Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

EQUALITY

J. Martin: Good morning to everybody. Welcome back on this splendid Monday in Victoria.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I rise today to speak about an issue that I know is very near and dear to every member in this chamber and to all those who have preceded us — that being an issue of equality, which, in and of itself, is a fairly broad, sweeping term.

We can speak of equality as a value statement, as an aspiration. We can speak of equality as a human rights issue. We can speak of it in legal terms. But I rise today to address the issue of equality in a particular situation, a scenario that is happening right here in British Columbia and that many have found troubling. That includes some members of this Legislature, some members in the media, and the people that are on the front lines doing some of the most important work in community care in British Columbia.

If I may just take a moment, I’d like to quote a couple of statements that have been in the media. This one was in the Times Colonist, from a member of the press gallery we all know here. He says:

“A funding plan for the fiscal year just starting gives unionized workers in the sprawling care network a considerably bigger raise than the one scheduled for the non-union people. In blended agencies, the two classes of employees, the vast majority of them women, often work side by side doing the same jobs. They work in daycares, home care, crisis lines, social housing, treatment services, counselling, immigrant settlement, special needs support and so many other fields.

“Advocates in the sector are deeply unhappy about the unfairness. They organized a small demonstration this month on the steps of the Legislature. That prompted questions in the House that have persisted.”

Those questions will continue, no doubt, to persist, as we have seen very little satisfactory response from the government of the day.

I’d like to quote now from another article from Mr. Fletcher, another member of the press gallery, if I may.

“The biggest and most media-ignored battle in the B.C. Legislature so far this spring has been over the sudden revelation in March that the NDP’s $40 million low-wage redress fund for community social services agencies is going to only half of them. That would be the half where the employees are unionized. Thousands of people work for agencies contracted to the province to care for developmentally disabled and other vulnerable people, including children and the elderly.

“All these agencies get funded for the standard 6 percent pay increase over three years that the government is offering to its big government unions. The unionized half gets the low-wage redress fund, allowing their employers to add an additional 14 percent,” about $4 an hour. “It would be half as much if the fund went to the whole sector, but the unions took the whole pot at the bargaining table, and the NDP has been trying unsuccessfully to conceal the fact.

“As many people have pointed out, this is clearly a strategy to force unionization of the whole group. It pays some people, doing the same difficult work, significantly less. In all health care and elderly support fields, there is a chronic shortage of willing and able workers, and this is how the B.C. government proposes to fix that: a cull of non-union community agencies along ideological lines. Incidentally, the previous NDP government tried to do this in 1998, before being swept out of office and reduced to two East Vancouver seats.”

During the discussions around this policy in the House and question period and other opportunities to seek to get some clarification and, hopefully, some remediation from gov­ernment, we’ve got a unique situation. Basically, it goes like this. All employees in that sector receive the 2 percent a year for three years. So far, so good. Government also provided $40 million for low-wage redress, which only applies to unions.

[10:10 a.m.]

Now, this goes back to what I originally mentioned about why I’m up here speaking today — that we’re talking about equality. Some things are so basic and so fundamental that it’s not a matter of political partisanship. It’s not a matter of different ideologies. It’s not a matter of interpreting the economic realities of the day, in one form or another, differently from the other side of the House. This is just simply a matter of fairness. It affects 17,000 non-unionized people providing child care, home support, addiction treatment, social housing and other services.

Right now the government has decided that there should be a $4-an-hour discrepancy between unionized and non-unionized workers. What we’re doing is discriminating against 17,000 British Columbians — 17,000 non-unionized social service workers, the vast majority of them women. It’s denying them equal pay for equal work simply because they are exercising their Charter rights to freedom of association, which includes the freedom not to associate.

The policy is designed to force social service workers to unionize to please the NDP’s BCGEU backers. It’s nothing more complicated than that. The minister had the gall, when we raised the issue on behalf of social services, to dismiss it as griping, which is absolutely unforgivable in this day and age.

We are here as legislators. We have a unique opportunity denied to the bulk of the citizenship of British Columbia. We can address inequality when we see it. We can enhance equality when there’s an opportunity. Low-wage workers in the community care sector, the majority of them being female, have a right to equal pay, to equal work. If we in this House believe in equality, we will fix this, because it’s not a difficult fix.

M. Dean: I thank the member for Chilliwack for his words and for highlighting this matter of equality in these chambers. I’m passionate about equality and equity. I am extremely proud to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Gen­der Equity for British Columbia. We can’t just create equal opportunity. We do need to recognize that there are barriers to so many groups, including along gender and gender-diverse lines as well.

Now, the member raised matters about the social services sector, and we know that there are many challenges that impact the social services sector. I come from that sector. I know there are long-standing concerns, created after many years where community services were neglected and underfunded. The whole system is complex. One issue can’t be analyzed in isolation.

The Minister for Social Development and Poverty Reduction is holding a series of round tables to look at how we can work together to tackle these challenges, meetings that will include organizations as well as their staff and British Columbians they serve. The social services sector is a critical partner, delivering important services in our communities, and our government is committed to working closely with them on the basis of our shared values. I’m proud to be part of a government that is working in partnership.

Let’s talk pay equity. Pay equity is a serious matter in British Columbia. Women in B.C. earn 22.6 percent less than men. The gap between men and women has narrowed by less than 2 percent in 20 years. Indigenous and racialized women experience even more profound gendered pay discrepancies on average, with Indigenous women earning 23 percent less per year than white women. And university-educated, Canadian-born, racialized women in B.C. earn 14.2 percent less per year than similarly educated white women.

I wonder if the members in chambers know what one social policy has the biggest impact on pay equity between men and women. It’s child care. By providing universal child care, we are on the path to supporting women in participating in the workforce, pursuing their careers and promotions and lifting themselves out of poverty in retirement. Similarly, the provision by our government of increased elder care also supports women in maintaining their position and advancement in the workforce.

[10:15 a.m.]

Another significant impact on equal pay is raising the minimum wage, which our government has done. The majority of workers on the minimum wage are women, and by increasing this, we are increasing equality. In addition, over 85 percent of liquor servers are women. By bringing them into the minimum-wage structure and by making sure that employers do not unfairly take their tips, our government is already closing another unequal wage gap.

Another protection that impacts women’s long-term wage disparity with men is effective and universal sexual harassment standards in employment. We have invested in offices to enforce employment standards, and we’ve removed the self-help kit so the system is modernized and more accessible for workers.

Flexible and protected work environments also reduce women’s economic vulnerability. Measures such as domestic violence leave provisions are in legislation before the House right now. Investing, as we are, in training women in skills and trades and supporting their careers in STEM occupations also helps to promote equality.

We know the underrepresentation of women in leadership and top-earning positions contributes to slower progress. We’re tackling this. We appointed the first-ever gender-equal cabinet in British Columbia, and we’re making progress towards equal representation of women on public boards.

British Columbians believe in fairness and equality and respect. These are values that matter to British Columbians and that guide our government. One of the first things that we did was to start consultation on the revitalization of the Human Rights Commission. The commissioner will protect the rights of all British Columbians to fairness and equal protection and opportunities here in our province.

To finish, we are taking action to make sure everyone in British Columbia is treated with dignity and respect, closing gaps in inequality and creating opportunities for all British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: A reminder to all members that these statements must be non-partisan.

J. Martin: I’ll concede that many of the files on the Premier’s desk have to be extremely complex, and there’s no quick fix — and the same with each and every member of the executive council. A lot of the files that they’re working through are going to be very, very difficult and will be very time-consuming in getting to some conclusion. This does not fit that bill, though. This is an easy fix that can be resolved in 24 hours. It’s just simply a matter of political will doing the right thing.

I’d like to refer to my partner seat mate here, the member for Peace River North, in an op-ed he recently had published in the Alaska Highway News. I think what he says is very eloquent. He says:

“People should receive equal pay for work of equal value. It’s a fundamental principle that should be respected. In this day and age, one might expect this would be pretty standard. For example, if you are a non-unionized community service worker who tirelessly takes care of vulnerable people, seniors and children, you will now be receiving $4 an hour less than your unionized counterparts. That’s because the government played favourites with the unionized half and gave them a 14 percent increase.”

Interjection.

J. Martin: You’re right on schedule. Just like a broken clock, here we have the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

You know, I’ve long thought that we should have a drinking game in his honour, where every time he interjects when someone else has been recognized and has the floor, we all have to take a shot. The only problem with that game is that 30 minutes later, no one would be playing, because everyone would be at the ER being treated for alcohol poisoning. So I thank you for that interjection.

The fact of the matter is that B.C. is a province with one of the highest and fastest-growing populations of seniors in the country. We need more workers, and they need to be paid fairly across the board. Equal pay for equal work. It’s just that simple. This is not complicated.

GIG ECONOMY

B. Ma: Lyft, Uber, Uber Eats, SkipTheDishes, DoorDash, Foodora, TaskRabbit, Cleanify and many, many more. With emerging consumer technologies, the cost of living on the rise and wages remaining stagnant, consumers are increasingly expecting and demanding higher levels of convenience and affordability of services than ever before.

[10:20 a.m.]

Simultaneously, workers are feeling increasingly pressured to take on precarious work that allows them to earn extra money outside of their regular jobs in order to make ends meet. These factors have contributed to the rise of what is colloquially known as the sharing economy but is now better becoming known as the gig economy — or, more appropriately, the on-demand service economy.

The on-demand service economy is a labour market in which temporary positions are common and organizations contract with independent workers for short-term engagements. While many have acclaimed this new format for engaging skills and labour as being low risk for local businesses and as offering freedom and flexibility of employment for workers, this new economy is also encouraging a troubling trend of companies bypassing basic labour laws by classifying employees as independent contractors, and it has been encouraging the normalization of hopelessness and resignation to the fact that more secure work will not materialize.

In this new economy, mobile apps are often used to connect people with the services they need, while companies controlling the app take cuts of the money exchanged between these independent contractors and consumers. The frequent result is that workers are paid piecemeal for tasks, earn no minimum wage, are guaranteed no minimum hours of work and receive no statutory holiday pay, no vacation pay, no termination pay, no overtime wages and no CPP or EI benefits — all while being expected to provide both the labour and the means of production, such as the use of a car, the gas and appropriate insurance.

This sector is often lauded as a way to raise income from your existing assets like your car, but when things go wrong, it’s the worker, already making peanuts for their efforts, who’s left holding the bag, with little or no control over the terms under which they engage with the app, moving the risk from organizations onto individual low-wage workers.

Further, businesses that formally hire employees to do similar work may find it difficult to compete against businesses that adopt models that bypass labour laws, thereby threatening existing jobs in already precarious and low-paying fields. Perhaps the most famous example of this is in the transportation network service industry, where drivers have gone on the record to state that in some cases, after business taxes, the cost of operating a vehicle and other deductions, they have ended up earning less than minimum wage.

Transportation network services — or app-based ride-hailing, as it’s more commonly known — will soon be able to operate in British Columbia. When it does, the question of labour rights for those drivers will become critical. We don’t have to wait for app-based ride-hailing to come to B.C. to see what’s in store for workers if we don’t act on the on-demand service economy.

There are many other on-demand service companies that already operate in B.C. For instance, several restaurant food delivery service apps provide food delivery services for restaurants and their customers through “independent contractors.” Referring to one such company that operates in the Lower Mainland currently, the National Observer reported on March 14, 2017, that “the drivers are not paid an hourly wage and get no benefits. They also have to cover their own expenses, including gas and the cost of maintaining their cars. They are paid in tips and receive a delivery fee of $4 to $7 per delivery.”

Another company that currently operates in the Lower Mainland clearly indicates on their website that drivers are “independent contractors” and notes that “delivery pay is now calculated as $1 plus 100 percent of tips plus pay boost. The pay boost amount will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the complexity of the order, distance to the restaurant and orders you place yourself.”

Without further information to confirm the contrary, companies like those described above may well provide their independent contractors with earnings that exceed minimum wage, while appropriately compensating for the lack of usual employment benefits and protections required by law. It is troubling to know, however, that these or other similar companies may simply choose not to.

The reality is that B.C. today does not provide adequate protections for workers who may be caught up in the so-called gig economy. And the trend towards precarious work has wide-ranging implications for labour protections at large. There are examples of jurisdictions that have come full circle on this issue over time.

On November 10, 2017, the Financial Post reported that a British panel ruled that Uber drivers were, in fact, “workers with labour rights like paid time off, in a decision with broad implications for the so-called gig economy.” Uber appealed the decision and lost the appeal in what is now considered a landmark decision for not only hundreds of thousands of precarious on-demand service workers in the U.K. but for jurisdictions around the world that are now struggling to manage this growing trend.

[10:25 a.m.]

And it is a growing trend. An April 2017 CCPA study on the on-demand service economy in the greater Toronto area suggests that 9 percent of residents have worked in this economy and almost 40 percent have purchased services through it. It’s critical that this Legislature and the B.C. government consider the implications that large numbers of precarious jobs being introduced by the increasingly popular so-called gig economy model might have on fair wages and labour rights in B.C. and what employment laws might be required in order to protect these workers.

After all, raising minimum wage generates no benefits for workers in the gig economy if minimum wage does not apply to them. We must find a way to encourage what might be an inevitable new kind of technology-based economy to flourish while ensuring that the benefits of convenience and inexpensive services are not achieved through the exploitation of B.C.’s workers.

S. Gibson: It’s kind of propitious that we’re discussing this. I just read a book of the very same title about the gig economy, as someone who has an interest in human resources. I appreciate the motion brought forward by the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale. It was my privilege to teach HR at the university level, so I have a particular interest in this topic.

I suppose it’s worth noting that the gig economy is really all about two levels. On one hand, there are people trying to find work of any kind. I think we realize that. At the same time, there are employers, sometimes, who can be less temperate in the way that they teach their employees — teach them and work with them. I think that’s worth noting.

In my first class at the university, HR management, I’d ask the students this question: “How many of you would like to have a really well-paying job where you don’t have to work that hard?” They all put their hands up. And I’d say: “Hold on now. This is not good for our economy. We’re looking for hard workers.”

I look back on my own life. Around this room, I’m sure everybody can reflect this. I did two degrees in 4½ years, working almost full time. I worked flat out. I worked as a room-service waiter. I worked as a custodian. I worked as a late-night radio announcer. My dad didn’t have a really strong-paying job; my mom was a stay-at-home mom. So I worked really hard.

Now, I’m not saying that model should be emulated by everybody. I understand that. Some people have more means, and they can do better with the funds they have available. But I want to be a bit cautious about criticizing, overall, the model of people going out and finding a way to make a little more money.

I understand that there are families where both breadwinners are working too hard, to the point where they’re not giving proper attention to their children. That’s not defensible. I would not endorse that. But I also know that, in my own situation, even as a family person, I always had extra income coming in. I always had a part-time job as well as my full-time job. I think that it was okay. Many of my friends did the same thing.

The presenter of the motion mentioned some particularly troubling situations, and we don’t want to endorse those. But on the other hand, think about the economic driver in our province. The economic driver in our province is not people working for somebody else; it’s small business. When I see somebody…. They get a little place in a strip mall, and they open up a dry cleaner or a deli.

A friend of mine — his name is also Simon — just opened up a little deli in Abbotsford. He’s struggling. He’s got employees; he’s got a payroll. I know exactly what he’s going through. I had a plastic fabricating company with 13 em­ployees. There were two pay cycles where I didn’t really have enough money to pay myself as owner of the company. I remember my wife saying to me: “Where are we going for dinner tonight?” I said: “Right here in the kitchen.”

Small business people are driving our economy. I didn’t hear that mentioned by the mover at all. If we don’t have people going out, struggling, starting a little business, hiring people, sometimes not being able to pay them quite as much as you’d like to, maybe offering to pay them…. “Could I pay you by what you make temporarily? Maybe you can make something, and then we can get you onto the payroll.”

[10:30 a.m.]

I don’t know, but I worry that we’re creating kind of a dark cloud over entrepreneurship. I don’t hear the speaker, the motion…. And I say this with respect. I don’t hear acknowledgment of how important it is to build a great economy on simple little businesses — entrepreneurs starting something.

Yes, the gig economy has a dark side as well. We need to acknowledge that. Sometimes employees can be abused. That’s not good. I’m not endorsing that. But there are situations where an entrepreneur — for example, myself…. I decided what I wanted to pay myself as an entrepreneur. There were a number of pay cycles when I didn’t have enough money to pay myself. That’s just the way it is. Presumably, that’s not a good thing. We struggled sometimes to keep the company afloat. We did very well for many months, but there were challenges as we got the business rolling.

Small business is everything to our economy. So I just worry that the gig economy…. It’s not all bad. It’s not all negative. People are willing to go out and work hard. Somebody told me something kind of interesting recently….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Gibson: In closing, then, hon. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity.

B. Ma: Thank you so much for the member opposite’s comments. I am a little concerned that the member opposite doesn’t actually know what the on-demand service economy is. We’re not talking about small businesses. We’re talking about multi-billion-dollar mega-companies operating apps that take advantage of workers’ efforts while leaving them holding the bag for all of the risk.

The CCPA study that surveyed the greater Toronto area showed that 70 percent of the on-demand service economy workers were under 40 years old, and 90 percent were college- or university-educated. So times have changed.

I more than respect the experiences of the members opposite, but we need to recognize that the generation of workers today does not experience work and employment in the same way as previous generations. More than half of these gig economy workers have children, and nearly half of them have been doing it for over a year, so it’s not just a temporary situation. The days of pensions and job security are quickly passing by, while the world of highly precarious work is on the rise.

We are already seeing what happens when people cannot afford to live their lives. Families are having children later. Disposable spending is going down. A greater focus on big-box stores, while smaller, local businesses struggle to pay rent…. Young people are not building equity. They aren’t saving money. We’re already seeing seniors working later into life to make ends meet. So what will happen when we realize that entire generations of workers will never be able to afford to retire?

I’d like to close by reading a few excerpts from a February 15, 2019, article from Forbes magazine.

“A point worth noting is that gigs move the risk away from organizations and onto the individual. This is in stark contrast to the secure nine-to-five corporate arrangement that workers demanded and received in the mid-20th century. The latter is becoming more and more of a spectre as cost-cutting, offshoring and salary pruning continue to erode economic security for the average person. It’s easy to argue that ‘developing one’s own brand’ is becoming more important as we move further into this new century.

“There’s a strange, almost surreal backdrop to the current gig economy. Gig workers don’t have human bosses. They work for apps. There are admittedly many moving parts in this picture, but what appears fairly certain is that traditional businesses will continue to offload risk to the individual wherever it can. It’s also similarly certain that contract work will continue to grow as traditional jobs with benefits and salaries that keep pace with the cost of living eventually fade into oblivion. But where does that lead us?”

AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS

S. Bond: I rise today to speak about an issue that is of great importance to all British Columbians. There are well over one million Canadians living with heart disease today. These individuals, and many others, are not yet diagnosed. They are vulnerable to cardiac arrest, of which there are tens of thousands each year in Canada. It is a major cause of death.

[10:35 a.m.]

Cardiac arrest can also happen to fit and healthy individuals, whose first symptom of a heart condition is the arrest itself. Cardiac arrest happens when the heart’s electrical signals malfunction, causing the main pumping chamber to quiver and stop. It can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time, and often without warning.

A person in cardiac arrest could be a colleague at the office, someone in a hockey arena, a stranger on the street or a loved one at home. In an instant, there is no pulse, no blood pressure and loss of consciousness. The person in cardiac arrest is unresponsive to touch or sound. They are clinically dead at this point, and if no one steps in to help, death is imminent. The longer the delay in restarting the heart, the greater the risk of irreversible brain and organ damage. After 12 minutes, chance of survival is next to nil.

What can be done for someone in cardiac arrest outside of a hospital? As urgent as the situation is, after calling 911, the steps to save a life are simple. Performing CPR is the most immediate treatment, but an automated external defibrillator, or an AED, can more than double the chances of survival.

In B.C., through a partnership between the province and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, 830 AEDs were placed in public venues across the province. AEDs are simple to use, and they’re foolproof. Once you turn the power on, you follow simple, step-by-step voice directions. You can’t accidentally shock a person who does not need it. You can do no harm. These devices have saved the lives of many British Columbians. And 911 dispatchers also help by coaching bystanders on CPR. They also direct them to the nearest AED but can only do that if they are registered.

Despite the importance of AEDs, there are outstanding policy issues that must be addressed. Public access to AEDs still remains limited. To be effective, AEDs must be well maintained, available, accessible, and registering all AEDs still remains a challenge.

Sometimes they’re locked away in an office. That hap­pened over a decade ago. Gianfranco Giammaria, a 35-year-old vice-principal, healthy, fit and the father of three, died from a cardiac arrest while playing pickup hockey at Burnaby 8 Rinks. CPR was performed. An AED was not available, but it was later found that an AED was locked up in someone’s office.

Contrast that to Jamie Maclaren. At 43, Jamie had no history of heart problems either. He collapsed in that same arena last year while he was playing hockey. Within 15 minutes of feeling disoriented and jittery, he collapsed and was clinically dead. Lucky for him, though, one of his teammates, a registered nurse, immediately knew what was happening and jumped into action. With the use of an AED, Jamie was shocked twice, and within ten minutes, he was revived.

We can give much credit to Heart and Stroke for saving many lives like Jamie’s because of their hard work to educate the public about CPR and the proper use of AEDs. However, despite these efforts, nine in ten people who experience cardiac arrest outside of a hospital will die. This is both tragic and unnecessary.

As legislators, we can do something about this. We can do this by introducing legislative and regulatory measures to increase people’s access and availability to AEDs. This will help ensure a widespread and predictable network of AEDs. Simply put, lives cannot be saved if AEDs don’t work, can’t be found, or people are afraid to use one.

This is a major problem that legislative and regulatory measures can address. Too many AEDs are not registered. Too many AEDs are not properly maintained, and too few AEDs are available to create an effective network of these life-saving devices.

I am very proud to be part of a Big Bike team that, twice, has raised enough funds to earn the right to place an AED in a specific location in our community. The team is driven to support Heart and Stroke because of our personal experiences. Shawn Rice, our captain, and his wife, Lisa, have a son that has had major heart complications since he was a young child. My husband and my mother faced life-altering circumstances related to cardiac conditions.

[10:40 a.m.]

We know that without exceptional services, aftercare and ongoing support, our situations would be much different than they are today. We can no longer ignore the reality of a patchwork system when we could be saving lives by making AEDs more available and accessible in British Columbia.

The time for action is now, and we need to consider what legislative measures would help increase momentum toward increasing the accessibility of AEDs in our province.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, first, I want to thank the member for sharing her own personal stories and her own personal support and action for AEDs and for heart issues in general. I know it’s certainly made a difference in her community, and it has helped make a difference across the province. So thank you to the member. AEDs are life-savers.

I first came to be aware of the impact they could have when I was on Vancouver’s park board. The park board, of course, is responsible for community centres, rinks, pools — places where we come together as a community, ideal locations for AEDs. At the time, none of them were outfitted with the technology. In fact, there was still a belief amongst some that it was too difficult, too expensive, that it exposed our park board to lawsuits or other concerns. There were all sorts of reasons to do nothing.

Of course, the situation that the member described in Burnaby with Gianfranco Giammaria was becoming better known. Gianfranco’s wife had set out on a mission to make sure that communities across B.C., anywhere people got together, too, could be outfitted with AEDs and that they be well known, that they be visible, that there be training provided so that the situation her husband faced — where he died while an AED was available, just not known about and locked up somewhere else — would never happen again.

I just want to thank her for her leadership and thank the Gianfranco Giammaria Memorial Society for setting out on this mission so many years ago. I believe it’s about 14 years ago now, give or take. It’s made a real difference.

Of course, the B.C. Heart and Stroke Foundation got involved, picked up the mantle, picked up the torch — however you want to call it — and worked with the B.C. emergency health services, as well, for many years now to provide mass training. I was trained last year.

I know MLAs were trained last year, as there was a commitment, at the time, to increase the number of AEDs available as well but also to make sure they were registered and make sure that people knew about PulsePoint as well so that people would know that they, too, could perform CPR, connect with emergency dispatch, find an AED nearby, call 911, call for help to get that AED and get going and save a life — incredibly important programs, incredibly important because they save lives and they take that fear away.

I think the member might have said “idiot-proof,” or foolproof probably was a nicer way to say it. They’re MLA-proof as well. We could figure out how to work them. And really, they should be in communities all across this province.

A member, when I was preparing for this statement, said they had seen an AED at an airport, but unfortunately, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said there was a sign on it: “Sorry. Out of order. Sorry for the inconvenience.” Well, you know, it would be funny if it weren’t so tragic, because of course, it’s not an inconvenience if you die. That’s somebody who’s lost to this world. That’s somebody who’s lost to their family. That’s somebody who’s lost to the society.

It really does pinpoint one of the problems with AEDs, which is: unless we know where they are and unless there’s active work to keep them maintained, they won’t be, or they might not be. And when you need them the most, they might not be available.

I’m interested in what the member has raised around the legislative and regulatory ways that we could improve the situation. I think, obviously, ensuring we know what we have is a good place to start. I think right now there’s over 830 registered, which is quite incredible, given that a few years ago, a couple years ago, you could count on a few hands how many we knew about in the province or that were available.

As more and more people have been saved — I think Jamie Maclaren has also, of course, been out sharing his story — I think more people realize why we need to invest in them. I’m certainly encouraged that Vancouver made the commitment, that communities across the province are making the commitment. And I hope that we can all continue to invest in them, invest in training, invest in ensuring they’re maintained, because they do save lives anywhere they are located.

[10:45 a.m.]

You can guarantee they will save a life if it’s a busy location, because I think the figure I was told was that if you’re in an area where you have traffic of 1,000 adults over the age of 35 during normal business hours, you can expect one incident of sudden cardiac arrest every five years. That’s a lot of locations, a lot of places we need to ensure that we have AEDs available and that we have people who feel confident enough to use them. They’re simple. They save lives.

I thank the member for raising this. I’m certainly happy, if I can, to work with her and others to improve the situation.

S. Bond: I want to thank the member opposite for his thoughtful comments. I very much appreciate it. It proves once again that there are some issues that are beyond partisan politics. I certainly believe this is one of them.

As the member pointed out, there are many public venues that would and should benefit from an AED. A good example of that would be schools. Unfortunately, there are some venues that are actually removing AEDs, even if they’ve been donated, due to misperceptions about liability.

Without proper policy measures in place, organizations may not assign maintenance responsibilities to staff. AEDs could be inappropriately placed — for example, in locked cabinets or offices. In too many locations, existing AEDs go unmaintained, and all AEDs in British Columbia remain uninspected. When there is a medical emergency underway, it is essential that an AED be in proper working condition. The only way to ensure that this will happen is regular inspection and maintenance of AEDs.

Unregistered AEDs means that these devices cannot be included in our 911 dispatch system. This means dispatchers can’t direct bystanders to the closest AED, which may be only metres away. By mandating registration, we can ensure that no British Columbian dies because an existing AED cannot be located.

As a province, B.C. still needs to clarify civil liability protection for individuals who use an AED, including businesses and organizations that own an AED. At present, Manitoba is the only province in Canada that has comprehensive legislation that deals with these kinds of issues. Ontario and Nova Scotia are the only other provinces that have clarified civil liability for the use of AEDs.

Although British Columbia leads in Canada for the best out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival rate, we can and should do better. As members of this Legislature, we can save lives by making AEDs readily available across the province and by instilling confidence in British Columbians to use them. We need to bring forward comprehensive legislation to address the gaps in AED registration, maintenance and liability protection for those who use an AED to help someone in cardiac arrest. The time to do that is now.

I intend to introduce legislation during this session in the form of a private member’s bill. I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues in this House to carefully review the bill and consider showing their support for increased AED availability in British Columbia. It is literally a matter of life or death.

SELF-HELP KITS

J. Routledge: Imagine, if you will. It’s the middle of the night. You wake up. You hear a noise. It sounds like someone is trying to break into your house. You call 911. “Not so fast,” says the dispatcher. “Let’s not jump to conclusions. Maybe the intruder has a right to be there. Maybe this is a simple misunderstanding.”

The dispatcher gives you a link, tells you to download a self-help kit and hangs up. It turns out this self-help kit is nine pages long, and it’s only in English, not your first language.

You’re pretty sure that the first page is telling you that the purpose of the kit is to help you and the alleged intruder resolve your dispute yourselves. It provides you and the alleged intruder with information about your rights and responsibilities. It lists the circumstances under which you are not required to use the self-help kit — for example, if the alleged intruder is in the act of setting fire to your house or if this is not the first time this particular person has tried to enter your house and your previous attempts to turn them away have failed.

[10:50 a.m.]

The second page spells out the three steps you must follow. Step 1: explain why you think this person should not be allowed to enter your house. To complete step 1, you must answer three questions.

Question 1: is the intruder trying to enter your house illegally? It even provides possible scenarios to help you decide if their actions are illegal. You’ve never seen this person before — check. This person is not using a key to open your front door — check. This person did not ring the doorbell — check.

Question 2: is the person in the act of trying to enter your house?

Question 3: is the person acting in a menacing manner? The form then tells you that if you answer yes to these three questions, it’s reasonable to conclude that the person is trying to enter your house illegally.

Now you get to move on to step 2. Step 2: write it all down in a letter explaining why you want this person to go away.

Now you’ve reached the third and final step. You’re supposed to unlock the front door, call the intruder over from the window they’ve been trying to pry open and turn on the porch light. They have to be able to read the letter that you’re about to hand them, explaining why you want them to go away. You hand them the letter. If you’re lucky, they, too, can read English.

If you’re lucky, they will understand that you want them to go away, and they’ll do so voluntarily. Or they will explain to you that it’s a misunderstanding. Maybe they got confused, thinking that it’s their house or that they’re a long-lost relative making a surprise visit. But what if you’re not lucky, and your letter did not convince them to go away? Page 3 of the kit tells you that in that case, now you can call 911, and the police will come. But it may be too late. You’ve already opened the front door; you’ve made yourself vulnerable. You’re now at the mercy of someone who wants to get into your house in the middle of the night.

Many years ago I was surprised by someone trying to break into my home. I did call 911, and the police arrived within minutes. They went out of their way to make sure that I was safe and that I felt safe. Imagine how different it would be had I been required to confront the intruder myself before the police would agree to come to my assistance. Imagine how scared and abandoned one would feel, and how angry.

That’s exactly how many working people have been feeling ever since the previous government introduced the so-called self-help kit in 2002. That’s what they’ve had to go through every time they weren’t paid for hours they worked, not paid overtime or not paid what they thought they should be. Or money was deducted from their paycheque to pay for the employer’s business costs, like dine-and-dash. Or they weren’t paid for statutory holidays. They didn’t get meal breaks. They didn’t get proper leave. Or they didn’t receive the minimum daily pay.

I’m reading this from the kit itself, and there are more examples. This is the very kit that I use as a model for my little allegory. To call it a self-help kit is a misnomer of cruel, Orwellian proportions.

Let me tell you a true story, an example of what really happens when someone tries to use the self-help kit to convince an employer to pay the wages owed to them. Bianca was a kitchen manager in a restaurant. Her employer was consistently underpaying her for hours worked, including overtime. She repeatedly asked her employer to pay her the wages they were withholding, and every time she was told not to worry, that she would be looked after.

Finally, she quit and filed a complaint with the employment standards branch. She was required to participate in mediation that was conducted over the phone by an employment standards officer. The employer kept lowballing an offer and trying to get her to settle. She felt pressured by the employment standards officer to stop wasting everyone’s time and just settle. She refused, and a hearing was scheduled.

The employer didn’t show up for the hearing, and when it was rescheduled, the employer didn’t bring the paperwork that they’d been requested to provide. Finally, after months of this, she accepted a settlement that was less than what was owed to her. In Bianca’s own words, this is what she had to say: “After the hearing, I went outside and cried. I was so intimidated and furious and disappointed with how I was treated.”

[10:55 a.m.]

Her advice to other workers: “I would tell people not to bother filing an employment standards complaint unless they had a lawyer. They will just end up frustrated and even more angry. The system is not made for solving violations. The self-help kit is designed to intimidate people from filing a complaint and is complicated to understand.”

Let me conclude at this point by saying that I’m very curious to hear how a member opposite can possibly tell us what motivated them to replace what was then a workplace version of 911 with a self-help kit.

J. Thornthwaite: Today is the start of Mental Health Week. As the critic for Mental Health and Addictions…. When I was asked to speak to this, I thought self-help kits were for mental health, so that’s what I prepared today.

The Canadian Mental Health Association has provided 16 strategies to help you to thrive. We all deserve to feel well and to thrive, and in order to get there, the first thing to keep in mind is that we all have mental health to protect, promote and celebrate. These 16 strategies from the Canadian Mental Health Association are based on sound science.

Try one of these strategies each day, and reflect on how they impact your mood and sense of well-being. One, start the day off fresh. It’s a brand-new day. Take a deep breath. Make a conscious choice to slow down and just breathe through­out the day. Two, focus on the positives. Write down three things that went well today. What was your role in it? Do this before you go to sleep, and reflect on the good things of the day. Get outdoors. Play with your kids, your pets, your family, your friends.

See the big picture. What is meaningful to you? Do you want to make a difference in your community? Jot down one of the things that you can do today to make a difference. Or volunteer. Check on your neighbour. Treat yourself. Enjoy something you usually deny yourself. You enjoy it.

Embrace culture. Reflect on your heritage. Embrace your uniqueness and your history as valuable parts of who you are. Be active.

Use your personal resources. What or who has helped you through these difficult times? Make a list. Now add things for yourself. Keep the list ready for the next time. Learn. Learn about mental health tips or anything new. Just learn. Find meaning. Want to get in touch with your sense of purpose? What do you feel passionate about? How can you get more involved in what is important to you? Think about this throughout your day. Enjoy yourself. Spend one hour today doing what you want. Connect. Spend time with those you enjoy.

Disconnect from your screens. Turn off all electronics for one hour a day. Can you do that? That includes cell phones, television, computers, video games. Take a moment to just rest. Give yourself a moment to just close your eyes and let go of your thoughts. How about mindfulness meditation? Take time out to breathe. Take three minutes to focus on your breathing. Get comfortable in your chair. Inhale slowly through your nose or mouth. Count one, two, three, and completely fill your lungs. Hold your breath, and pause. Then exhale through your mouth. Repeat this process for a few minutes, and focus on how relaxed you are. Breathing really helps.

Then lastly, nature. Reconnect with the world around you. If you try any one of these, just one a day, it will help. That’s what the evidence says.

It’s time to #GetLoud, and speak up to stop the stigma around mental health, particularly this week. But every week let’s get loud about what mental health really is.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member opposite. It really kind of underlines the disconnect we have in our views of self-help kits. We have just, last week, introduced legislation to eliminate the employment standards self-help kit. I’m pretty excited about that, and I thought we would all share in that excitement about what that means.

[11:00 a.m.]

I think what this underlines, how we’ve kind of missed each other in this debate, is that we are living in the age of self-help. In other words: “You’re on your own, baby; no one is going to be there to help you.” And we’ve got to reverse that.

Let me put this in context. The employment standards self-help kit replaced proactive complaint investigation in 2002. Within the first couple of years, complaints dropped by 61 percent.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

It defies logic to suggest that, all of a sudden, bad employers started treating their employees more fairly. But in this very House, in the past, that’s what opposition members would have you believe — that the drop in the number of complaints proved that workers were happy under the conditions that they’d been living under for the last 16 years.

I think a more rational explanation comes with the fact that at the same time that the government was imposing self-help kits on vulnerable employees, they were also cutting the budget of the employment standards branch by 16 percent and cutting staff by 33 percent and closing almost half of the offices of the employment standards branch.

They dropped from 17 offices to only nine, thereby shifting the burden of responsibility to individual workers to be their own investigators, their own lawyers and their own advocates. It was a way to get them to shut up and go away and to put up with whatever treatment an employer happened to be dishing out.

We’ll never know how many workers took one look at that kit and just gave up. We’ll never know how much was stolen from employees in wage theft. And we’ll never know how many employees were worked to death or made life-threatening errors because they were just too exhausted.

The self-help kit made what was already an inherent power imbalance even worse. So why would the previous government have introduced the self-help kit? That’s what I was hoping to find out today. It would only seem that it’s to fulfil some dogmatic commitment to cut red tape and reduce costs on the backs of working people.

Hon. J. Darcy: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 12 standing in the name of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent is needed to proceed with Motion 12 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 12 — TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE
AND FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise today and move the motion:

[Be it resolved that this House acknowledge that gas prices will decrease by twinning the already-existing Trans Mountain pipeline because more refined product will be shipped to B.C.]

As we know, the government of B.C. is currently in court in Alberta essentially arguing the same thing, that we do need more capacity of refined products and product that can be refined in British Columbia to move into British Columbia. In fact, the court proceedings make it very clear that price gouging has nothing to do with our current state of record gas prices, but in fact, the true supply-and-demand issues at play in any market are really what are driving the problems in British Columbia.

It’s unfortunate that the Premier is unwilling to share with the public any of the options that he’s been considering, according to media reports by the Premier over the last year, to try to drive down gas prices.

One thing we do know, though, to drive down gas prices is that more supply would definitely drive that down. One only has to only look in Manitoba, which is a neighbouring jurisdiction to Alberta — actually, one province even further away. No discernible oil and gas industry within Manitoba, yet they’re currently paying about $1.27 a litre today. So it shows you when you have proper supply flows.

What that ties into with the motion is that the pipeline is essentially a transportation corridor. It’s not owned by the oil companies. It is a transportation company that provides an access point for a commodity, fossil fuels, to get to markets that require it, just like a rail line and just like a highway network that has tanker trucks running on it.

[11:05 a.m.]

We have three transportation corridors to deliver us fuels from Alberta and Washington state. Those are it. We’re not going to be flying en masse. We’re not going back to horse and buggy to get our fuels that we need to run our province and to try to drive the price down so people can do it in an economical way.

As our population grows, we’re going to need even more access. When we see the Parkland Refinery, by all accounts, running under capacity because it’s having trouble getting the feedstock it needs to try to generate distilled products down, refined products down, it just shows that we are not able to meet our demand. Why that’s important with the twinning of the pipeline is that it will add more capacity. It gives more flexibility, although the second pipe going in would be for the diluted bitumen. The current pipe is the only pipeline in North America and the world that actually runs a mix of product through it. This would free up other capacity.

The reverse could happen just as easily. As transportation contracts expire, as they need to be renegotiated, just like any other transportation company would do — just like an airline would do in terms of seat pricing just like hotels do in terms of supply and demand in hotel rooms, vacancy and occupancy…. If there’s a higher demand, if someone is willing to pay more, those types of transportation companies tend to take the higher price. If contracts for diluted bitumen in the existing pipeline were to increase and take away even more of the refined part of this in there — more of the light crude that’s going down to the Parkland Refinery — we’d be into even more problems than we currently are.

Add the fact that under CleanBC, the province of British Columbia is trying to increase the cost per litre for fuel by coming up with a new artisanal blend that will be unique to British Columbia to try to meet some GHG reduction targets. With not being able, at this point, to answer how much that’s going to increase the per-litre cost at the pump to further CleanBC goals, one sees how critical it is to try to make sure we have maximum capacity in our transportation corridors that move fossil fuels.

Again, rail line is one. We see an expanded and ever-increasing volume going through rail lines. We see some increase on highway systems as well, unfortunately, which is clogging up our already-busy arterial areas of our highway system. But the other, the third, the one we’re talking about today, is the pipeline capacity.

The more capacity you have, the more flexibility the transportation company, the pipeline company, has to change up its mix of what product is going down that transportation corridor. Having some diluted bitumen right now, at the rate of one tanker a week going out of the Westridge terminal area, is taking up capacity in that pipeline that could be otherwise used for other products that we could use in B.C. to drive down the cost of fuels at the pump for people.

Unfortunately, this Premier has been unwilling to try to come up with any options. Despite saying that they’ve been working on it for over a year, they will not tell us what any of those options are. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate today.

J. Rice: There’s no evidence that twinning the Trans Moun­tain pipeline will lower gas prices in our province. There is evidence, however, that Alberta has reached maximum capacity in their refineries. This pipeline expansion is intended for carrying diluted bitumen overseas to be processed in foreign refineries for foreign consumers. Trans Mountain said, in 2015, that there would be no increases in refined product shipments after expanding this pipeline.

What I want to know is why the opposition is so keen on creating jobs overseas. First, they killed sawmills in our province that oversaw exponential raw log exports, and now they’re supporting refinery jobs in China. Their so-called plan will do nothing to bring relief to drivers, but it will give a giant subsidy to the oil and gas companies, companies which already receive billions of dollars in subsidies from Canadians, which is strange considering they’re the party of free enterprise.

If government dropped the tax by a few cents, gas companies would raise the price and pocket the difference. What are the B.C. Liberals really saying when they want us to cut taxes? They’re saying they want us to cut services. So what services would they like us to cut? Road repairs? Health care? Education?

[11:10 a.m.]

I know the previous government got used to leaving the elderly and students in the lurch, but on this side of the House, we’ve made commitments to seniors and are making up for 16 years of crowded classrooms and an assault on teachers in this province.

Last year the Leader of the Opposition said that we should stay out of the market when it comes to gas prices. But now, after his party added 15 cents to the price of a litre of gasoline, they claim the penny we’ve added is unacceptable.

We’re committed to making life more affordable for British Columbians. Under our government, taxes have gone down for 99 percent of British Columbians. A family of four earning $60,000 will soon see a 60 percent net reduction in taxes. A family of four earning $80,000 will see a 43 percent net reduction in taxes.

We’ve made historic investments in affordable child care. A recent report on the living wage shows that this investment is making life more affordable. In fact, some families are saving as much as $19,000 per year on child care. We made the largest investment in affordable housing in B.C.’s history, and we’re eliminating MSP premiums, which were doubled by the previous B.C. Liberal government. This will save families up to $1,800 a year.

We’re focusing on British Columbians. We’re focused on defending our coast from a diluted bitumen spill, a type of spill there is still no effective way of cleaning up. We on this side of the House are in agreement with former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed when he said: “We should be refining the bitumen in Alberta, and we should make it public policy in the province.” We’re in agreement with Prime Minister Trudeau when he said: “While governments grant permits, ultimately only communities grant permission.” The communities facing the most risk, and those along the coast facing increased tanker traffic, say: “No, thanks.”

We’re in agreement with former Haisla First Nation Chief and MLA for Skeena when he said, “There’s no way to pick this product,” dilbit, “out of a marine environment. I’m just not willing to actually put the Haisla in that position,” or when he said: “We haven’t seen any technology out there that can guarantee (1) that there won’t be a spill and (2) if there is a spill, that it can be cleaned up.”

We disagree with the opposition when it comes to exporting raw products for processing overseas, whether it be trees or bitumen. We believe in adding value to our products. I empathize with people paying high prices at the pumps. In fact, my constituents in Haida Gwaii have been paying $1.65 a litre for a few years now.

I don’t support the motion because it will do nothing to lower gas prices in B.C. If only we could find a way to harness the energy of the hot air coming from the official opposition, we’d solve British Columbia’s energy prices in a day.

G. Kyllo: I am happy to stand and talk about the out-of-control gas prices that are affecting affordability for British Columbians. Despite the rhetoric coming from the members opposite, affordability has not been addressed by this current government.

We have seen the Premier of our province, last year, make comments about a number of different options that were being evaluated to have a look at providing relief to British Columbians, and we heard nothing. Last week in this very House, in this very chamber, we focused an entire question period on asking the Premier about what those options were — just one. What did we hear? Absolutely nothing from this government with respect to considerations that were being undertaken to provide relief for consumers across our province.

Transportation and fuel prices affect every facet of our economy. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a logging contractor. It doesn’t matter if you’re a retailer paying inbound freight costs on products and goods that you’re going to have on your shelves. High fuel prices affect everybody in this province. When you look at economics 101, it is supply and demand. When you have a look at the high gas prices that people are paying, largely in the Lower Mainland, but across British Columbia…. I heard from one of my colleagues, from Kamloops–North Thompson, that gas prices in Kamloops were almost $1.50 a litre just over the course of the weekend. The prices are expected to continue to rise.

[11:15 a.m.]

When you suppress supply, and the demand is continuing to grow, prices are going to go up, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson indicated. You look at a province like Manitoba. They do not have a very robust oil and gas sector within their province, yet fuel prices are less than $1.30 a litre. Why is it, you might ask, that prices are so high in British Columbia? It’s because of reduced supply. A significant portion of the fuel products that are made available in British Columbia, and largely the Lower Mainland, come from Alberta.

Just quoting, British Columbians consume “about 200,000 barrels a day” of fuels. So 70,000 of that is coming down the Trans Mountain pipeline to Parkland refinery, which is only currently running at about 80 percent capacity. They actually do not have enough feedstock in order to satisfy the local market. They’re certainly not running at capacity.

About another 100,000 barrels a day of refined fuels are also coming down the Trans Mountain pipeline, servicing that Lower Mainland market, with 15 percent of it coming from Washington state. So again, with 30,000 barrels coming every day from Washington state, if there’s an interruption in the United States on refinery capacity, it has an immediate and direct impact on fuel prices in our province. The exchange differential, the differential between the Canadian and U.S. exchange rates, also has a significant impact on gas prices.

You know, it’s so hypocritical to see the current government, on the one hand, in court in Alberta, trying to ensure that the current government does not have the ability to change the makeup of product that’s coming down the Trans Mountain pipeline. They’re also in court in B.C., trying to find ways of having more control over the product that is coming into B.C. and negatively impacting the opportunity for the Trans Mountain pipeline to actually be built. They’ve started no less than five different lawsuits with our neighbouring province.

When you have a look at the cost-effective means of getting a product to market…. When I wake up in the morning, I’m Canadian first and I’m British Columbian second. This is not B.C.’s coast. This is Canada’s coast. And we have a duty to our neighbouring provinces from across Canada to stand with them and to provide them that cost-effective means of getting product to market. Saying no to pipelines is saying yes to increased rail tanker traffic and increased tankertraffic on our roads and our highways.

British Columbia’s population in 1953…. When the Kinder Morgan pipeline was built, the population of B.C. was 1.2 million people. We are now at five million people. To think that a pipeline built over 60 years ago somehow has the capacity to meet all of the needs of British Columbia is absolutely ludicrous. And for the members opposite to somehow perceive that the lack of pipeline capacity is not one of the largest factors increasing prices at the pumps is absolutely laughable.

British Columbians are facing significant increases in fuel prices.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

D. Routley: I rise to respond to the motion made by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

I understand that the member is rather new here. He wouldn’t have been here when the old government, his party, rolled over on British Columbia and gave up on defending our coast. At the time, they had admitted that there were concerns around diluted bitumen being shipped off of our coast and an increase in tanker traffic. They even set down some conditions but then promptly rolled over and gave up on defending our coast.

Instead, they’d like to stand and fearmonger in this place and misrepresent the fact that, in fact, the oil company price gouging is what’s responsible for the high prices here in British Columbia. One cent of the increase here has been due to taxation, and the other 39 cents, on average, has been due to price gouging. That’s just a fact.

Given the chance, this opposition would put tens of thousands of jobs at risk — jobs that are dependent on a clean and healthy coast. The choices they would make would be bad for our economy and bad for the people of British Columbia.

This government is concerned about the risks presented by increased tanker traffic — a sevenfold increase. We are concerned about the billions of dollars in coastal economic activity that would be threatened or destroyed by a major spill. We are concerned about the orca that would be so desperately affected by a spill. That’s our responsibility.

[11:20 a.m.]

Our responsibility is to be concerned about those things. The members opposite, when their party was in government, actually admitted similar concerns but, as I said, promptly rolled over and gave up on defending the coast.

We consider that the federal Court of Appeal quashing the approval of the pipeline because it failed to properly consider the risks of increased tanker traffic and consultation with First Nations was inadequate was an indication that the process was flawed and that we need to defend the coast. That’s why we’ve submitted a reference case, to establish the jurisdiction of this province to protect the jobs, economy and environment of British Columbia.

A single spill would put at risk at least $9 billion of coastal economic activity — a single spill. Tens of thousands of people, communities that depend on the ocean to set their tables, the First Nations communities of coastal British Columbia, would be devastated. This former government, the official opposition, would have us, for very little benefit to British Columbians, put all of that at risk. Even they must recognize that ferry traffic does not pose the significant risk that oil tanker traffic does.

Our government is looking to minimize the impact on killer whales, minimize the impact on the environment and protect it from things that we consider to be not in the interest of British Columbians, our environment, our communities or our economy.

B.C. Ferries is considering battery propulsion for its vessels in order to cope with some of the noise issues around the conditions for orca. At the same time, it’s also important that any government that’s in power in British Columbia work to preserve and protect the transportation requirements of coastal communities. Our highway is a marine highway, and the decision the former government made to cut those services devastated communities.

It’s important to note the flip-flopping of the opposition. They, at one time, admitted concerns about this project and diluted bitumen spills. In fact, the official opposition member for Skeena said the following on December 20, 2013. Granted that’s six years ago, so there have been four or five flip-flops of policy by the opposition on this issue. But never mind.

The member for Skeena said, “There’s no real way to pick this product up out of a marine environment. If they can prove that, then show us where this is being practised around the world. I’m just not willing to actually put the Haisla in that position,” when he was chief of Haisla Nation. He said: “We don’t agree with the Enbridge project.” On January 9, 2012, he said: “That’s set in stone, because we haven’t seen any technology out there that can guarantee that, one, there won’t be a spill and, two, if there is a spill, that it can be cleaned up.”

They know. They’ve admitted in the past that this is a huge risk to the coast of our province, and now they should acknowledge that and oppose the project.

M. Hunt: After listening to the government side speak on this, you just don’t know where to start. I mean, it is so absolutely, utterly unbelievable, the hot air that comes from the other side, much less them accusing us.

Let’s just take the last speaker’s couple of comments. Let’s talk about the oil companies gouging. You know, it’s interesting, but somehow in the court case that this government is putting before the courts on high oil prices in B.C., they have not even used the words “gouging” or “price gouging.” Because it isn’t there. But they have admitted to the fact that provincial taxes are, in fact, part of why we have high prices.

I just find it amazing that they say one thing in this House, and they go all over the province saying all sorts of stuff. But when it comes into the courts, all of a sudden, they’re really quiet. They talk about the giveaway, how terrible we’ve been and all this stuff. Well, I thought that they were the ones that just cut the special deal for LNG in northern B.C. I forget how many billions of dollars they gave away since our legislation — to them.

[11:25 a.m.]

Oh yes, we’re the only ones that do flip-flops. I mean, get serious. Get serious. They ran on this whole thing of: “Let’s make life more affordable for British Columbians.” The gas prices are a really simple one to look at.

I know it’s easy to say: “Well, we’re B.C. We’re this, that and the other thing.” Well, let’s look at the province of Manitoba. How many refineries do they have? How many oil wells do they have? Well, they get everything by pipeline. Gas prices in Winnipeg today: low price, $1.209; the average price, $1.259. In Winnipeg, they get their fuel from a pipeline.

Now, I know it’s hard to believe. We think pipelines are pipelines, and they have capacity. But one of the nuances that gets lost in the midst of this debate is the fact that the pipeline currently, which, by the way, flows through Surrey — and we have never had a spill in Surrey in the entire lifetime of this very, very old pipeline that’s still there and is in very good shape — handles heavy crude. It handles light crude. It handles refined products.

Now, I know that there are those of us that work in the kitchen from time to time. When we’re in the kitchen and we’re baking something with molasses…. You know, molasses, if you’ve had it stored in the fridge, you can just about hold the container upside down and nothing’s going to happen. At room temperature, well, it slowly starts to come out. And if you want to speed up the process, you put it in the microwave oven, you heat it up, and it comes out faster.

Well, it’s the same thing with oil products in a pipeline, because heavy crude moves more slowly through the pipeline versus refined product. As a result, while it has a nominal capacity of 300,000 barrels per day, in fact, if it was doing refined products only, you’d be sitting at 395,000 barrels per day. But it can be slow. If it has more heavy in there, it’s down to 269,000.

If you had a pipeline that was dedicated — the twinned pipeline — to the heavy crude, it’s going to be pumping through at its wonderful rate, but that gives the ability for more refined product to come through the pipeline. That increases capacity. That’s why the motion that’s before us is to, in fact, support twinning it. Because, in fact, by supporting twinning it….

Contrary to what the government folks are saying, they actually have — I don’t believe this; we got this by freedom of information — a briefing note that says, in fact, that. It implies that if the crude is going up, it means the refined product in the pipeline is going down. If you twin that, you get more crude taken out. You get more refined product.

My time is up.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise in the House and speak on the issue of high gas prices in British Columbia. It’s incredibly frustrating for myself, for all British Columbians, to see the gas prices shooting up across the province.

This is in the face of: why is it that gas prices are disproportionately higher in British Columbia with respect to many other jurisdictions across the country while, at the same time, the price of oil remains flat or even goes down? That’s the big question, in terms of why the big discrepancy. Why is it that in British Columbia, we face the highest gas prices in the country, while gas prices are lower in other areas? I think that’s the question.

Certainly, we know that when we look at what’s underlying the push around gas prices, one, British Columbia has the highest profit margins, in terms of refinery and also in terms of marketing. What does that mean? It means that oil and gas companies in British Columbia make the biggest profits. They have the biggest profit margins. In British Columbia, they make, on average, twice as much profit. Big oil and gas makes, on average, double the profit on selling gas in British Columbia that they do across the rest of the country.

[11:30 a.m.]

What’s that dollar amount? We are seeing big oil and gas make an additional $800 million a year off British Columbians due to these increased margins — pushing $1 billion. This is close to an additional $1 billion extra profit going to oil and gas, because they’re jacking up the prices. Maybe the other side doesn’t characterize that…. For me and for us on this side, I think that meets the test of price gouging. Price gouging by big oil and gas off the backs of British Columbians, in terms of padding their profit margins, is underlying the high gas prices here in British Columbia. We know, as well, that it’s that price gouging of those additional profit margins that is driving prices. It’s not taxes.

In the last three months, gas has increased 40 cents. We’ve seen that — skyrocketing increases, 40 cents. Now, what proportion of that has been taxes? It has been one cent. One cent out of the 40 has gone to increased tax. Certainly, that’s why we characterize the gas prices as being driven by price gouging and profiteering by big oil and gas here in British Columbia. So rebating taxes is not the solution for gas prices.

Let’s look at what the opposition has proposed in terms of addressing these sky-high gas prices. They claim that…. Their proposal is to twin the Trans Mountain. That will not lead to lower gas prices in British Columbia. We know that there’s no surplus of refined product in Alberta waiting to come to B.C. They’re also saying…. What’s another proposal? “Oh, cut the taxes. Cut that one cent or the two cents, in terms of taxes, to fuel.” We know what would happen. That would be an additional subsidy. There’s no guarantee, if we cut taxes, that oil and gas is not going to raise their profits.

The twinning of the Trans Mountain is not going to lower prices. Cutting those two cents on taxes would result in, basically, a bigger subsidy to oil and gas, as well as taxpayers paying for that, through decreased programs and cuts in services. So our government has said that we will look at regulatory efforts. We will coordinate with the federal government and look at the Competition Bureau to address this price gouging, to take steps. In addition, what are the other areas? Addressing affordability. These are concrete steps with respect to the Competition Bureau holding big oil and gas to account. That’s one.

Two, what are the realities around affordability? That’s a big commitment of our government, and we have taken steps. The biggest tax cut in the history of British Columbia, for 99 percent of British Columbians. We hear that the opposition is opposed to that. We know they’re on the side of the 1 percent, and they’re not happy with that. We’re proud of that. Reducing taxes for 99 percent, reducing MSP, reducing interest on tuition, reducing the tolls on bridges, bringing in child care — these are steps that we’re taking to address affordability and to take real action around price gouging by big oil and gas. We’re on the side of people.

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to rise today on something that is a fundamental issue for British Columbians. Whether you drive the Port Mann Bridge in the morning and you have to commute from Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey or wherever else, you’re forced to have to put fuel into your vehicle. The bottom line is that this government has done nothing to bring more affordability to British Columbians. Forget about all of the promises that the member for Vancouver-Kensington just mentioned.

I want to talk about some of the things that the previous government did do. The bottom line is that the former Premier of this province negotiated and came up with five conditions that were pivotal in terms of this government making a deal with Alberta, about moving oil or fuel through a pipeline in an increased pipeline capacity.

[11:35 a.m.]

Certainly, the successful completion of the environmental review process; world-leading marine oil spill response prevention; recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline, which I know we hear a lot about — what has actually happened is that it has decreased, or nothing has happened on the pivotal changes that were being made; world-leading practices on land oil spill prevention, response and recovery; legal requirements regarding Aboriginals and their treaty rights being addressed. How many First Nations have signed on with the Trans Mountain pipeline to make this a reality for their communities? Dozens. Dozens and dozens. And British Columbia receives its fair share of economic opportunity.

We approved that project because we believe that the project met the strict requirements, including an agreement from the proponent to adhere to the 37 conditions from our own environmental assessment office, along with another 157 requirements by the National Energy Board.

I want to just talk briefly…. I know a couple of members here have touched on the fact that this pipeline is over 60 years old. If anybody was to look at the record, this track record of this particular pipeline…. I don’t know if they actually know that there are sections…. It’s X-rayed every three years, and they replace sections within a five-year period. That’s the maximum length of time that sections of pipe remain in the ground. They don’t just stay there forever. It’s not a 60-year-old pipeline. It’s a route to transport all sorts of products into British Columbia and to our coastline.

Trans Mountain is the only pipeline in North America that carries both refined and crude product in batches. A little bit like oil cars. You can batch it by sending separate oil cars.

I just want to talk about the amount of crude and the fact that crude shipments, in the last five years, between 2013 and 2018, have increased fivefold. That’s by rail. That’s the bottom line. We are taking huge risks to our environment. They talk all the time about the fact, but the fact is that when….

I want to talk just briefly about supply and demand — the fact that diversification of our products, which we’ve been all promoting into Asia and other markets that are looking for cleaner opportunities like LNG, are looking for this product…. The fact is that we can transport it safely to our coastline as well as to our refineries and our storage and distribution centre in Kamloops and cut out the people that we’re having to buy from in the United States who are charging a premium. If there’s any gouging going on, it’s between the other countries that we’re having to buy from, rather than dealing with our own Canadian products.

I want to touch…. One other thing is uncertainty, which I think the government has presented with increased taxation. The fact that they don’t stand up for environmentally sound practices to develop our industry leads to increased cost, and it adds cost to the average consumer at the pumps. Oil companies, or pipeline companies, as we’re seeing, even with the LNG pipeline, are having to sell off portions of their interest because the financial markets are saying that they’re not certain that this is a reasonable place to invest in.

I think that providing certainty to businesses and governments and financial institutions is how you bring lower prices and make certain that there is affordability, which is what you’re all about. Let’s make a case for affordability. Let’s provide some certainty and not sit here and beat each other up on the fact that we don’t know all the details about every aspect — how we can bring the price down through reducing gas taxes or increased carbon tax.

Madam Speaker, the message is: provide certainty.

A. Kang: In the interests of B.C. and my community of Burnaby, I rise to speak against this motion: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge that gas prices will decrease by twinning the already-existing Trans Mountain pipeline because more refined product will be shipped to B.C.”

I have been speaking and listening to many concerned Burnaby residents. They have told me that they are vehemently opposed to any oil pipeline around Burrard Inlet as a pipeline would degrade their city, their neighbourhood and the natural habitat.

A local group of Burnaby residents opposing the Kinder Morgan expansion have expressed the public health and public safety concerns in their injunction letter as a twinning of the pipelines and the expansion of the tank farm and port would be in a densely populated area and in hazardous geographic locations. All of these are unacceptable risks to our residents and our environment.

Our Prime Minister has spoken on this issue, saying that while “governments grant permits, ultimately, only communities grant permission.” Well, as you can see, hon. Speaker, the citizens of Burnaby do not grant permission to the pipeline expansion.

[11:40 a.m.]

The motion asks us to sacrifice our public health, our public safety, our environment by twinning the Trans Mountain pipeline. But for what? To serve their political purpose. The opposition distorts facts and attempts to oversimplify a complex issue.

We would be doing British Columbians a disservice by supporting this motion. I implore everyone to join me in deconstructing the logic of this motion. You will find many of the assumptions of the motion are not based on facts, science or economics. Some of these assumptions are just flat-out wrong.

First, let’s start off with the assumption that an increased capacity of pipeline will automatically result in an increase in supply of refined petroleum products, also known as the gasoline that we put in our vehicles. The assumption, which serves as the premise of the motion, is wrong. The Trans Mountain pipeline system acknowledges in the Muse report of September 2015 to the National Energy Board, NEB, that refined product shipments will not increase as a result of expansion.

Secondly, there is no surplus of refined product in Alberta just waiting to come to B.C. The Alberta Energy Regulator recently published data showing that refineries in Alberta were running at close to 100 percent in both 2016 and 2017 to keep up with existing demand, while there are no current proposals for new refineries in Alberta.

Simply put, this motion is just one of the opposition’s attempts to dismantle this government’s efforts in protecting our public health, our public safety and our environment. The opposition misleads British Columbians by claiming that our efforts to protect British Columbians are driving up gas prices. The opposition deceives British Columbians by alleging that by asking the oil industry to pay its fair share for its externalities, we are driving up gas prices.

Instead of listening to fearmongering and ignoring the facts, we should listen to what experts are saying. So let’s get the facts straight. Quoting from Marc Lee, a well-established economist from Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, it’s not taxes that are causing the current pain at the pump; it’s industry gouging. Alberta’s oil industry is “making huge excess profits” at the expense of Metro Vancouver drivers. He continues to say that some politicians — and I believe he’s referring to the members opposite — have suggested that B.C. should cut its fuel and carbon taxes “to alleviate pain at the pump.”

But cutting taxes would only reward companies referring income, transferring income, from the public to the oil industry. And to affirm the truth about B.C.’s gas prices, Lee asserts: “B.C.’s opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is not causing prices to spike. There isn’t a supply shortage of gasoline in Metro Vancouver, and no vehicles have been turned away from a station just because it ran out of gas.” It didn’t.

As well, most recently on April 26, UBC Sauder School of Business professor Werner Antweiler said the opposition’s plan is “a completely ineffective proposition and makes no econo­mic sense.”

We have a responsibility to defend the interests of British Columbians, and that is exactly what our government has been consistent in doing. Therefore, for B.C. and for Burnaby, my home and community, I’ll be voting against this motion.

L. Throness: Well, I’ve noted something as I’ve met with hundreds of people as an MLA. Even the most charitable among us are self-interested. That includes me and the members opposite. It’s not a slur against anyone’s character. This is just human nature.

Adam Smith wrote, in 1776, that whenever a lot of self-interested people buy and sell together, they create something called a market that works to everyone’s interest. In North America, efficient, functioning markets have poured out a cornucopia of goods and services that have made our generation the wealthiest ever to live on the face of the earth.

The government moans about gouging corporations and greedy people who run them, but the market is really an impersonal force. It’s more like a machine. And the government is tasked with the efficient functioning of this market.

Traditionally, the NDP don’t trust it, so they don’t bother trying to make it work better. They fight it, which is a big mistake for all taxpayers, when its job is to make the market function efficiently. For example, instead of making the gas market function effectively, I fully expect the government to come up with some kind of system of subsidies, hugely expensive for commuters, where they send a lot of cheques to winners, and some will lose. They’ll reward their friends instead of what they should be doing, which is to regulate the marketplace so it runs well.

[11:45 a.m.]

How does a market work? In an efficient market, if prices rise too much, then a new entrant will come into the market. In the case of gas prices, the gas station owner will say, “If I bought a tanker truck load of gas from Edmonton and brought it down, I could sell it cheaper,” and would do that. And someone across town would say, “You know, I could sell it even cheaper,” and they would do that. Soon everybody would have to lower their prices. So something is hindering the efficient functioning of the market.

What is it? Could it be sitting on granting permits to new gas stations? Maybe it’s corporate rules that forbid individual stations from being competitive with their prices. Maybe it’s provincial regulation. Maybe it’s an internal trade barrier between Alberta and B.C. I don’t know. And this is my point: I don’t think the government knows either, and it’s not bothering to find out.

I’m going to tell the government what to do. I think the government should have, years ago, convened a panel of market experts to search out this issue and ask what is hindering the efficient operation of the market — what’s keeping the new player, the little independent retailer, out of the market — and then use its powers to ensure the efficient market. And if the government doesn’t do something, pretty soon the Hell’s Angels are going to be bootlegging gas on the street.

The thing we know about this right now, the market, is we could approve the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government says this will have no effect. But I met with Trans Mountain a couple of years ago, and they told me that they can put anything in that pipe. They put in, say, oil or crude. Then they put in a buffer liquid. Then they put in diesel or whatever they want. They could put gasoline in that pipe and affect prices in Vancouver overnight.

I call upon the government to drop its opposition to the pipeline and approve it. If the government doesn’t do these things, if they don’t get to the bottom of the market, and if they don’t allow the pipeline, I have to ask why. Perhaps they secretly want high gas prices to discourage the use of oil because they think it’s better for the environment. They want to push more people onto rapid transit, using the brutal cudgel of high gas prices, so they’re quietly cheering them on.

The tragedy of this on a provincial level is that it reduces economic activity, which in turn reduces tax revenues, which in turn puts pressure on the very programs the NDP want to fund. They’re shooting themselves in the foot, and they’re harming the economy at the same time. On an individual level, the tragedy is that the lowest-income driver will be hurt the most. Some lower-income drivers will be driven right off the road, and a few will have to quit their jobs because rapid transit isn’t an option.

We hear now that drivers aren’t able to afford to drive cancer patients to their appointments. That’s terrible for everyone, including the lowest-income. It means a squeeze on affordability, having to sacrifice recreation or leisure, working more hours to pay for that gas. They’ll have to give up something, and that should embarrass this government.

The ones who will still able to afford to drive are the NDP members opposite. Each and every one of them are 1 percenters. They are among the top income earners in our economy, so they’re not feeling the personal pain, and maybe that’s also why they don’t bother to do anything.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would call on them, at the very least, to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will make the market function a little bit more efficiently and gas prices across B.C., certainly in the Lower Mainland, can drop. I would call upon them to do that right away.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to be able to speak against this motion. I think it’s…. To be fair, at best, the members opposite can’t say for sure what the impact would be of the pipeline on the cost of gas. That would probably be fair. I think there are a lot of experts who say that it’ll have no effect. They’re quoting experts that support their position.

I think I’ve seen this game played in this place before. You know, you’ll rally around those people who sing the same tune, and we’ll talk about what our values are and why we think it’s important to follow the rule of law. That’s what we do in this country. We have concerns around the consultation. We have concerns around the state of the environment. I believe that those are things that British Columbians are concerned about.

The fact that this opposition is looking for something to pretend that they’re different somehow…. I mean, are they suggesting that we…? The one cent of this massive increase — that goes to the fact that they want us to reduce that so we can revert back to some pretty bad policies that we actually finally got rid of when we formed government. I think that’s the question. Where will the members opposite suggest that we pay for the important programs and services that we count on as British Columbians?

Affordability is all of our issue. I’m not happy that…. I said to my partner, “Do you want to come to watch question period?” He goes: “It’s going to be all about gas prices. Why are the gas prices so high?”

[11:50 a.m.]

We’re in this together as British Columbians. That’s what I find pretty lacking — this idea that the members opposite are taking one side, not recognizing that we as British Columbians are facing this together. We had an increase of one cent to the carbon tax, and the members opposite are jumping on the whole thing, saying that the entire increase is because of the lack of the pipeline.

The fact is, if the member opposite, who I heard over the rolling of eyes, was talking about why this wasn’t done earlier, he was talking about the times when he was sitting in government caucus. You know, he can bring that up if he wants. But we have a situation, a public policy issue here, that we need to address.

In my view, I think when things are tough, we as British Columbians should stand together. Unfortunately, the opposition chooses to take Alberta’s side and chooses to take the side of the big oil companies. That’s just not the side that we’ve decided to take. We take the side of the people who have to pay and who have to face the increase in costs. Let’s just say affordability.

You know, in my constituency, we’ve got four ferries. They were all reduced 15 percent — back to 2011 levels. We raised issues around affordability when we were in opposition. We got very little time from the government of the day. They didn’t think about affordability issues. We’ve done things like taking tolls off bridges, reducing ferry fares, addressing the MSP. That’s one of the most regressive forms of taxation that we’ve had in this province. We got rid of that. We’re taking steps to try to make things better for people.

This is unfortunate — that the gas companies have put the price up so much. I think there are a lot of people who have suggestions as to why that’s happened. This is what we’re all wondering about. You ask: what did the government consider? I’m not in that cabinet room, but they probably considered every option, including the cockamamie ones that the opposition came up with, and they probably dismissed them. Do we want to raise all the things that we’ve dismissed? There are reasons why.

Government is obviously concerned about this issue, because it’s affecting British Columbians. But to make it into, “It’s all this answer; it’s all that answer,” is just the simplicity of this place. In fact, this is a complicated issue, and it is not going to be resolved by a simple reduction of one cent or two cents in the gas. That’s just a gift to the corporations.

With that, I’ve just had an opportunity to express my views on this, and I appreciate that.

R. Sultan: I support my colleague’s motion, which says gasoline prices will decline if we twin the Trans Mountain pipeline, because then more refined products will be shipped into B.C. Gas prices have gone crazy. British Columbians need affordability relief.

The NDP campaigned on affordability, but affordability is fast becoming a distant dream, particularly for those of us living in Metro Vancouver. By comparison, the rest of Canada, not having a government crippled by ideology, enjoys much lower gas prices. For example, as reported by Griffiths of Postmedia, on a recent day gasoline cost $1.18 in Calgary, $1.20 in Toronto, $1.21 in Halifax, $1.29 in Montreal and a whopping $1.60 in Vancouver.

Why? Our Premier, putting on his energy economist hat, says it’s all due to price gouging by those dastardly big oil companies. He ignores the fact that gasoline taxes in Vancouver are also the highest in the country. I refer to the sum of TransLink fees, federal taxes, carbon tax, GST, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the special B.C. gas tax, all adding up to well over 50 cents a litre, or a 50 percent price markup. If anybody is gouging here, it’s governments.

This brings us to the other sharp edge of the government’s bayonet — the deliberate constriction of supply. The Trans Mountain pipeline is maxed out. The railroads are maxed out. The American Northwest is maxed out. The twinning of the pipeline is blocked by this government, using: “All available tools.” As Vaughn Palmer pointed out, Calgary companies are not so stupid as to consider new supply investments in this hostile “let’s climb a tree in protest” province, because we’ve passed a law to ban the use of all gasoline in automobiles very, very soon.

[11:55 a.m.]

So the government says: “Please invest to produce some­thing that we’ve outlawed.” Well, that’s a great sales pitch. Is this a scene from a Monty Python movie? It sounds like it to me.

When demand grows, but supply doesn’t, guess what. Prices go up. That’s not gouging. It’s called the marketplace. It’s called supply and demand, something missing from the curriculum at NDP college. That’s for sure.

Now, we realize that the corner office of this building is staffed by certain people who believe that Cuba, Venezuela and Stalin’s Russia had a much more fair approach to the pricing of essentials. The only problem is that those countries ran out of supply.

To sum up, this government’s barrage of taxation has done nothing to benefit British Columbians, except to lighten their wallets. They constrict supply, and there is no end in sight. They talk a lot about it, but it is clear that this government has no plans to actually make the cost of living more affordable in British Columbia. If Alberta Premier Jason Kenney goes forward with his threat to turn off the taps, gas prices will surely skyrocket even higher. Heaven help us. A cost-of-living catastrophe is only a simple twist of the tap away.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Darcy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.