Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 257

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

M. Morris

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

S. Chandra Herbert

S. Cadieux

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Furstenau

M. Dean

R. Leonard

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Financial Services Authority Act, 2019

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

R. Leonard

A. Weaver

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

G. Kyllo

S. Furstenau

R. Coleman

Hon. S. Simpson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 23 — Land Owner Transparency Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

Hon. S. Simpson

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

A. Olsen

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. H. Bains

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 32 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2019

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2019

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

S. Thomson

I. Paton

L. Larson

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 26 — Financial Services Authority Act, 2019 (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Bill 23 — Land Owner Transparency Act

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Bill 24 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

A. Weaver

M. Lee

Hon. C. James

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

L. Reid

Hon. A. Dix

T. Shypitka

J. Thornthwaite

D. Barnett

S. Bond

M. Bernier

T. Redies

D. Clovechok

D. Davies

S. Gibson

J. Johal

T. Stone

C. Oakes

I. Paton

T. Wat

J. Rustad

M. Stilwell

G. Kyllo

R. Sultan

J. Tegart

J. Sturdy

J. Yap

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2019

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

M. Morris: Chair, I wish to withdraw my comments from April 29.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. I just might note, Member, that I have always

known you to be a very, very honourable person. I know that the Attorney

General thinks the same way, and I want to thank you for your

reflection.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, second reading on Bill M206, Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Bill 26, the

Financial Services Authority Act. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call the

continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Health.

Just to remind people, in Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, that is committee

stage on Bill 26.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL M206 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to resume my place in the debate of the legislation brought

forward by my colleague from Oak Bay, the amendments to the Residential

Tenancy Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

These amendments make it so that currently, if you and your

partner are in an abusive relationship and one of you needs to get out

of that relationship, potentially breaking a lease, you’re not going to

be held to pay the entire lease and be stuck in that location. That’s

the way the legislation is currently, and I think it’s a good thing to

have.

When that amendment was made, a number of us argued that such

protection should also be extended to…. Maybe it’s a neighbour who has

been abusive. Maybe it’s the landlord, a building manager. Maybe it’s a

roommate. There are a number of situations now, particularly as housing

is so unaffordable for many people, where you have multiple people

sharing a house. So I think the amendment puts in place a situation

where, if you are stuck in that sort of abusive, violent relationship

with an occupant of the same home or a building that you’re living in,

you can leave that situation. You’re not stuck.

I think one of the things that often, I’m told, keeps people

trapped in these relationships is (1) they have no money to be able to

go out and seek other housing and (2) they don’t have the money to be

able to pay two rents. So paying the rent for the home you’re leaving,

the abusive situation, where you’re having to leave from somebody who

has made it unsafe and untenable for you to be there…. You don’t have

the money to pay for both, and you’re just stuck in a horrible

situation.

[1:35 p.m.]

I know that constituents of mine have raised issues where they’ve

been in situations that they want to be able to leave but feel that they

can’t for reasons of finances, for reasons of being able to get a new

place. If you break a lease, sometimes that gets you a bad name, and

then you don’t have the reference to be able to move into other

housing.

I want to thank the member for bringing this forward. It’s a good

amendment. I think it will make people’s lives a bit better in

situations that can be absolutely horrendous. No question.

Obviously, we as a legislature have a duty and we as a society

have a duty to be doing more to reduce violence and to help people

figure their way through situations without the harassment, the abuse

and the kinds of things that people too often are subjected to. Also,

unfortunately, some people have only learned that way because of growing

up in abusive households as well.

We have a duty to educate. We have a duty to enforce the law to

make sure that people realize that there is no excuse. There’s no “get

out of jail free” card, so to speak, for abusing a partner.

We do need to create a situation where the victims have a chance

to escape that violence too. It’s not enough to just focus on the

perpetrator. We also need to be looking to make sure that the people

stuck in these situations have a clearer pathway to freedom, a clearer

pathway to a better life and a clearer pathway to get away from that

violence so they can rebuild their lives.

Thank you to the minister, who I understand will be speaking later

on this. I want to thank her for her work to improve the Residential

Tenancy Act in general. This is a very specific amendment which will

help a very specific group of people, but the minister, I know, has been

looking to the bigger sequence of rental housing and everyone involved.

We’ve been able to make great changes together to help renters, and I

think this is yet another in what will be a long, long, long list of

changes that have improved lives for renters and, actually, improved

lives for landlords as well.

I thank the member for raising this. I thank the minister for her

work and the House for, hopefully, supporting this

legislation.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place and speak to Bill M206, the

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.

If we go back a few years, as the member from Oak Bay stated

during his opening statement today on the bill, the former government

passed an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act to allow tenants that

were fleeing family violence to end their fixed-term tenancy early. That

was, I think, a good step and a good change.

At that time, it wasn’t…. Despite requests and the urging of the

anti-violence sector, the measure wasn’t extended to victims of sexual

assault or other forms of violence. I think, perhaps, that was an

oversight, and I think that it is time that this amendment be made, this

adjustment to the act. The reality is that most sexual assault takes

place at a home. Therefore, for those victims, home never feels safe

again.

This amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act that was made in

2015 essentially, then, created a hierarchy of victims, supporting one

over another. I don’t believe that was the intent at all, but I do

believe it was the result.

The B.C. Greens have introduced an amendment — I believe this is

now twice they’ve introduced this bill — to right the wrong, adding

sexual assault, as it ends up in the bill, under the definition of

“occupant violence” to extend the opportunity for victims to end a

fixed-term lease early so that they can feel safe in their home, which I

think is immensely important.

We know that 40 percent of women in Canada have been sexually

assaulted. We know that less than 8 percent of women typically report

that assault to the police. We know, therefore, the numbers that are

reflected in our crime statistics are not always reflective of the

actual circumstances.

[1:40 p.m.]

A lot of women still suffer in silence. We know that those victims

suffer a multitude of issues stemming from that trauma: not feeling

safe, not trusting, difficulty concentrating, difficulty maintaining

their employment. They may have physical scars as well and need medical

treatment — all of this while dealing with the fact that they have been

violated and there is a fear that sits with them, in many cases,

forevermore.

Not feeling safe at home shouldn’t be one of those things, and the

ability, financially, to not leave a circumstance should not be a

burden. So I would say, ultimately, that we support this change. We

support the idea that tenants should have the right to end a tenancy to

escape violence and abuse. While we do that, I think it’s also important

that we are cautious and that we ask all the right questions in moving

forward with such an amendment. So there are, I think, things to

consider when we add something this significant to the bill.

We need to think about…. Are there appropriate administrative

supports for those who are going to seek what will be a legal option to

end a lease? Has that been considered? What will that look like? I think

that we’ll want to seek, perhaps, some clarity at committee stage on how

the rules will apply practically. How have they applied practically with

the amendment that was made in 2015 for victims of domestic violence?

What supports will accompany the legislation to ensure that people can,

in fact, take advantage of this should they have a requirement to do so,

and do so, again, safely and without adding additional

burden?

I think that’s really important when we’re talking about doing the

right thing for victims, the right thing for women, who are most usually

the larger proportion of victims in this circumstance. But as the

definition of occupant violence is quite broad, there may be other

circumstances that expand who might be eligible and who might choose to

use this. I think we should take that seriously and think about what the

consequences are and what the costs associated with this are. Are, in

fact, those supports available to people through a mechanism that is

readily available and that people are going to be aware of?

It would seem unfortunate if we were to make a change to assist

people only for them not to know that that change exists and that they

could, in fact, take advantage of it, should they need to. I think

that’s important, and we’ll have some questions at committee stage

related to that, certainly.

On the whole, I am supportive of the amendment and the bill that’s

before us, brought forward by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I

appreciate that he has done so.

Hon. S. Robinson: I rise in the House today to support Bill M206, the Residential

Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.

Everyone should feel safe in their home. If you’re not safe in

your home, then it’s not a home. This piece of legislation before us is

an example of an issue that everyone…. Regardless of which side of the

House they sit on, I know that all members care deeply about

this.

Currently under the Residential Tenancy Act, a renter can end a

fixed-term tenancy if they are at risk of family violence or have been

admitted into long-term care. For women who are trying to leave an

abusive relationship, we know that this is the most vulnerable time for

a woman, especially for a woman with children. It is when they are most

at risk of harm. It is when there is the greatest risk for fatality. It

is when she decides to leave an abusive relationship.

[1:45 p.m.]

That’s the time when we need to be doing our utmost to help these

vulnerable women. So that currently exists, but I do want to take a

moment to express gratitude and appreciation for the Leader of the Third

Party, because this bill would expand upon those provisions for people

who experience physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse from a

non-family member. So it’s others. We know that violence can occur

outside of a family situation — or the risk of vio­lence — and a

sense of personal safety could be threat­ened by

others.

This bill serves to address that. This amendment serves to address

those sorts of situations. What it would do…. It would allow renters to

end their fixed-term tenancy if staying in their rental unit is at the

risk of their security, for their safety or for their physical

well-being. It would expand the current provisions to address violence

against roommates or their dependents. We know that under the current

living situations, people are taking on more roommates. It’s part of how

people are getting through a housing crisis, a crisis that ran rampant

for a number of years. So in order to make ends meet, people are taking

in roommates. That can create a bit of extra risk.

I appreciate the fact that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is

paying particular attention to that particular issue. Now, this bill, I

have to say, aligns with government’s commitment to take a stand against

violence, to strengthen protection for vulnerable people here in British

Columbia. I also want to thank West Coast LEAF and the Ending Violence

Association of B.C. for their work on this bill. I know that, as

stakeholders, they were consulted, and this was some of the work that

they’d put forward.

I also want to thank them, those particular groups, for the

opportunity to suggest further ways to strengthen the Residential

Tenancy Act so that we have further protections for renters in British

Columbia. When we’re all living through a situation where there’s a

near-zero vacancy rate, it’s really important that we find ways to make

sure that people are safe in their tenancies and that they have a real

sense of security — not just of tenancy but of their personal safety,

which is critically important. So I’m really pleased to support these

amendments. I know our government is very pleased to support these

amendments brought forward by the member.

I also want to take this opportunity, hon. Speaker, to thank

several other members who’ve done significant work around residential

tenancy in general. In particular, I’d like to thank the member for

Vancouver–West End, the member for Courtenay-Comox and the member for

Saanich North and the Islands.

These three members toured the province and really listened,

listened really well, to what tenants and landlords were saying about

the important relationship between landlords and tenants and where those

relationships were breaking down, making some recommendations about how

we fix that and how we identify ways to make sure that that relationship

is working as best it can, because they’re in an interdependent

relationship. Renters need landlords, and landlords need renters.

Together, there’s real opportunity to have a good life for

everybody.

They went around and listened to people right across the province

and made 25 recommendations. I’m proud we’re addressing all of those so

that we can make this relationship work better. We’re going to continue

to identify ways to make this relationship work as best it

can.

Now, I heard from…. The previous member had talked about, was

querying and will bring up at committee stage the administrative support

for this. I’m very proud of our government’s investment. When we got

this ministry, one of the first things we did was infuse significant

resources into the residential tenancy branch, which was completely

under-resourced. We brought forward $7 million, and with that, we’ve

hired a significant number of information officers as well as an

enforcement and compliance unit. Through these information officers,

we’ve reduced wait times on every single front at the residential

tenancy branch.

These information officers are tasked with making sure that

everyone understands the rules. In this case, I want to assure the

member that these information officers will absolutely be available to

make sure that everybody understands what the opportunities are to

enhance their safety, making sure that should this bill come to

fruition, there is a way to make themselves safe. They can leave their

fixed-term tenancy. That’s because we made sure that there are people to

help others navigate what can often be complex legislation.

[1:50 p.m.]

With that, I look forward to hearing others participate in the

debate.

S. Furstenau: I’m also grateful and proud to be speaking to the second reading

of this Green caucus private member’s bill, the Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2019.

As noted by my colleague, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, this

amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability

to end their fixed-term lease if staying in their rental unit is a

threat to their safety or security. It expands on the family violence

provisions that currently exist for victims of domestic abuse to

include, for example, someone who is sexually assaulted by their

roommate or neighbour so that they also have the right to break their

lease so they can move to a safer home.

The 2015 addition of family violence to the Residential Tenancy

Act was an important amendment made by the B.C. Liberals, and they did a

great job of drafting the supporting regulations. As noted at its

introduction by members from all parties, however, by focusing

specifically on family violence, others were left out.

Family violence describes violence inflicted on those in

relationships or living within a family unit. While vitally important to

protect anyone who might be in that situation — family violence makes up

approximately 25 percent of all reported crimes in Canada — we must also

ensure we correct the unintentional hierarchy of victims’ rights that

was created.

Other forms of household violence remain prevalent in B.C. and

disproportionately impact marginalized communities. The Ending Violence

Association of B.C. estimates there are approximately 60,000 incidents

of sexual and domestic violence in British Columbia each year — over

1,000 cases a week. In the majority of cases, that violence happens in

the home.

Regardless of who the perpetrator is, whether your husband or your

neighbour, you should have the right to break your fixed-term lease and

seek safety. Based on comments made during the 2015 debate, I’m sure all

members will agree, and I’m glad our office could be of service in

moving this forward. Although simple in its structure, this bill will

have a significant impact on the people who need it.

When I was 20 years old, I moved to Victoria. I didn’t know

anybody here. I used the newspaper classified ads to look for a roommate

situation because I couldn’t afford an apartment by myself. I did indeed

find an apartment and had come out with my brother before moving here,

and we interviewed the roommate, who seemed like a very nice person. He

worked as a youth worker. It was a two-bedroom apartment.

For the first month or so, everything was just fine. Then about

two months into the rental arrangement, I woke up in the middle of the

night, and this person was in my room. I no longer felt safe in my home,

and I needed very quickly to find a way to get into a new home where I

would feel safe. Fortunately, I had the support of family to provide me

with the resources that I needed to be able to pay what I needed to get

out of that lease and to find a new place to live where I could feel

safe and secure. So I have a very personal experience with a situation

like this. While nothing happened, I certainly lost a sense of security

in my home, and a home is not a home if you cannot feel safe and secure

there.

For people who are assaulted in their home, the implications of

that shift from a home to the scene of a crime are profound. A space

that was once a comfort can come to feel haunted with flashbacks of the

crime and visions of the perpetrator lurking and quick to surface.

Worst-case scenario is fraught with risk of a repeated assault or death;

best case is filled with nightmares and panic attacks. Some victims are

able to reclaim their space, but many others will need to move to start

again. At the very least, they deserve the right to choose which option

is best for them.

I’m proud to be supporting a bill that will give survivors the

freedom to seek safety, security and the space needed to heal. No one

should be forced to live in close proximity with their perpetrator, and

this bill supports survivors.

M. Dean: I am very proud to rise and speak in support of this amendment,

Bill M206. I thank the leader of the Green Party for moving the

amendment.

[1:55 p.m.]

What the bill does is it amends the Residential Tenancy Act. It

provides tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if

staying in their rental unit is a threat to their safety or their

security. It gives, for example, someone who’s sexually assaulted by

their landlord or their neighbour the right to break their lease so that

they can move somewhere safe.

Before I speak in more detail about the amendment, I do want to

say thank you, in particular, to the organizations that have helped us

move towards this positive amendment as well. In particular, West Coast

LEAF and the Ending Violence Association of B.C. Because of their work,

because of their ongoing research, because of their ongoing connection

with stakeholders and understanding of issues related to interpersonal

violence, sexual assault and sexual violence, we’re able to actually

really have a good basis of evidence and proposals and solutions to be

able to move forward on as legislators.

Even LandlordBC was also contacted and expressed support for the

policy. And I’m hearing, in general, support in this House for this

amendment.

Ultimately, no one should have to choose between shelter and

safety. Nobody should feel that they have to stay in a vulnerable,

revictimized, targeted or exploitative situation just because of a

financial impact. Anyone can be a victim of abuse. We have to recognize,

as well, though, that particular populations are targeted more to be

abused.

Violence and sexual assault occur close to home. Everyone is

entitled to feel safe in their own home, yet we also know that the home

is the most dangerous place for women. It’s where women do experience

violence. They do experience sexual assaults. Across their lifetime, the

majority of women will experience some kind of sexual or physical

violence.

What we need to do here, in our duties and our roles in this

House, is to be able to create choices, to create protections, to

identify vulnerabilities and to be able to make sure that we can offer

alternatives so that people aren’t revictimized and

re-traumatized.

Victims of violence and sexual assault are already struggling with

the harmful impacts of those experiences. They’re often struggling with

post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. And being in close proximity

with someone who has abused you can cause you increased anxiety, lower

functionality. It can be retriggering, make you more vulnerable, make

you feel less confident. It could potentially impact lots of areas of

your development and your self-esteem.

When making decisions about what pathways might be available after

having been assaulted, people should be empowered to be able to make

healthy choices. They shouldn’t be tied to financial dependency. That

increases the risk of revictimization and exploitation.

This amendment provides that opportunity. In fact, we know in

cases of domestic violence, for example, that risk of injury or death

actually increases if a violent partner learns that their spouse has

contacted the police or is planning on leaving. So we have to offer very

safe routes and options for people to be able to make safe

choices.

This is the moment when we need to use the powers that we have in

these chambers to ensure that we offer protective opportunities. This

amendment offers renters the opportunity to cancel their long-term lease

without penalty when their safety is at risk. It offers them a healthier

and safer choice.

I’ll give you an example, hon. Speaker, as well, when you look at

the affordability crisis and the housing crisis in our province.

Recently people have actually been taking in roommates and may be living

in closer proximity with people, and more and more British Columbians

are doing this. Yet that can also increase the risk, because people can

be targeted. People see adverts for sharing a room and becoming a

roommate with someone else. That’s where there can actually be an

increase in risk because some people will target vulnerable people and

people who are clearly vulnerable because they need some support and

some help in paying the rent for where they want to live.

[2:00 p.m.]

Anyone could be a target for sexual assault in their building. For

example, there are over 1,000 incidents of sexual assault a week. And

anyone abused would be at risk close to their home and vulnerable and

not feel safe in their home if they had been abused close to their

home.

There’s also a

section that aims to make it explicitly clear that

the regulations listing which professionals and practitioners are

authorized to provide a confirmation have the same powers in cases

involving household violence. The written third-party verification can

be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First

Nations support workers, victim support workers, among

others.

Having regulations that extend verification powers beyond law

enforcement is vital, because not all survivors will be able or will be

willing to report to the police. We know most abuse is not reported when

it happens, so verification shouldn’t be reliant on police professionals

or even on having reported to the police.

I’d like to take this opportunity to reinforce the work that our

government is doing to empower women to reduce violence and to create

safer communities. We’ve increased funding for services supporting

people experiencing inter-partner violence. We’ve been investing in

modern sexual assault centre services. So my support for this amendment

is reinforcing our commitment to actually creating safer communities in

British Columbia.

Again, to conclude, I’d like to thank the Ending Violence

Association of B.C.; West Coast LEAF; the Leader of the Green Party; the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who has been listening to

people from British Columbia and who has opened her mind to ways that we

can improve the Residential Tenancy Act; and the member for

Vancouver–West End, as well, who has advocated strongly and supports

this amendment too. I’m very proud to support this amendment.

R. Leonard: I wanted to rise in support of the amendment to the bill. Having

sat on the Rental Housing Task Force, it was a very interesting

experience to go around the whole province and listen to people who are

renters and people who are landlords and the various concerns that they

had. The amount of information that we got and the issues that people

raised were myriad. But interestingly, we didn’t hear a lot about this

very issue around violence and safety in the home.

That’s not unexpected, really. As the previous speaker just said,

this is something that’s kept secret. This is something that’s kept

hidden. This is an issue around how people try to live their lives in

the best circumstance that they can. We have this opportunity to help

victims of violence to find a way forward.

I move adjournment of the debate.

R. Leonard moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — FINANCIAL SERVICES

AUTHORITY ACT,

Bill 26, Financial Services Authority Act, 2019, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, committee on Bill 23,

Land Owner Transparency Act. In this chamber, I call continued second

reading debate on Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL M206 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

R. Leonard: I’ll try to return to where I was. We want to return to the fact

that we are dealing with a matter that is of concern but is not often

brought to the surface, and that’s around the safety in the

home.

This is an opportunity for us to focus on that and provide that

avenue for people to seek the help that they need without fear. They’ve

already got enough fear in their lives, so this is a great opportunity

for us to move the dial for safety, particularly for women and children

but for others who are experiencing violence in the home. It’s a place

where we should feel safe and secure. We have enough stresses in life.

It’s a pretty exciting time.

I wanted to just make mention of a couple of the things that are

going on with the residential tenancy branch with the recommendations

from the Rental Housing Task Force, which will have something to bear on

this particular initiative. That’s around public education.

When people have issues and those issues grow and grow, and the

number of people that have them grow and grow, then that makes our

ability to regulate, to have the responsibility to adjudicate that much

harder, and so many more resources are required. But our government has

taken the time and put the resources in to make sure that we are looking

at people’s concerns more quickly — reducing the wait times from

45-minute phone calls to five minutes. They’re working very hard to

streamline the ability for people to get information, and they’re doing

the outreach, too, so that people understand what their rights and

responsibilities are.

That’s going to be a step after this amendment, after this bill

passes. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean that people know that they

have that access to help. So I’m pretty excited to see that we’ve taken

some other steps that are going to be supportive.

The other aspect of it…. A few years ago, when housing first was

coming on stream big time…. This is providing supportive housing to

folks who are having trouble with substance use, mental health

challenges, providing them housing first with the wraparound supports.

There was a real emphasis on scattered housing so that people could live

out in their communities.

After a year or two, the reports were coming back from some of the

helping organizations like transition houses. I can’t remember exactly

which one it was, but the CMHC did a report on it, saying how women were

put into places where they were more vulnerable, where landlords —

what’s the word — who were less than honourable, could leverage their

power as landlords over some more vulnerable people.

This particular amendment helps to deal with beyond the violence

that can come within a domestic situation. It can take into account

others who might perpetrate violence against women in whatever form it

takes.

We also have the first actions from our Rental Housing Task Force

around investigation and enforcement. I can see that we have all of

these tools that are starting to fall into place to give people the

security that they need as tenants and, at the same time, providing the

balance so that the landlords will continue to provide supply and we

continue to grow our affordable housing stock.

I just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to speak on

this, and I look forward to the vote.

[2:10 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Leader of the Third Party will

close the debate.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you to the members who spoke

and rose in support of this bill, in particular the member for

Courtenay-Comox, who just finished; prior to that, the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin, who’s the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender

Equity; the member for Cowichan Valley; the member for Surrey South; the

Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. I heard all of the comments

that were raised — the member for Vancouver–West End, of course — and

the comments that were raised showed a remarkable agreement.

This is done in the spirit of non-partisanship, in the spirit of

trying to build upon the good work that was done in 2015, when the

previous government introduced protections for people seeking to flee

from domestic violence. The member for Surrey South built upon that, and

we’ll be debating some changes, hopefully, at some point, in an

amendment in the Employment Standards Act as well.

With that, I move second reading of Bill M206.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 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. B. Ralston: Acting at the moment as Government House Leader, I’m calling, in

this chamber, second reading debate of Bill 30, Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act, 2019.

Deputy Speaker: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:12 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Resuming adjourned debate on Bill 30, Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act, 2019.

J. Thornthwaite: I’ve just got a few remarks on Bill 30, Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act. I’d like to concur with our colleague here on the other

side, the member for Chilliwack, who spoke on the bill. He’s our critic

for Labour. These employment rules need to be balanced. They need to

have a fair playing field for both employees and employers. Any abuse or

intimidation on either side can’t be tolerated.

We’ve already seen, with legislation that has gone through with

regard to the community benefits agreement and the low-wage redress,

that there is an emphasis now on unionizing employees or even to force

people to join a union, even if somebody doesn’t want to join a union.

This bill also lacks specific details. Again, I’ll reiterate the

concerns that our critic had with regard to leaving a lot of these

details to regulation.

There are industries that are concerned — namely, the construction

industry. I thought I would just read out an email that I got from one

of my constituents, who is a businessman. Apparently, this letter has

been going around courtesy of many of the chambers of commerce. Many of

the businesses in British Columbia are very concerned about this

bill.

I’d like to just read into the record, on behalf of my

constituent, what his main concerns were. They are related to the sick

leave and statutory holiday pay. “Businesses like mine have been facing

mounting costs over the last two years. Increases in the minimum wage,

the new employer health tax and other business costs are stunting growth

and reducing businesses’ capacity for investment in our local community.

Further costs to businesses resulting from gratuitous sick leave and

statutory holiday pay laws would only serve to reinforce these negative

trends.”

[2:20 p.m.]

He goes on to say, with regard to the B.C. Law Institute’s

Employment Standards Act reform project, that the cost associated with

the change to ten paid sick leaves is extremely worrying to employers

like himself. This would not only go well beyond the standard across

Canadian jurisdictions, but could also discourage employers from hiring

additional workers and instead opt for contract arrangements. To that

end, he firmly supports the current sick leave policy and asks that it

remain unchanged or similar to its current incarnation.

He also wants to express his opposition to the recommendation by

the committee to relax the eligibility requirements for statutory

holiday pay. The new law would only require employees to work or earn

wages on 16 of the 60 days preceding a statutory holiday to be eligible

for statutory holiday pay, as opposed to 15 of the 30 days preceding

statutory holidays that is in place currently.

Finally, he says: “Statutory holidays and paid sick leave are

expensive for employers. To improve B.C.’s investment and business

climate, a proper balance between promoting employee welfare and

reducing business costs is crucial. When businesses do not thrive and

are faced with cutting labour costs, the employees are the first to feel

it. I urge you to consider the above input so that businesses in B.C.

can continue to drive our economy forward with strength.” And he signs

his name.

Thank you very much for allowing me to read that into the record.

I wanted the minister to hear those comments from my

constituent.

G. Kyllo: It’s always a privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf

of the hard-working constituents of Shuswap, specifically talking about

Bill 30, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act.

I rise today to speak to Bill 30, the Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act. All of us in this House certainly support workers’

rights, the ability and the right of workers to come together and to

associate and to bargain. It’s a fundamental value of our society. On

this side of the House, we just want to be certain that the rules that

are set around the labour code are right, are fair and are

balanced.

The rights of workers to unionize as well as the rights of

employers to inform workers about the impacts unionization could have on

the workplace need to be balanced. I certainly — and I think all members

would — agree that workers have the right to associate, but workers

should also have the right to choose not to associate, should they

choose.

Now, there are a number of pieces to Bill 30 that I think should

be of concern to British Columbians. There are specific items with

respect to workers’ rights to come together, to associate, the

fundamental values of our society, the need for fair and balanced rules

to associate and to provide the opportunity both for workers as well as

employers, in order to ensure that fairness is always at the forefront

and that that fair playing field is available for all.

Now, one of the concerns, I think, that we certainly have with

respect to fairness…. If we have a look at some of the current

undertakings or initiatives by the current government when it comes to

fairness in the workplace, one example where I feel that the government

is failing British Columbians when it comes to fairness is around the

community benefits agreement. This is something that British Columbians

should be very concerned about. As I mentioned earlier, I think that

British Columbians…. Our Charter sets out the right for workers to

associate, but also there should be the ability and the opportunity for

workers to choose not to associate.

What the government has done with the community benefits agreement

is establish a new Crown corporation that will be the employer for all

workers that are working on the Highway 1 improvement projects from

Kamloops to the Alberta border. This takes away the rights of workers to

choose not to associate and, more specifically, sets out 19 select,

handpicked unions by which any worker working on a construction site on

Trans-Canada Highway 1 for a period of more than two weeks would

actually be required and be forced to join one of the government’s

handpicked unions.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s no secret that those unions that have been identified are all

well-known contributors and supporters of the previous government. There

are specific unions that have been excluded from that opportunity to

actually participate on these highway projects.

These projects are very important to British Columbians. A number

of projects are going to be undertaken in my riding of Shuswap. Some of

these projects were announced back in 2015, others more recently, in

2017. I think that British Columbians should all have the right to

choose whether they can actually work on these very important highway

projects that are in such high need right across our province. But,

unfortunately, the current government is taking away the right of those

workers to choose either not to associate or to choose to associate with

a different trade union.

One specific trade union is the Christian Labour Association of

Canada, otherwise known as CLAC. This organization represents literally

tens of thousands of workers across Canada. They provide great training

opportunities for their workers. Unfortunately, the current government

has decided that CLAC is not one of the unions that would actually be

included, and workers would not have the opportunity to actually

participate with unionization of CLAC on any of these highway

construction projects.

When we look at a fair and balanced approach, the current bill

before the House does not provide fairness or balance when it comes to

the government’s high-handed approach of actually forcing private sector

companies to join one of these 19 select, handpicked unions. It also

comes down to the opportunity, I think, for private sector companies to

participate on these projects.

Now, government will share that private sector companies that are

non-unionized have the opportunity to bid on these projects, but here, I

think, is the piece that the government is failing to share with British

Columbians. That is, if you have a construction company with 100

workers, and they currently are not associated with any union in the

province — that’s a choice both of the company and of the workers — and

if that company chooses to actually bid on one of these Highway 1

construction projects, the government is taking away their fundamental

right of choice, the choice to choose not to associate.

They’re going to force that company to take all of their workers

and force them to join one of the 19 select unions that the government

has identified. Again, they’re just select unions. It’s not all unions

in the province.

The real challenging factor is that for this company with 100

employees, they cannot guarantee work for all of their 100 employees

because the hiring practices are such that when the project actually

commences, the company can bring their senior management. They can

appoint them. They also have the ability, then, to select off of a union

list, which their employees would sit on, along with many other union

members. They would be able to choose one member of their liking from

that list, which I’m assuming would be one of the company’s former

employees. Then they’ll have to take an employee off the

list.

Let’s just think for a second about the mechanics of this. A

company, a private sector contractor, that’s bidding on a project…. One

of the most fundamental aspects of developing and issuing a quotation on

a project is understanding the productivity and the safety record of

your workers. But under this scenario that the government has actually

forced upon British Columbians, the company does not have the guarantee

of taking their full 100 employees.

Of their 100 employees, let’s assume they take all their

management and supervisory staff. Then they’re picking one of their

employees, and then one off of the union list. Let’s say they end up

with only 60 of their 100 workers actually working as part of their

crew. So 40 workers — they have no understanding of their productivity,

their previous safety records. And 40 of their employees are now going

to be sitting on a union list waiting for yet another project and hoping

that they get called.

[2:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

This is absolutely so fundamentally wrong, where government’s

high-handed approach is actually forcing private sector companies to

join specific unions, unions that have actually supported and made

financial contributions to the current government. They’re also

precluding the opportunity for this company, or a company, to provide

work and employment for up to 40 percent of their crew.

When we talk about fundamental rights of workers, fairness and

balance, I do not see anything in this bill that in any way approaches

or in any way addresses the high-handed approach, by this current

government, that they’re undertaking with respect to Highway 1

construction projects. It’s absolutely offensive. Let’s flip this on its

ear. Let’s just think for a minute. Could you imagine a government

making a determination, for any publicly funded Highway 1 construction

project, that any union organizations are unable to actually work on the

jobsite?

It’s outrageous. People would be rioting in the street if a

government took such a high-handed approach and actually took away the

right for workers to associate or to choose to associate. But this

government is actually doing the exact same thing, on the flip side of

the coin, by taking away workers’ rights to have a choice, to choose

either not to associate or to choose to associate with a different trade

union — a trade union that may not have been necessarily so supportive

of this previous government.

At the same time, we also have to look at the disrespect to the

taxpayer. Government cannot give to one anything that it doesn’t first

take from somebody else. It’s not government dollars; these are

citizens’ dollars. These are dollars of taxpayers across British

Columbia. By the Transportation Minister’s own admission…. Last fall she

advised British Columbians that in her estimation, CBA requirements will

add between 4 and 7 percent in cost to projects in B.C., yet we know

it’s going to be significantly more than that.

If we go back to the 1990s, the Island Highway construction

project was also undertaken under a similar community benefits agreement

— a project labour agreement, as it was referred to in those days. The

project was 27½ percent over budget. So it’s interesting that we see

Bill 30 brought before the House for debate. It speaks of many changes —

some of which I support — but the most important, fundamental piece of

Bill 30 is the need for fairness and a balanced approach. We are not

seeing that, because the government’s own actions, with respect to CBA

agreements, are not reflected in this bill and, I believe, are

offensive.

Yet another example: 17,000 community care workers in our

province. Workers should be treated equally. Workers should have the

right to not be discriminated against, yet what have we seen? Recent

announcements by the government with respect to wage redress are now

creating further disparity in the wages between private sector employees

and unionized employees that are providing exactly the same level of

care, exactly the same level of work, yet this government has

discriminated against the private sector employees by providing a

significant wage increase only to the unionized employees.

I have no way of understanding how the government can, in any way,

justify the discrimination, the mistreatment and the disparity that

they’re creating between classifications of worker by providing

increased wage increases to the unionized sector and a reduced level of

increase to the private sector workers. In addition to that, the

government recently announced that they’ve chosen to move 4,000 private

home support workers — 4,000 workers. They are not going to renew the

existing contracts with the private care providers.

[2:35 p.m.]

They are going to force those 4,000 workers…. They’re not going to

have a choice. They’re being forced to join the health authorities.

They’re being forced to unionization and becoming part of Vancouver

health, Fraser Health and Island Health. Where is the fairness? Where is

the balance?

We see a government that is providing significant pay equity

increases to unionized employers to the detriment and discrimination of

private sector workers. They are taking another classification of

workers, 4,000 workers, and forcing them, not through choice, not

through an open and transparent voting system…. Government is forcing

those 4,000 workers to join the unions for the various health

authorities, three of which I mentioned. This should be of extreme

concern to British Columbians.

Again, I go back to the respect for the taxpayer, the value for

money. With these 4,000 workers that are being moved over into the

health authorities…. The care that they are going to be providing will

be very similar to that which is provided in the private sector.

However, as soon as they move into the unions, they’ll have significant

additional, increased costs for all of the benefit plans and the pension

plans.

If government is looking at moving 4,000 workers from the private

sector into the unionized environment…. We know — and I’m sure that the

government will also have to agree — that there’s a significant

increased cost associated with that, yet there are no additional dollars

that are flowing with it. So what will end up happening is that there

will be a reduced level of care largely for British

Columbians.

As I look to Bill 30, I’m certainly looking for fairness and for

balance. As I mentioned, generally speaking, I’m supportive of some of

the initiatives that Bill 30 is trying to achieve. But as an official

opposition, we have concerns about the lack of balance, as I’ve

indicated, and some of the specific changes that are being put forward.

We are, again, troubled by a piece of legislation that lacks specifics

in some of the proposed changes.

Now, one of the easiest parts of the bill to support is something

that actually isn’t even in the bill. That has to do with taking away

the secret ballot. That’s something that I know the government was

certainly quite eager to address, and I’ve got to give thanks and credit

to the Green Party members and the Leader of the Third Party for the

work that they have done in order to try and encourage the government to

see the light on how draconian it would have been to have taken away

workers’ fundamental right to have a secret ballot with respect to their

choice to either unionize or not unionize.

A message came through loud and clear. There was little support,

outside of traditional unions, for government’s plan to return to a

card-check system, subject to abuse or worker intimidation. By listening

to the input, the Minister of Labour has ensured that the democratic

right of workers to choose or to reject membership in a union is

protected.

The secret ballot ensures a proper balance and the protection of

workers and the protection of employers. I truly hope that the

government will see this as the last time for consideration of the

removal of the secret ballot, and we don’t see this type of legislation

try and reintroduce itself and appear next fall or in future

years.

Now, the one concern we do have has to do with the reduced

timeline for a certification vote. Organizations that are moving forward

with respect to a union raid or that are actually looking at

unionization have the benefit of timing on their side. The current

regulation requires or allows for ten business days. Once a union

certification vote is called, there are ten days. That provides an

opportunity for the employer, who may not have had advance notification

that this was forthcoming, to weigh the pros and cons and to have a

respectful conversation with their workers about how a change from a

non-unionized to a unionized environment may impact the business and the

relationship between the workers and the employer.

[2:40 p.m.]

I did not see anything that supported the reduction in timeline

from ten to five days. There have been concerns raised that during that

time period, there may be an opportunity for employers to maybe

strong-arm employees, but there’s regulation that sets out and clearly

entertains the fact that employers are not allowed to do that. And

should they be caught in undertaking any high-handed approaches, union

certification would move forward.

When the benefit of timing is fully with the folks that are trying

to move forward for unionization with respect to the timing, I see the

reduction in timelines from ten to five days as a retraction, further

emboldening the opportunity for unionization and taking away the

opportunity for a more fair and balanced approach and consideration by

the employer.

Now, another tilt in favour of unionization comes with new powers

that are now handed to the Labour Relations Board. The minister, through

this bill, seeks to provide that body with the broader ability to impose

union certification when an employer is found to have unduly interfered

with the certification process. But there is no balance here.

Clearly, this is stacking the deck in favour of unionizations.

Where union organizers may misrepresent information to the workers or

take high-handed approaches to encouraging unions to sign a card to

actually move forward and encouraging them to join a union…. If those

practices are uncovered of those that are actually driving the union,

there’s no reciprocal agreement.

Again, if this bill is about finding a fair and a balanced

approach, there should be a quid pro quo where the enforcement ability

of the board should be the same, whether it’s for dealing with the union

drive or with the employer. But, again, there’s no balance here. There

are no powers to change the outcomes of an employee vote if the unions

are, again, found to have broken the rules in the certification

process.

When we talk about Bill 30 and the rights of workers, we also have

to respect the right of the employers. These aren’t all big,

international corporations. Many companies are small, family-owned

businesses that we all have in our many communities throughout the

province, small businesses where husbands and wives or family members

have second-mortgaged their homes to have the funds to buy that piece of

equipment or to maybe lease that business and to start that business and

to provide the opportunity for employment.

We do not see a fair and balanced approach with Bill 30 in

providing that equal opportunity for employers to also be protected

under some of the conditions that are set out in Bill 30. We believe

this is unfair. It’s dangerous. It’s at risk of throwing out the

democratic wishes of workers. The same unfairness is at the heart of

changes proposed to the ability to communicate for both unions and

employers. What an employer can communicate is now being redefined in an

extremely restrictive manner.

There is not the same language that’s being applied to the union

organizers, only the restriction placed on the employer. Employers

currently have the right to communicate with employees, with the freedom

to express his or her views on any matter, provided the person does not

use intimidation or coercion. That’s reasonable. It has been in the code

for many years.

I certainly have not heard from any of my constituents having any

concerns with respect to this particular wording. But the government has

taken it upon themselves to change the rules, to further restrict the

voice and the communication of the employer. But there isn’t the

reciprocal restriction on the union organizers.

[2:45 p.m.]

That’s a pretty solid

interpretation of the freedom of expression.

But the legislation aims to change this to having the freedom to

communicate to an employee a “statement of fact or opinion reasonably

held with respect to the employer’s business.” Again, this is a

restriction. It’s a reduction in the ability of the employer to properly

communicate with their workers. It’s a world of difference, and it’s

quite restrictive.

At the same time, the minister is pushing for an expansion of how

unions can communicate on a picket line. Picketers are now being

provided the opportunity to hand out leaflets.

Well, I certainly support the right of workers to choose to picket

or to strike. But where it may interfere with the business’s opportunity

or for clients or for the general public or for British Columbians in

order to access in and out of a business…. It’s one thing to have people

standing there and expressing their concerns or their views with respect

to their right to associate and to unionize, but the business also has

the right, in order to put food on the table, to continue to operate.

Anything that would impede or restrict the ability of that business to

continue to operate functionally is of concern, and it should be a

concern of all British Columbians.

The right to picket and to be present is one thing, but providing

the opportunity for the workers to be thrusting leaflets into the hands

of customers or potential customers…. We know what will happen.

Customers will just be…. They’ll be concerned. They will not want to

interact. They will choose to take their business somewhere else. So who

wins? Where is the power? The power is being shifted, instead of being

fair and balanced.

I state again I do not have any issue with the right of workers to

picket, to strike, to have the opportunity to express their views to

British Columbians. This has been in place for many years. Why is there

a need to provide, again, a further shift in the balance of power over

to the picketing workers in order to be able to actually pass and thrust

leaflets into the hands of customers? This is appalling.

The concern this raises is one of intimidation of those that may

be choosing to cross the picket line. They can no longer just walk by,

through, around a throng of picketers. Now they’re being forced to

engage under the guise of receiving a pamphlet. We know what this is

about. This is about the ability of striking workers to more negatively

impact the continued operation of that business. That’s not fair. That’s

not balanced. It is stacking the deck, and I believe that British

Columbians should find this as offensive as I do.

Employers, by the way, again talking about fairness, have no

related right to hand out pamphlets stating their side of the story or

what they may feel their customers should actually be made aware

of.

This bill also has the same challenge we’ve seen in so many pieces

of legislation: new powers created for the minister, with details to

come later.

This bill seeks to extend successorship in a number of sectors,

including building cleaning, security, bus transportation, food, and

non-clinical services in the health sector. But what’s really troubling

is the fact that new sectors can be added by OIC.

The minister will have the ability to apply successorship rights

to any other industry sector. Not through open debate in the

Legislature, in the people’s House; not the opportunity or the

requirement for debate like we’re having here today; but by the stroke

of a pen in the cabinet room, the minister has the ability of applying

yet further successorship rights to other industry sectors.

[2:50 p.m.]

If we look at the construction sector as an example, construction

— it’s a fairly broad definition — includes roadbuilding. One of the

areas that the bill also does is it moves the right of workers to

unionize, which previously was available and restricted to the months of

September and October. It now moves them to the months of July and

August.

Let’s just consider for a second that you’ve got a roadbuilding

construction crew. The primary months of construction are May through

until October. The heat of the construction months, when there’s the

most pressure on any construction company, is during July and August,

during the summer tourist season when the highways are loaded up with

tourists trying to get to and from different locations. That is when the

contractor is under the absolute most pressure. Weather has a

significant impact on the construction timelines.

To consider that now we are going to move the opportunity for a

raid from September and October into the heat of the construction months

— it is clearly shifting the balance of power, which you might almost

say was not fair and balanced even previously and may have been clearly

in favour of the worker. It is further emboldening the power of the

worker. An opportunity to actually raid a construction company during

the months of July and August….

I see that I’ve run out the clock. I certainly am opposed to many

of the sections outlined in Bill 30.

S. Furstenau: I’m happy to be speaking in support of this bill today, the Labour

Relations Code Amendment Act. In my remarks, I will discuss some of the

core elements of the bill and why I think they are important to support,

but I also want to speak more about the broader reality facing people

today. I don’t think that gets nearly enough attention, which it

deserves in these kinds of conversations.

The reality is the increasing precarity of jobs and the erosion of

income security for many British Columbians. The reality facing workers

today, especially young people just starting out in the labour force, is

extremely different from the reality that faced their parents and

grandparents when they were starting out. Young people today face a much

less secure working life and have to contend with significant financial

hurdles that have real impacts on their sense of security and

well-being. Many are saddled with high levels of debt right out of

graduation from university or college, and they’re facing housing

prices, particularly in our major cities, that have far outstripped

local incomes.

I’m glad to be part of the Green caucus and to have supported this

minority government in the steps that they have taken to deal with some

of these issues — for example, reining in the runaway housing market and

cracking down on hidden ownership and the influx of foreign money and

illicit cash that has been distorting housing prices in B.C. Eliminating

interest on provincial student loans is also an excellent step. And

taking steps to create universal early childhood education will make a

huge difference to young families. These changes matter, and they will

make a real difference in the lives of people across B.C.

While we must continue to build on these initial steps, we also

urgently need to have a conversation, as legislators, about what the

economy looks like today and what it means for the health and well-being

of British Columbians into the future. We need to stop simply talking

about economic growth and job creation and start talking about what

types of jobs are actually being created — the quality of jobs, their

impact on the quality of life of British Columbians and their families —

and how the economy is serving the needs of British Columbians and,

also, how it isn’t.

Before going further, I’d like to make some remarks on the

specifics of the bill before us today. This piece of legislation makes a

number of important revisions to the labour code. The changes before us

today are moderate, but they also will make significant differences to

improving fairness and balance in workplaces and a tangible impact on

the lives of workers in B.C.

[2:55 p.m.]

I believe that one of the most important changes is the extension

of successorship protections to workers in a number of sectors that are

impacted by contract flipping. We debated some of these issues in the

fall when we repealed Bills 29 and 94, better protecting health care

workers from contract flipping.

The bill before us today extends successorship protections for

workers in a number of sectors particularly affected by contract

flipping, including janitorial services, security, bus transportation,

food services and non-clinical health sector services. The wording

perhaps sounds dry and technical, but the existence of successorship

protections under the code, or the lack thereof, can have a profound

effect on people’s lives.

When contract flipping occurs, often the same workers continue to

do the same work at the same location with the same equipment. However,

because the contract has flipped, these workers lose the benefits of

their collective agreement. They have to reapply for the jobs that they

already had and often face significant deterioration in wages, benefits

and working conditions.

There have been many stories that make this reality crystal-clear.

I want to cite the review panel here who said: “We heard examples of

workers with 20 to 30 years of experience having their wages and

benefits significantly reduced by contract re-tendering. One care aide

related that although she’d been employed under a collective agreement

for many years, when the contract for services was re-tendered, she had

to reapply for employment. She was then re-hired by the new contractor

with a 50 percent reduction in wages, and only her service with the new

contractor was considered for seniority purposes.”

I don’t think we want to live in a society that treats people this

way. We can all imagine the circumstances of suddenly earning half of

what we earned the day before, or the week before, for the same job that

we are doing. That is a devastating impact on people’s lives.

It is also important to note that this is a racialized and

gendered issue, with minority women bearing the brunt of these impacts.

This change will have a profound impact on the well-being of many

people. It will remedy an injustice that has been allowed to carry on

for too long and that has accelerated over the last 20 years since it

started to arise as an issue in the 1990s.

The issue in this legislation that has received the most attention

by far is the question of how certification occurs. In this instance, my

caucus colleagues and I have decided to stand behind the review panel’s

recommendations, which maintain the secret ballots while strengthening

the code to better protect workers from interference during the voting

period. It wasn’t a simple decision. We heard many calls from workers

and organizers across B.C. to implement card check, regardless of the

panel’s recommendation. We heard stories of pressure and misinformation

during the voting period, designed to scare people away from

unionizing.

What the panel recommended to government was a moderate path

forward. I believe the changes to the process will be impactful and will

no longer allow for conduct that undermines the integrity of secret

ballot votes and undermines the right of people to unionize. This bill

will shorten the window for the vote from ten days to five days to bring

it in line with other jurisdictions in Canada. It will also restrict

what can be communicated during an organizing drive, to clamp down on

campaigns of misinformation. And it will give the board more latitude to

offer remedial certification in cases where there was improper employer

interference during the voter period.

Together I am hopeful that these provisions will provide real

protections enabling workers to exercise their right to choose whether

to unionize in an environment free from interference. To quote the

panel: “The secret ballot vote can only be an effective mechanism for

employee choice if the code deters and prevents employers from engaging

in unfair labour practices and provides meaningful consequences for such

practices.” So it will be critical that we monitor the effectiveness of

these changes and ensure that they are having their intended

effect.

Another important change this bill makes is removing education as

an essential service. This reverses a change implemented by the last

government almost 20 years ago. British Columbia is the only Canadian

jurisdiction to include education as an essential service. This is

unnecessary, as the board already has the ability to deem a service

essential if the health, safety or welfare of B.C. residents is

endangered. It’s also not in keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada,

which ruled in 2015 that the right to strike is constitutionally

protected. The court limited the permissible scope of essential services

to “clear and imminent threat to the life, personal safety or health of

the whole or part of the population.”

[3:00 p.m.]

This change brings us in line with the decision of the Supreme

Court of Canada and still allows for restrictions on strikes when

education services are truly essential under the board’s discretion.

This might be the case, for example, with grade 12 exams.

These changes and others are important and progressive changes

that make the code fairer and more balanced. I also hope that since they

are moderate in scope and recommended by an external panel that they may

have more endurance than past changes — that we have taken a step

towards ending the pendulum swing between governments that has

characterized labour policy in this province for far too

long.

I’m happy to be supporting the bill before us today. Yet I must

say that while this bill makes these important changes and more, I

believe, as I said earlier, that the conversation is missing some

crucial considerations. We are still proceeding on the assumption that

work looks much as it did 20 or 30 years ago, but this is simply not the

case. We are seeing some alarming trends in the labour market — a growth

in temporary and part-time, precarious jobs.

I’d like to cite a few statistics from the C.D. Howe Institute

that they recently published. They found that over the last 20 years,

Canada has seen 1.5 million more precarious workers. Temporary

employment has grown at a faster rate than total employment, and the

number of Canadians doing contract work has almost doubled. When people

are forced to take temporary jobs, this creates a huge amount of

uncertainty, inhibiting their income security and their ability to feel

secure in planning for their future. This uncertainty, we know, is

delaying people’s decisions to start a family or to buy a

home.

This shift in the labour landscape requires the urgent attention

of legislators. We need to ensure our laws are keeping up with these

trends and that we are providing workers with the supports and

protections they need as they navigate a rapidly transforming job

market. The C.D. Howe Institute noted that trends in precarious

employment are driven mainly by the need for flexibility in business

affected by globalization, technology development and economic

circumstance.

The panel that reviewed the code echoed this assessment. In their

words, our economy today is defined by both globalization and a

“fissuring of the economy” as capital has become more mobile and

companies are using outsourcing and contracting to reduce costs and

achieve more flexibility. The result, according to the panel, is “a

continuing erosion of middle-class jobs, increasing precarity and

polarization between relatively low-paid, precarious work and highly

paid skilled workers, and fewer middle-skilled jobs.”

This is not a sustainable situation. We know that employment is a

critical social determinant of health — that those who earn higher, more

stable incomes have better access to safe and secure housing, food and

medical care that provides for better health outcomes. Insecure work, on

the other hand, leads to poor physical and mental health and higher

levels of stress.

What is more, these trends are directly tied to increasing

inequality that is taking hold, not only in B.C., not only in Canada,

but around the western world. And there is nothing more destabilizing to

society and democracy than inequality.

As journalist Paul Willcocks pointed out: “The erosion of work

quality, security and incomes has been a big factor in increasing

inequality in Canada. And somehow, we’ve paid too little attention to

the slowly unfolding crisis and the solutions that could be implemented.

The labour code changes are a start. But what’s really needed is a

public demand that governments quit ignoring the steady, grinding

decline in the quality of work available to Canadians.”

We have a situation where according to our traditional measure of

GDP, our economy is doing well. Yet by other measures — by work quality,

income security, inequality — we are coming up far short. This is why we

need to go beyond GDP and start using a much more holistic measurement

of how the economy is performing through developing a genuine progress

indicator. To reiterate the point George Monbiat forcefully made

recently: “Since when was GDP a sensible measure of human

welfare?”

[3:05 p.m.]

A genuine progress indicator directly integrates the well-being of

people and the environment implications of economic activity in

measuring the health of the economy. Painting a true picture of the

health of our economy through using a genuine progress indicator is one

critical step to remedying our current situation. What we measure we

will value. And what we value, we will make policies towards increasing

those outcomes.

Another is the need for governments — all governments, including

this one — to grapple with substantial and complex questions about

government’s role in the new economic landscape. How do we provide real

income security for British Columbians trying to navigate a gig economy?

How do we embrace innovation and innovative approaches to business while

also ensuring that we don’t lose the hard-fought gains that workers have

seen over the last century?

How to do we continue to be competitive and attract investment in

a globalized world, and ensure that companies want to stay and grow

here, while also avoiding the race-to-the-bottom economics, where people

lose out while ever-increasing profits flow to fewer and fewer hands.

How can we ensure our prosperity is truly sustainable and recognizes the

ecological limits that we have spent way too long ignoring? I ask these

questions not to suggest that there are any easy answers but to say that

governments like this one urgently need to be engaging with these

questions and crafting forward-looking policies to address

them.

As the labour review panel pointed out, the traditional concepts

of employment may no longer be applicable in the gig economy, with

companies’ increasing reliance on contractors instead of employees.

Implementing basic income, to ensure that people have real security as

they navigate the changing world of work, is a critical part of the

solution, and it is being embraced by economists around the world as an

important step forward in the 21st century.

We must consider how our employment laws are keeping up or are

falling behind new modes of work. We need to do more to foster

innovation that aligns with our values, innovation that helps to build

resilient communities that support clean prosperity and that support the

health and well-being of British Columbians.

What we must also always keep at the forefront of our minds as we

have these debates is how we can best ensure that every British

Columbian has the conditions to live a healthy, happy, fulfilling and

dignified life. We need to ensure that people are not just a factor of

production working for the economy but that the economy is working for

people. We should strive to create the conditions where every British

Columbian has a livable income and is free from the anxiety that income

insecurity causes, where communities are strong and resilient and people

can look forward to the future with hope.

With that, I will reiterate my support for this bill and my belief

that we need to start a much broader and urgent conversation

today.

R. Coleman: I’m pleased to get up and have some comments with regard to Bill

30 this afternoon. I came out of high school, so I won’t count the jobs

working in the orchard and having a newspaper. My first jobs were

actually as a roofer and, shortly after that, in a factory, in a

unionized environment. So I have worked in a unionized environment as a

member of a union. I went into the RCMP, which would not be called a

unionized environment. Nor would it be called a normal environment,

because in those days it was somewhat militaristic in its operational

side.

I left the RCMP in 1980, and I started a small security company in

the Okanagan, which grew over the next two years to almost 300 employees

across three provinces in Canada. The reason I say that one is because I

think it’s important for us to understand that there’s always this

push-and-pull that takes place when we have a conversation around labour

legislation and what have you. We have a tendency to have these divides

among people who have an opinion on this. There’s the non-union and the

union environment, and ne’er the two shall meet. Somebody is always bad,

and somebody always thinks it’s the employer.

During the two-year period when I first had the 200 employees,

interest rates went from about 10 percent to 21 percent. The only goal

we had as a company was to do two things, basically. One is to make sure

we made every payroll, because we were in a labour-selling

business.

[3:10 p.m.]

If people didn’t get paid, we didn’t have the guards, the

supervisors in department stores, the audit supervisors, the people who

do the investigations and those sorts of things — and, of course, the

benefit plan. Ironically, back in 1982, I made sure that I had a full

benefit plan for my employees across all of western Canada, which even

in my industry at the time was unusual, for whichever environment you

lived in.

The other benefit we maintained during that period of time, for

those two tough years particularly, was that we always gave our

employees a day off on their birthday or a day off in lieu for their

birthday, with pay. It was something that I believed in, because you

have to build good relationships with the people who work for you,

particularly in an environment where you have a significant amount of

labour involved in the business you’re in.

It’s different in today’s environment, and this is the challenge

in the labour code. Today’s environment for labour is completely

different. I was in a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week business. But back

in the day I was in that business, department stores still didn’t open

on Sundays in some places. They had restrictive hours with regards to

how the community wanted to see what their workers would have to do.

Today we are a 365-day-a-year retail operation, which has an effect on

those people and how you do business. In addition to that, as you adapt

the labour code, you have people who want to work remotely from home and

other environments because of the technology that they have.

We’ve seen the economy change dramatically. It really has changed,

except in some of the fundamental businesses. So although you can

actually augment, for instance in the security business, with video and

surveillance and that sort of thing, you still, in many cases, do need

the physical presence of a security personnel at an event or at security

of a construction site or whatever.

The challenge is still the same. It’s shift work, and the labour

environment is tougher. It’s a lot of work for the company to try and

even stay afloat most of the time, because in selling labour, the

margins are narrow. We always have to remember that labour codes need to

understand the businesses, sometimes, that people are in, and that’s why

I use that as an example.

I think all of us support the right, in this House, for workers to

come together and bargain. I also support the right for employers to

have a conversation with their employees. I think oftentimes people get

this wrong idea, particularly around a small or medium-sized business,

that because they’ve managed to get a small or medium-sized business,

there’s this huge amount of money being made. Oftentimes, it is the

income of the owner and the owner’s spouse that is actually coming out

of that business, and maybe a small amount of profit which has to be

reinvested in new equipment or upgrading equipment, especially

today.

As I watch some of the businesses I know evolve, technology costs

are going up. Even if you’re in the automotive business, your computer

diagnostics are changing. You have to add more equipment, and it’s very

expensive. You need to be able to make that happen and, in the same

environment, understand what you can charge the customer and what you

can do with regards to how you train your people.

It is a fundamental value of our society that workers have rights,

and I support that. I think it’s really important. I just want to make

sure that…. We want to set a certain set of rules that sit around the

right — are balanced and fair — and as we go through committee stage of

the bill, maybe talk about what the future of labour and relations look

like in the next five or ten years, as the entire economy as we know it

changes.

One of the things we’ve seen in our economy…. For instance,

everyone would be surprised to know that the largest hotel chain doesn’t

own a single room in the world. It’s actually just an on-line app called

Airbnb. It’s changed the hotel business. It’s changed how that business

operates in the world and how they actually ply and deliver their

services.

It affects the workers, because the Airbnb doesn’t include that.

Yet we still need people from Local 40, who are very important to the

food and services business in Vancouver, to be able to work in that

environment and continue to give the service needed and, frankly, have

those jobs somewhat protected, because they’re important to the society

and important to those people and their families.

The rights of workers to unionize, as well as the rights of

employers to inform their workers about the impacts unionization could

have on a workplace, need to be balanced. I don’t think it needs to be

skewed one way or the other. I don’t think it has to be so that we’re

trying to make it difficult or hard either way.

Generally speaking, we should all be supportive of what this bill

is trying to accomplish. I think there are some weaknesses and

strengths, just like there would be in any piece of legislation I’ve

seen, both in opposition and in government, over the last 23

years.

[3:15 p.m.]

As an official opposition, our concerns are about a lack of

balance in some of the specific areas. I’m not troubled as much as I

just think there is some lack of specifics on how we would work through

the regulatory process to make this thing work in the job place for all

workers.

The thing is that some…. It’s just a balance that you have to

think about. Each business is different, and how it operates is

different. In some cases…. We tend to say it’s in a box with these four

sides on it, and this is how we’re going to deal with labour. In actual

fact, it’s a whole lot different with regards to whether it’s a tech

industry. The changes that have taken place in our manufacturing sectors

with technology taking over for people and those effects and actually

having…. Today, for instance, in the forest sector, it’s about 2.5 to

three jobs in the bush to one in the mill now because of technology and

the changes there.

I will say — and kudos to the minister — that the easiest part of

this bill to support is something that’s not in it, and that is not

taking away the secret ballot. I do think people do have a right to

express themselves and not be intimidated when they want to vote on

something. I think it’s an important, fundamental thing.

We may differ on that with regards to each other. I think it’s an

opportunity to maybe…. If you have the secret ballot, which you’ve kept,

it allows for less bullying and the opportunity for people to actually

make up their own minds sometimes when they’re not just being pressured

to do something. The fact of the matter is that by listening to that

input, the Minister of Labour has ensured that that democratic right of

workers — to choose or reject membership in a union — is protected, and

I think that’s important.

Other changes in the bill put balance at risk. The biggest one I’m

concerned about, Minister…. It really never came to me until I sat down

with a friend of mine that has a chain of stuff in one field. I won’t

give away who he is, but it’s a field. He has operations that operate,

basically, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven days a week, in three

communities. So he has three operations, one company.

For an employer not to have the opportunity of more than just five

days to actually talk to or discuss it with employees with regards to a

certification vote…. I think it just makes it really difficult. The

reason I say that is because….

My friend is working, at the same time, in one of the shops.

Spouse is working in another shop at the same time. They do their

dailies when they get home at night. They take the dailies — you check

off all your sales to make sure you’re balanced on the day’s receipts —

so that they can then be in a position to send those to the accountant

at the end of the month. They’ve got to keep up on that. Then they pull

shifts when somebody is sick or can’t be at work. In the meantime,

they’re trying to run the company.

Five days is really hard when they have three cities that they’re

in. They have to move around, and they’re trying, at the same time, to

do things with their employees. These guys are pretty good with their

employees from the standpoint of bonuses and recognizing special days

for them.

They’re also a company…. I think there are a lot of companies like

this, and I think we should recognize this in all companies. There are a

lot of pretty good companies out there that really understand their

employees. If an employee loses somebody, like a loved one, some

employers say: “Well, you get so many days, and you’re back.” Others

understand the emotional impact of something like that and go further.

These guys do. I would like to think that we did too. They try and make

things easier for people by trying to make sure that there are plans for

their future — training and development and those sorts of things — and

working with them.

If you could just allow some education and conversation. Sometimes

you can run into a situation where the company’s cost structure needs to

be, I think…. Frankly, I don’t think…. I never had a difficulty with

telling my employees what I made on a per-hour basis with regards to

labour I sold. I had costs that were related to that, and I always felt

it was important to them to know.

The five days concern me. It also concerns me because these

operations, taking a type of three-shop operation into account, mean

people are not, in some cases, working for five days. They might be

part-time employees that come in on a weekend. There are others who work

between two communities. They work in one three days a week and in

another one two days a week.

[3:20 p.m.]

The opportunity, in a five-day period, even to communicate with

employees that are actually working shifts in places over a seven-day

period because it’s a seven-day-a-week operation…. I think it truncates

the time too much. It’s just my opinion. I think it does, and I think

it’s something that we should consider.

As this comes along and new powers are handed to the Labour

Relations Board, you seek to provide to the body a broader ability to

impose union certification when an employer is found to have unduly

interfered with the certification process. If you leave it balanced and

allow them to be part of the certification process and discussion, I

don’t think you get that imbalance. I think it’s when you try and tilt

it away from the balance that then you get into that sort of

circumstance.

As you come through this, it just sort of works in a place where I

think sometimes we take a hammer to fix a problem when we could have

taken a lot softer shot at this. I think it’s important that we

understand, as we walk through this, that it’s about the employee, union

and non-union employee. It’s about the benefits that are available to

them, and it’s about cost in some cases.

I know one small company that has to spend about $30,000 in

employer health tax. What they had to do, because their bottom line was

tight already, was they’ve had to sit down with their employees and say:

“We may have to give up dental in the group plan because we can’t afford

both.” These are things that you have to understand when you deal with

labour relations, because it’s not always that there’s a big whack of

cash sitting somewhere for people to be able to deal with it.

It also changes this to having “the freedom to communicate to an

employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to

the employer’s business.” I think this legislation seems to do that, and

I want to talk about that in committee stage. Or our critic will. I

think the strongest companies that I’ve ever seen, union or non-union,

are when the employer and the employee actually have a working

relationship and communicate. Without it, you actually are headed down a

road of failure.

I met a man many years ago who owned a number of sawmills. The

first time I met him, I went into his office, and he had this huge

bookcase of little tiny notebooks like that. Every single week he would

walk his entire mills on payday and deliver the paycheque and take his

little notebook with him. He would get ideas on how to improve things

from them, and he kept every book for, like, 30 years. He put that

information in. Then he’d have his management meeting every two weeks,

and he’d say: “So and so over on the millwright side thinks that. What

about that?”

That type of thing actually built a pretty good relationship

between employer and employee, because they felt like they were part of

a family and a part of the company. I think that’s important in a

relationship in labour. And I think that can be fostered, but not if you

can’t have the opportunity to actually communicate when people are going

to make a decision about things like this.

You know, it has the same challenge in many pieces of legislation

we create, which always comes with legislation. I recognize it because I

was — not in that particular portfolio but certainly on that side of the

House — a minister and heard it from the NDP when we were government.

That is, the new power is created for the minister, with details to come

later. Those are the regulatory-making powers.

Now, I recognize that it allows for some flexibility for the

minister, but obviously, when you do this, you’re always going to get

that question in committee about what regulatory powers you have, what

you think you might do. You might be ready for some of those questions

as we come along, which I always was. I think it actually sometimes is

important.

I think some of the successorship language in here, we’ll have

some conversation over. I mean, in some cases, there’ve been some issues

around successorship that I think people should look at from time to

time in a modern labour world. I’m sure we’ll have conversations on

that. And, of course, new sectors can be added by OIC, and I’d like to

understand what the consultation process would be along that if you were

going to add a sector relative to that successorship in an

industry.

Industry has a right to be concerned, but they always are, because

business is tough. It’s not easy. Business has capital investment,

usually with personal guarantees attached to your own house. You have a

payroll to meet. That means you’re always chasing the income to make

sure you’ve got enough money and your margins are good enough to pay the

bills.

Every time somebody tinkers with labour or costs, it always can

come to some…. Sometimes it has a negative effect in some industries.

It’s important to make sure that we discuss that as we come through

it.

[3:25 p.m.]

I do believe that in B.C., we need to have some bit of balance

come back into the relationship, even within the union movement, with

regards to unions that are competitive with each other. I get that — but

also recognizing that there is more than one group of unions, whether it

be building trades or craft unions or whatever the case may be. Quite

frankly, they represent their workers too, and they should be considered

to be, on balance, the same as equal with regards to their unions and

their operations for their members.

As we go through this, the other one that really jumped out at

me…. I know our member for Shuswap mentioned this and a couple others

have. I’ve been in the construction development business as well. I

know, as he said, that the period of time from…. July and August are

pretty critical months to the success of the construction or project,

simply because, in a lot of places in B.C., it’s weather-dependent. In

other places, it’s just simply because you have the ability to move more

goods and services during certain groups of time because of certain

types of year and weather.

I think the change on the construction sector is going to be

problematic. If it’s going to be a disruptive back-and-forth and the

fact that you don’t have to wait two or three years to go back and do

another raid, certification or whatever, it could put that industry into

significant stress.

I think it’s important that the minister understands that, as we

go through these debates, because he would find some communities were

very concerned because there’s a lot of employment there for people.

They really don’t get a lot of work sometimes in the months of December,

January, February. And in the months in the summertime, the less

disruption, the better, because they can keep the project under control,

keep it on cost, on time, but also make sure that people can be shifted

and do the work. So that concerns me with regards to an interruption of

the business model that they may have with regards to it.

The minister…. We’ll discuss these. I know he’s rejected some

things in and around that, and I totally respect that. I think we do

need to know that when we have legislation before this House, we’re

thinking past 2019.

Over the next decade, I would think, as things change, and maybe

even two decades, the mechanic will probably disappear in many

circumstances — people with a trade and skills — because the cars will

change or the machinery will change. Robotics will come into play. What

happens to the future worker in those cases when the robotics change? As

we build this foundation for the future, we need to make sure that we’re

building into our labour relations how we’re going to train the next

generation of people to work.

Food services, in some cases, will even change, because we’re now

seeing robotics used in food services to make hamburgers and deliver

food and what have you.

These are all going to have an impact on the next generation,

which is coming behind us, and how they will be able to work and what

that means. Labour codes and things will also have to change in order to

adapt to a new emerging market of worker and how they’re actually going

to work and where they’re going to actually work.

I’m kind of concerned for the next generation. I think we’ve had

the opportunity, for most of us, to have gone through a generation

enough where we’ve had the experience of labour, we’ve had the

experience of professional development, and we’ve had the experience of

taking a career. We’ve had an experience that would take us to where we

look and say that that wasn’t a bad mix, as far as experience and

employment and stuff, over our lifetime.

The next generation’s lifetime is going to be different. I’ve seen

employees…. I know one of my friends that has a business says he’ll have

employees come in to apply for a job who are only 23 or 24 years, and

they’ve already moved to six, seven, eight, nine, ten jobs.

That’s discouraging for me, because I’d like to think that they

could find a place to stay, get training, build their skills and then

grow from there into their next job and opportunity. Labour legislation

is a big part of that — or labour operations. The legislation is the

law, but the labour relations are the important piece about how you

build that future together.

On this side of the House, we believe that a balanced approach is

the most successful approach for labour relations — I think successful

for workers, successful for employers, successful for our province and

successful for investment. To get that investment here to create the

jobs for our people to go to work is critical.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we move through labour legislation, particularly the things the

minister might do by OIC or whatever, we have to keep in mind that we

don’t push out the investment we’re looking for, for the future worker

in British Columbia.

Our committee stage debate should be balanced, should be

informative, and it should be us all looking at what we can do best for

the future worker of British Columbia.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Bill 30,

the amendments to the labour code.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This has been a long time coming. We haven’t had a meaningful

review and effective change to the labour code since 1992 — over 25

years since we saw the kind of work that went into the changes that are

being advanced in Bill 30. That was the last time that you saw the kind

of panel, the kind of discussion where employers and unions and expert

independents came together and looked in a deep way at the code and

looked at fundamental issues in the code and looked at where changes

should be considered and be contemplated.

It was long overdue for that review to happen and long overdue for

Bill 30 to be in front of this House.

We know that over the time of the previous government, we saw

reduced resources going into the board, reduced dollars, reduced

supports going in. We saw a situation where things in labour relations

became much more litigious. It did become about the lawyers all too

often.

Sadly, we saw a situation where the board — and, I think,

reflected by the code — was in a place where it was less about

problem-solving and about trying to find solutions that were meaningful.

The result of that — and you can see that if you track the past number

of years — is that not just unions but both unions and employers were

stepping outside of the process of the board to find alternate ways to

address issues, because they didn’t feel that the board was responding

in a way that was supportive, quite frankly, of employers or unions or

workers. So it was important to begin to effect that change.

We know that whenever you talk about the labour code, whenever you

talk about these issues, the issues that involve unions and employers,

it generates lots of interest, it generates lots of passion, and it

generates challenges. There is no doubt about that. So when you want to

look at how you make changes to a code, I do believe you need to be

careful and you need to be thoughtful about how you advance that process

in a way that is meaningful.

In this case, the minister put in place a review panel, a panel

that had three individuals, all of whom are highly respected in their

fields, all of whom have significant expertise in the field of labour

relations and union-employer relations: a representative for the labour

movement, a representative for employers, and the chair, who is a

respected independent who has worked for a significant period of time in

the field.

That committee, that panel, went out and spoke to people across

the province. They spoke to people….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, please take a seat. We have a committee to report. Just

move the motion to adjourn the debate and save your place.

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I move to adjourn the debate and reserve

my right.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 23 — LAND OWNER

TRANSPARENCY

ACT

Bill 23, Land Owner Transparency Act, reported com­plete with

amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: I would call Committee of the Whole, Bill 24, the Business

Corporations Amendment Act, 2019, in the Douglas Fir.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction will

continue with the debate on Bill 30.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

Hon. S. Simpson: Now I’ll try to remember exactly where I was before we got through

that whole maze.

What I was talking about was the work of the panel. The panel —

again, a representative for the labour movement; a representative for

employers; and the third, a respected independent acting as chair. This

panel talked to people across the province. They received 108 written

submissions from interested parties and 83 presentations from

stakeholders and individuals at a series of ten public meetings that

they held around British Columbia.

In addition, the panel met directly with several groups including

the B.C. Federation of Labour, the B.C. Business Council, the

Arbitrators Association of British Columbia, the labour subsection of

the Canadian Bar Association and the B.C. Labour Relations

Board.

The panel took their work very seriously and, in fact, moved

forward to come to a series of 29 recommendations that were reflected in

their report. Those recommendations drove four significant changes that

you see reflected in Bill 30. But it very clearly was the work of the

review panel that the minister was looking at as he developed this

legislation. He took the advice of three thoughtful individuals with

significant expertise who were able to provide guidance on where the

code should go at this point in time.

What I want to do in the few minutes that I’m going to take is

talk a little bit about the four significant initiatives that are really

reflected in these changes in Bill 30. The first of those, and there has

been some discussion about this, is around the certification process. As

others have said, there has been a long-standing debate about where the

certification process should go and about how it should

unfold.

There is evidence, and we’ve seen that evidence, that in fact, in

too many cases, there were undue pressures on the certification process

on workers who were considering whether in fact to join a union, workers

who had signed cards and then went into the certification vote process

and often felt pressures that I would hope most people in this chamber

would consider as unfair or undue processes. So the question was how to

address that.

[3:40 p.m.]

We’ve seen the debate in this chamber and the debate elsewhere

about how to approach that. The minister chose to move forward with a

process that continues the certification vote, the secret ballot, but

says that that ballot’s going to happen in a way that reflects what

happens in most jurisdictions in this country, which is to shorten the

time frame from ten days to five days, to change some of the language so

that, in fact, it doesn’t put undue obligations on the union to

represent whether it does or does not have a majority of cards — because

we are going to have a vote, and at the end of the day the vote will

reflect the numbers — and says that the board will be the arbiter in

deciding whether employers have acted fairly in their communications

with their workers.

Now, we’ve heard debate back and forth about that and about

whether that’s a good thing to do. I would make a couple of observations

about that. The first observation I would make is that there are lots of

workers who are not unionized, who don’t necessarily make the decision

that they want to give a portion of their paycheque to a union in dues.

They do that because they feel that they aren’t being valued, or they

aren’t being treated fairly, or they’re feeling the need to be able to

strengthen their voice in their relationship with their employer. That’s

when we see unionization happen. It has to be the right of those

workers, without undue influence or pressures, to be able to cast that

vote.

Let’s be clear. Unions don’t decide whether workers unionize.

Employers don’t decide. Governments don’t decide. The only people who

decide are the workers, and that is their right, and it should always be

their right to make that decision.

In terms of the discussion about whether five days is too short a

period of time for there to be an engagement and a discussion with the

employer, well, I would suggest…. I know in the comments, I think, from

the member for Langley East, he was talking about experiences that he’s

had or experiences of people who are colleagues of his who have

businesses. He talked about their relationship with their

employees.

Well, what I would say is that if you have a good working

relationship, as an employer, with your employees, you didn’t develop

that relationship in five or ten days in a certification process. You

developed that relationship over time, and you developed that

relationship by building an environment of respect with your workforce

and an environment where the workers felt that they had some ownership

of the process, as well, moving forward.

If you’ve built that relationship and if you’ve shared information

with your employees and if you’ve worked through a partnership that

makes the business successful, where the workers are a true partner in

that, then you’re going to have the kind of relationship that you want.

And that may or may not reflect the result of a vote for

unionization.

The reality is that when the decision is made, when workers sign

those cards, when the union comes and says, “We want to invite you into

our union. We want to make you part of our union family….” When they do

that and they sign those cards, those workers then have expressed their

interest in making this decision and having this vote. What becomes

important, I believe, is to take the amount of time you need to get that

vote cast and move that process forward.

There is no advantage in having an extended period of time that

will do nothing but create animosity. If it’s a difficult certification,

if the employer is particularly opposed to the unionization, if they are

reflecting that in their commentary with their workers, there’s nothing

about that that’s going to be positive.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think the notion of being able to move forward is very positive,

to get that vote done. Five days is enough time, as it is in most

jurisdictions, in many jurisdictions in this country. Five days is

certainly sufficient time to be able to organize the vote and make the

vote happen. When those cards are submitted to the board and the

certification vote is asked for, I think it makes sense to expedite that

vote as quickly as is reasonable, allowing the time to do the logistical

work to make the vote happen, moving forward. It’s important that

workers have that right and that they have the ability to move

forward.

The second piece that’s reflected in this bill, and that’s a very

significant piece, are the changes around successorship and around how

successorship works. We know the challenge that’s in front of workers.

In too many cases, contracts are flipped, and the only people who suffer

the consequence of that are the workers. The outgoing company and the

incoming company — their situation is what it is. If they’ve sold

contracts, their situation is what it is. But the workers pay a price if

they don’t get to keep their collective agreement and their working

relationship.

If we truly believe that work is about partnership, if we truly

believe that the success of our economy is about a partnership between

the entrepreneurs, the investors, the business owners and the people who

do the work every day to produce the product, to manufacture, to deliver

the services, then it has to be a partnership. The question you have to

ask yourself is: when workers make that decision to unionize and,

through free collective bargaining, they bargain a wage-and-benefit

package and they bargain working conditions…? If that, basically, with

the flip of a switch, with the flip of a contract, can disappear

overnight, where is the fairness in that?

I heard members on the other side talk about balance and fairness,

and I think those are important words. Where is the fairness in that?

What did those workers do that they don’t have the right to be able to

protect their interests as well? What this legislation, Bill 30, does is

to look very clearly at those sectors where these are real issues — in

building, cleaning and janitorial services; in security services; in bus

transportation services; in non-clinical services in the health care

sector; and in food services. These are the areas that today we look at

and know that this is essential.

Members on the other side have talked about the nature of the

legislation that would allow the minister to add to that list. I think

that’s a positive. The reason I think that’s a positive is because — as

members on the other side also have spoken about — we have a changing

economy. We have an economy where we are seeing sectors that are moving

and shifting.

It’s a good thing to be able to look at that — if we see the

evolution of other sectors that are reflected, like those that are

covered by this legislation today — so that the minister has the

opportunity to provide those workers with the protections that this bill

identifies for the workers in the current services that are included in

the bill, in this legislation.

It is important. It’s important for workers. We talk, in this

place, a lot about affordability. We talk about people’s rights. We talk

about family-supporting jobs. We talk about local economies and what

happens when the economy shifts in regions and impacts people. All of

those are critical discussions.

[3:50 p.m.]

Why wouldn’t we look to provide protection to workers who go to

work every day, work hard and build a relationship where they are

partners in the relationship and it’s reflected in a collective

agreement that gives them a wage rate and a benefit package that they

negotiated? Why is it okay that that can be torn up in a minute? It

shouldn’t be okay. It shouldn’t be okay to anyone.

Investors who come in and invest in those businesses and want to

take those contracts should come knowing they are getting a skilled,

experienced workforce. It doesn’t come free, and it doesn’t come cheap.

It comes with a collective agreement. It comes with rules, and those

rules are in that contract. If they truly want to be partners with their

workers, they should be prepared to respect the contract that they have

with those workers.

The third piece that gets covered by this is the issue of raiding.

Raiding is the process where workers are unionized under one union and

where another union wants to move those workers over to their union.

It’s the process by which the workers make the choice. Again, it’s not

the unions that choose. It’s not the employers that choose. It’s the

workers, ultimately, who make that choice. The question that is raised

by this — and it’s absolutely a legitimate question — is: what should

the rules look like that create the environment for that to happen? What

should that look like?

Currently raids can occur every year in the seventh and eighth

months of a collective agreement. What Bill 30 does is effect changes

that reduce the frequency of that process but, certainly, protect the

integrity of the process. For collective agreements of three years or

less, raids will be permitted in the seventh and eighth months of the

final year. For collective agreements of more than three years, raids

will be permitted in the seventh and eighth months of the third year and

in each subsequent year.

For unions and employers, both are supportive of this process. As

has been spoken about here, these can be very, very challenging times,

when a raid is involved at a worksite. They can be disruptive. They can

be difficult for everybody involved in that process. What this ensures

is that those rights remain for workers to ultimately be able to make

that choice but put some limit on the frequency in which it can occur

and how it can occur.

The one area where there is some difference here is around raids

in the construction sector. I’ve heard members on the other side raise

concerns about how that would happen and about where that would occur.

The change that happens here, which we’ve been talking about, is moving

those raids to be permitted in July and August.

One of the really, I think, important reasons for doing that is

when you’re going to do this…. If you’re going to effect that change,

potentially, where construction workers are going to decide to move from

one union to another union, it seems to me that it should probably be

decided at the time when most of those workers who are members of that

union, in fact, are on the job, are there and are available and ready to

cast the ballot for which union that they want to be members

of.

I think that’s important. I think it’s important for them to have

that right. July and August, of course, are the months when they are

probably most active, when most construction is most active in this

province and the time when that opportunity is in front of

people.

The last of the four significant changes here is around what I

think is almost a housekeeping matter, in some ways. It’s removing the

essential service designation in education. What we are doing is

reflecting the situation in the rest of the country, essentially. It

reflects what the Supreme Court said in 2015.

[3:55 p.m.]

It doesn’t remove all of the rights for protection around

education services by any means. What it does do is ensure that what the

Supreme Court said is what we adhere to. What the Supreme Court

concluded in 2015 is that the scope of an essential service is limited

to an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of

the population. That’s what the Supreme Court of Canada deemed to be an

essential service. Education is a critical service, a very important

service. There is no doubt about that. But education does not meet that

bar. It is a good thing to do to make that change, I believe, at this

time.

What Bill 30 does is, I believe, it brings back a balance that has

been missing in the labour code. It brings it back at a time when the

changes that are reflected in this bill, the changes that are reflected

also in the Employment Standards Act legislation that was in front of

this House — brought forward by the Minister of Labour, it went through

second reading very recently — begin to look at the reality of labour

relations.

Members on the other side, in their debate on this issue, talked

about the changing nature of work and what that does to labour

relations. I think that that’s a serious discussion that has to be had,

most of that probably reflected in the employment standards legislation

and the Employment Standards Act, more so than the labour

code.

At the end of the day, it has to be about the right of workers to

make the decision for themselves as to whether they want to be in a

union or not, about the right of workers to be able to protect their

interests. If they believe the protection of their interests is most

ensured by joining a union of their choice, negotiating a collective

agreement, having the protections of the union and the benefits of the

collective agreement, then they have a right to do that, and we need to

protect those rights.

Those rights have been fragile for some number of years. What Bill

30 does is take us some significant steps down the road to putting those

protections back in, I believe, a more stable and balanced way. It does

not do everything, by any means, that the labour movement would have

liked. It certainly doesn’t do everything that employers would have

liked. What it does do is provide protections that are important to

working people.

When you talk about building an economy, I would argue that the

labour movement is a core part of the success of our economy. The

economy succeeds when you have entrepreneurs, investors and businesses

that are stepping up and producing product and producing services and

when you have strong unions that are ensuring that workers are

protected, that workers are realizing the societal benefits of a strong

economy through a fair paycheque and a benefit package. That’s when you

start to see the economy we want.

Let’s be clear. If you want people to come into your shop and buy

your goods and services, they have to have a family-supporting income to

do that. They have to feel confident in the security of their

employment. Economies go up and go down. They have to know that if the

economy is moving, they are, in fact, going to have the opportunity to

be protected in that discussion and to have representation in that

discussion through their union.

I think unionization is an important part of a strong economy, but

I do think it’s ultimately the workers who make the decision on whether

they unionize or not. What this bill does, Bill 30, is it provides

opportunities to protect people who are in unions through successorship.

It provides a process for certification that removes the potential for

abuse of that certification process.

[4:00 p.m.]

It sets the rules around raiding so that workers still will always

have the choice as to what union they want to be part of, but it will be

done in a way that is less disruptive to the workplace and the worksite.

Those are important steps.

It’s important legislation. It has been a long time coming. I want

to thank my colleague the Minister of Labour for the work. I want to

thank the review panel for what was an extensive and thoughtful piece of

work to come up with the 29 recommendations that led the minister’s work

in the development of this bill, B