Hon. J. Sims: We use the policies that exist, and all staff are provided

training, including ministers, as to what is the appropriate

policy.

J. Johal: Does the minister use WhatsApp messages?

Hon. J. Sims: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: Now, for nearly two years, the official opposition has requested

texts and WhatsApp messages from both the minister and all of her

political staff. And for nearly two years, the response each and every

time has been “no records.” Nothing related to work schedules,

assignments, information about a decision, a policy matter,

instructions, advice. Absolutely nothing.

Does the minister use WhatsApp or text messages to communicate

government business with her ministerial staff?

Hon. J. Sims: I do have a WhatsApp account. It’s on my Legislative Assembly

phone, and I do use it to communicate with a group that I have created

about some of the achievements of government. I use it to communicate

about my mom. We have a family grouping on that as well.

For those not familiar with WhatsApp, WhatsApp is quite commonly

used in the South Asian community to share personal information. I do

not have WhatsApp on my government account.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

A. Olsen: British Columbia’s coastal old-growth forests are rare. These

forests sustain unique and endangered ecosystems and species and are of

immense cultural value to Indigenous peoples. Left standing, old growth

supports entire ecotourism economies. They filter the water we drink.

They’re essential to salmon health and prevent landslides and

erosion.

Old growth is also a non-renewable resource, but on Vancouver

Island, it’s almost gone. Seventy-nine percent of the original

productive old growth has been logged, and 90 percent of the

high-productivity valley bottoms are gone too.

[2:10 p.m.]

Despite their rarity and ecological importance, we continue to

actively log these forests. On the coast, 54 percent of everything we

log is old growth. We’re managing them to zero.

BCTS, the government’s logging agency, just suspended their

auction of 109 hectares of old growth within metres of the Juan de Fuca

provincial park due to public outrage. These auctions are happening all

across the Island, and it cannot continue.

To the Premier, considering what is at stake, how does he justify

the continued logging of coastal old growth?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for the question. Old-growth management is

important in B.C. That’s because we value old-growth forests for their

contribution to biodiversity and for the way old-growth forests support

forestry workers and communities on Vancouver Island, along the coast

and across B.C.

We, therefore, must take a thoughtful and considered approach to

old-growth management on Vancouver Island. We’ll be engaging soon on an

old-growth plan with communities and First Nations on Vancouver Island.

In the meantime, we’re taking steps, as the member mentioned, to

recognize the unique and endangered ecosystems on Vancouver

Island.

We set aside 70,000 hectares on Vancouver Island and the coast for

the protection of marbled murrelet and northern goshawk, and we’re

ensuring that the forests of Vancouver Island are used better to support

communities with our coast forest sector revitalization plan, which will

drive more logs to domestic manufacturing and reduce the amount of waste

so that pulp mills have better fibre supply.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: The thoughtful and considered approach is to continue cutting it,

which doesn’t last very long. It only goes until there’s nothing left.

Like I said, we are managing this resource to zero. Logging coastal old

growth simply isn’t good for jobs in the long term, and that’s because

it’s a finite resource. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. At this rate,

that will be much sooner than later.

If we act now, we can successfully transition our coastal forestry

to a sustainable, second-growth industry. This means using science-based

methods to determine what forests to leave and which ones to harvest.

All the evidence points to leaving high-productivity old growth intact.

We must log selectively to minimize environmental impacts, and we need

to invest in value-added manufacturing here on the coast. Value-added

jobs are more resilient to market factors and higher paying. It’s the

best-case scenario for forest workers, for tourism operators and for the

environment.

Today we called for a moratorium on logging in old-growth hot

spots on Vancouver Island. We cannot afford to wait for the government

to delay any longer. The time to act is now, for the benefit of coastal

economies, communities and the environment.

To the Premier: will you institute a moratorium on logging the few

intact productive old-growth forests on Vancouver Island?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We aren’t managing the old-growth forests on Vancouver Island to

zero. There are 500,000 hectares of old-growth forest protected in parks

and other protected areas on Vancouver Island. But I do acknowledge the

member’s point and those who are concerned about old-growth forest

management. Old-growth forests sustain diverse wildlife, regulate water

flows and have an important impact on the nutrient cycling.

We also know that old-growth forests are an important part of

communities’ economic future, as well as workers’ in the forest

industry. We want to get a better understanding of that by engaging with

the public, First Nations and communities — the 45 First Nations on

Vancouver Island who have an interest in the forests surrounding those

communities.

We’ll be doing that in a thoughtful and measured approach very

soon, and that’s the way we’re going to get to better management of

old-growth forests on Vancouver Island.

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER

M. Polak: The opposition was copied on a letter that has been received by

the Attorney General for B.C., a letter from Donald Sorochan, QC, which

contains serious allegations against the Minister of Citizens’

Services.

[2:15 p.m.]

Included in the allegations are claims that the minister uses

iMessage, WhatsApp and her personal email and that “she instructed her

staff to only communicate using these methods in order to avoid her

communication being captured by FOIPPA law.”

Is the Premier aware of the allegations contained in this

letter?

Hon. D. Eby: I advise the House that I have not seen the letter yet. I’ll go

back to my office after question period, and I’ll take the question on

notice right now.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: These are serious allegations being made by Kate Gillie, a former

staff member to the Minister of Citizens’ Services from January 8 to

February 22, 2019. She alleges that the minister “explained to me that

she only used her ministerial phone or email for routine tasks or

conversations, because ‘I have to have something to show them.’ The

‘them’ she referred to were those members of the public, opposition or

media who were making FOI requests for her communication.”

When was the Premier or his office made aware of these

allegations?

Hon. D. Eby: As I advised the member, I haven’t seen the letter. It sounds like

serious allegations.

I certainly think it would be a good idea to have a look at the

letter and see what’s in there, as opposed to having the member, I

guess, read sections of the letter, possibly. It’s not clear to me. I’ll

take the matter on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

M. Polak: Just to be clear for this House, according to the letter that we

were copied on, the staff member already raised these concerns with the

Premier’s office in the past. Ms. Gillie further alleges that “on more

than one occasion, the minister’s senior ministerial assistant called to

explain to me that I was not to communicate with the minister or her

ministry staff via their government emails, unless I had first checked

via text or phone call.”

Am I to understand that the Premier was not made aware of these

issues that were raised to his office previously?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve taken this matter on notice.

P. Milobar: We know that the minister has a history of breaking the rules. It

appears that in the aftermath of the previous embarrassment, she went to

even greater lengths to intentionally circumvent the laws and the system

that she is sworn to uphold.

It’s alleged: “I was repeatedly told by the minister’s senior

ministerial assistant to never admit to the use of personal email for

ministerial business, as we have to protect the minister.”

To the Premier, has the Premier or his office investigated these

allegations?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve taken this question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just a reminder, of course, that when the minister takes

it on notice, your second question would be something

different.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Point taken.

The letter does allege behaviour of the minister that is

deliberate, systemic and purposeful. In fact, the Premier should have

been made aware, because the letter does say that the assistant deputy

minister of cabinet operations and deputy cabinet secretary had been,

indeed, told well in advance of this letter.

Mr. Speaker: Member, again, if we could go down a different path entirely…. I

think we’re on the same line of questioning.

P. Milobar: Mr. Speaker, I’m curious if the minister’s office did contact the

Privacy Commissioner to investigate the allegations from previous and,

if so, when the request was made.

Mr. Speaker: Again, same topic but different question.

Attorney.

Hon. D. Eby: I have taken this on notice, because I haven’t seen the

letter.

M. de Jong: Whilst I appreciate the approach the Attorney wishes to take, and

perhaps a prudent approach, the question in this instance is for the

Premier.

[2:20 p.m.]

Will he confirm that his office, via the cabinet secretariat, was

made aware of these and other serious allegations concerning the conduct

of the Minister of Citizens’ Services over two months ago, and will he

advise the House what steps he took to initiate an

investigation?

Hon. J. Horgan: There is a letter being discussed by the opposition which I have

not seen. I’m not aware of any investigation underway. Again, I’d like

to think that the people on the other side would take, “We’ll get back

to you,” as an answer, but apparently not.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: That is somewhat helpful. Given the minister’s record, which the

House is aware of, given the serious nature of the allegations contained

in the letter from the lawyer Sorochan and given the fact that his

office has apparently had the information contained in that letter for

over two months, this is my question to the Premier.

I understand he will want to familiarize himself, or

re-familiarize himself, with the contents of the letter. Will he

undertake to come back before the House tomorrow and indicate whether or

not, in these circumstances, given the history, given the record and

given the nature of the allegations, he believes this minister can

continue to serve in the executive council?

Hon. J. Horgan: Given the record of the people on that side of the House when it

came to triple delete, when it came to criminal charges about the use of

technology in this building, I’ll take my own counsel. Rather than take

the word of the members on the other side, I’ll consult with the

Attorney. We’ll take a look at the information, and we’ll proceed from

there.

CLOSING OF QUESNEL MILL

AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. Oakes: Mr. Speaker 150 family-supporting forestry jobs were lost in my

community last Friday with the announcement of the closure of Tolko

mills. This closure will also have a significant impact on contractors

and small businesses in our community. We have been raising concerns

being brought forward by industry and by experts on the challenges that

industry is seeing with the growing number of changes in the policy, the

legislative changes and the administrative changes in the forest

policies being brought forward by this government.

The Premier and this government have dismissed these concerns, and

the government has mocked and even laughed at us and at the legitimate

concerns that we’ve been bringing forward. This condescending approach

by the government is disrespectful to the workers, to the contractors

and to the small businesses in my community.

Will the Premier come to Quesnel and tell my community how he

intends to help the contractors, small businesses and workers impacted

by the closure of Tolko?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. I know she’s as concerned

about her community as anyone in this House. The sad news of the Tolko

closure of the Quest Wood facility in her community was obviously

devastating news for the 150 workers there and those that depend on

it.

I will correct the member on some of these points. This is not a

surprise. The member for Nechako Lakes headed up an interim timber

supply review five or six years ago that pointed quite clearly to a lack

of fibre — too much volume, not enough value. Those are the types of

discussions we’re having right now with industry leaders, with community

leaders, with workers and with First Nations right across the

Peace.

Company after company has said: “This is the appropriate way to

go. Let’s all sit down together, timber supply area by timber supply

area, and come up with solutions for a long-term fix to our forest

industry.”

I appreciate that the member is now going to get up and say that

it’s all someone else’s fault. This is something that has been going on

for generations. We are now at a critical point in the sector. Members

know that, and I hope that they will join with us and work to make sure

we don’t see issues like this replicated in other communities right

across the province.

The time to sit and work together is now. The time to be critical

of the past — the distant past and the recent past — is not helpful to

anybody.

C. Oakes: Last week the Premier actually stood in this House and said that

people are excited about the changes that the government is making in

forest policy. I can tell the Premier today that people in my community

who’ve just lost their jobs are not really excited.

[2:25 p.m.]

Rather than work with the forest sector, the Premier takes a

“Victoria knows best” approach that has made us the highest-cost

producers in North America. His policies mean that instead of shipping

lumber, we are shipping jobs to the United States.

Will the Premier immediately press pause on his damaging policies

and come to Quesnel?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, to say that the situation in the forest industry arrived

the other day is as obtuse as I think you can possibly be on a subject

this important. The devastation of the mountain pine beetle. Successive

fire seasons that are the worst in our history. How can you sit there

and say this is someone else’s problem? It is our problem. It’s a

problem for the people of B.C.

I have reached out to industry leaders, to workers, to Indigenous

leaders, to community representatives. They have agreed that the best

way forward is to sit down, timber supply area by timber supply

area.

The House Leader for the opposition would prefer to score

political points. It will not help the people in Quesnel. It will not

help the people in other forest-dependent communities. What will help is

a Legislature that is unanimous in our resolve to make sure that we can

take our dwindling fibre basket and add more value to it to create more

jobs in the long term.

S. Thomson: The Premier talks about consultation. Let’s just look at the words

of his Forests Minister. On Thursday, he said: “I’m sorry if the member

doesn’t like my reaction to the questions, but it’s hard to keep a

straight face.” His words. That’s the attitude by the Premier. That’s

the attitude by the Minister of Forests — to be dismissive and

condescending of the concerns raised by the industry and

communities.

The minister stood and read a letter from Tolko that said they

were begging for consultation with the government, that they wanted to

work with government. But what he didn’t say was that letter was written

before he blindsided the industry with Bill 22 with no consultation.

This is adding continued uncertainty, greater uncertainty for the

industries. It’s piling on the uncertainty. As I said, with no

consultation, the very next day, 240 workers lost their jobs.

My question to the Premier is: will he show some respect today,

listen to the concerns from the industry and the communities and press

pause, just as he did with the caribou file?

Hon. D. Donaldson: First off, I just want to acknowledge that our government knows

how difficult the closure of a sawmill is for people in communities.

I’ve lived through it in the community I represent and the communities

all the way from Prince Rupert up to Hazelton when mills shut down.

We’re working with a transition team with workers on that right

now.

I want to correct the member. The letter that we received from

Tolko in support of the Interior TSA process came out after the Premier

wrote letters to major industry players to try to take a collaborative

approach. That’s the approach we’re taking. It’s not isolated. There are

many companies that want to work with us as we work with workers, with

communities and with First Nations.

Robert Novak from Dunkley Lumber Ltd. wrote, in response to our

Interior TSA initiative, to say: “We want to first take this opportunity

to indicate to you that Dunkley Lumber is and will continue to be part

of the concepts and required work that you have outlined. We also hope

that government sees Dunkley as a willing forest company participant in

the work that lies ahead.” That’s the kind of process we’re

starting.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

S. Thomson: Well, the letter went out; the industry responded. But the

important point that is missing and that the minister is not saying is

the fact that that letter and responses came before the minister tabled

Bill 22 without any consultation with the industry, blindsiding the

industry.

What have we seen in terms of the response? Just as was pointed

out, the Premier dismisses those concerns, calling them whiners, anybody

who raises concerns about it, somebody who just wants to “take a pop at

the government.” Those are his words.

[2:30 p.m.]

On Friday, we had the devastating news — 240 workers, affecting

families, contractors, businesses in two communi­ties in the

province.

The question, again, to the Premier is: will he admit his blunder,

and will he press pause on his ill-advised policies that continue to add

to the uncertainty in the forest sector? Will he press pause on those

initiatives and undertake proper consultation with the

industry?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, it’s important to remember that the problems facing Tolko

are not new. The mountain pine beetle epidemic, the 2017 wildfire season

and weakening lumber markets have all contributed to the fibre

shortage.

Now, as far as pressing pause goes, the member should know well

about that. Back when he was Forests Minister, there was the mid-term

timber supply review. It came out in 2012. It forewarned of these kinds

of mill closures due to a lack of fibre, and instead of doing something,

they pressed pause and did nothing.

WAGES FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES

WORKERS

J. Martin: This Premier and this government have been in the process of

blatantly discriminating against 17,000 social services workers. Max is

one of these workers, and he writes: “I work for a non-union agency out

of choice. Being excluded from a fair wage redress because I don’t

belong to some union seems to me to be a glaring bias.”

Will the Premier stand up and explain to Max, and the thousands of

workers like him, why he is being discriminated against?

Hon. S. Simpson: As I’ve said previously to this, we’re working with the sector.

I’m pleased that we met with a wide range of the umbrella organizations

that represent most of the contracted social service groups. We met on

Friday. We had discussions about an array of issues that impact this

sector going back many, many years, including issues around recruitment

and retention. We do have a plan moving forward, working in

collaboration with the sector to make sure we’re delivering the best

services possible to the people who are supported by those

agencies.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: Max continues: “How on earth can you allow this? I expect my

government to fight for the rights of all people and not reward their

friends.”

Can the Premier or can the minister tell me and tell Max why the

new discrimination party is treating them like a second-class

citizen?

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m looking forward to the work we’re going to do over the coming

weeks and months as we formulate a plan that ensures the best possible

services for the people who are supported by contracted social services.

I’m looking forward to those conversations.

T. Shypitka: The Cranbrook Society for Community Living has been around since

1956 and faithfully gives the support and skills needed to vulnerable

people to live active, meaningful, independent lives. This group enjoys

a blend of both unionized and non-union people — about 160, I

believe.

Brandon Arnett, the executive director, writes to say that the NDP

government’s decision harmed both the workers being discriminated

against and the families they serve. Brendan has a question for the

Premier, which I will quote directly. “How do we tell a single mom

struggling to make ends meet that she won’t be receiving the same wage

increase her colleagues will be receiving, all the while expecting her

to do the exact same job?”

Hon. S. Simpson: We’re looking forward to the work that we’re doing over the coming

months with those organizations in the CEO Network, in the Federation of

Community Social Services, among the Aboriginal friendship centres, with

PARCA, with Board Voice. All of these are umbrella organizations that

support the work of many agencies.

[2:35 p.m.]

We have had a very positive discussion on Friday. I’m looking

forward to how we move forward to deal with procurement, to deal with

contracts, to deal with policy advice, to deal with an array of issues

that have been ignored for a very long time. We’re going to move it

forward. I’m feeling positive about that. That member should feel

positive too.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East on a supplemental.

T. Shypitka: Well, the people in my riding and people from the Cranbrook

Society for Community Living aren’t feeling very optimistic right now.

The workers and families supported by Community Living deserve to hear

an actual answer from the Premier — that was the question — to Brandon’s

question.

This is what else he wrote: “Is this all a ploy to drive non-union

employees towards unions? This government is making this decision in bad

faith with ill intentions and in a fashion of discrimination.” It

appears that the new discrimination party is at it again.

The question is to the Premier. Will the Premier stop his

discrimination and hiding behind other ministers and provide equal pay

for equal work to those that assist our society’s most

vulnerable?

Hon. S. Simpson: Those workers who are feeling positive are those ones who now

won’t face the experience that they had under the previous government,

where thousands of workers had their wages cut and thousands of workers

lost their jobs. Hon. Speaker, nobody who understands that side’s

performance when it comes to labour relations and human resources would

have one moment’s time for the phony nonsense coming out of that

side.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 32, Protected Areas of B.C.

Amendment Act (No. 2). In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee

stage on Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. In the Birch Room, Committee

C, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and

Mines.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2019

Hon. G. Heyman: Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be read a second time

now.

The proposed amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia

Act will remove approximately two hectares from Loon Lake Park to enable

the Thompson-Nicola regional district to apply to build a new community

fire hall on the site and to accept two segments of road from the park.

Loon Lake Park is an 8.74-hectare class A park comprised of two separate

lots, 7548 and….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, can you hold, please?

Members, if you don’t have House business, maybe you can be

quiet.

The minister continues.

Hon. G. Heyman: Loon Lake Park is comprised of two separate lots, 7548 and 7547,

but all park facilities were removed in 2002, and the park was closed

due to a steady decline in park visitation. The entire park was damaged

to varying degrees during the 2017 Elephant Hill wildfire. It also

destroyed the Loon Lake community’s fire hall. The previous fire hall

location is not considered adequate due to insurance requirements for

maximum response distance from the most populous area of the

community.

[2:40 p.m.]

The amendment will remove the land on the north side of Loon Lake

Road and 7547, and the portion of Loon Lake Road traversing 7547 will

also be removed to provide a more definable boundary. A short segment of

Loon Lake Road and lot 7548 will also be removed from the

park.

The Thompson-Nicola regional district carried out public

consultation respecting the proposed boundary change to the park, and

there is strong local community support for removing the land from the

park to enable the construction of the fire hall. The local regional

district will work with local First Nations to complete a cultural and

archaeological assessment of the grounds before development.

This amendment will assist in providing a new fire hall, for a

community in need of one, in a timely manner.

J. Tegart: It’s with great pleasure that I rise in the House to speak in

favour of Bill 32, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2019.

The 2017 Elephant Hill fire destroyed the Loon Lake fire

department and a critical piece of infrastructure for the small

community, as it was the community’s only fire hall. The fire covered

over 191,000 hectares and destroyed landscapes, livelihoods, homes,

businesses and the entire Boston Flats Mobile Home Park.

The Thompson-Nicola regional district has been working closely

with the community of Loon Lake and myself to secure land for the new

building for the Loon Lake fire department. In June of 2018, I wrote a

letter to the Minister of Environment, outlining the challenges that the

Loon Lake community was facing, trying to relocate their fire hall to a

location more central for the population of the community. This location

was part of a closed provincial park that had not been used for a number

of years.

I asked the minister to assist in expediting the process to enable

the community to get shovels in the ground. I want to recognize the work

of this minister and his staff for bringing this bill to the floor of

the House, in this spring session, to ensure that the community of Loon

Lake has an opportunity to move forward with this build. This bill

adjusts the description of Loon Lake Park within the Protected Areas of

British Columbia Act by removing land from the park for the purpose of

providing a viable space for the construction of the new community fire

hall.

As you can imagine, the community was devastated by the wildfire.

Local volunteer firefighters stayed behind during the evacuation to

protect as many structures as they could. Many homes and cabins were

burnt to the ground, along with their own fire hall.

Since the fire, support for this small rural fire department has

come from across the province. I would like to mention some of the

people and organizations that have donated $1,000 or more to the

project. I ask your forgiveness for taking time for the long list, but I

think it’s really important that people get recognized.

The following is a list of those who donated $1,000 or more

towards this project: the Rotary Club of Kamloops; Michael and Marjorie

Milaney; Elizabeth Harrison; the Lakeside Resort; Interior Savings,

Ashcroft; Country Lumber; Muni-City Services; Anthony McGill; Pan-Cam

Developments; Karen Stark; Jack and Irene Giesbrecht; Canadian National;

Enbridge; Clinton and District Community Forest of B.C.; Ashcroft and

District Lions Club, who made two donations; Steve Pecchia; Integris

Credit Union in Clinton; PaintNite; Oliver fire department; Ted and

Valerie Mark; Patrick Devlin; Vaughn and Marny Kenney; Laurel and Med

Eldridge; Cache Creek volunteer fire department; Red Cross; Royal Bank

of Canada.

[2:45 p.m.]

Fraserway RV deserves special mention because they donated

$275,000 towards this project. This is a company that does not live near

Loon Lake, and they were donating dollars from every RV sold in B.C. —

10 percent of retail parts, 10 percent of rental bookings and $750 from

every RV sold in each of their seven dealerships. They offered $1,000

credit on an Adventurer Group cash card for displaced residents

purchasing an RV, and they matched donations, dollar for dollar, by 800

employees. Mr. James Epp presented this news of a significant donation

to the Loon Lake fire department.

I would like to acknowledge…. You know, when we’re in times of

trouble, people step forward, and the Loon Lake people are most

appreciative. The replacement of the fire hall is an important step in

the rebuilding and recovering of that community.

I would like to personally thank the minister and also say that I

am pleased to support Bill 32, Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019. I look forward to participating in the

committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the

debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for her comments as

well as for her very important advocacy for her constituents in the

community of Loon Lake, for working with our ministry staff to achieve

this sensible result. I also want to thank her for recognizing the

volunteers, the people who came together in the community to offer

support, finances and resources to rebuild the fire hall, and for

recognizing the important work of all firefighters, including volunteer

firefighters, in protecting and caring about communities.

We don’t make changes to provincial parks lightly in British

Columbia, but in this case, it makes sense, and there is no compromise

to ecological or conservation values. The community, as we’ve all

pointed out, is strongly supportive.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 32, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2),

2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. H. Bains: I call second reading of Bill 8.

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 8 be read a second time now.

Bill 8 is a set of very, very important changes for British

Columbians and to British Columbia’s Employment Standards Act. For those

who would be wondering what the Employment Standards Act is, the

Employment Standards Act is the law that sets minimum standards and

conditions of employment for most workers in the province. Workers and

employers in the province rely on employment standards to protect their

rights and to reflect their changing needs, to ensure workplaces remain

fair and efficient.

For far too long, the province’s Employment Standards Act had not

changed, even as other jurisdictions updated their standards to better

protect workers and even as the working environment had changed

dramatically through globalization and technology. Fifteen years have

gone by without significant changes to the Employment Standards Act in

B.C., and 25 years without a significant review.

With Bill 8, our government is taking action to make changes that

are overdue — changes that will 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 that employees

are paid the wages they are owed and that employers and others that

violate the law don’t have an unfair economic advantage over good

employers.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’re making these priority changes as a significant step towards

fulfilling my mandate, as Minister of Labour, to make sure that B.C.’s

employment standards are applied evenly and enforce and reflect the

evolving needs of our workplaces.

Working people will be better protected and supported through

these proposed amendments to the B.C. Employment Standards Act. Why? I

believe that working people are the lifeblood of this province, yet we

see working people struggling, because our employment standards do not

protect them.

In developing these amendments, we have considered recommendations

from several groups, including the B.C. Law Institute, the B.C.

Employment Standards Coalition and the B.C. Federation of Labour, along

with input from workers, employers, the public and academics.

The B.C. Law Institute’s independent and comprehensive review —

which was funded in part, I would tell you, by the province and included

the Ministry of Labour as an observer — plays a significant role in

informing some of these changes. Specifically, several of the proposed

changes in this bill align with the unanimous or majority

recommendations from the B.C. Law Institute. It is important to know

that the B.C. Law Institute did extensive public consultation before

finalizing its report, which provided workers and employers,

stakeholders and others an opportunity to provide their views on how to

modernize the Employment Standards Act.

As well, during March of this year, we invited the public to give

their feedback on the area we’re discussing in Bill 8 today, as well as

on hours of work and overtime and on fairness for terminated workers. We

received over 1,200 submissions and took this input into account when

finalizing the amendments to Bill 8. The input from public engagement

will also be considered as we look to make potential further future

amendments to the act.

I would now like to speak about some of the specific changes to be

made in Bill 8. The amendments we are proposing fall into four

categories, four areas of improving the employment standards in British

Columbia.

The first of the priority areas is to raise the working age for

children and better protect them from dangerous work. For too long, B.C.

has lagged behind the rest of Canada when it comes to protecting

children in workplaces. Changes made in 2003 have allowed children as

young as 12 to do virtually any kind of work, including in dangerous

sectors like construction. As a result, there have been many

life-altering injuries in workers 14 years old or younger.

I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to speak

again.

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — CIVIL FORFEITURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I apologize to my colleagues for the interruption. There may be

one more yet to come.

In this House, I call continued debate on Bill 8. In the Douglas

Fir Room,

Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 7.

[2:55 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

Hon. H. Bains: I was just talking about protecting our children from dangerous

work — their health and safety at workplaces. I was talking about

changes made in 2003 that allowed children as young as 12 to go and work

any occupation in British Columbia. Many of them have life-altering

injuries as a result of that.

This is not just anecdotal numbers or a speech. WCB data confirms

that over $5 million was paid to children under 15 who worked and were

injured. Those were the numbers paid in injury claims: $5.2 million over

a ten-year period. It clearly shows that our children were getting hurt

in workplaces. Workplace data also shows that every year between 2007

and 2017, workers were being injured, and that is simply

unacceptable.

These proposed amendments will better protect our children by

raising the age that a child may work without an employment standards

branch permit from 12 to 16, allowing an exception for 14- and

15-year-olds to do light work that is safe for their health and

development, prohibiting children under 16 from doing dangerous

work.

What we heard from people and what we learned from B.C. Law

Institute recommendations was that 14- and 15-year-olds want to be able

to participate in the workforce. The proposed amendments will allow 14-

and 15-year-olds to do certain forms of light work, with the consent of

a parent or guardian, like stocking shelves in a convenience store,

working their family farm while helping their parents. Other forms of

work will require a permit from the director for anyone under the age of

16. Defining exactly what should be considered light work will be laid

out in the regulations following a transparent consultation

process.

Perhaps more importantly, young people under 16 will be prohibited

from working in dangerous industries like mining, forestry, pulp mills,

heavy construction. Dangerous work is anything that is likely to

endanger a child’s health, safety or morals — for instance, working on a

construction site or in a factory with heavy machinery. Setting out

exactly what should be considered dangerous work will come at the

regulation stage. These changes to our employment standards for children

will bring B.C. into alignment with international child employment

standards.

I must remind the House here that when those laws were changed in

2003, allowing a 12-year-old to work in any work in B.C., we were cited

by the International Labour Organization of the United Nations that that

is not in line with their convention. That is not in alignment with the

international law about our children and workplaces. But the government

of the day ignored all of that, and like I said, children continued to

get hurt. Now we will put an end to B.C.’s reputation as the only

province without meaningful legal restrictions by making sure our kids

are not employed in work that is unsafe for young persons.

Children are our future, and we need to give young people the time

to develop and mature before joining the broader workforce. Above all,

we want to keep them safe. Everyone wants our children to be safe and

healthy, and we know that children can often provide helpful

age-appropriate support for family businesses, including family farms,

as I said earlier. The changes we are making with Bill 8 are about

keeping our children safe while ensuring that young people can continue

to help out in family businesses.

As I indicated earlier, the details for new child employment law

will be set out in regulations. Before these regulations are

established, government will consult broadly and will want to engage

extensively with stakeholders for their input on how we can work

together to better protect children in diverse workplaces.

The second priority is the area that we are addressing at this

time to provide more job protection to people dealing with difficult

personal circumstances. Bill 8 proposes two new job-protected leaves

that will allow people to take time away from work to deal with personal

hardship without having to worry about losing their job.

[3:00 p.m.]

The first new leave is for victims of domestic violence. Workers

who have experienced or are the parent of a child who has experienced

domestic violence will be able to take unpaid, job-protected leave. This

change allows workers to take up to 15 consecutive weeks and up to ten

non-consecutive days for things like therapy sessions, medi­cal

appointments, finding a new home or a new school for their

children.

B.C. will now join most other provinces in bringing in this

important domestic violence leave to better support women, children and

all workers who have been impacted by domes­tic

violence.

The second leave is critical care leave. Workers who need to care

for a critically ill family member will be able to take a job-protected

leave while using federal employment insurance benefits. The federal

government introduced this protection in December 2017, and B.C. needs

to align the act to provide corresponding job protection.

The leave allows workers to take 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. People shouldn’t have to choose

between their job and taking care of their family during times of

personal difficulties. We must balance the needs of employers with the

needs of employees in these difficult personal situations.

The third priority is to ensure employees are paid the wages they

are owed and that employers and others that violate the law don’t have

an unfair economic advantage that makes for an uneven competitive

playing field. Everyone deserves to be paid wages that they have

rightfully earned. Whether you are a server relying on tips or you

haven’t been paid your full wage by your employer, the proposed

amendments aim to ensure all workers are able to recover what they are

owed.

Bill 8 will add new provisions that would regulate tips and

gratuities. Employers will be prohibited from withholding tips or other

gratuities from workers, deducting an amount from them or requiring them

to turn them over to the employer. Tip pooling will be allowed, but

employers will not be allowed to share in the tip pool unless they

perform the same work as other workers.

These changes are based on the tip regulation system in Ontario,

which the B.C. Law Institute report recommended for British Columbia. We

have been hearing about unfair practices around tips for years, and it’s

time for that to stop.

Bill 8 will also extend the wage recovery period under the

Employment Standards Act. Workers who are owed wages by a current or

former employer will be able to recover up to 12 months of back pay, up

from the current six months. The 12-month recovery period will apply to

complaints currently before the employment standards branch if a

determination has yet to be made. The federal jurisdiction, along with

New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and

Saskatchewan, has a 12-month wage recovery period already.

The proposed legislation also gives the director of

em­ployment standards the discretion to extend the recovery period

to 24 months in circumstances to be prescribed by the regulations. For

example, the ministry is considering circumstances where infractions are

seen to be wilful or severe. As a consequence to the extended wage

recovery period, Bill 8 will change the record retention period from two

years to four years to ensure that the payrolls and other records are

available if there is a complaint or investigation about unpaid

wages.

Through Bill 8, government is also strengthening several other

provisions within the act to ensure that the workers recover as many

wages and other amounts owing to them as possible. Significantly, we are

restoring the Employment Standards Act as a floor for new and renewed

collective agreements.

In some areas, variations from the standards in the act will be

permitted but only if the collective agreement provisions meet or exceed

the requirement in the corresponding provisions of the act. These

changes for collective agreements ensure that the unionized workers have

the same rights and standards as other workers, that minimum employment

standards cannot be negotiated away and that there is a level playing

field.

There were complaints where some employers and some unions were

trying to go around the minimum standards and negotiate inferior

agreements, and that put their competitive employers at a disadvantage.

Not only that; it cheats the workers out of the rightful wages that they

are owed under the act.

[3:05 p.m.]

Many collective agreements already, on the other hand, meet or

exceed the standards of the act, so this change should not impact many

unionized workplaces. For those few that it may impact, this change will

not affect collective agreements that are in force when the changes come

into effect, allowing employers and unions time to align their

agreements with the new minimum standards. Bill 8 will permit employers

and unions to continue operating under the provision of current

collective agreements until an agreement expires and a new or renewed

agreement comes into effect.

Another change is a new requirement for employers to provide

employees with information about their rights under the Employment

Standards Act. Employers will be responsible for providing the

information to workers they employ, since they have direct knowledge of

and access to their employees. This requirement is intended to protect

workers by ensuring that they have information about their employment

standards entitlement. It will also support compliance by ensuring that

the employers are familiar with the requirements of the act and the

obligations they have to workers.

Another improvement is that Bill 8 will require temporary help

agencies to be licensed. Temporary help agencies employ people to assign

them to perform work on a temporary basis for clients of the agency.

With the exception of farm labour contractors, temporary help agencies

are currently not required to be licensed.

My ministry has reviewed research from other jurisdictions that

shows that employees of temporary help agencies are often in vulnerable

and precarious work situations that warrant special attention. The

proposal to extend a licensing requirement to temporary help agencies

will assist the employment standards branch in addressing compliance

issues in a sector where vulnerable workers are often employed and

potentially exploited.

To further support the recovery of unpaid wages to workers, Bill 8

will restore corporate officers’ and directors’ liability for unpaid

wages in bankruptcy situations, similar to what existed prior to 2002.

No other Canadian jurisdiction has a bankruptcy exception for directors’

and officers’ liability for unpaid wages.

Another change in Bill 8 adopted the recommendation made in the

B.C. Law Institute to provide some flexibility in the issuance of

mandatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with the act. This

amendment will provide authority for the director of the employment

standards to waive a monetary penalty in certain circumstances.

Currently, monetary penalties are mandatory, and there’s no authority

for the director to waive a penalty.

The circumstances in which a director may waive a penalty will

include situations like, for example: a person pays all wages owed to

the employees, as determined by the director; the contravention was not

deliberate or due to negligence; the person had a good basis for

contesting the issue that reflected an arguable

interpretation of the

legislation or a valid dispute of the facts; or other situations to be

prescribed by regulations.

The amendment addresses employers’ concern about the inflexibility

of the existing system and recognizes that while mandatory penalties are

an important incentive to support compliance with the Employment

Standards Act, in some instances it is fair or appropriate to waive the

penalty.

A small but important change will be to replace the existing

occupational title of “domestic,” which is an outdated and potentially

offensive term, with the more contemporary title “domestic worker.” The

definition of “domestic worker” will repeal the existing requirement

that domestic workers must live at the employer’s residence. This is in

response to the live-in requirement being abolished under the caregiver

streams of the federal temporary foreign worker program.

The live-in requirement was contributing greatly to the potential

for abuse and exploitation of temporary foreign workers by increasing

their dependency on employers. By repealing the requirement to live at

the employer’s residence, domestic workers will receive the full

protection of the act, whether or not they reside with their

employer.

Finally, the fourth and the last priority area that we are

recommending and proposing through this bill, but certainly not the

least, is to modernize the employment standards branch to make it easier

for both workers and employers to access the services they need. The

employment standards branch helps workers and employers understand

B.C.’s employment laws and ensures that those laws are

followed.

[3:10 p.m.]

For too long, B.C.’s workers have not received the level of

support they deserve, facing barriers accessing justice when they have

been mistreated by an employer, knowing what their rights are or how to

get help.

We’re improving how the branch delivers these services, which all

clients count on, by eliminating the self-help kit to make the complaint

process more accessible and to facilitate a worker’s access to justice;

requiring a preliminary review, followed by an investigation of all

complaints accepted by the branch; improving on the current process of

forgoing investigation in favour of speedy resolutions; and ensuring

fairness and transparency for employers and workers by providing them

the opportunity to respond to a written report on an investigation of

all complaints before a final decision is made. The director of

employment standards may also conduct a broader investigation of a

workplace if a complaint shows a systemic problem.

These amendments to improve the complaints and investigation

process at the employment standards branch, along with other operational

improvements, will be supported by a budget increase of $14 million over

the next three years. I’m especially proud that part of improving

services for workers will be doing away with the self-help kit, which

for too long has been a barrier to workers seeking help. As we implement

these improvements, the employment standards branch will become more

accessible and the complaint process more streamlined and effective for

all clients.

I’m aware that some people and some groups have been asking why

government is bringing forward these particular amendments in Bill 8 but

not other important issues that they also believe should be addressed.

For years, we have been hearing from workers and employers that the

amendments being proposed in Bill 8 are priority items that urgently

need to be addressed. These are areas that will have an immediate impact

on the well-being of workers across a wide range of industries. Further,

as I have indicated, the B.C. Law Institute’s extensive review of the

act recommended many of the changes being proposed.

We know, though, that there are many areas of concern that people

still want us to change. I can advise that further review of the

Employment Standards Act is underway to look at all the B.C. Law

Institute recommendations, as well as feedback from stakeholders and

input from our recent public engagement.

I would like to thank the B.C. Law Institute for their detailed

review and recommendations that have guided and continue to guide our

work on updating the act. The B.C. Employment Standards Coalition and

the B.C. Federation of Labour also deserve recognition for their

valuable input on this work. And I would like to thank all workers,

employers and members of the public who have taken the time to give

their input as well. Their voices have been heard, and we are working to

make life better for them.

As I said, working people are the lifeblood of this

prov­ince. When we strengthen protection for workers, we

strengthen our economy. Our government is taking steps to make life

better for people, and this includes putting in place laws that will

provide better protection and support. I’m tremendously proud to be

leading Bill 8. It is important to note that these proposed changes are

aimed at ensuring that workers’ rights are respected and are fair to the

vast majority of employers who abide by the law. As well, they are aimed

at levelling the playing field for good employers so that unscrupulous

employers don’t gain an unfair advantage.

I just want to re-emphasize this point. These changes not only are

to provide better protection for the working people in this province.

I’m talking about 70 to 74 percent of the workers in this province, most

of them very, very vulnerable. They have no protection of a union — no

other protection. Many of them don’t even know what their rights are and

how to get those rights protected. But at the same time, the vast

majority of the employers who abide by the law pay their workers

according to the law and respect their health and safety. We want to

protect them as well.

[3:15 p.m.]

We want to be on their side so that those unscrupulous few — those

who do not respect their workers’ rights, those who do not pay according

to the law — don’t have unfair economic advantage over the good

employers. That is the whole point here. We have gone for far too long

without making these changes.

Workplaces have changed since the last review took place in 1992.

We didn’t even have Google at that time. This is how far we have come.

Workplaces have changed. The needs of the workers and employers also

have changed. We have the gig economy. We have workplaces that are very

precarious. We need to look at those areas so that our laws are

reflecting and reacting to the changing world of workplaces. That’s what

these changes are all about.

I’m so proud to be part of a government…. I’m so proud to be part

of my colleagues who, I know, have been lobbying for the last at least

16 years and have been listening and bringing those issues to my

attention and to our government’s attention so that we could make

changes for the better for those people who have been waiting for so

long.

Many employers have been waiting for so long, because many of

those few bad employers were taking so much advantage of their honesty.

We want to stop that and be on the side of good employers, be on the

side of the workers, because as I said, the workers are the lifeblood of

our economy. These changes go a long way in addressing those

areas.

I am so proud to present Bill 8. I know that there are other

members who have much, much, much interest in this. I will wait, listen

and, hopefully, get full support from all members of this

House.

J. Martin: Thanks to the minister for giving an overview of the Employment

Standards Amendment Act, which I’m happy to rise and speak to this

afternoon, this being Bill 8.

There’s a lot to support in the changes being brought forward in

the bill. However, there are parts that do lack the detail and solid

definitions that one would expect from something that is potentially

going to become the law of the land. In reality, this means leaving

details out, cooking them up in the bowels of government and then

imposing them without proper debate at a future point in

time.

This is where things are a little bit disappointing, and I will

review this later in my remarks and, certainly, during third reading.

But I’ll begin by speaking to some of the changes that we do support as

the official opposition.

We certainly welcome the new protection for workers facing

difficult personal circumstances. Up to ten non-consecutive days of

unpaid leave will assist workers fleeing domestic violence or seeking

medical treatment with their situations. And the possibility of up to 15

weeks of consecutive unpaid leave will provide the time for those

escaping situations to do so without worrying about their

job.

This bill also introduces a worthwhile change by aligning the

unpaid job protection for workers taking care of critically ill family

members with EI benefits available to them: 36 weeks for a critically

ill child and 16 weeks for an adult.

We also support changes that will ensure that workers are paid

properly. The bill before us protects what most consumers expect when

they’re dining out: the tips go to the person providing the service and

not to the employer. We certainly support disallowing employers, other

than those who are doing the very same work as those in the tip pool,

from getting access to that tip pool, that revenue source.

New rules prohibiting employers from withholding tips, from

deducting amounts from the top or requiring workers to turn over their

gratuities will ensure that customers’ expectations are met. I can

certainly say that when I leave a tip, my expectation is that all or,

certainly, at least the bulk of that tip is going to the person

providing the service and not to someone who owns the particular

company.

Also in this bill, workers will get enhanced protection through

the doubling of the period during which they can recover owed wages,

from six months to a year. I totally support that. These are small

steps, and we do back them.

[3:20 p.m.]

We’re also generally supportive of the bill’s change to how worker

complaints are handled by the employment standards branch. We support a

worker’s ability to directly bring a complaint to the employment

standards branch, but we do have some concerns about how some of the

changes will actually be implemented.

It’s a bold commitment to require the director of the employment

standards branch to investigate all complaints accepted for resolution,

but this begs the question, to be explored more fully in committee

stage, of if the resources are in place to actually make this happen. We

know that investigations can be pricey, and they can be time-consuming.

They require an awful lot of work, and they need the resources in

place.

If these resources are lacking, the outcome is generally going to

result in delays to a dragged-out process that just breeds frustration

and resentment. I do look forward to the minister detailing how this

will be prevented when we get to the committee stage.

Bill 8 also provides flexibility for the employment standards

branch to waive or raise penalties. This, too, while certainly an

acceptable idea, comes with challenges that need to be addressed.

There’s nothing in the bill that indicates, for instance, how this

policy will be applied in a way that avoids unfair or haphazard

applications of increases or the waiving of penalties altogether. And

there are no clear criteria of how this will be applied — yet another

case of details to come at a later date outside of the debate in this

House.

The most troubling

section of the bill is the one bringing in

changes related to young people working. Everyone in this House,

obviously, wants young people to be safe, whether they’re at home, at

school, at their after-school job or on weekends at their part-time job.

But the problem is that these changes here stem from an all-too-typical,

Victoria-knows-best approach taken by the government, partnered with an

absence of details on how the new rules will be implemented.

The bill offers some confusion, rather than the clarity needed to

ensure that we’re protecting young workers while, at the same time, not

discouraging them or preventing them from having the ability to access

the life-changing opportunity of an after-school job or a weekend,

part-time job.

These opportunities come in many different forms. It could be as

simple as helping out and getting paid on the family farm. It could be

working the cash register at the family corner store. It could also be

the pure entrepreneurial spirit of a young person mowing lawns for

neighbours or maybe shovelling snow in the wintertime.

The legislation leaves doubt. It’s very vague about just what is,

and what is not, possible for families and for young workers. For

instance, the bill allows light work for 14- and 15-year-olds.

Bureaucrats will determine what’s considered light versus heavy work

when they get around to it. Does this simply mean that young people will

be able to babysit and maybe stock shelves? What about mowing lawns?

What about some landscaping responsibilities?

Is working in a restaurant at the cash register or busing tables

acceptable? And at what age is it acceptable? I know that often I’ll go

into a small restaurant and a child maybe as young as 12 years old will

be the one that will come and bring some tea, drop the menu off and run

errands throughout my time there as a visitor.

None of this is clearly defined. We have to seek clarification

from the minister when we do get to committee.

For those 16 to 18, there’s a restriction from doing hazardous

work, which everybody supports. But we don’t have a reference or a

description or a definition to determine what that actually constitutes.

So it’s another case of putting legislation before the House without the

pertinent details. As legislators who have been put here by our

constituents, we’re the ones that should be front and centre during this

debate. It should not be left up to bureaucrats down the road to supply

the actual

definitions of what’s constituted here.

Also lacking in this legislation: we don’t have specifics around

impacts in the agricultural sector, which is one of the areas where so

many young people — in my riding and the ridings of many other members

in this House — get their first opportunity to go to work on a part-time

basis or a summertime job. It’s one of the largest employers of young

people. It supplies opportunities for young people to work in the

summer, work in the season and gain some financial rewards.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’d like to tell the story of when I was 13. I picked berries in

Richmond virtually every day for the summer so I could buy my first

ten-speed bike. If I was 13 years old today, and this legislation

becomes law, would I be allowed to do that? That is a question that

we’re not able to answer yet because we don’t have the

definitions.

There are so many young people in my riding and other parts of the

Fraser Valley working on the family farm. They’re asking me and my

colleagues: “Can you please provide some clarity about this legislation

and what it actually means?”

When the minister launched this bill, he told the media that the

changes that he was presenting would not prevent kids from getting their

chores done as long as they’re not getting paid for them. This is a

little bit awkward because when a young person can run the family

tractor after school and they’re not getting paid, it’s okay. But if

they were to run the same tractor in the same field for pay, now all of

a sudden, it’s prohibited. We certainly need a little bit of clarity and

maybe a rethink on that one.

Farming families — really, not just in the agriculture sector and

not just farming families but any family with a business — typically

have countless advantages to having their children help out after

school, paid or otherwise. This benefits the family, and it certainly

benefits the young person, who gets the on-the-job training learning

about a work ethic.

They’re developing skill sets that they might not otherwise get.

They’re certainly getting a sense of pride and accomplishment. They

might learn how a business works. They’re dealing with some of the

practical applications of what they’re learning in school, building some

strength, building some character, testing responsibility.

Of course, we all agree young workers deserve special protection.

They deserve a chance to work if they can and if they want to. But the

legislation fails to recognize that many teens are mature enough at

their age and are more than capable of handling themselves appropriately

and safely in certain circumstances. It would be helpful for us, as

legislators, to be able to define what those circumstances

are.

We all know kids who — I mean, let’s face it — probably shouldn’t

even be around anything related to a job site. They’re not ready.

They’re too careless. They don’t have the attention span. Certainly, we

want to make sure that young people are not put in a position where

there could be an accident or something could go wrong.

This legislation is imposing very vague, very nondescript

restrictions based on chronological age and completely discounting the

discretion of parents of those aged 14 to 18. I mean, I know that some

people will disagree with me, but parents know much better than

bureaucrats and elected officials how mature their child is, what

responsibilities they can take on and what type of workload is going to

be appropriate for them at that point in their life.

I’m not too convinced that Victoria knows best. And bureaucrats

who maybe have never, ever, ever worked an hour outside of being in

what work a young person may or may not be involved in. It’s not

encouraging.

Perhaps Victoria may want to look to some other jurisdictions for

ways to bring some clarity, to bring some specifics, to the restrictions

we want to impose. For instance, in Ontario, 14-year-olds can work in

offices, stores, arenas, restaurant serving areas and a multitude of

other venues. At 15, they can work in most factory settings, including

restaurant kitchens and automotive service garages, produce and meat

preparation or shipping and receiving areas in grocery stores, laundries

and warehouses.

These kinds of regulations are specific, and everyone knows the

rules because they are more specific than some general term such as

“light work” or “hazardous work.” Let’s just give the

definitions some

clarity so we all know what the ground rules are and we can all abide

accordingly.

In Manitoba, young people, 13, 14, and 15 years of age, cannot

work on a construction site, which makes perfect sense; in industrial or

manufacturing processes; in pruning, repairing, maintaining or removing

trees or shrubs; or at heights more than 1.5 metres.

[3:30 p.m.]

That is specific. That is laying out exactly what work a young

person, 13 years of age, can and cannot do. And it would be helpful if

the government in British Columbia was as thoughtful as the one in

Manitoba about giving that clarity and specificity to the

legislation.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

In Manitoba, those 13-year-olds can still work in food preparation

areas doing tasks such as washing dishes, mixing salads, filling drink

orders and a variety of other chores in the kitchen area. This isn’t an

exhaustive list. We don’t need to go into that, but it’s an example of

how other jurisdictions have brought about specific situations where a

young person may or may not work in a particular facility. It ensures

that the legislation works for families, for young people and for

safety. It would be nice to be doing likewise in British

Columbia.

I think back to, probably, everywhere from, like, grades 8, 9, 10,

11 and 12, kind of those ages, 13, 14 — and up to when you graduate, 17,

18, somewhere around there. I think about all the people that were

working at gas stations and would pump gas. They would change your oil

and check your tires. Would they be allowed to do that? I know one

buddy, Larry. He was doing that when he was 14 years old. He was

probably the first one of us in my peer group that was able, a few years

later, to purchase his first slightly used vehicle. He did that by

pumping gas. Would he be allowed to do that today?

What about young people that work in the orchards in the Okanagan,

where they’ve been doing it for generations? Will they be allowed to

continue doing that and learning a little bit about earning a paycheque,

seeing some of the taxes that get taken away, maintaining a budget and a

savings account, getting some economic experience as well as the work

experience?

I do look forward to canvassing these specifics as we move forward

to the committee stage, as this session slowly winds up. I hope that

coming through this at the end, we can ensure that the legislation

protects young workers, protects them every step of the way, without

denying them or their families the kind of life-changing opportunity

that after-school work can bring. I know so many of my colleagues in

this House benefited from that experience, and I hope we’re not about to

deny this generation the opportunity to do likewise.

A. Weaver: It gives me great 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 that 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.

[3:35 p.m.]

The bill also modernizes the employment standards branch complaint

resolution process and ensures that 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. 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

definitions of “light work” and “hazardous” work, of course,

have 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.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Speaker, I believe the House Leader for the government needs

to make a brief interjection. 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 on 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

(continued)

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 from Chilliwack. We’ve heard,

as the member from 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

is 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 be exploring this in committee stage. Well, I’m hoping I’ll

be able to explore this in 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’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.

[3:45 p.m.]

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 after

our children were born, my wife, sadly, spent an awful long time in

hospital — 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

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.

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 wasn’t 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 we

have.

To give some 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 him

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.

[3:50 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

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. 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. Anyway, 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 reasonably sufficient proof that they are

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 are subject to domestic violence. In this

spirit, obviously, I and my colleagues support this.

To give some background, the Parliamentary Secretary on Gender

Equity…. She cannot be here now because, I understand — I shouldn’t be

commenting on this — 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.

[3:55 p.m.]

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 — before they’re 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