Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage, Bill 10, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, I call debate on the Ministry of Health estimates.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LOW CARBON FUELS ACT

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that Bill 15 be read a second time now.

I’m pleased to present Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act. Bill 15 will replace the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act. The current energy crisis underlines just how important it is for us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to transition to made-in-B.C., low-carbon options, such as biofuels, hydrogen and electricity.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act was first introduced by the previous government in 2008. That act established the low-carbon fuel standard, the LCFS, the regulatory framework which aimed to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by, firstly, requiring fuel suppliers to supply a prescribed percentage of renewable fuels and, secondly, empowering the province to set regulations for specific carbon intensity targets to reduce the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy in fuel.

The low-carbon fuel standard is now the single largest contributor to meeting our CleanBC targets, expected to account for 31 percent, or approximately one-third, of all reductions in the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030. To date, the low-carbon fuel standard has reduced more than 12 million tonnes of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the years, the department has worked closely with the state of California on the low-carbon fuel standard. Our Pacific Coast Collaborative partners, Oregon and Washington, have recently adopted similar measures. To maximize our production of low-carbon energy and to support the clean transformation of manufacturing and fuel production in British Columbia, we’re building on approaches that we know well, and we’re creating incentives for innovation.

The new Low Carbon Fuels Act incorporates the learnings of the past 14 years to create a clearer and more robust structure that ensures the low-carbon fuel standard will be easier to administer and to enforce. The new act does not substantially change the existing policy, but it does strengthen and modernize the structure of the act itself. With this legislation, we’re modernizing and expanding the low-carbon fuel standard to incorporate new fuel classes and to encourage broader participation, investment and innovation in the production and use of low-carbon fuels.

Stimulating the production and use of made-in-B.C., renewable and low-carbon fuels will generate jobs and economic opportunities for First Nations, businesses, in­no­vators and communities around the province, all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposed act will deliver on CleanBC’s Roadmap to 2030 cleaner fuel commitments by expanding the scope to include more base fuels such as fossil-based aviation and marine fuels; enabling compliance units to be issued to persons who permanently sequester greenhouse gases captured directly from the air; allowing registered persons to trade credits, whether or not they are a fuel supplier; requiring prescribed utilities that earn credits from the supply of electricity to invest a portion of the revenue from the sale of the credits into projects that increase the use of electricity in transportation; and finally, by supporting the development of production capacity for 1.3 billion litres of made-in-B.C. renewable fuels per year by 2030.

This legislation is just one of a range of actions we’re taking through our CleanBC Roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; build a cleaner, stronger future; and prepare for the impacts of climate change.

[1:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for the statements.

It gives me great pride to be the designated speaker for Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuel Act. As critic for Energy and Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, along with my colleague from Skeena, who will be joining us fairly shortly, it is my responsibility to hold government to account in accordance with what the minister has been mandated by the Premier but also to industry, communities and people in British Columbia.

This province — actually this world, in fact — has seen some of history’s largest environmental, technological and social transformations, arguably, over the last 20 years or so. There’s been a strong signal that collectively, as humans, we need to be more responsible in how we live.

As we all know, greenhouse gas emissions are altering our climate system in many ways, causing frequent weather events, such as heat waves, fires and flooding. We don’t have to go too far back to see some of the climate disasters that we’ve seen in the last couple years — extreme flooding, fire. We’ve got to do everything we can, as human beings, to reduce our impact here on the planet.

We have an ever-advancing technology sector that is brining us alternate ways to keep us warm and to keep us cool with less assistance of carbon-intensive fuels, less carbon-intensive ways to transfer ourselves and our supplies. This certainly has been a work in progress.

Additionally, the cost for these alternative energy sources is becoming more and more affordable, and that is where the balance is. After all the good heads come together, after industry develops better delivery models, the last question is always: what is practical to use so that it’s sustainable and what is cost-prohibitive and unsustainable to use? This is the real equation for the everyday businesses and people of British Columbia.

At a time when this province is seeing the highest gas prices, housing prices and most people $200 away from making their next mortgage payment, good timing is critical when implementing strategies to what is outlined in Bill 15.

B.C. continues to experience a deepening affordability crisis, and young people in our province are enduring some of the worst consequences. We have the highest gas prices in North America. This is well before the invasion of the Ukraine, although that definitely has been adding to the pain at the pump that we’re seeing right now. The last tally I’ve seen was $2.23 a litre here in the Lower Mainland or on the Island, and no relief in sight.

We’ve got some of the highest rents in our country, and the housing prices are the highest we’ve ever seen. The younger people in our province are struggling to afford to buy a house and, instead, face incredibly high rental rates. Groceries are getting dramatically more expensive. Everybody can see that every day, when they buy their goods at the local grocery store.

People need to see the government taking real action on B.C.’s affordability crisis, and this is the balance I’m trying to draw between Bill 15 and the real crisis, the other crisis that we have right here. We’ve got a climate emergency, as some refer to it, and we also have an affordability crisis here in British Columbia. So when we introduce bills such as this, we have to take a look at the broad, holistic view of it and what that is going to actually mean to everyday British Columbians.

The bill was tabled yesterday by the Energy Minister, and its purpose was described as to modernize the low-carbon fuel standard to support CleanBC’s fuel carbon intensity targets, expand the act to include new categories of fuels, such as aviation fuels, as the minister just stated, and enable utilities to reinvest credit revenues into projects supporting electricity and transformation. Fair enough.

However, just prior to the tabling of the bill, the minister stated, in referring to the B.C. Liberal’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act — I’m assuming that’s what he was getting at — during an introduction: “Since being introduced over ten years ago with little precedent to draw upon, B.C.’s low-carbon fuel standard has been the single largest contributor to meeting our CleanBC targets.”

So the question automatically jumps out at me that if the former act, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2008, and B.C.’s low-carbon fuel standards have been such a large contributor to meeting our CleanBC targets, why do we need to replace the entire bill and not just simply amend the current bill to modernize it?

When the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act was implemented in 2008, it came along with another act entitled the Carbon Tax Act, in 2008. Not in tandem, but they were done the same year. This was the B.C. Liberal’s forward-thinking on how we could be more responsible on reducing our impact here in British Columbia.

[1:45 p.m.]

The Carbon Tax Act incorporated a pretty nifty way of dealing with the tax. That was to make the tax revenue neutral, which was another way of saying that every penny collected from the tax was going to be kicked back and spread across all taxpayers of B.C. in the form of lowering personal and corporate income tax. At that time, I believe we had the lowest tax rate provincially in Canada for those making less than $120,000 a year.

This forward-thinking was heralded across the globe, and it helped people afford the things they needed. In 2012, the carbon tax was halted at $30 a tonne.

When the NDP came into power, however, they immediately removed the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax and took all that money that was going to B.C. taxpayers and put it in their own pocket as general revenue in order to spend the money as they saw fit. With Bill 15, I hope we’re not seeing a somewhat close cousin to that type of move and what happened with the carbon tax.

There were incentives created with carbon credits, and these incentives are based on the creation of an initiative fund that’s going to be set up. That would be funded by selling compliance credits, which we will require clarification on — why that fund was created and what that money is expected to be spent on. I’m hoping it’s not just merely going to be transferred into general revenue.

I know there will be a utilities…. B.C. Hydro will be taking charge of that initiative fund in some way, shape or form. We’re just wondering. Those are some of the questions we’ll be asking in committee stage, on better clarification of how that initiative fund will be set up and all the moving parts and pieces that will go along with it.

The recently introduced Bill 15 repeals and replaces the previous legislation, as I said, and adjusts the formulas for compliance credits to potentially increase the carbon intensity — in turn, making it perhaps more difficult to receive compliance credits. It’s a fairly complex formula that has been set up.

There’s been a new piece — I think it’s the UIC component of the formula — that has been brought in. It’s on page 10. It’s section 13 of the bill. It identifies several components of the formula that’s used. That’s the TCI, the EER, the RCI, the UCI and the EC. The UCI, I believe, is a brand-new component. That will be under discretion, in accordance with the regulations of the minister. There are actually several pieces of that formula that will be subjected to regulation.

We’re wondering how that regulation is going to impact the availability or the way that companies or suppliers can address receiving credits. Will it make it more hard? Will it make it easier? What impact will that have on the cost of the fuel that we’ll be receiving at the retail level? Will that make it go up?

I think the minister has made statements that it will. I believe the statement yesterday was a cent. We’ll be asking more questions on how he’d arrived at that calculation, because I think it’s fair for British Columbians to understand what we’re getting into when we adopt these.

We’re not saying that these are bad initiatives or that these are bad things we don’t want in the province. Of course we want to take a leading role, and British Columbia has been doing that for quite some time. As I mentioned earlier, the carbon tax was one of those forward-thinking initiatives that the B.C. Liberals brought into play. The government now has supported and has increased that tax. We need to be responsible, but we need to do it in a sustainable way. These are the questions we’ll be asking in committee stage for sure.

The bill gives the ministry the power in determining additional carbon intensity through regulation, but this does also require definition of what is considered additional carbon intensity and how it is measured. Getting back to the formula, how is that going to be measured, and what is considered additional carbon intensity?

Replacing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, the new legislation will have an updated scheme for incentivizing the supply of renewable and low-carbon fuels in British Columbia. Further, as the goal of this legislation is to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted, we would hope to be provided with material that will identify if the carbon intensity of base fuels will be changed dramatically.

[1:50 p.m.]

In all these formulas, there is a base fuel and there is an alternate fuel. We want to know the base fuel, the fossil fuel…. How will that be identified? How will that intensity of that base fuel be changed through this bill?

Additionally, as the process of lowering the carbon emissions is so expensive due to the cost of the refining process, how will this impact the already high cost of gas for transportation? Some of these renewable fuels and some of these low-intensity carbon fuels have a high refining process, and it costs, perhaps, in some cases, three to four times more than what fossil fuels would have.

We’re wondering how that’s going to parlay itself to the taxpayer British Columbian and what people see at the pump. I dare say we can’t stand to see much more increase at the gas stations than we already have. These will be some of the questions we will have during committee stage.

Should we expect the cost to rise further as more money is being spent on building the facilities to create more planet-friendly fuel sources? Yesterday it was announced that Parkland refinery has a project to expand their facilities to incorporate low-carbon fuels, at a cost of about $600 million. I believe the B.C. part of it is about 40 percent of that, so about a quarter-billion dollars will be somehow funded through the provincial government, through tax credits. I think the building of this refinery will garner Parkland about a million credits.

How that all works, as far as the funding that the B.C. government will be doing to assist in this project…. Now, in some measures, it’s great to have that self-reliance of fuel here in British Columbia, not relying on Louisiana or Singapore or all these other places that supply renewables, but it comes at a cost, once again. We are wondering how all that kind of stuff is going to work for British Columbians.

Additionally, as the process of lowering the carbon emissions is so expensive due to the cost of the refining process, as I said, how will this impact the already high cost of gasoline? Should we expect the cost to rise further as more money is being spent on building the ability to create more planet-friendly fuel sources? I said that already, but it’s an important thing to note, because once again, $2.22 at the gas pump is a little high.

As costs continue to soar for so many British Columbians, is this going to cause greater stress? That’s another thing to consider. During committee stage, we’ll probably be asking the obvious questions. What type of outreach did the government do to bring this bill forward? Were all these extra pieces considered when we talk about not only moving forward with low-carbon fuel emissions but also the impact it has on everyday B.C.’ers?

As you can see, it raises many questions. There are many clauses in the act. It’s a pretty technical bill, so there will be a lot of dry conversations, I’m sure, during committee stage. But it’s really important to wade through this technical piece of legislation to finally come out with an outcome that people can understand.

Let’s see if I can bring up some other stuff that was of concern here. I think one of the things that needs to be mentioned is the fact that when we get lots of people in a room together — we get a lot of good people thinking, whether it’s industry, whether it’s government, stakeholders, the whole crew — we can have the greatest programs in the world come out of that. But at the end of the day, it really does depend on if it’s sustainable or not.

This is critical to this bill. We’re going to be asking many questions on that, and I’m hoping that we’ll get the answers that will make it clear for British Columbians.

[1:55 p.m.]

Clause 1, going through this bill now…. Some of the things that we’ll be asking for clarification on are some of the definitions in the bill. The categorization of fuel types and alternatives to base fuels will be something we’ll be asking. Subject to the regulations, a fuel is part of a base fuel if it is to be used as a component of a base fuel. There’s some clarification needed in some of the wording, for sure.

Additional carbon intensity — definitions on what additional carbon intensity means. This is not in the original formula, in the 2008 gas reduction act, so why are we adding this now? I think that’s what I was talking about earlier — was in that formula. Why is that being added? Some clarification around that. How does this being added to the formula affect how credits are acquired by fuel marketers? That would be another question.

Sequestration of greenhouse gases is in here. You can get credits for sequestering of greenhouse gases, whether it’s carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide. Can the minister outline what forms of greenhouse gas sequestration could be covered by this section? There’s biological and geographical sequestration, so which ones are applicable to this bill? If both are, that’s fine.

As the minister knows, there is some good work being done up in the northeastern part of British Columbia with carbon capture and storage. We’re wondering how that will play into it. Of course, we’ll need some more mapping and details on, maybe, how B.C. could probably be a destination for carbon storage, when we’re looking at some of our partners in Alberta and Washington and some other close jurisdictions where we could actually sequester carbon into storage, into our deep wells and deep gas reservoirs that are available, that are perfect for sequestering carbon.

Why does exporting fuel result in an individual receiving compliance units? So another question would be just in regards to: how will this affect our export trade-exposed industries when we’re delivering these fuels outside of British Columbia? How does that play into our competitiveness outside the jurisdiction? We’re already behind the eight ball, so to speak, on our competitiveness right now in British Columbia — I feel, anyways. The minister may differ. But every dollar counts and every cost counts when it comes to competing globally throughout the world.

Does the minister expect the carbon intensity of base fuels to change dramatically? I mentioned that a little bit earlier. Why is an initiative fund being created? Of the moneys received from selling compliance credits, what percentage must be put into an initiative fund? Is there a certain amount? Does the government have a minimum that goes into these initiative funds? That’s an important thing to know.

What could be done with those funds once they are inside the initiative fund? Can government dole them out as they see fit? Can they transfer them? What happens to the whole trading of compliance units with industry? With B.C. Hydro being, so to speak, the gatekeeper of the initiative fund, how will they adopt the ways of the trading system? Are they compliance sellers, or are they compliance buyers, or are they one or the other? How does that play out in the whole trading system with compliance credits?

Why is the government authorizing that they can take moneys from the initiative fund? Would this not count as a tax on funds earned off of the sale of compliance credits? On what category would the minister expect to approve funds being removed from the initiative fund? These are some of the questions we’ll have here in committee stage.

[2:00 p.m.]

Clause 53 is: “Regulations in relation to responsibility and fuel requirements.” Has the minister written, seen any drafts or reviewed any ideas on what these regulations that…? Sorry, that’s 57: “Regulations of minister.” Has the minister written, seen any drafts or reviewed any ideas on what these regulations in section 57 would authorize?

Clause 54 is: “Regulations in relation to public and local utilities.” Has the minister written, seen any drafts or reviewed any ideas on what these regulations section 57 would authorize? Clause 55 has something similar and a similar question. Clause 56 is the same thing. There are a lot of questions that will have to be answered here in committee stage, and we’ll look forward to doing that.

When we look at the breakdown of fuel costs across the province, we see that we’re one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in North America, resulting in the highest gas prices in North America. On the average litre of gas, I believe TransLink has a levy of about 18½ cents per litre. Carbon tax is about 11 or 12 cents, I believe, on that. Federal excise tax is about ten cents. GST — I guess it depends on how much the gas goes up, but it’s about ten cents right now. Provincial excise is about nine cents. That’s about 57, 58 cents a litre right there, and then the fuel standard regulation is about 17 cents per litre.

That was what I was getting at a little bit earlier. When the minister was asked yesterday how this will affect the fuel standard regulation on the tax on a litre of gas, I believe the minister said it was going to be about one cent. It was going to go up. But I find that hard to believe, so we’ll have to get some better clarification on that tomorrow.

Overall, once again, this is a pretty complex and technical bill. It’s going to take a lot of time to wade through all of this. But I think, as I said earlier, in the grand scheme of things, it’s okay. It’s good. Good forward-thinking never hurts.

I believe the B.C. Liberals were somewhat roughed up a little bit when they brought in the carbon tax back in 2008. It was a bold move, but it was ahead of the curve at the time. We got ahead of the federal government, and we took matters into our own hands. And we were able to pour that money back into British Columbians in a form of revenue neutrality. It was a bold one. I think there was some kind of world conference somewhere that heralded — B.C. got some kind of award for that carbon tax and the way they drew it up.

Once again, that was squashed pretty quickly when the NDP came in. We’re hoping that with Bill 15, we don’t see money and credits getting transferred across into government coffers to be spent on how they see fit. I hate to see history replay itself once again. But I commend the work of Parkland in what they’re doing.

I’m not too sure if my colleague from Skeena is going to be joining me here soon or if we have another speaker coming up. But I would just like to say that we’re just super interested in what the minister has to say about some of the stuff that this bill represents.

Reporting is another major issue that we’re going to be seeing with this bill. There’s a long supply chain when fuel is processed, refined, delivered — once not twice but three times — to different suppliers. For example, we could get a supply of renewable fuels from Louisiana. They get trucked up on a train. They cross. They come into Alberta. Maybe they get further processed there. From there, it comes across the line through into B.C. to different suppliers. They pass that gas off to other truckers or other supply outlets, finally getting to the retail.

[2:05 p.m.]

What has to happen is that the reporting of these fuels has to be of a certain carbon intensity to get credits, so the person that’s responsible for that fuel is the person that basically takes that fuel off the last supplier’s hands. You have to hope that the reporting from the source is accurate.

When we have fuel sources coming in from not only out of province but out of country, not only out of North America but out of other countries such as Singapore, you can see how the dependence on proper reporting from the source is critical, because if the reporting comes back fraudulent or not accurate, whoever picks up that fuel is going to have to pay either a debit or a credit on compliance units.

Now, if you get a false report from Singapore or from Louisiana or from some other jurisdiction saying the fuel meets this criteria, and you take that responsibility as the purchaser, you are now responsible for that fuel. And if it’s deemed that it’s anything else other than what was originally reported, then you have to pay the default, which is the raw cost of the base fuel, which is a high cost.

When, in briefing, we talked about this…. You know, it’s kind of buyer beware — caveat emptor, whatever the Latin phrase is — for the buyer to make sure that those records are accurate, because if not, then they will be paying the default price for that fuel. This would obviously increase the cost dramatically across the board.

When asked how we control that — How do we control this reporting from outside our own jurisdiction? We obviously don’t have jurisdictional powers in Louisiana or Singapore or anything like that — the answer was, “Well, you know, fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you,” or whatever that is. It’s something like that, isn’t it?

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That’s what it is. There we go. Yeah.

But that’s basically how it will have to work. So if this fuel comes in that is not accurate in its description, then we just…. Well, we’ll just not buy from them anymore. But that doesn’t help the suppliers that get caught with this fraudulent reporting.

I think that’s probably it. I guess another one was in clause 26 that was kind of interesting. The moneys received from selling compliance credits — what percentage must be put into an initiative fund? Is it a set percentage? Is it required at all times? Is it 20 percent? Is it a certain amount? Those are questions we’ll have to be asking as well.

If government is able to access these funds like it appears that they will, what does that constitute as far as…? Is it a tax then? Does this relate to just another tax? If government’s using it as they see fit and it’s a charge to the industry, not, maybe, necessarily going right back into clean initiatives, then I would argue that it would be a tax.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I’m pretty much done. I’m not too sure if there are any other speakers to the bill. Give it to the Greens.

S. Furstenau: I’m rising to speak on Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act.

Interesting listening to the critic for the official opposition. As he’s working his way through, it’s important to note, I think, that this bill was introduced yesterday. It’s a 43-page bill. It’s pretty technical. There’s a lot in this bill. I know that the official opposition and our caucus each got a briefing. Ours was 30 minutes this morning. So listening to the questions being raised, we are right there with him. There is a lot going on here.

[2:10 p.m.]

A clean fuel standard is an important component in the fight against climate change. As I said to my staff earlier today, it would have been fantastic around 1996, still important today. It works by requiring a certain calibre of fuels in the province to ensure that we aren’t burning the worst of the worst fossil fuels, although we are doing a good job of increasing the extraction of some of the worst of the worst fossil fuels with fracking expansion in this province. It also incentivizes corporations to further develop low-carbon fuels through the credit program.

That’s one of the interesting things about this — that we are relying very much on the notion that the conditions that got us here, brought us here, are somehow going to be the same conditions and same tools that address this crisis that we’re in, this climate emergency, that we are going to somehow be led out of it by the actions of fossil fuel companies improving their actions without recognizing that those companies, of course, have a pretty significant motivation around profit.

Just last year the big oil and gas companies brought in nearly $174 billion in profit. It looks like this year is going to be even better. So what’s fascinating is that we keep finding ways, in this province, to enable them to be a little bit better in their actions by giving them public funds — subsidizing, ultimately — and what we don’t seem to be doing with anywhere near as much consistency and urgency is recognizing that we need to transition, very quickly, our economy, how we move around.

Imagine $500 million into improving our public transportation network in this province, particularly for underserved rural areas where people have little to no choice about how they’re going to get around because there is such a limited access to affordable, reliable and accessible transportation.

If we were doing that in combination with looking at clean fuel standards, if we were ensuring that our housing and our building codes were really operating in a way that significantly and very quickly reduced the amount of energy that has to be used in our buildings, if we were treating this emergency like an actual emergency, then this wouldn’t be the first real piece of legislation that we’ve seen from this majority government since 2020 on climate action.

This legislation in front of us updates the 2008 iteration of this act, making allowances for different types of fuels, such as biofuels, to be developed and brought under the program. It’s not a bad thing. It’s another tool in the toolbox. But as you can probably detect, I’m exhausted by the very small tools that seem to be going into the toolbox at a time when we need every tool, and they need to be the biggest tools.

I point to, right now, what is unfolding in India, which just had the hottest April in 122 years, since records have been kept. Temperatures in the 40s, regularly over 45, and now May temperatures into the 50s. The cost of that in human suffering, the cost of that in agriculture and food production, the cost of that in every way that we can imagine is unimaginable, yet that’s what people are living through right now.

The NOAA just detected a massive increase in methane emissions, perhaps from melting permafrost, perhaps from release from oceans. They aren’t quite sure yet. But we know that those increases in methane, which is a much stronger driver of climate change, moves us forward to more and more tipping points.

[2:15 p.m.]

That’s the world we’re in right now. We’re in the world of tipping points, not in the world of “Let’s do a little bit better and start slowly turning the ship.” Tipping points. Yet we keep relying on market solutions when the climate crisis is exacerbating as quickly as it is. We’re incentivizing oil and gas companies with carrots when they’re reporting hundreds of billions in profits, and we’re spending public money to help them emit less without harming their profits.

Meanwhile, British Columbians are suffering. They’re suffering the direct impacts of the climate crisis, and they’re suffering the exorbitant costs of the products that these companies sell.

Sadly, my trust in this government on the climate file is waning. They’re currently in court, fighting not to be held accountable for their Climate Change Accountability Act. They have committed to spending over $6 billion subsidizing LNG Canada, which is literally a carbon bomb and fundamentally opposed to any meaningful efforts to combat climate change.

The first phase of the project alone will emit 4 megatonnes of carbon annually, and the government, by its own words, very recently in this chamber, has indicated that it is in no way ruling out a second phase of this project. At a time when the IPCC says that we cannot be building more fossil fuel infrastructure.

Meanwhile, communities are suffering effects. This morning, it was reported that residents of Rolla are being warned that they may have to “shelter in place” in response to a leak of hydrocarbons. When I saw that, I thought: “Orwell would be proud.” A leak of hydrocarbons — sounds so benign, really. I’m not sure which hydrocarbons exactly, but people have to shelter in place because of the leak of them. Just two weeks ago residents of Rolla were interviewed about the industrial landscape their community has become and reported that they can see LNG flares from their homes.

This government has laid the conditions to ramp up fracking through their record-setting investments in fossil fuels. It’s interesting that reports and studies are indicating that children born near fracking sites are 25 percent more likely to be born at low birth rates or less than 5.5 pounds. It’s interesting that these reports indicate that there is an increased risk of childhood mortality and poor educational outcomes and that these factors disproportionately impact Indigenous people.

While we’re talking about clean energy fuel standards, researchers at the University of Toronto are undertaking further study on the direct impacts of fracking on fetal health. More research is needed, but instead of contributing to that research, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has just criticized the existing study. It seems there is very little concern about the fact that this study of pregnant people found higher contaminant levels in homes near fracking sites and that the highest levels of exposure were found among the Indigenous pregnant people who participated. Indigenous participants’ homes showed notably higher concentrations of chloroform, acetone and decanal.

A lead author from the Nobel Prize–winning group Physicians for Social Responsibility has called fracking “the worst thing I’ve ever seen.” It’s interesting. I was at the Local Government Leadership Academy last week and heard from participants that there had been…. The theme was “Resilience and strong communities,” and there was a presentation from a panel of experts on emergency preparedness. And one of the things the panelist told this group of locally elected leaders was that the impacts that we will see from climate change are worse than we can possibly imagine.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is what elected officials are being told at conferences right here in B.C. — that the impacts from climate change are going to be worse than we can possibly imagine and that we are going to see those impacts, as we did last year — the heat dome, the heatwaves, the flooding, the forest fires.

I shared a story when I spoke to LGLA about my own experience of coming home, down Highway 97, in 2018. A forest fire was moving northward, and we got turned around on the highway. We were trying to go through Kamloops to come home to the Island. We got turned around and had to go north, and we had to go north quickly because that fire was moving. At one point, the windshield wipers couldn’t get the ash off the windshield, and the sky around us was black and red. Everybody in the car got really quiet.

That was worse than I could have imagined, and I know people in British Columbia have been through a lot worse than that. My colleague got a call last year from somebody he knew in Lytton, and they said: “We’re getting out now.” Within a few hours of that call, that town was gone.

I don’t know how it is that those of us in these rooms cannot seem to understand the time that we’re in. I can’t understand how we think that incrementalism is going to be sufficient at this point — because it’s not. It’s going to be worse than we can imagine. It’s not alarmism; it’s the reality that we are in right now. As elected representatives, what responsibility do we have to respond to that? A sigh. It’s so hard to bear that responsibility. It is ours. We have asked to be here, we have chosen to be here, and we will be judged for what we didn’t do.

This legislation, as is becoming increasingly the norm, leaves a lot to regulation, which means government can make changes without public oversight. There’s no clarity about exactly what are going to be the implications of this legislation. They indicated that this is to promote efficiency and to reduce red tape, but actions speak louder than words, and actions show that while we can update the regulations and expectations around somewhat lower-carbon fossil fuels, we have not really yet come to terms with the reality that we’re in.

It’s not terribly surprising that this is what happens. We have the lobbyists registry now, and we can see how much time lobbyists are spending with members of government, members of staff. It looks like in the month of April, oil and gas lobbyists had 76 different meetings with members of this government. In one month — 76.

We have before us a policy tool, a policy tool that needs to be updated. Of course, we need lower-carbon fuel standards as an interim measure, but we need to move so much more urgently beyond interim measures and incrementalism. We have to show that we actually understand the severity of the moment we’re in. I look forward, hopefully, to seeing some sense of that urgency from this government, but thus far, it has been absent.

[2:25 p.m.]

E. Ross: We’re talking about Bill 15, 2022, the Low Carbon Fuels Act. Its predecessor was actually introduced in 2008 under the B.C. Liberals. It highlights the two different parallel tracks that the government has actually developed, both at the same time, on how to deal with environmental standards in B.C., mainly through the Environmental Assessment Act and regulations but also trying to formalize a deeper relationship with First Nations.

When you deal with First Nations, especially when you deal with projects that impact the land, there is no separating the environmental impact from Aboriginal rights and title. They’re both one and the same. So it made sense back then to combine the two, whether they’re incorporated into one process or in parallel processes, whether you’re talking about the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act, for example, or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Either way, in terms of a project — like LNG Canada, Chevron, some of the forestry agreements that were signed by First Nations back in 2006, or some of the many mining agreements that were signed starting in 2004 — it was all part of the same discussion. How do we address rights and title? How do we address the economic component of rights and title? At the same time, one of the main interests of First Nations was: how do we reduce the existing impact of environmental issues on our lands? As well, how do we reduce the impact of proposed projects on our lands?

That process started back in 2004. Back then, you know, it was mostly done in relation to the Haida court case that had come, on the government’s duty to consult and accommodate. Back in 2004, when the court case came out, nobody really knew or understood how to implement the principles of the Haida court case.

At times, when we were trying to co-develop it between government, First Nations and industry, it was quite painful, because there were so many interests at play. There was the interest of the First Nation that wanted to engage and be involved in the economy but also didn’t want to water down any environmental standards. The Crown was just trying to do its duty in looking after the provincial interests as well as the natural resources.

It was quite a remarkable time in B.C.’s history, quite the transition. Over the years, in all of my participation in permitting processes and environmental assessment processes, I saw the push to always do better. Always try to find the gaps in the regulations or some the environmental issues that might not get covered under the B.C. environmental assessment process or the Canadian environmental process.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member, could the member help the Chair understand the connection to Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act?

E. Ross: Yes, Chair. Where I’m getting at is that First Nations are actually the ones leading the environmental charge in a new day and age, especially when we’re talking about Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act. It has been an evolving process, and it’s hard to describe.

As First Nations became more aware of the issues of economics and of emissions, of environmental assessments, of permitting, they understood that they had to evolve as well. They had to develop the capacity. They had to develop the expertise. At the end of the day, no matter who you talk to in B.C., no matter who you talk to in this House, we’re all looking to lessen the environmental impact.

[2:30 p.m.]

In this case, we’re talking about emissions — low carbon in our fuels, to be exact — because this has a history. The Low Carbon Fuels Act has a history dating back to 2008, when we saw the first version of this come out. It’s going to be amended before this session ends, I believe. It’s quite the act; it’s 42 pages long.

Really, we’re talking about renewable fuels. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not really talking about diesel or gasoline in its current form that we see today at the pumps. We’re talking about renewable fuels. This is my understanding, coming out of the briefing that we had today at 10:30 this morning.

But in relation to this, this is a really complicated topic to understand. The roots of this go way back. It goes back way before 2008. But in today’s context, we do have innovation in B.C. We’re always trying to do better. Usually it’s industry and the private sector that are leading that charge in terms of innovation.

I’ll give you an example, one that plays directly into Bill 15, where we’re talking about a company called Nation Clean Energy, in partnership with Rocky Mountain GTL Inc. What they proposed is basically renewable fuel for today’s private sector, whether we’re talking about airports, whether we’re talking about the marine industry, for example — really large emitters of pollution and carbon. They’ve come up with this concept that has actually been built in Alberta already.

Now, apart from the political branding I’ve been given on social media in terms of a skeptic…. I’m a skeptic of everything. I make sure I question everything. I like to think of it as critical thinking. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about LNG, oil or clean energy. I want to know everything about it and whether or not it can be produced in a realistic and practical form, especially when we’re talking about affordability, especially when we’re talking about energy security, energy dependence.

I’ve gone through this business proposal by these First Nation companies, Nation Clean Energy and Rocky Mountain GTL Inc., and I really can’t find anything that doesn’t…. It not only complies with Bill 15; it surpasses it. In fact, if anything, I think this path and the clean energy plant that’s being proposed right now actually shows some flaws in Bill 15, in the Low Carbon Fuels Act, because we’re really talking about a synthetic fuel.

I’ve tried to question how valid this is in terms of what we’re talking about in terms of a lower-carbon future. But what their project is proposing and what they’re actually doing right now is capturing carbon and producing hydrogen without carbon emissions. It produces low- to zero-carbon biodegradable, synthetic and renewable fuels with a zero-emissions plant.

Now, I know that sometimes, when we talk about zero emissions, we’re talking about technicalities, and we’re talking about formulas, and maybe we’re talking about some trading of carbon credits. In this case here, that’s not what they’re talking about. In fact, if anything, they’ve actually partnered up with the Musqueam. The director of business development, Jay Mearns, was in this Legislature today talking with members of government, from what I understand.

I know the counterpart up in Prince Rupert. His name is Chris Sankey. He used to be a councillor for Lax Kw’alaams and went into the private sector. He’s all over the place in terms of the energy sector. They’re typical of what First Nations are starting to evolve into. They’re looking for clean energy solutions, in response not only to what B.C. is considering but also what Canada is considering, as well as the world.

[2:35 p.m.]

When we’re talking about how this concept could show flaws in Bill 15, they’re really talking about their form of clean fuel, which is a synthetic fuel, versus conventional diesel, for example. Their clean form of fuel, which will not harm the environment, will not harm living beings, will actually get excluded from Bill 15. Yet it displaces so many of the issues that we’re actually talking about here today, when we’re talking about emissions and pollution and carbon.

This is brand-new in Alberta, so I can see how Bill 15 could exclude this new opportunity. It’s too new. But people like Jay Mearns from Musqueam, the director of business development and Chris Sankey, who owns Blackfish inc., have actually been promoting this all across B.C. and Canada. They are getting good feedback, but unfortunately, they’re not getting that extra push over the finish line that they need to incorporate this into today’s economy.

In terms of what the Musqueam are thinking, they’re pretty disappointed that an example of what can be done in terms of what Bill 15 is proposing, the Low Carbon Fuels Act, in terms of the agreement with Parkland…. Musqueam’s pretty disappointed they weren’t included. Talking with Jay Mearns from Musqueam, I hadn’t realized this myself, even though I’ve actually experienced this in Kitamaat Village myself.

The way he explained it to me was that it was an insult, because ever since they got displaced off the lands that now became YVR airport, they’ve been breathing in the diesel exhaust fumes and all of the other fuels that get burned at YVR airport. It has affected their health, it has affected their land, and it has affected the Fraser River.

Nothing’s been done not only to remediate that impact on the land and the air and the water, but also nothing’s been done to include the Musqueam in what’s happening in their territory around them, including YVR as well as the Parkland refinery agreement that was just announced a couple of days ago.

So they are disappointed. But they’re not discouraged. They still want to see a solution, even in light of the Low Carbon Fuels Act omitting their project proposal in terms of producing a clean fuel. It’s proven technology. It’s not theory. It should fit perfectly within Bill 15.

They’ve done all the heavy lifting on their own, even trying to acquire a portion of private land at their own expense, because they want to be close to the emission source, which in this case is YVR airport. If they can do this, they can actually translate this into going after the marine industry, which they believe is also polluting their territories.

Everything I’ve seen so far is pretty technical, so I’m going to try, for my own purposes, to explain what this process is. It is in relation…. If we can fit it into Bill 15, and I’ve actually…. If we can amend this — we have time to amend it — so that this proposal, coming from the Musqueam First Nation and its energy partners…. If we could amend it in time, we should be able to celebrate this innovation being brought to B.C. and cleaning up a lot of the emissions coming from these big polluters like the YVR airport.

But the person that explained this to me…. There are two people, technical side…. Dale Tsuruda, the founder of Nation Group of Companies, and Dennis Wilson, the executive director of Nation Group of Companies, explained it in political terms to me, which means simplified.

[2:40 p.m.]

They said that, basically, you can take a fuel product — whether you’re talking about a biofuel, whether you’re talking about natural gas, or you’re talking about a fossil fuel — and you can put it through this plant, through their process, and out the other side comes hydrogen.

Now, everybody knows that hydrogen is a preferable form of energy, and actually, hydrogen is starting to get traction in terms of the marine industry for smaller craft being built and being powered by hydrogen. And if this market takes off, we’re going to have to develop different infrastructure so that these boats that are powered by hydrogen have places to fuel up on the water. So there are going to be some changes needed to fully realize the future of hydrogen.

But that is not what they do. The end goal is not to produce hydrogen as a fuel source. What they basically do is take the hydrogen and use it to hydrotreat the bio feedstock like canola. That’s what they do. And really, when we’re talking about it, they understand carbon intensity and the drive to reduce carbon intensity in all of our fuels.

They need the government’s support — provincially, specifically. They saw the incentive that was provided to Parkland refinery, and they’re questioning why they do not get the same type of agreement. Apart from them being excluded, even though their fuel source is actually a lot cleaner than what’s being proposed in different sectors, they still want to be a part of this. They can have dramatic impact, and it could be a flagship in terms of a First Nation–led initiative that could really highlight the purpose of Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act.

I understand the intention of Bill 15 in terms of carbon intensity and renewable fuels. I understand that. But we can address a number of different things at the same time, if we consider the clean energy plan proposed by the Musqueam and their energy partners. We can address a long history of exclusion of the Musqueam people in their own territory, and while cleaning up the emissions from YVR airport, we can address economic reconciliation for the Musqueam people themselves.

There’s really not much I can…. I tried to go through this proposal and figure out things that are wrong with it — places where there were deficiencies. In my mind, when I look at this, and knowing that there’s a working model in Alberta, I can’t find any deficiencies.

They’re basically producing biodegradable and non-toxic fuels. They’re actually developing drop-in synthetic and renewable fuels that are compatible with diesel and jet engines. So in reality, we’re also talking about jet fuel. We’re talking about enhanced blue hydrogen production. And captures carbon — there are no carbon emissions coming from this plant. It captures carbon in the production of hydrogen, and hydrogen is used as is or is used to hydrotreat bio feedstock, creating ultra-low to zero-carbon, renewable fuel.

In reading Bill 15, 2022, I thought, overall, that’s what the purpose is. I know that we’re talking specifically about renewable fuels. But I think that ultimately the goal, when we’re developing legislation to reduce emissions, we’re actually talking about these kinds of projects that are being promoted by the Musqueam First Nation.

They actually produce ultra-low to zero-carbon fuels. They produce zero sulfur and are clean-burning. They will improve airsheds with zero- to ultra-low SOx and NOx. We did a lot of this conversation in Kitimat — SOx and NOx. You can get buried in those conversations. But at the end of the day, we’re really talking about emissions. That’s what we’re talking about.

[2:45 p.m.]

There are commercial advantages to this fuel as well. It increases lubricity — I didn’t even know that was a word — increased lubricants for reduced engine wear. So when we’re talking about that in terms of the marine industry or the aeronautical industry or any industry that uses mechanical equipment, we all know what lubricants mean and how important they are. It’s even important in our cars and our trucks and our personal vehicles.

What’s amazing about this…. The production cost is efficient and competitive, mainly because it’s a path in the process. It’s a privately owned Canadian company.

Now, I understand Bill 15, 2022, is proposing to have at-home production of fuels, as opposed to, say, shipping in something from the east coast of the United States — or Thailand, for that matter. Any savings in terms of emissions actually gets offset by the cost, and we don’t really know the carbon footprint of the production of these lower-emission fuels when we’re talking about a fuel source coming from halfway around the world.

In this case here, from what I understand, Bill 15 is pro­posing domestic fuels, biofuels, with lower emissions, lower carbon intensity. Well, that’s exactly what this proposal is talking about, in terms of what the Musqueam Nation is trying to promote here in B.C.

In talking with Jay Mearns, we talked about how difficult it is for First Nations to engage in the economy, to engage in technical processes. I mean, really, we’re still young. We’re still learning this process, if you consider that our first formal steps into this world actually started in 2004. That’s not too long ago, when you consider how old Canada is or how old B.C. is.

The advancement and catching up to what the world thinks about in terms of emissions is remarkable. I read about this stuff back in 2004, 2006, but it was all theory. Nobody could make a commercial reason for this. It wasn’t practical. They’ve now proved it.

In terms of Bill 15, 2022…. I know we’re going to go through this in committee stage. I know that. We’ll go through it word by word. But I will be looking for the clause, looking for some kind of amendment that allows nation clean energy’s proposal, in partnership with Rocky Mountain GTL, and more importantly, including Musqueam in future agreements between the private sector and the provincial government to ensure that we capture the full potential of what we’re trying to achieve in Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act.

Thank you. I’ll take my seat and listen to the rest of the speeches.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act, in recognition that this is a continuing project in the province to lower the number of emissions that British Columbians are emitting — largely, in this case, through transportation fuels.

Before I get too far into my comments, I wanted to acknowledge that the project has now been undertaken by both of the establishment parties that have been in this building for decades. It started with the Liberals in 2008, with the greenhouse gas…. I had it written down here. It’s not near me. But they started the project in 2008, with the carbon tax and with the greenhouse gas act, and now it is being continued.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think, as my colleague spoke to earlier, we can argue or quibble or discuss, debate, the pace of change and the need, I think, in our society, to recognize that the incrementalism of the past has gotten us to where we’re at today, which is in a very dire situation that is materializing in extreme weather events around the world and impacting human health and the health and well-being of the planet.

I think that it’s an important role that we play in the Legislature to ensure that there is significant tension around this topic, that we are doing absolutely everything we can do to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate and on the ecosystems that sustain life on this beautiful planet.

This bill is, as has been mentioned, more than 40 pages, and it’s very technical. It’s important that the Members of the Legislative Assembly have the ability to understand and to ask questions and to get to the bottom of what a bill is proposing to be done. We, like our colleagues in the B.C. Liberals, had our brief this morning — 30 minutes to ask questions that we were able to glean in the few hours that we had with the bill. And now here we are this afternoon in debate on the bill.

I can see colleagues around me madly working their way through the bill, trying to understand it and to get to the bottom of it. I think that it’s important to just acknowledge that the quality of the debate and the quality of scrutiny that this bill will have largely determines on our ability to understand it, to get to the bottom of it and to be able to ask good questions. This has been a challenging process. I think it needs to be on the record.

Thirty-seven percent of British Columbians’ emissions come from the transportation sector. This bill is around low-carbon fuels and creating a pathway for less carbon-intensive fuels to be created in this province, to be manufactured, produced in this province for British Columbians. We’ve heard a lot, over the last number of weeks and the last number of months, about the impact of importing fossil fuels for the transportation sector — the cost that’s having on British Columbians.

It is a good idea, as we are working to minimize the number of emissions that we’re putting into the atmos­phere, that in that process, we’re also reducing the carbon content of the fuels that are in the transportation network.

I agree with my colleague that we could be investing much more in public transportation and other forms of transportation, but I also agree that it is an important step for us to be creating strict standards to innovate the fossil fuels that British Columbians are currently burning in their vehicles, whether it be for their personal vehicles or their boats, the marine vehicles, or what the airlines are using for aviation fuel.

While I believe that we need to be putting a lot more focus on the pace of our response to the climate emergency that we’re facing, this is an important step. It builds on the 2008 iteration of this act, allowing, as I said, different fuels such as biofuels to be developed and brought into this policy, the low-carbon fuel standard in this policy, which is a tool in the toolbox.

I think that it’s also important that we recognize the fact that we do, in this province, invest pretty heavily, either through credits or through support for the fossil fuel companies.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think that there is a credible argument to be made that they could be doing a lot more of this as well, without public money being infused into it, when they are taking record profits, largely from British Columbians, from the money that British Columbians are paying at the pump.

While there is this debate that’s going on in this Legislature about what government is going to do about fuel prices for British Columbians, what tangible steps government is going to take — the official opposition tabled three ideas in this — the reality of it is that the oil and gas companies….

Not only are they spending an awful lot of time wandering the halls — their lobbyists wandering the halls, making sure that they talk to all of the staff of the various ministries, the ministers, members of the government — they’re raking in record profits.

They’re still making the argument to governments, and governments are still falling for the argument, that “Don’t look at the profits we’re making. In order for to us do this good deed, lower the carbon intensity of the fuels that we’re making. We’re going to need you, government entity” — whichever one it is; in this case, the province of B.C. — “to invest public money to ensure that happens.”

I think what we need and what makes this bill more than just an act of greenwashing is that on the other side of the equation is a government that is enforcing and ensuring. It’s the carrot and stick. You have the carrot. There also needs to be the stick. We also need the enforcement. We need to ensure that we are holding those companies accountable for the impact that they’re having and the commitments that they’re making.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

As my colleague mentioned earlier, talking about the impact the oil and gas companies are having in our communities, talking about the impact of oil and gas through fracking, the reality that children born near fracking sites are 25 percent more likely, one in four, to be born at low birth weights, under 5½ pounds. These are studies that are coming out talking about the impacts of fracking. Increased childhood mortality. Poorer educational outcomes.

I asked this question in question period last week, talking about the disproportionate impact this is having on Indigenous people. The response was that the Blueberry River court case found in favour of the Blueberry River Nation, so now the provincial government is seized with taking action on it. I would just say that my hope is that it doesn’t take court cases for there to be concern about the impacts that fracking is having on people in our communities, that it doesn’t take government to be embarrassed in the courts for this to be a concern.

While we are really stretching CleanBC, which the low carbon fuel standard is an important part of achieving the targets within CleanBC, we see Woodfibre now going to be adding to their emissions and the LNG Canada partnership openly talking about bringing on trains 3 and 4, which are completely not accounted for within CleanBC.

When we asked members of the government about that, they said: “Ah, it’s not likely to happen. Don’t worry about it.” It’s always been on the plan. Just brushed aside. “Don’t worry about it.” All too happy to be seen getting the final investment decision. Bending over backwards. Going kilometres further down the road than the B.C. Liberals were prepared to in securing a final investment decision on LNG. We heard that debate in Bill 10.

The reality of it is that while British Columbians are working to try to lower their carbon emissions, the government, on the other side, is also increasing those emissions.

[3:00 p.m.]

I recognize that we don’t stop doing one because the other is happening. We do have to continue to fight climate change on all fronts. We do have to be making decisions and be creating policy that is working towards that end. It is our role to continue to hold government accountable for the decisions that they’re making, for the outcomes of the policy decisions that are being made.

We’ve spent the last few months in this spring session talking about the stressed, challenged, overworked, overburdened, exhausted public health care system.

The Minister of Health raised today in question period the challenging reality of public health care workers in Kamloops, talking about British Columbians who are having to pack up anything that they can get their hands on as the fires near their homes. If it’s not fires, it’s the floodwaters rising around their homes — literally an entire town displaced for months and months and months on end. Talking about the impact that that has had on the public health workers at the hospital in Kamloops.

The reality is that if we are not taking our responsibilities to climate action seriously, if we’re not doing everything we can to limit emissions and to be honest about the impact of the policy decisions that are being made, we are going to see more and more negative impacts on our public health care system — one that the minister himself has repeatedly admitted is vulnerable and is at a state of fragility that generations of British Columbians have never witnessed. We’ve never seen it like this.

If we’re going to continue to not take the impacts of this climate emergency seriously, we’re going to see that health care system, that public health care system, which has been really put on the brink, be put in an exceptionally challenged situation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I look forward to listening to the debate and the questions of the minister through the committee stage of this bill. There are others that wish to speak to it.

So with that, I’ll take my seat and thank you for this opportunity.

HÍSW̱ḴE.

Hon. B. Ma: I’m pleased to rise today in support of Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act.

Let me begin by sharing with the House an article that I saw come up on my feed today. It was an article from The Guardian. I actually saw a few articles on this. It was an article from The Guardian. The title was “Climate Limit of 1.5 Celsius Close to Being Broken, Scientists Warn.” I think it’s called the lede, underneath the title, says: “The probability of one of the next five years surpassing the limit is now 50 percent, up from 20 percent in 2020.” This was written by an environmental writer, Damian Carrington.

In the article, it provides a quote from Prof. Petteri Taalas. He’s the head of the World Meteorological Organization, which published a new report about this. I’m going to quote the professor.

“The 1.5 Celsius figure is not some random statistic. It is, rather, an indicator of the point at which climate impacts will become increasingly harmful for people and, indeed, the entire planet. For as long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise. Alongside that, our oceans will continue to become warmer and more acidic, sea ice and glaciers will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise, and our weather will become more extreme.”

[3:05 p.m.]

I think that it’s probably an understatement to say…. Young people these days do experience quite a lot of eco-anxiety, and that anxiety is very real. I remember speaking with a high school student who held an internship posting at my office. He was asked to do a presentation or to create a report on CleanBC, B.C.’s climate action strategy. He did a wonderful presentation. It was really quite…. I was impressed. I have to say. This young man was in grade 12, and what he presented on was what CleanBC means for young people who know about it.

One of the things that he ran me through, as well, was the psychology of young people. He was very candid in his presentation. I’m not going to repeat some of the things that he said, but it was very eye-opening as well. One of the things that he expressed is that eco-anxiety is very, very real amongst young people.

I’ll share a few things. He said that eco-anxiety is very real in young people. He expressed that he didn’t feel there was enough climate change education in the schools, which actually surprised me because young people tend to be very up to speed about climate change and the climate emergency and the urgency around it. He expressed that, in schools, it was not necessarily enough of a formal part of the curriculum. He felt that a lot of young people felt extremely hopeless about the emergency before them.

In the process of learning about CleanBC…. One of the things he expressed was how surprised he was that this plan existed and had so many components to it, how hopeful it was and how we might be able to actually help resolve a lot of the climate anxiety that young people feel if we were able to communicate better to them that government and the Legislature do, in fact, debate these issues. It is, in fact, an extremely important part of our work, and there’s a plan in place. Now, we have to execute that plan, of course. We’ve got to hit those targets.

The fact that a plan is even in place brought hope to this young man. That was, I thought, really valuable to me to hear.

Here in British Columbia, we know…. The impacts of the climate emergency are extraordinarily real to us. Our citizens, our residents, our province have suffered extraordinarily over the last couple of years. We’re talking floods. We’re talking wildfires, heatwaves. People’s lives have been lost. Property has been lost. People’s livelihoods and the impact to our economies…. We’re seeing all of that. The urgency of addressing that climate emergency really cannot be overstated. It is so urgent. I couldn’t possibly express the level of urgency that I feel around it here.

I have to acknowledge, too…. The reality of the climate emergency is that at some point, if we actually want to reverse the damage that has been caused as a result of an excess of carbon emissions in the atmosphere, if we actually want to address that and start reversing what we’re seeing in terms of extreme climate events…. We actually have to start producing or emitting a carbon net negative in order to do that.

Right now what’s…. I mean, I remember having debates in this House and hearing some members. One member, rightly so, brought up the fact that carbon is natural. It’s in everything. It’s very organic. That’s what…. Organic things are made of carbon. That is true. The problem with the carbon emissions that we’re experiencing right now in the world…. The reason why the temperature is rising is as a result of the excess carbon.

I mean, in a normal environmental cycle, you have carbon dioxide in the air. You have a plant, and through photosynthesis, the plant draws carbon dioxide out of the air, separates it into oxygen and carbon, retains the carbon and then releases oxygen out into the atmosphere, at which point we as humans and other animals will breathe it in. It contributes to the oxygen, contributes to our generation of energy. We grow with it, and so forth. Then, eventually, comes a time when our lives end. We decompose, and we actually release a lot of that back into the atmosphere, and so forth. It’s supposed to be this everlasting cycle.

[3:10 p.m.]

The problem that we’ve come up against is…. Somewhere along the way humans have discovered that fossil fuels that were buried deep in the ground could be burned, and energy could be created from it. We’ve actually taken carbon that was outside of the cycle, deep inside the ground, and we’ve brought it up to the surface, burned it, added it into the atmosphere. It’s actually adding excess emissions.

Now carbon, on its own, is not a dirty substance. It’s not negative. Like carbon dioxide — we all breathe it out. But any substance can become a poison in excess amounts, if you have too much of it. That’s what we’ve been doing. We’ve been poisoning our planet with too much carbon dioxide.

That leads me to the importance of this low-carbon fuel standard. Now, again, I believe strongly that at some point the goal, where we really need to go, is not even carbon-neutral; it’s actually negative. We’ve got to start putting carbon back in the ground. But we can’t get there if we don’t start reducing, actually driving down the extra emissions that we’re adding into the system every single day.

Even if the whole world continuously emitted the same amount of carbon dioxide into the planet as we are today, the situation would get worse. It won’t stop getting worse until we’re actually not emitting at all, but we’ve got to start somewhere. The low-carbon fuel standard is such an important part of that process. We have to reduce the carbon intensity of our fuel. How do we do that?

Now, I have to say that people know…. I mean, with the B.C. NDP, the B.C. government, we’ve been critical on a lot of the work of previous governments, and so forth. But I do have to acknowledge that despite a lot of the disagreements I might have with some of the work that the previous B.C. Liberal governments have done, I do have to appreciate the courage that it took for previous B.C. Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell to bring in measures like the carbon tax, like the low-carbon fuel standards. Those are not easy policies to bring in. It is my hope that, as a Legislature, all sides of the House continue to support those kinds of policies.

We also have to acknowledge that those policies are meant to work by gradually increasing the intensity of that effort. Carbon taxes work to help drive down emissions if they are continuously expanded over time and the price raised over time in order to continuously help with some of the decision-making that all of us make around the kinds of energy that we use.

Low-carbon fuel standard as well. When it was brought in, an important standard, but it can’t be left to stagnate. It has to continuously be expanded. It has to go into other aspects of our economy, other types of fuel. It needs to, the standard…. If you set, like, this is the carbon intensity of your usual fossil fuel and your low-carbon fuel standard, and you want to drive down the intensity by whatever percent…. It has to continuously….

Sorry, I’m not being very articulate right now. You have to continuously be using the low-carbon fuel standard to further reduce carbon intensity over time, because the idea is that eventually we’re able to collapse, drive down, the carbon intensity of fuel. Then, hopefully, we’ll start to be headed in the right direction.

It is an important measure in the near term to reduce the intensity of carbon-based fuels, the kinds of fuels that vehicles and the marine industry and aviation still use. They’re still burning carbon-based fuel. But if we can replace more of that carbon-based fuel with sources from renewable sources, synthetic sources, as opposed to fossil fuels, if we can leave more of that fossil fuel where it is, the better off we will be.

Things like biofuels, which are fuels that are able to be produced, if I’m not mistaken…. You’re able to produce them to directly add into other forms of your gasoline and diesel, and so forth. The biofuel is generated and created — it’s refined — from biological materials, so it is renewable. It’s that plant that sucked in some CO₂ and then made themselves bigger.

[3:15 p.m.]

Yeah, I’m extra, extra not articulate today. The point is we can reduce the intensity of the kinds of fuels that people need on a day-to-day basis by mixing them with more renewable fuels or other synthetic fuels.

I know not everybody can drop everything and replace their gasoline-fuelled vehicle with an electric vehicle. It might not be accessible to everybody because of price. I know there is lots of demand for electric vehicles. Maybe it’s not immediately available.

I also know that it’s not practical for every single person out there to replace their family vehicle with a bicycle. For lots of people, that will be possible, but it’s not going to be possible for everyone. By reducing the carbon intensity of the fuel that they use, we can actually help reduce the net gain of carbon emissions without demanding that people immediately change everything about their lives and get rid of their cars, and so forth.

This is one tool in the toolbox. It’s not the only solution. We have to do all of the other things. From a transportation perspective, we’ve still got to encourage people to shift modes. We’ve still got to encourage people to switch energy, if they can go to an electric vehicle, if that’s a solution for them.

We’ve still got to improve insulation and construction in our buildings so that we’re using less heat to heat our buildings in the winter and less energy to cool our buildings in the summer. We still need to be working to repair our land base. We need to be recovering our watersheds. We need to be working to protect and save and revitalize our coasts, and our forests need to be protected as well. All of that has to be done.

This low-carbon fuel standard is an important part of all of that. My understanding is that the low-carbon fuel standard is actually expected to be the single largest contributor to meeting our CleanBC targets, accounting for 31 percent of all of our reductions to the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030. I mean, it is one piece, but it is a pretty big piece.

I’m happy to support this work. I’m grateful to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation for bringing this work forward, and I look forward to supporting this and many other forward-thinking, bold measures being brought forward by our government.

M. Lee: I wanted to speak to this bill, as well, on short notice. I have had an opportunity to have some discussion about the impact of the bill with the member for Kootenay East as well as the member for Skeena, who have both spoken to this bill.

The member for Skeena talked about an example of a clean energy plant that First Nations are working with industry to build here in this province — over $1 billion of expenditure, capital investment opportunity, for a clean energy plant technology that is already in place in Alberta, Denmark and other parts of the world. It will enable the capture of carbon and production of hydrogen without carbon emissions. It would produce low- to zero-carbon biodegradable synthetic renewable fuels. It’s a zero-emissions plan — zero water needed; zero electricity needed.

This legislation that has come forward by this government was based on a discussion paper provided on January 13, entitled the B.C. Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Amend­ments Discussion Paper. I have a copy here. As I understand it, the deadline for response was 4 p.m. on February 15. What is that? Thirty-three days.

[3:20 p.m.]

So 33 days to review a highly complex, technical piece of legislation — as I understand it, in speaking to the proponent group, which includes representatives of the Musqueam First Nation, whose territory my riding of Vancouver-Langara is situated on.

The member for Skeena also talked about the nature of this project. It will involve First Nations in the Prince Rupert area, Prince George and other parts of the prov­ince in the first initial stages. As I understand it, on their quick review of the act, it will effectively gut their ability to move forward with phase 1, because of the technical changes in this act.

Certainly, as the member for North Vancouver–​Lonsdale acknowledged, the previous B.C. Liberal government, under Gordon Campbell, brought forward the first carbon tax in North America and showed the kind of clean energy leadership that I know our leader, Kevin Falcon, fully supports and advocates. We’ll hear more from him in this House next week as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

With this technical bill, my concern first and foremost, at this juncture, on second reading, is the fact that this discussion paper was specifically circulated to Indigenous communities and First Nations. That was the purpose of the discussion paper. Paragraph 3 of this discussion paper reads: “The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act commits the province to engage with Indigenous peoples when proposed initiatives may impact or be of interest to them.”

I believe — and I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to discuss with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation at committee stage — that when they refer to that, they are, as government, referring to article 19 of UNDRIP. Article 19 of UNDRIP says: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

As I have just been through estimates process with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I did refer to this article in the context of Bill 24, I think it was, the anti-racism data legislation bill. I know the member for Saanich North and the Islands asked a question or raised a question at committee stage or second reading, about the bill itself and whether it met article 19. I was able to confirm with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that the government’s view is that of course they met the requirement of article 19.

Well, my concern here is this. As much as this government talks about the importance of the clean energy future in partnership with First Nations, here is yet another example of this government’s failure to consult, to partner with First Nations. How is it possible that they could present, on the floor of this Legislative Assembly, a bill that will effectively limit the ability of this project to proceed? How is that possible? Well, it’s possible because they weren’t aware of it.

How is that possible? Well, they circulated a discussion paper, and it only enabled just over 30 days to respond. In the case of the Musqueam First Nation, even though this discussion paper was to circulate until January 13, they weren’t aware of it until, I understand, a week or ten days before the deadline, maybe at best. I’m going to confirm that at committee stage. We will confirm at committee stage to which First Nations this discussion paper was circulated, how many First Nations responded, and how many First Nations were given the opportunity to comment on this bill that’s in front of us.

[3:25 p.m.]

Some other comments that I would like to relay to the House are these. As I understand it, in looking at this discussion paper in brief, it doesn’t get into the detail of the act. It talks about the impact on clean energy standards, clean fuel standards, low-carbon fuel standards for gas stations. It talks about, of course, remote community electricity generation for Indigenous communities.

That, for decades, has been a focus, understandably, but the government has had five years now to continue to look at what that clean energy future looks like, to build off of what the efforts of the previous government have been. I would have thought that in the context of UNDRIP — adopted, now, back in October 2019, almost three years ago — there would be a better understanding as to how to go forward on bills.

I know this was the concern just before the snap election, on the eve of the second wave of the pandemic, for the lack of consultation around mental health, changes to the Mental Health Act, Bill 22. Here we are, yet again, with this government failing to consult with First Nations, on such an important piece of legislation that is there and available to move forward in partnership.

We talk a lot about reconciliation in this House. I know I had the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation as I joined the critic, the member for Kootenay East, in estimates. I had the opportunity to talk to the minister, with my colleague, about the importance…. As demonstrated and telegraphed to this House by the member from Boundary-Similkameen, that member told this House that the future of First Nations’ economic partnership is clean energy.

When I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation as to what that meant in the area of clean energy, run-of-river projects and electricity purchase agreements that were entered into close to 20 years ago, most of which are with First Nations–led initiatives, the minister did not demonstrate any plan to go forward, any plan to meet the commitment that is set out under DRIPA, the DRIPA action plan.

Item 4.43 says: “Co-develop recommendations on strategic policies and initiatives for clean and sustainable energy. This includes identifying and supporting First Nations–led clean energy opportunities related to CleanBC.” It goes on to talk about a comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro and the BCUC inquiry on the regulation of Indigenous utilities.

For the purpose of this bill discussion, the first words are “identifying and supporting First Nations–led clean energy opportunities related to CleanBC.” I know that members of this government will speak to the importance of this bill to meeting their objectives and their plan, the CleanBC plan. So you would’ve thought that the government would be fully aware of the opportunities that are available. As I understand it, this group has had discussions — some lengthy discussions — with industry, including YVR, Air Canada, Fortis and even B.C. Hydro.

As the member for Skeena described, the output is the opportunity to provide clean, low-carbon to zero-carbon, biodegradable, synthetic renewable fuels for the marine industry — hence, the importance of co-location, co-ownership with First Nations in the Prince Rupert area; YVR, the Vancouver airport; co-location, co-ownership — hence, the proximity to our gateway to North America, by way of air. There are opportunities here that this government has not addressed, and the technical nature of this bill will not enable this project to be financially sustainable in the first phase.

[3:30 p.m.]

This is a multiphase project. It will deal with other forms of fuels in a clean-emission way, but as a starting point, phase 1 is what is jeopardized by the technical requirements of this bill. This is something that we will explore more at committee stage. As I understand it, the effective-date nature of the changes under this Bill 15 that start on January 1, 2023, is what the concern is.

There’s been a lack of consultation. Here, clearly. I’m giving a clear example to members of this House — members of this House that all supported the adoption of UNDRIP. We are accountable for that. That is the responsibility of this government but also members of this House. So having heard the concerns from this First Nations–led project group, it does concern me as to how this government is proceeding with a bill that will forestall and not enable this project to get off the ground.

I certainly would urge the government to consider pausing the process that it’s involved with to fully understand what is the nature of the changes they’re bringing forward as it affects Indigenous communities and First Nations. Clearly, First Nations and Indigenous communities who are involved in clean energy projects which involve low-carbon fuel standards have not been given an appropriate opportunity to give their free, prior and informed consent.

Now, I know that when we talk about free, prior and informed consent, we’ve talked about early consultation. It’s more than just notification, and I wonder whether the government took that approach.

The government’s assessment as to its obligation under DRIPA took the approach that they provided notice — short notice, with very little opportunity to respond — and a survey, which I had a copy of, which was fairly basic. When I took a look at that survey, it was just asking basic questions, not technical points. Here it is: “The B.C. low-carbon fuel standard amendments response form.” A basic, open-ended questionnaire to help, presumably, guide the reader through the discussion paper.

But I know, in talking to the Musqueam First Nation and the representatives I’ve been meeting with, alongside the member for Kootenay East and the member for Skeena, that they had challenge with this response form because it’s so basic and rudimentary in nature. It doesn’t get to the level of detail that they need to consider. They were not aware of this bill, as it was just introduced in the House yesterday, until today. They’ve not had the opportunity to review the details of the bill, but what they know of it and what they see of it is not reflected in the discussion paper, is not reflected in this rudimentary response form.

I know that under section 3 of DRIPA, government fully understands and appreciates the obligation that it needs to use, which is taking “all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” That article 19 of the declaration is a fundamental article that this government needs to meet. And it has not met that, based on what I’ve heard relating to this bill.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think there are some serious concerns about how this bill is coming forward and the way that it will affect First Nations in this area. Recognizing that this government says, on one hand, that it sees the future of economic partnership with First Nations in the clean energy space, yet on the other hand, it’s jeopardizing those projects which First Nations have been involved with for close to 20 years in this province — run-of-the-river projects, clean energy projects, electricity purchase agreements that they’re changing the market pricing terms on based on mid-C U.S. pricing.

Here is yet another example where the government has failed to give the ability to First Nations to move down that road of economic reconciliation and partnership, in an area and a space that this government sees for First Nations.

We talk a lot about rhetoric in this House. It’s a word that we hear more and more. But they don’t connect. They don’t connect with the conduct of this government. That’s a real concern, because we don’t have more time to waste. The urgency of the opportunities that are available to First Nations for economic renewal and reconciliation with our province are here. We cannot waste those opportunities, as we are, potentially, with those clean energy projects, those run-of-river projects. We cannot waste the opportunity for even enabling a project like this to get off the ground because there is a disconnect.

Now, I know that legislation…. We talk all the time at committee stage, and maybe at second bill readings, about consultation and the importance of it. In the area of consulting with First Nations and Indigenous communities, we are obligated under the DRIPA. This is what this government, by putting forward Bill 41, in the way that they framed the bill, has ensured that we must do. I see example after example where that is not occurring.

I will certainly take the opportunity to join the member for Kootenay East and the member for Skeena, I’m sure, and other members to further consider this bill and consider with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation the concerns that I am raising here relating to their lack of consultation with First Nations through that discussion paper and the impact that this will have on those economic possibilities for clean energy projects, like the ones that the member for Skeena and I have been describing.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m pleased to take my place in this debate on Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act, for a couple of reasons. This bill and everything it represents is a very important part of B.C.’s climate plan — our CleanBC plan as well as our Roadmap to 2030 — to meet our legislated target. It is a very significant piece of that, and I will speak more to that in a few moments.

It also gives me pleasure because it’s demonstrative of our focus on reducing emissions to meet our legislated targets, our focus on a climate plan that meets the climate crisis that we see, that meets what British Columbians expect of all of us, not just our government, but all legislators, in terms of responding to climate change.

It demonstrates an all-of-government approach. It demonstrates how we, in my ministry, develop overarching climate policy to both reduce emissions and stimulate an innovative, diversified economy. Then other ministries throughout government — in this case, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation — bring forward and develop the various pieces that contribute to this strategy.

It is important. It’s a demonstration to British Columbians, as well as Canadians, that we’re serious at every level, that we’re not isolating climate in one ministry, that we are taking the climate challenge and the climate mandate, and we are making it central to our government’s initiatives. Whether they are economic, whether they are social, we are embedding it in our approach to how British Columbians will move forward together to build a healthy, diversified low-carbon economy, reduce our emissions, keep our commitment and our obligation to British Columbians as well as to all global citizens.

[3:40 p.m.]

We know there are many, many measures that need to work together — whether it is energy efficiency in buildings; whether it is low-carbon building products; whether it’s a commitment to public transit, to mode shifting, to encouraging active transportation like biking, walking and rolling; whether it is shifting the energy use in our traditional resource industries as well as other industries in British Columbia to continually look for ways to be more energy efficient, to drive down emissions through processes as well as the forms of energy that power these industries; whether it is in personal or commercial transportation.

We know transportation isn’t just about personal vehicles. It isn’t just about commercial and heavy-duty vehicles, and it’s not just about vehicles at all. It’s about how we build communities and enable people to get to their recreational activities and their workplaces conveniently through public transit, conveniently through walking, conveniently through biking, where possible, because we’re focusing on building diverse and compact communities. That is a process that will unfold over decades, just as the expansion of public transit will be revealed and developed and unfold over decades.

It’s critically important that we have a plan, and this bill before us is a critical part of the plan. We know we want to mode shift transportation. We also know that people need personal vehicles for certain activities, and they can’t be replaced. We also know that tradespeople, commercial operations, delivery services and heavy-duty trucking all rely on vehicles for transportation, both personal and for work.

We are not going to make the shift — notwithstanding the strides that we’ve taken through our focus on clean energy vehicles — to fully electrified or fully hydrogen-powered vehicles immediately. That can’t happen. One of the issues, of course, is supply. The other issue is people making the transition over time.

It is true that a very high percentage — I think it is about 70 to 75 percent — of British Columbians say that they think the current vehicle they are driving that is powered by gasoline or some other fossil fuel will be their last one powered that way, that they would like to own an electric vehicle.

I’m also going to take this opportunity to state that when asked about it recently, many people on Vancouver Island, in a poll, thought that it was simply too expensive for them to purchase an electric vehicle. I certainly sympathize with people making the day-to-day expenditure decisions for their households in terms of what they can afford.

It is also true that studies have shown that over an eight-year period, a new electric, zero-emission vehicle will actually cost $20,000 to $30,000 less when you roll in fuel costs, when you roll in maintenance costs and when you roll in other factors that go to the life-cycle cost of a vehicle. However, having said that, we know that that transition will take place over time. We look forward to it. I know members on all sides of this House support that.

In the meantime, we have people using fossil fuels, and one of the key things that we can do as part of our climate plan is to ensure that we reduce the amount of carbon in those fossil fuels. That’s exactly what the Low Carbon Fuels Act is about. It’s what it was about when it was introduced in 2008, and it’s what it’s about in this iteration of the Low Carbon Fuels Act.

When we expand the ambition, we move in tandem with other jurisdictions in North America, like California, to ensure that we’re driving down the emissions associated with per-kilometre travel by a vehicle using a fossil fuel.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s critically important, and that’s exactly why the independent Climate Solutions Council — which has representatives of industry, representatives of the fossil fuel industry, representatives from academia, representatives from environmental groups, representatives from labour, representatives from Indigenous nations — made advancing the ambition of the low-carbon fuel standard a central piece of their recommendations to this government about our roadmap to 2030.

They were clear. They were unequivocal. This was a cen­tral piece. The reason for that is that this low-carbon fuel standard will be the single largest contributor to meeting our CleanBC 2030 targets. It will account for almost a third, 31 percent, of all reductions that we have plotted out in the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030.

That’s why it is so critically important, and that’s why it was so critically important for my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation to introduce this bill in the House this week. That’s why it will be so important, notwithstanding the questions that members have, that we send a signal to British Columbians, and, I hope, pass this bill unanimously, because of its centrality to moving forward in addressing the climate challenge.

It’s not just the aspects of meeting the climate crisis that is important about this bill. It’s not just reducing our dependence on high-carbon fossil fuels as we transition, ultimately, toward zero-carbon and zero-emission fuels; it is a slope. Adding biofuels, hydrogen and electricity are all part of the plan. In this case, this plan will not only reduce emissions from driving vehicles through lower-carbon fuels; it also has a huge measure of economic opportunity.

This bill will power a $600 million expansion at the Parkland refinery, creating 1,000 new jobs, along with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we continually say that our climate plan isn’t a choice between reducing our carbon emissions and building a strong economy. The two are completely intertwined because of the opportunities that are available in a clean energy future as well as various measures that can reduce emissions in a number of ways through new technologies and new processes.

That’s why the CEO of Parkland says: “We are grateful for the British Columbia government’s vision, leadership and partnership in this area. The expansion of the scope of the low-carbon fuel standard is just the type of thoughtful policy that can help unlock innovation and investment in areas that matter to both the environment and the economy. We look forward to delivering these benefits to British Columbia.”

There are many, many pieces that have already been introduced, that will be refined, that will be expanded. Where we see opportunities to enhance our ambition in any one area, part of our CleanBC roadmap is that it be an iterative process and that we take those opportunities. This Low Carbon Fuels Act is a very, very important piece of that activity, not the only piece but a critical and important one.

As we go forward over the next years on our march toward meeting that emission reduction target for 2030, because we’ve heard from members on all sides of this House about how important it is for us to take climate change and the climate crisis seriously….

We’ve heard from young people, from students, their concern about their future; their desperation, in some instances; their need to see leadership and action. We have to demonstrate that. We have to show that we’re responsive. We have to show that we’re creative. We have to show that we are supporting B.C.’s communities, B.C. workers and B.C. families in the measures we take.

[3:50 p.m.]

So we enhance not just our progress toward our climate targets. We enhance affordability, we enhance job opportunities. We enhance economic development opportunities, and we look for ways to take what would otherwise be waste and convert it into low-carbon energy.

That’s what this bill is about. That’s why it’s so important. That’s why I’m so grateful to be part of a government where now virtually every ministry includes in its planning, whether it’s an economic ministry or a ministry planning infrastructure or a capital expenditure or a ministry that is planning social initiatives: how do we reduce emissions? How do we support clean growth in our economy? How do we support the development of diversified opportunities throughout British Columbia, throughout the entire province of British Columbia?

How do we engage with Indigenous people in a way that provides economic opportunity as well as reconciliation? How do we assist people with limited means to reduce their carbon footprint without spending money they don’t have and, in fact, give them the opportunity to save money on energy, whether it is for home heating and cooling or for transportation? All of us, in this government, work together to build a strong, diversified, low-carbon economy and meet our carbon targets.

I’ll close by simply quoting the president of Advanced Biofuels Canada, Ian Thomson: “The low-carbon fuel standard is B.C.’s single most impactful climate change policy, giving British Columbians an affordable and effective way to fight climate change every day. In the years ahead, more made-in-B.C. clean fuels will reduce B.C.’s exposure to volatile global energy markets and create a more diversified, resilient economy while reducing greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel use.”

I look forward to continued debate on this bill, but I sincerely hope every member of this House recognizes the responsibility we have to all British Columbians, as well as to our children and our grandchildren, to support measures that have been demonstrated to be tremendously effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions into our atmosphere — the emissions that are at the root of climate change.

There is no magic switch we can flick from carbon-intensive energy use and development to, all of a sudden, carbon-free energy and a carbon-free economy and communities. It is a slope, and we are turning the corner. We are beginning that trajectory toward our targets. This piece is an important part of the transition. Other elements that are important to the transition are being brought forward virtually every week.

We need to work hard. We need to ensure that we have the level of ambition that this emergency calls for. We have to ensure that we are consistently responsive to new technologies, to new opportunities, that we address the challenges and roadblocks and that we learn as we go.

I want to thank my colleague for bringing forward this bill, and it’s been my honour to speak to it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. B. Ralston: I wish to thank all members who par­ticipated in the debate for their thoughtful and insightful comments. I have noticed where members have signalled their intention to ask questions at the next stage of debate, and I will endeavour to prepare myself to meet those concerns.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I request a five-minute recess.

Deputy Speaker: We will recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again, Government House Leader?

Hon. L. Beare: I call it now, in this chamber.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:02 p.m.

On clause 4 (continued).

G. Kyllo: It’s good to be in the main chamber. Just before we relocated in here, I was asking a series of questions just to have a better understanding around any limitations on what might, I guess, maybe seen as influencing the request of a worker to sign a membership card. I raised a couple of examples and just wanted to put those on the record just one more time.

Are there any restrictions or limitations anywhere, either in the legislation or in the regulation, that in any way limit or restrict the ability of a union organizer or a third party that may be presenting a union membership card before a worker with respect to taking the worker out for lunch or dinner or golfing or in any form? I think members and the general public might perceive this to be potentially influencing and encouraging that member to sign a membership card.

Is there any restriction or limitation whatsoever, set forth either in the legislation or the regulation, around what would be deemed to be reasonable or just or what might be deemed to be unreasonable and may even, rather than just encouraging, be potentially considered as coercion?

Hon. H. Bains: I will not answer that question again, because I’ve already answered that question.

I will say there are people in the gallery, and they are wondering what is going on here. We have what we call one of the legislation that is being debated. It’s at committee stage, and the opposition is going through clause by clause to answer questions about what they actually mean and how they will be applied.

I would welcome you all into the House and hope you will enjoy this. It’s not the most exciting debate you will hear here, but nonetheless, it’s important debate that we engage in. It is a part of the process of passing the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve already answered that question.

[4:05 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, as a matter of fact, the minister actually did not answer the question previously. So from the non-answer from the minister, I can only assume that there is no restriction or limitation either in legislation or regulation that in any way limits or puts caps on the amount of money or influence that a union organizer could utilize in order to encourage a worker to sign a membership card. That is unfortunate.

When we talk about the rigour which the minister indicated is around this card-check system, this current system where workers are presented with a membership application form and encouraged to sign a specific union, is, at the very least…? Is it a legislative or regulatory requirement that the member, in signing and making that determination to move forward and join that union through signing a membership card or a card check…? Is there, at the very least, a requirement that a copy — a carbon copy or a photocopy — be provided to the member?

Hon. H. Bains: All of that is in part of the regulations that we have debated over and over — what the requirement of the union organizers is and what it must contain on the application form. Then the board has…. I read on the record what the board must follow: a process to determine the appropriateness of the unit and whether there is sufficient support in that unit. That’s the process that the board goes through. So we have canvassed this, and I think it has nothing to do with section 4 anyway.

That part of the process isn’t being changed. It is still the decision made by the board, and they are the ones who follow their regulations and their procedures as they have established. They’re an independent body. We are debating section 4, which has nothing to do with the question that is being asked.

A. Olsen: I don’t know that you can separate what is required…. We’re talking about changing the certification process, correct? New certification. We’re talking about how a union will certify.

Currently, there is a two-step process. We’re moving to a one-step process — the union certification. I’m not sure how that process isn’t applicable now that we’re debating the change of that process.

I’ve been following the debate, and the minister has continued to say that it’s not applicable to the debate. But in reality, the rigour around how you achieve a signature, how that is accomplished — the process, the forms, the recordkeeping, all of the review…. The minister’s response has been consistently that it’s up to the Labour Relations Board to determine whether that’s all in place. I think, in my belief, it is applicable, when the minister is asking the change to be made in this House, to outline what that process is and what’s required around it.

[4:10 p.m.]

Maybe I’m missing something, because what the minister read into the record in the other room doesn’t actually respond to the questions — some of them, at least; maybe some of them it does — that have been put on the table.

The member asked the question about whether or not there is a carbon copy that is kept. What is the recordkeeping process of a card certification process, signing that card? What is that requirement in the regulation?

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member for the question.

I think we have debated this issue right from the beginning. Yes, the bill is…. Through the bill, Bill 10, we’re changing from two steps to a single step. But how members sign that membership card…. That requirement is still the same. The board still has to satisfy, whether it’s two steps or a single step, whether the cards were signed within the rules of the labour code and the regulations that they have.

The only difference is, in the two step, they still have to determine the percentage of membership signed. That requires the board to go through and follow the process that they have established to make sure that those cards were signed within the rules. They must be satisfied before they will order a vote.

Now, there are challenges to membership. Then the board may call hearings to determine whether that particular member’s card should be considered legal or not. That process doesn’t change. That rigour is there now. That rigour was there before. It will continue on. How the unions approach a member or the members approach unions…. That part hasn’t changed.

I have read into the record what the board will do. I can do that one more time. Before we left the other House, I read it. No coercion, no intimidation, no enticement. All of that is prohibited under the code. The board must satisfy itself that none of that happened, that everything was done according to the code and the regulations. Once they determine that, then they will make the next move.

Under the new rules, if they determine that 55 percent of a unit has signed a membership card, then the certification will be granted. Under the old rule, they would go for a vote then, after that. The process of determining the legitimacy and the unfair labour and interference…. Those procedures are still there.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the clarification from the minister.

What I would say…. I think the job I have, as a member of the opposition, is to understand. When you’re removing a step in the process that currently exists…. You have all of the framework in place that currently exists, and you have a second step where the actual members who are being recruited into a union will go and vote. When you remove that second step, it’s the job of us in the opposition to ensure that all of the steps leading up to the certification have a robust enough framework to protect those workers.

Many of the questions I’ve heard, which I’ve felt haven’t necessarily had the level of response that they could have, frankly, are…. Just the basic accountability and transparency of the process, the ability to follow up and go and make sure that the person whose name is on the certification card is the person, all of that. It feels like there may not be the level of rigour around that certification process. The job for us, on this side, is to test that and to ensure.

[4:15 p.m.]

If the government, which the government is doing in this case, is saying we’re going to remove a step of the certification process, I think it’s completely within the realm of the work of the opposition to ensure that the new process is robust enough to protect all of the concerns that someone might have around accountability, transparency, to make sure that there’s enough paperwork, enough of a paper trail to be able to hold the organizers accountable for things that may be there and to satisfy, if the Labour Relations Board needs to get involved in something, that you can actually track who the recruiter was, the day that the recruitment happened, the witnesses that were there and the process that unfolded.

I don’t think that the questions around how rigorous that process is are unfair. If what we’re doing is taking a step out, it would be totally reasonable to say that maybe that card-signing process needs to be more rigorous than exists today. I think that’s the spirit of some of the questions that have been asked. At least that’s what I’ve been hearing in some of the questions that have been asked around this, to say: “What is that system currently? How does it exist? Is it strong enough?”

Members of the opposition could propose to amend that to strengthen it. Without clarity on what that is and without clarity on how that process and accountability are achieved, it makes it very difficult. I think that’s my main concern on this.

Does the minister feel — obviously, I guess he does — that the process to get the card signed is rigorous enough and that there is a strong enough and robust enough paper trail behind that for the Labour Relations Board to actually do the work in holding those people who are organizing accountable, as well as — as the minister has said repeatedly — holding the businesses accountable for not inserting themselves into this process? We need to make sure that the organizers are doing this in a way that can be accountable to the worker as well.

Hon. H. Bains: When the member signs to join a union, a worker signs a membership card to join a union, they have every right to withdraw or revoke that application. It has happened, and no one will even know about it.

If the worker feels that they were not given proper information or they were given wrong information or they have a second thought, “The union isn’t for me,” they can withdraw that application. So that protection is there for the member.

[4:20 p.m.]

What kind of accountability and who is held accountable is the union that is applying for certification.

The board will make a decision based on the application that is being made. They have a number of checks to go through, whether the appropriate and the right members of that particular union are the ones who signed this card. It’s their responsibility to ensure that.

Members don’t have to justify why they are withdrawing an application. It was asked earlier: if they don’t know who signed them, how can they make a case against them? All they have to do is say, “Look, I am not satisfied with the way someone approached me. I’m not satisfied with the information given to me,” and they can withdraw that application.

The board will know that. Then the board will determine the remaining applicants. If they meet the threshold, the board will make that decision, but the employer on the other side has every opportunity. Once the union makes the application, the board will inform the employer — almost the same time, same day. Then the employer has rights to challenge whether the membership signatures were collected correctly or not, if they have any information.

They will also be approached by the labour board officer to go over their payroll, to match the names. They determine whether all of those signed cards should be part of the unit or not. Should any one of them be excluded?

The employer will also say, and this is normal: “In our payroll, I have X number of employees.” The union may only have so many members signed, and then the decision is made whether those employees that the employer is presenting to the officer should be counted or not — all of them or not. If someone came there and worked six months ago and never showed up and the employer put that name on, that argument will be made to the board. So all those checks and balances are there under the current rules.

I’m not worried about the questions being raised here. There’s no boogeyman here. The process is the same in signing the membership cards, the board going through the process and determining the legitimacy of the application, the appropriateness of the unit.

The question was whether the employer’s name would be on it. Of course, it is on it. I mean, these are the questions that anybody can pick up a phone, phone the information office at the labour board, and they’ll give it to you. They have, on a website, all of that information available: how to certify, what is an appropriate unit, bargaining unit. The information is there. They change and update those bulletins from time to time, but you can also talk to somebody.

What I’m saying is that all of the process is not being changed here. I don’t see any need to change it. What we are talking about is moving from two steps to one step. Of course, if somebody argued more rigour is needed because…. No one has made a case yet. No one is saying that there should be.

I think changes get made when the presentations come from stakeholders to the labour board. The labour board may decide certain changes are needed. Then the government and the cabinet can, through OIC, change the regulations. But this is the legislation.

So two big parts on this. One we already dealt with — changing unions. But this one here is acquiring a bargaining unit and how you do that. Instead of two steps, we’re proposing one step. If a clear majority is there, and the board is satisfied that membership cards were signed within the rules and the regulations, and they are satisfied that 55 percent–plus membership is there, then they will grant certification.

A. Olsen: Sorry, one more question, just in a follow-up. I appreciate the clarification, Minister. Thank you for that.

[4:25 p.m.]

The minister, in his response, suggested that a member who’s being approached for certification can remove their name. They’ve signed the card; they can remove and revoke that certification.

For just the simple purposes of small numbers, there are six members in a bargaining unit, and they have four signatures. The union goes to the Labour Relations Board and demonstrates the 55 percent that’s in this. The Labour Relations Board goes to the employer and asks the employer for a list of the employees. They determine that all of the members are legitimate that have signed the card. At what point in that…? I’m assuming that at any point in that process, a member who has signed the card can revoke their card. Are the members who have signed their cards notified at any point in time that certification has been…?

I guess it could be argued that there was a period of time in which it was made clear to an employee that you have this amount of time until there is going to be a secret ballot vote. In a single-step certification process, there isn’t necessarily a period of time. The only period of time would be the number of days that that card is valid for, I guess.

Is there any point in time where the members are told that they’ve achieved that 55 percent, in order for someone to realize that, actually, that process wasn’t quite what…? To revoke it — I’m just talking about a member who might want to revoke that card. How are they to know that a certification is about to happen, based on the fact that there isn’t that vote at the end of it?

Hon. H. Bains: I think there could be any different scenarios, Member. When a worker signs a membership to join a union, they are advised — and they can ask questions — on when the application will be made. Typically, the union will say: “Once we have sufficient support.”

The expectation of the member is that once the union has sufficient support, they will make the application. There could be occasions where they will know when they make the application, but once the application is made, the employer is notified.

[4:30 p.m.]

Yes, in some cases, an employee may not have an opportunity to withdraw. There may be a case. You could come up with different scenarios. That is for smaller operations, but I can tell that you that it takes days, if not months, to sign up sufficient members. People take time; it is a big decision. I’ve seen revocations, and I’ve seen more members voting than the application showed as how many actually had signed for the union. It works both ways.

These are all adults. They’re making a decision for themselves. I said the other day, just like when going to the bank and you’re signing for a loan, your signatures are good enough. You sign because you’re responsible. You know what the consequences are. The bank many times will tell you and make sure you qualify, that you are able to pay the payments, based on your income and everything. All the checks and balances are made.

I think that the board does many things to make sure that the union follows the rules. As I read out a part of the board policy, the board may reject a membership. Then if the rejected membership means that now they’re lower than the threshold, then the application may be dismissed. I think there’s that. That’s the process. I think there are strong checks and balances in place.

G. Kyllo: I had asked the question of the minister — I did not receive an answer — with respect to when a worker is presented with a membership application form, which has terms and conditions by which the worker is acknowledging giving up or placing their rights for wage negotiation and turning that over into the hands of the union organization. The question was: at the very minimum, is there a requirement, legislative or regulatory, that requires a copy of that membership certificate to be provided to the worker?

Hon. H. Bains: I’m advised that under the regulation there’s no requirement to have a carbon copy. I don’t even know whether carbon copies exist these days. Now they’re signing electronically as well. So people will have a copy of what they signed online. I do know that the union is required to keep a record, and the board is given copies of the application forms. If copies are given to the board, the union is required to keep the originals. So the board could come and examine the original copies.

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s the board’s decision to ensure that the appropriate members in that appropriate bargaining unit have signed. They will match that with the employer’s payroll record that would be provided to them. That’s what the requirement is. The board must satisfy themselves. I have all confidence — I haven’t heard anything different — that they will make sure that the rules, the labour code and the regulations are all followed before they will make a decision to certify or dismiss the application.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the answer. So there’s no legislative or regulatory requirement to, at the very minimum, even give that worker a copy of the membership application form which they’ve signed. That’s troubling. However, the minister referenced the fact that workers have the right to rescind their membership application and that a membership application that is signed is valid for a period of 180 days. It used to be 90 days. The minister, through Bill 30 in 2019, increased that to six months, to 180 days.

A question that I have…. For an employee who signs a membership card, that membership card would sit and reside with the union organization. Obviously, if a member who has signed this membership card wants to retract that membership, that is not secret. They have to contact the union which is holding onto that membership certificate. So there’s nothing secret about the revocation of that membership application while that card sits with the union organization.

I just want to confirm. Is it correct that the membership card that is submitted and in the hands of the union organization…? If a member who signed that application chooses to withdraw that application, they have to actually contact the union organization. Therefore, that revocation would not be secret. It would be immediately known by the union organization.

Hon. H. Bains: Okay, so let’s make this on the record. Revocation of membership cards — it’s in the regulations. “A membership card may be revoked by delivering a written statement signed by the member to the trade union and the Labour Relations Board on or before the date of application for certification.” Those are the rules.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. For a member who has signed a membership card with a union prior to the union actually making the application to the labour board for certification and who wishes to withdraw their membership, that is not made in secret. That request for withdrawing the membership application is actually made with the union. So there’s nothing that’s secret about the withdrawal of the support for the union at that particular time.

As the minister has indicated that these membership cards are collected, it might take…. It’s not a matter of days; it’s a matter of months. It takes a while for the union organizers to collect all of these cards. All these membership cards are accumulating and only residing and sitting in the union office. Copies are not made available. There’s certainly not the requirement for copies of those membership applications to be even provided to the workers that join and sign membership cards.

[4:40 p.m.]

The union collects these cards, and when they feel that they have the adequate number, at some point in time they contact the labour board and actually present those union cards and make the request of the labour board for union certification.

Is there a requirement that the union organization let all of those members know when they specifically are moving forward, when they’ve obtained the signatures required — when they are actually moving forward and actually presenting the member’s union application, the card? Is there a requirement for the union to provide notification of these employees when they actually move forward and submit those membership application forms for the labour board’s consideration?

Hon. H. Bains: There is no such requirement.

G. Kyllo: Okay, so the union organization collects all these membership cards. They keep them, they maintain them, and when they feel there’s a sufficient number, they make the application. But there’s no requirement to go back to the membership, to those members, and actually let them know when they’re moving forward.

That’s surprising. I would think that would be something, just sheerly out of courtesy, that they would let the members know: “Hey, we’ve been successful, guys, or gals. We’ve achieved the requisite number that we were shooting for, and we’re going to actually move forward.”

So the member has no knowledge, no knowledge whatsoever, when their membership is actually put before the labour board for consideration of membership certification. I just wanted to clarify that that is the case.

Hon. H. Bains: We are moving a lot of debate on the inner working of the labour board, how they follow the labour code and the regulations. I will read that one more time — membership evidence, how the board determines that.

The criteria for membership. “For the purpose of establishing membership in good standing in a trade union where that trade union is making an application for certification, the following minimum criteria apply: (a) a membership card must be signed and dated at the time of signature; (b) a membership card signed on or after January 18, 1993, must contain the following statement….”

This is important. This is what the member is asking. It says here: “A membership card signed on or after…1993 must contain the following statement.” It must contain this statement, and I will read that: “In applying for a membership I understand that the union intends to apply to be certified as my exclusive bargaining agent and to represent me in collective bargaining.” That statement is signed by the member.

That member knows that once they sign that membership card, it’s the union’s intent to apply for certification. It could be any day. It could be the same day that the member signed. It could be the next day. But they are made aware when they sign this that the union’s intent is to apply to represent him and certify it as “my exclusive bargaining agent” for the unit being applied.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that additional information.

The dating of the card is incredibly important. Bill 30, which extended the duration or the validation period by which that card is eligible for submission to the labour board…. It was increased from the 90 to 180 days.

Is there any requirement, either in regulation or in the legislation, and are there any penalties associated with cards that are signed or signatures that might be collected of members where those cards are not dated?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: If a card goes incomplete, which means it does not have a signature or date, the board will not accept it.

G. Kyllo: From the minister’s response, I can only assume that it is possible that a membership card could be presented to a worker to obtain their name and their signature with that card not being dated at that specific time. It would be, potentially, available to the union organizer to enter a date onto that card at a later date. Does that situation potentially exist today?

Hon. H. Bains: I think that it’s quite a pattern. I have read it on the record, and the member is not paying attention. I will read it one more time: “A membership card must be signed and dated at the time of signature.” That’s the requirement.

G. Kyllo: Of course, a worker that signs a membership card but is not provided a copy of that membership certificate — how would they ever be able to make the claim or the assertion or raise the concern that the date does not match with their recollection of when they actually signed the card?

It appears that the onus of responsibility is being moved and shifted from the union organization that is seeking that membership. It is not required or legislated through regulation or otherwise to provide a copy to that member.

How would a worker ever dispute the validity of the date on that particular membership card if they’re not provided a copy of it, and (2) they’re not informed on the date that their card is actually presented to the labour board for consideration for certification?

Hon. H. Bains: Those checks and balances already exist. It’s the board’s duty, and they make sure that the cards are signed according to the law and the regulations. That’s their duty. If they are satisfied, then they will count that card in. If they feel there is an issue, then they will do further investigation.

Even after the certification is granted and then it’s brought to their attention that through fraudulent means or misrepresentation the application was made, that certification can again be dismissed. So the board has all that.

We are getting into the weeds of the working of the labour board. None of that operational stuff has changed. All the requirements were there, whether there are two steps or one single step. The only difference is that between the application and the certification, there are five days, and there’s all kinds of stuff that happens during those five days.

Before that if the a worker felt, “I don’t believe what I was told or the way I was signed up,” they can withdraw the membership card.

G. Kyllo: The challenge being that the worker who has signed a membership card has no knowledge of when their membership card is actually presented to the labour board for consideration.

[4:50 p.m.]

The minister referenced five days. Now, that five-day period is where there is actually a vote that’s going to be undertaken. That would be a two-step process. However, it’s clear to my understanding that the union that holds these membership cards, when they feel that they have the satisfactory number, will present them to the labour board. The labour board will contact the company to request an employment list.

We went through this, and the minister actually confirmed this on the record yesterday. The company will provide a list of employees. They’ll identify which are the management ones that are not eligible for part of the bargaining unit and identify the workers that the employer believes would be eligible. The board has a look at that list. If the 55 percent threshold is met, certification is granted. Then the employees are informed that they are unionized.

There’s no opportunity for any scrutiny or any further questioning by the worker who has signed that membership card. There’s a real lack, a void, with respect to any rigour going into the information provided to the worker at the time they sign the card. They’re not provided a copy of it, which I think really inhibits their ability to even raise any questions or concerns after the fact.

As we look to the rigour behind the work of the labour board in determining those membership cards that they’re counting…. They’re looking for their completeness. Does it include the date, which is within that 180-day validation period; the name of the worker; and the signature?

As they look at that card — I think this is really important, because the determination of whether certification goes through or not is relied exclusively on those cards as presented to the labour board — does the board contact all of those members that the membership cards have been submitted on their behalf? Does the labour board contact those members to verify and confirm — in writing, verbally, over the phone or otherwise — that they had actually signed and completed a membership form?

Hon. H. Bains: I will read the process relating to application, which is part of the bill.

“22 (1) The board must, in respect of an application for certification under this Part, (a) make or cause to be made the examination of records and other inquiries, including the holding of hearings if it considers necessary to determine the merits of the application for certification, and (b) specify the nature of the evidence the applicant must furnish in support of the application and the manner of application.

[4:55 p.m.]

“(2) In deciding whether a person is a member in good standing of a trade union, the board (a) must decide the question on the basis of membership requirements prescribed in the regulations….”

Those are the board’s requirements. How they do it is left up to the board.

G. Kyllo: So the board receives these membership applications. They review an employee list. They make the determination, I guess — the examination.

Can the minister confirm if, at the very least, the board would make some form of effort to verify that the membership application form, which includes a date, the name of the employee and the signature…. Is there any work undertaken by the labour board in any way, shape or form to verify that the signature on those forms, indeed, is actually the signature of the member whose name appears on that form?

Hon. H. Bains: I already answered the question. I read on the record what the board can and must do.

G. Kyllo: I am aware of labour boards in other parts of Canada that actually go through that process to actually verify that the membership application that is presented before them…. That the signature on those forms actually matches up and is verified as being the signature of that actual member.

From the minister’s non-answer, and failure to respond, I can only surmise, with all due respect to the labour board, that there is currently no requirement that the labour board verify that the membership certificates that are presented to them by the union…. There’s no requirement for the labour board to take any steps to verify that those membership application forms that are presented by the union actually contain the correct and accurate signature of the member.

Hon. H. Bains: I answered that question. There is a process relating to application, but the board…. How they do it is left up to the board. I have answered the question, probably more than once.

The Chair: Member.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I appreciate your latitude in allowing me to make these further inquiries.

This is front and foremost in part of Bill 10, moving away from the secret ballot, the secondary step of gaining an employee’s true and accurate belief and feelings with respect to union certification, with that being removed and taken away and stripped from workers, the importance and the rigour — to use the minister’s reference — around this process of collecting and gaining membership application forms takes on a whole new level of importance.

When a membership certificate is presented to the labour board, I’m just assuming that the labour board takes that on good faith, that on that membership certificate put in front of them, the date corresponds with the actual date that the member signed the card and that the signature is actually directly associated with the member.

It’s apparent from the minister’s non-answer that there’s no effort undertaken by the labour board to reach out and speak to those members just to confirm that: “Hey, we’re in receipt of a membership card signed by you on April 28. Your name is Henry Ford, and this membership form in front of me actually is something that you have signed and presented to the union for submission for union certification.”

[5:00 p.m.]

That contact with the member is not undertaken by the board. There is also no requirement for the labour board to verify that the signature on that form is actually the signature on that form is actually the signature of the employee.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I referenced other jurisdictions that do have a signature verification process. Quite often they’ll contact the employer and ask the employer to provide a list of signatures for employees. Most companies obtain a signature acknowledging the workers when they actually start working at the organization. They quite often would…. There’s a requirement that those signatures be sent in, and the labour board would actually review those signatures in order to verify that the signatures are, indeed, accurate.

Without the rigour of a secondary call by the labour board to the member to confirm that they indeed did sign up and want and wish and desire be a member of that collective bargaining unit, without any level of scrutiny or verification that the signature actually matches that employee, does the minister feel that there is the potential opportunity for a card to be filled out and signed by somebody other than whose name actually appears on that card?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I think we are asking the same question over and over. But I will give….

I have offered, Member, to look at the labour board website. All that information is there. We’re not changing any of that.

I will read one more thing for the member’s benefit. “The board reviews the membership card to make sure they meet the requirement in the labour relations regulation. Part 2, membership evidence. A membership card needs to have the minimum wording set out in the regulation, be signed and dated at the same time by the individual named on the membership card, be signed within six months of the application date.”

Then they go on to recommend: “Important things to remember: another person can’t sign the card for you. Write the date so that the board can clearly tell….”

The Chair: Excuse me, Minister. It’s my understanding that the use of electronic devices in the House is not allowed.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair.

That information has been passed to the member already. More information is available on the board website. If the member chooses to get that information, it’s available on the website.

We’re not changing any of that, and we have no intention of changing the procedures of what the board does in order to verify the legitimacy of the board. They’re doing a very good job. I have all the faith. Obviously the member doesn’t. But the board does a very good job in making sure that the union and the members have followed the rules that are set out for them.

G. Kyllo: Well, it’s apparent that there’s limited rigour in the system. The labour board would review that there’s a date, there’s a name and there’s a signature and that the name on that membership application actually exists on an employment list for the corporation. That’s it.

I have not heard any effort undertaken by the labour board to confirm or otherwise verify with the member that they actually, indeed, filled out and completed that membership application form and that that signature is actually, indeed, their signature.

Again, does the minister believe that there exists the opportunity for a membership card to be submitted on behalf of an employee without their knowledge?

[5:05 p.m.]

Does the opportunity exist for the board to actually consider and include that membership application for certification, even though there’s no undertaking in any way, shape or form to verify the member actually verified completing the form or that the signature on that form is even associated or in any way matches the name on that application form?

Hon. H. Bains: If someone doesn’t follow the rules or regulations or the labour code, there are checks and balances. There are procedures available to the union and the management and the employees themselves.

I’m satisfied the system already has all the precautions, and they have the very rigorous process to determine the legitimacy of the membership and the legitimacy of the application.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. However, as we are moving away from that two-step certification process, that opportunity for workers to have that sobering second thought, to give further consideration to whether they choose to move forward with certification or not….

With that being stripped away and taken away from workers, the rigour upon which these cards are collected; the information shared with workers and encouraging and enticing these workers to sign the membership card; the manner in which those cards are collected and maintained by the union; how those cards are submitted then to the labour board for consideration; the rigour, or lack thereof, that the labour board undertakes in order to verify that these membership certificates were completed and signed without any influence or coercion….

There are no calls or other contact made with these members, in writing or verbally. The labour board also does not in any way, shape or form undertake the work to verify that the signature on that card is even the signature of the employee’s name that exists on that card.

It is not that these potential concerns that I raised don’t exist. There was a case of R.C. Purdy Chocolates Ltd., a decision dated January 24, 2002, case Nos. 46439, 46450 and 46456, in which case the concern that I have raised actually occurred in B.C.

Again, the decision date was January 24, 2002. The decision of the board, in the introduction, it indicates: “This is an unusual case, to say the least. Indeed, it may be unique in the annals of B.C. labour law. There is no real dispute as to the law. It essentially turns upon its own particular facts. The union initially applied for certification on February 27, 1997. On the basis of union cards signed, it was certified without a vote for a unit of employees of the employer.”

So in the 1990s, there was a one-step process, the process that the minister is now reverting to. That opportunity for the secret ballot did not exist in the 1990s. That was one area where the previous NDP government took that right away from workers. That right for the second-step process or the two-step process with a secret ballot was implemented back in 2001-2002, I believe. Now government and this NDP Labour Minister are taking away that secret ballot vote and relying singularly on this one-step process.

[5:10 p.m.]

It goes on to say: “On August 1, 1998, the parties entered into a collective agreement that included a union security clause requiring all new hires to become and remain members in good standing with the union. Existing employees were given all options of joining the union, thus preserving the right of those who were not already members not to join.”

It goes on to say: “The essential point is that membership in the union was made compulsory, save for those who opted out at the time the agreement was ratified. The union had sought, but failed to win, a provision that would have rendered membership compulsory for all.”

Under section C, titled “The Closed Shop Issue and the Forged Cards,” it goes on to say: “A total of eight employees continued to cross picket lines at this time…. They informed the employees concerned that by crossing the picket line, the union had established, pursuant to a properly approved strike, they were committing an offence under the union’s constitution and bylaws and, thus, exposing themselves to discipline.”

In cross-examination before the Mullaly panel, Mike Bocking and the union’s president conceded that such warning letters had been sent to employees whom it knew were not members of the union as well as to those whose status was an issue. This, he had claimed, was simply a mistake. Subsequently, three of those who claimed their signatures to have been forged approached the employer, claiming that they were not union members.

On this particular point…. The union presented signed union cards to the labour board for consideration. Those cards were counted, and the union was certified. But the employees weren’t made aware…. None of the employees were made aware that their membership application had been presented to the board, because they had never signed a union card in the first place.

The point…. That the union can collect cards and has no requirement to advise an employee that they are submitting those cards to the labour board is a concern. That is an issue. In this case, these individuals never signed union cards. But somehow cards existed. Somebody must have completed those cards. Whether the union was aware or not, I have no idea.

The cards were completed and presented to the union, and the union submitted those to the labour board for consideration. Based on the signature and the date on those cards and the name, the labour board counted those membership cards towards certification. Certification was granted. It was only years later that these workers found out that there were cards presented to the labour board on their behalf that they had no knowledge of. This is where the lack of rigour is very concerning.

It goes on to say, under section 10:

“In August 2001, the right of the union to discipline four employees who claimed never to have joined it became an issue between the employer and the union. The union offered to provide proof of their membership and faxed copies of the cards allegedly signed by the individuals to the employer. The employees claimed that the signatures were forged, and this, in turn, led to applications by the employer on August 24, 2001, and by certain employees on August 31, seeking, inter alia, reconsideration of the board’s original decision to decertify the union.

“Appended to the employer’s application were statutory declarations from the four employees to that effect that they had never signed applications for membership in the union and a report from a forensic document examiner that cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the four signatures on the applications submitted by the union in support of the original application for certification.”

There is zero, no rigour whatsoever around the process, this single-step process that the minister is trying to move forward in Bill 10. No rigour. The union submits membership cards, and the board, in good faith, just accepts that those cards are completed by employees and that the signatures actually relate directly to that employee.

[5:15 p.m.]

The current legislation and regulation do not require the labour board to contact those employees to verify that they actually completed a membership card. The regulations do not require the labour board in any way, shape or form to verify that the signatures are correct and accurate.

The minister referenced the rigour around this one-step, single-step process. There is no rigour. There is no way that British Columbians are buying it. It is extremely unfortunate. I’m not making this up. This is a documented case, with a ruling from the labour board, with clear evidence where forged membership application forms were utilized in order to certify a union. The members were not even notified that applications under their name were even submitted to the labour board for consideration. That’s a significant problem.

Now, I appreciate that in 2001, 2002, the second-step process was re-established, providing that opportunity for workers to give a sobering second thought. The reason why, I think, we have seen a failure of certification when it comes to the secret ballot is for that very reason. The opportunity exists for membership applications to be submitted to the board without the knowledge of the employees whose names actually exist on that application form.

This is the bottom-line decision. “On October 15, the Mullaly panel brought down its bottom-line decision, cancelling the certification, declaring continuation of the strike to be unlawful.”

This is important stuff. The minister, through his own acknowledgment, has indicated that the ability of a worker to make that choice to sign up for a union or to associate with a union is incredibly important. There are many benefits that can flow from it. The minister also indicated that the worker needs to be at the centre of that.

There are unions on one side. There are companies on the other side. In many instances, the companies and the unions are together but not always. It comes down to the worker’s right, the worker’s right to choose to associate or the worker’s right to choose not to associate.

By removal of the secret ballot, it is incredibly important that the rigour by which those cards are presented to workers to obtain their membership approval, the manner in which those cards are then maintained and submitted to the labour board for consideration and the rigour by which the labour board undertakes any form of additional verification process to confirm that those cards were signed by the members’ names appearing on those cards…. That does not exist today.

I certainly look forward to any commentary or any additional information that the minister might be able to provide that would give British Columbians any semblance of confidence with respect to the process that the minister is looking at us moving towards today.

Hon. H. Bains: That was all commentary, nothing to do with the bill before us or the content of the bill. The member picked up a number of cases, going back to 2001, 2002. The results being that the system worked. If there was inappropriateness, it was brought to the board’s attention. They made their decision.

[5:20 p.m.]

In one case — I can’t comment on individual cases — as I understand, the board ruled that, one, there was no improper motive on the union side. Second, in order to make sure that the true wishes of the employees were known, they ordered another vote. So all that system is still in place, and that system is not being changed.

There are certain requirements. I can tell you, again, that if the board is satisfied on the date that the board receives an application for certification of the part that at least 55 percent of the employees in the union are members in good standing of the trade union, the unit is appropriate for collective bargaining. The board must certify the trade union.

Now again, we will deal with it, you know, in clause 5. The board can still call for or require a representation vote for the purpose of determining whether the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit wish to have a particular trade union represent them as their bargaining agent. The board may order that a representation vote be taken, in accordance with the regulations among the employees in the unit.

The point I’m making here is that we’ve been canvassing, for the last couple of days now, that the board is already set up to have all of the checks and balances to ensure that the union and the employer follow the code and the regulations — that the cards were collected through legal means and they are the true reflection of the wish of those employees. So all those things are done.

How they do it is left up to the board. I have no intention of changing any of that process. All we are doing right now is bringing the legislation to make these changes that are before us. How the board operates in order to implement these changes is left up to them then. There are regulations already in place about how they satisfy themselves on the legitimacy of the application, including the legitimacy of the members and how the membership cards were collected.

All of that is left up to the board. I have full confidence in the board that they will continue to do a good job. I have a good faith in them.

G. Kyllo: I do not share the member’s confidence. There are no checks and balances. I, in no way, mean to impugn the work of union organizers. I’ve got friends, actually, that undertake that work. I certainly appreciate the professionalism that they have in their given trade and the role that they do.

As the minister has confirmed and admitted to this House, membership cards can be signed up by anyone. An individual working in a company could obtain copies of membership certificates. I have heard, and this is certainly a truism, that oftentimes, there’s a stipend associated with membership cards.

It’s not unreasonable to think that an employee or an individual could go and collect a name and a signature, forged or otherwise, and submit that membership form to a union organizer, saying: “Jeez, thanks, Bob. I just got three of the guys on the plant floor to sign up.” “Fantastic, great. I’ll submit those into head office.”

There’s no rigour that the union undertake, no requirement for them to reach out and speak to those employees individually to verify that: “Hey, Ted Williams. Is that actually your signature?”

[5:25 p.m.]

None of that occurs. It’s not even a requirement for the union to do that. I would assume that a union organizer would be quite happy. “I need 55 membership cards signed up. Hey, can you guys help me get three or four signed up each — ten guys? Perfect, that’s half of my workload done.”

But there’s no requirement for anybody to actually go back to those employees and verify. There’s no training required. So the union organizer, although he or she may not have necessarily obtained those cards inappropriately…. The fact is that when they are in receipt of those cards — those membership applications — they’d be quite happy to have them in their possession. Why would they question the validity of that card? It helps to further the efforts that they’re undertaking in order to obtain that 55 percent of membership cards in order to obtain certification.

Those cards are presented to the labour board, and the labour board just takes it on good faith that the date is correct. They can confirm that the member’s name on the card matches up with an employment record provided by the company. But other than that, the date is a bit ambiguous, and the signature is a bit ambiguous, because there are no checks or balances. There’s no additional verification or validation that is undertaken to confirm that the date and the signature on that card actually matches with the true wishes and desire of that worker.

The challenge — why I believe that there may not have been more cases of these coming forward — is that in this case, the workers were never made aware that a membership application in their name was submitted to the labour board. There’s no requirement. The only reason that they were made aware of a membership application was during a strike when these workers crossed a picket line. It was then that they were informed: “Oh well. There was membership certificate that was completed on your behalf.” These workers at that point in time came forward and said: “Hold on. I never signed a membership application.”

Had it not been for that strike in the case of Purdy’s Chocolates, these workers would have never known that a membership had been submitted in their name. That is where there are inappropriate or inadequate checks or balances.

That is the crux of the issue — moving away from a two-step process to a single-step process, with no requirement for any training, no requirement for any registration of those that might be even be eligible or able or adequately knowledgeable enough to even answer any questions that might be posed by the workers. No documentation of any information provided to those workers, with respect to what rights they’re gaining and what rights they may be giving up in signing that membership application form.

I really fail to understand how British Columbians or members of this House can have any confidence in this lack of process. The members aren’t even provided with a copy of the form they are proposed to have signed. Their ability to even raise any questions or concerns with respect to the date of that membership application…. How can they raise that concern after the fact, when they aren’t provided with a copy of the original that they are requested to sign in gaining that membership?

I certainly hope that the minister may reconsider. The minister indicated that he has no intention of changing the process. Well, the process is grossly inadequate.

[5:30 p.m.]

I truly do hope, with keeping the workers and respecting the rights of workers and ensuring that their decisions accurately reflect their choice and their decisions — that the labour board takes that additional step, that verification process, to reach out to the members, to confirm and verify that, yes, they indeed did complete an application form, that yes, that is indeed their signature and that they truly do wish to move forward.

Without that extra verification or validation, I certainly fail to understand how the minister feels that there would be any confidence in this House with respect to stripping workers of the right for that sobering second thought and making their final determination and decision through a secret ballot process.

The Chair: Shall clause 4 pass?

Member.

G. Kyllo: It is unfortunate, that the minister is unable — I wouldn’t say unwilling; I believe that the minister is unable — to provide that confidence, to this House, that the current process around verification of that single-step card-check union certification process accurately reflects the desire of workers.

We talk about workers’ rights and workers’ wishes. It’s my understanding that in not all cases are there concerns expressed by workers within a specific employment agreement with a corporation. Workers might be happy. There are always going to be quibbles with employment on any given day over the course of the year. I’m sure there are occasions where nobody really likes their boss too much.

Maybe the minister may not be totally enamoured with his boss on every given day of the year. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the minister is going to sign up a membership card with a different political party. What I think is concerning — this is an issue that has been brought to my attention — is that it’s common practice for some trade unions to actually encourage a union member to go and seek employment within a private sector company, with the sole purpose of influencing and encouraging workers to sign up and to join them.

I’m just wondering. Is there any regulation or legislation that requires the disclosure of any workers that are dispatched by a union to go and work in another company? It’s also my understanding that oftentimes the union will pay these workers an additional fee: “Ted, you’re a good union soldier. We’re going to give you an extra $500 a week pay to go and seek employment in company X. Try and gain employment, and your sole purpose when you get in there is to try and encourage and sign up union memberships.”

Is the minister aware of this practice? Does he feel that that is something that British Columbians and British Columbian businesses should expect?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It has nothing — not, even with any stretch of the imagination, anything — to do with Bill 10. What unions do by dispatching their members to a non-union operation — to somehow, hopefully, organize them into the union — has nothing to do with the bill that is before us. If there are concerns, the member should raise them with the labour board.

G. Kyllo: The minister has many times referenced the 2018 report entitled Recommendations for Amendment to the Labour Relations Code recommending that the secret ballot vote be retained, providing there are sufficient measures to ensure the exercise of employee choice is fully protected and fully remediated in the event of unlawful interference.

The minister has referenced instances of unlawful behaviour of companies. Can the minister share, with this House: where there have been decisions or determinations by the labour board that corporations, companies or owners of those companies have acted unlawfully, what is the ultimate outcome with respect to a union certification?

Hon. H. Bains: This is the requirement — what the code and the regulations require. There is some explanation to that. Employers, unions and individuals can be guilty of coercive and intimidating conduct. If they’re guilty, it is an unfair labour practice. Coercion and intimidation include things like force or threats.

The board will look at all the circumstances surrounding the conduct to decide whether it was likely to have unlawfully influenced an employee’s right to choose whether to become or to stay a union member. Then they have at their discretion to provide a remedy. One of them may be remedial certification. They have, under the code, a number of discretionary powers. Or in going through the hearings, evidence is presented. If they are satisfied one way or the other, then the decision is made by the board at the end of the day.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister: the coercion is more where there’s force or threats. What the minister didn’t indicate…. Maybe there’s additional information in the regulation that might state otherwise, but with respect to inducements, enticements or promises that might be made…

[5:40 p.m.]

As we know, there’s no requirement for any training, any code of conduct, any code of ethics or otherwise that have to be signed or attained by any individual that presents a worker with an opportunity, an encouragement to sign a membership application form. An individual could tell Bob: “Hey, sign this card. Join us. We’re going to work hard. We’re going to get you a $7-an-hour increase in pay. We’re going to do everything we can to get you on an apprenticeship training program. We’re going to work hard on your behalf to try and obtain an extra four or five weeks of holiday pay.”

There’s no shortage of the number of claims that an individual…. That is in no way shape or form regulated, monitored or otherwise in this province — making a whole barrage of promises and commitments to employees.

Does the minister believe that that would be fair and reasonable behaviour, and is there anything in the legislation or the regulation that would dissuade or discourage or in some manner penalize an individual from behaving in that manner?

Hon. H. Bains: It is a different time but the same question. The question was asked, and it was answered, more than once.

G. Kyllo: Unfortunately, the minister did not answer. The minister did share and was quick and responsive to provide the determination where the board feels that coercion has been applied — forces or threats. The minister has referenced, I believe yesterday, an instance where an employer would threaten employees by saying: “Look it. If you guys unionize, I’m shutting this place down.” In that instance, certification is automatic. The labour board would make the determination that coercion was applied by the employer, and certification would be automatic and immediate. That’s the stick.

On the other side of the equation, there seem to be no limitations around the carrot or the promises that might be made to workers. There is no code of conduct, no code of ethics, no training required. Any individual in British Columbia can approach a worker and say: “Hey, Bob, join me. Sign this membership card. We’re all going to do well. You sign this card and stick with me. And if we get enough of these cards signed, I’m getting an extra $7 an hour, a wage increase.” There’s nothing in the regulation or in the legislation that limits that behaviour.

If I’m incorrect, I certainly hope that the minister will correct me and provide some confidence to this House that inducements or enticements or promises that are made are, in any way, shape or form, not permissible under either the current legislation or regulation.

Hon. H. Bains: I have answered that question more than once.

G. Kyllo: Well, again the non-answer from the minister is definitely concerning. I would surmise that there is no regulation or legislation that inhibits the ability of any individual to make outlandish promises in order to get an 18-year-old, young worker that may not have any knowledge of the labour code or even the Employment Standards Act and encourage that individual to actually sign a membership card. That is unfortunate.

Now, there was an open letter that was signed by representatives from 23 different business organizations across the province describing the lack of consultation on this particular bill, indicating it was extremely concerning.

[5:45 p.m.]

Can the minister advise this House what consultation was undertaken with respect to the current decision to remove the secret ballot from union certification?

Hon. H. Bains: That was within the first ten minutes of when we started Bill 10. That question was asked, and that question was answered.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for reminding me that that’s right — that there was no consultation undertaken. None. So for the open and transparent government that talked about a new way of doing business and broad consultation with industry and stakeholders, none was undertaken. That is deeply troubling.

We did canvass the question around the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact that that has had on workplaces. We do know that there’s a real shortage of workers around the province right now. Many businesses have many help-wanted signs.

I’m wondering. With many businesses struggling and starting to return to normal operations…. As we look to that letter that was signed by 23 different business organizations representing roughly half the workers in the province, I’m just wondering: will any measures be put in place to ensure that the changes proposed in Bill 10 in no way, shape or form further destabilize businesses in B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I answered the question. Let me go back to the real reason behind Bill 10.

I understand. I get letters from employers, their representatives, their associations. They are advising me to do certain things or not do certain things. Then I have meetings and letters from the other side, the workers and their representatives, advising me to do certain things and not to do certain things. As a government, we make a decision that we believe is balanced.

Coming back to Bill 10, it is not about employers. Member, I have repeated my line time and again. It’s not about employers. It’s not about unions. It is about workers, British Columbians having to have the right to exercise their right to association that is enshrined in the Canadian constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They should be able to exercise their right without any roadblocks or interference by anybody. That’s what this bill is all about.

Of course, employers are concerned when their employees decide to unionize. But on the other hand, the employees of that particular employer also have certain rights and desires — their desire to bargain collectively, having the right to have a collective voice about their health and safety, having the ability to bargain for good wages and benefits and working conditions. Those are the interests.

In coming to a decision as a government, it always goes back to the rights of the individual, right to association. That’s what Bill 10 is all about. It’s not easier under Bill 10 to form a union. I’ve explained that to the member before. It is about workers exercising their right without any intimidation, interference and any roadblocks. That’s what this is all about.

[5:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Member.

G. Kyllo: Sorry, Madam Chair. I can’t help myself.

The piece that…. I certainly appreciate, and I think all members appreciate, the right for workers to choose to associate. Workers also, though, have the right to choose not to associate, and workers are also entitled to ensure that if somebody, a union or otherwise, is utilizing their name on an application to be submitted to the labour board for union certification…. That individual has the right to be provided a copy of that membership application, has a right to be forewarned and told, at the time, that their membership application is submitted to the labour board for consideration.

That worker also has the right and, I think, expects — the obligation of this government — the labour board to further verify and reach out and contact that worker to confirm and validate and ensure that the application before the labour board, which they’re utilizing to determine certification, was actually completed by that employee.

Bill 10 does not do that. The current regulation does not do that. Workers, I feel, are absolutely being stripped and denied their opportunity, with respect to exerting their choice of whether to associate or not, because the rigour which the minister has referenced, over and over again, does not exist. There are no checks and balances. I am extremely troubled, and I hope that members that may be watching from home are also troubled and concerned.

I’ve got to admit that I had never looked at all of the details around the lack of process, the lack of policy undertaken by the labour board in determining union certification. I’m absolutely surprised. I’ve got to admit that the level of effort that’s even undertaken to provide some basic level of training to a server that might want to be selling a beer to somebody of legal age is a higher level of interest on governments than it is for a member to be approaching and enticing and inducing and encouraging a worker to sign a membership card.

There is zero level of interest by this government. There is zero level of regulation or commitment by this government to provide even the most basic level of training and confidence so that a worker who is approached by an individual and encouraged and enticed and induced into signing a certification form is actually told the truth and all of the facts associated with the rights that they may gain and the rights they are also going to lose. For that, I’m deeply troubled.

The Chair: Shall clause 4 pass?

Division has been called.

[5:55 p.m. - 6:05 p.m.]

Clause 4 approved on the following division:

The Chair: Members, we’ll be carrying on with Bill 10. You’re welcome to stay, but we’d appreciate it if you could vacate in an orderly way.

On clause 5.

[6:10 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Under clause 5, the language of this new section, (0.1), of section 24 of the bill, has language of…? It’s in brackets: “The board may order that a representation vote be taken.” Is there a reason why the language is not “must”?

Sorry. I don’t think that the minister quite heard me. To repeat, the change to the language states: “The board may order that a representation vote be taken.” Just wondering if there is a reason that language is not “must” take a vote.

Hon. H. Bains: I think we have canvassed that in clause 4 — that if the board is satisfied that the 55 percent of the employees have signed a membership card, then the certification is awarded. What this section talks about is the Labour Relations Board. It will provide the Labour Relations Board with the authority to order a representation vote on its own motion and in the absence of a request by the union.

For example, if the threshold for a single-step certification or representation vote is in doubt due to a dispute regarding membership evidence, the board may use this authority to order a vote to clarify the wishes of employees regarding union representation. So there could be questions, and if the board is in doubt that the 55 percent may not exist, then they have the authority under this section to call for the representation vote and to canvass the true wishes of the employees.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the response. Can the minister share with this House an example of a situation that might exist, a complaint or concern coming forward, that might provide the board with that concern and give them the latitude to choose to move forward with a vote?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I read this, and maybe I’ll do it again. For example — I’ll use this as an example — if the threshold for a single-step certification or representation vote is in doubt due to disputes regarding membership evidence.

The union may think they have 65 percent signed up, but the employer on the other side…. On the examination by the board, there are challenges and there are doubts whether certain members should be part of that union or not. If the board decides that it is a question of whether they have a 55 percent or not, then they have the authority to call a representation vote.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that additional clarification from the minister. As we canvassed many questions during clause 4, one of the concerns that I raised was the potential for a membership application card to be in question.

[6:15 p.m.]

If there was a concern raised by an employee of a corporation, and they raised that concern with the labour board…. Of course, this employee would have no knowledge that a membership application form would even have been submitted on their behalf.

If an employee or a number of employees in a company submitted a request to the labour board expressing concern and wanting to have confirmation if their name existed on any of the membership application forms put before the board, would that also provide, I guess, enough concern or doubt in the minds of the labour board to also give consideration under that situation to move forward with a vote?

I appreciate the minister can’t speak on behalf of the board. They will make their own independent decision, but it would certainly be my belief or understanding that if there was a number of employees that expressed concern, that that unto itself may pose a significant enough concern of the board, in which case they, in that instance, would also look to potentially moving forward with a vote. Just wondering if the minister could provide any additional commentary around that.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the language that I relayed to the member is very clear. If there is a dispute regarding membership evidence, the board will make that decision. Some of them could be what the member is talking about. The board will make that decision.

If they believe the membership evidence is in doubt, then they have the authority under this section to call a membership vote. That will determine the true wishes of the employees.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that additional clarification. In the instance of membership applications being presented to the board for their consideration, there is no requirement for either the union organization or the labour board to reach out and notify all those members of which applications are before them.

My belief or my understanding is that at this point the only notification — the only time that an employee would even know that there was a potential vote being undertaken and a card in their name being considered for consideration — would be when the labour board reaches out to the corporation or the company and seeks a list of employees.

Can the minister just confirm that the labour board’s single, sole and only requirement to notify, I guess, the organization that the union certification consideration is under way would be when the labour board reaches out to the corporation asking for and seeking a copy of their employment list?

Hon. H. Bains: We canvassed this question as well. The question was asked. The question was answered.

When the application for certification by a union is made at the labour board, the labour board then advises the employer.

G. Kyllo: The concern, I think, that I have is that there is no obligation or requirement for the labour board to notify workers that they are in consideration of a certification count, I guess, initially. Yet to be determined whether it would go to a vote or not, but the employees working for a corporation would have no knowledge that the union has submitted membership cards for consideration of the labour board.

The company may have no knowledge that this union drive is even underway, and certainly would not, I’m sure, be told by the union organization that cards are being submitted on August 5 for the consideration of the board. So neither the workers know nor does the corporation know.

[6:20 p.m.]

What I’m trying to have a better understanding of is: what is the requirement of the labour board to notify the corporation that a certification card check consideration is underway? Is that a phone call? Is that an email? Is it by registered mail?

I’m just trying to clearly understand, because it is important that for workers in a corporation…. If there’s any concern with respect to memberships that might be presented for labour board consideration, it’s really important that the members or workers in that corporation know what’s happening. As the minister has already confirmed, there’s no requirement or obligation of either the union or the labour board to notify all of those workers that may be impacted by this certification consideration that’s underway. I’m trying to better understand: what is the notification requirement?

The minister has referenced in previous answers that the labour board would reach out to the company in order to obtain an employment list. I’m just wondering if the minister can share, with more specificity, what that request looks like. Is it a phone call? Maybe a list is faxed in. Is it a contact directly, maybe, with the legal firm that’s representing the company? Is it a letter? Is it a certified letter? I’m just trying to better understand how the corporation is notified that the labour board is currently in the process of consideration of a certification application.

Hon. H. Bains: You know, as the technology changes, the methods of communication are changing as well. It used to be a fax sent to the employer. Now my understanding is that they do it electronically. They’re advised that such-and-such a union has applied to represent your employees.

G. Kyllo: So the notification to the corporation could come in various forms: could be a fax, might be an email. I guess, as further confirmation of that, is that the only obligation of the labour board — just to send out that fax or that email transmission to notify the company? Or is there a requirement for a signing officer of that corporation to acknowledge receipt of that notification and provide that employment list with full knowledge of the signing officers of the company?

The reason I’m asking for this clarification is that I could certainly see the instance where the labour board sends a fax or an email off to a company notifying them of the existence of this potential union certification consideration, and it might end up on the desk of, maybe, not an actual owner of the company or a signing officer of the company. It could end up on an HR desk, and an HR clerk might quite dutifully provide an employment list and send that off to the labour board. That could potentially occur without the full knowledge of the actual ownership or signing officers of the company.

I’m wondering what rigour is actually undertaken in that process. Is there a requirement by the labour board that an officer duly assigned and charged by the corporation has to sign and acknowledge and accept the fact that, yes, they were duly notified of this certification consideration that’s been undertaken?

Hon. H. Bains: These are internal operations of the board. They have a responsibility to ensure that the responsible person on the employer side knows, because then they have to make arrangements to get the employee’s record. So that conversation and the communication between the board and the appropriate company officials take place, but I’m not privy to how they do it.

[6:25 p.m.]

It’s the board’s responsibility to ensure that the employer knows and then also to complete their task of ensuring the appropriateness of the unit. They need to make arrangements to look at the payroll record. It could be done electronically.

I don’t know. I’m not doing their operations — those things. They do it among themselves. So that’s how they operate. I’ll leave it up to the board. I don’t have all the small details of how the board operates in carrying out their duties under the labour code.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. Osborne moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.