Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 351

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jim Abbott

T. Shypitka

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Darrell Norton

Mr. Speaker (Hon. D.

Plecas)

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill M208 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act,

J. Johal

Bill M209 — Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment

Act, 2020

J. Yap

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Surrey non-profit sector response to

COVID-19

R. Singh

Pride Month and North Shore Pride Week

J. Thornthwaite

Child care spaces and funding during

COVID-19

B. D’Eith

Nanaimo Women’s Business Network and Oceanside

Women’s Business Network

M. Stilwell

Face masks and COVID-19

A. Weaver

Fatima Da Silva and Nourish Cowichan

Society

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

Government purchase of hotels for supportive housing

and impact on businesses

A. Wilkinson

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Thornthwaite

Access to mental health services and pilot project

proposal

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Darcy

Face masks and COVID-19

A. Weaver

Hon. A. Dix

Petitions

S. Bond

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply,

Section C, not to meet July

31, 2020

Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 23 on July

31, 2020

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Economic Stabilization (COVID-19)

Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020

(continued)

M. Lee

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

S. Furstenau

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Sims.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: It’s not often that we’re in session on my huband’s birthday, but I

wanted to give a special shout-out to my husband, Cassidy Kannemeyer. As all

the members in our chamber can appreciate, our partners lift us up. They

encourage us. He’s also a coach. So he helps me get to the finish line and

gives me good advice. If the House can please join me in celebrating my

husband’s birthday.

Happy birthday, Cassidy. Cheers.

Tributes

JIM ABBOTT

T. Shypitka: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, July 26, the Kootenay-Columbia region lost

a political icon and a great man. A five-term Member of Parliament, from

1993 to 2011, Jim Abbott left an indelible mark on the southeast corner

of British Columbia, as he did across the country.

Jim always had his constituents come first, no matter what their

political stripe. Former Kootenay East MLA Bill Bennett said: “I have

known no finer human being than Jim in my lifetime.”

Former Kootenay-Columbia MP David Wilks said: “A fierce

politician, a loving husband, father and grandfather, and a man with a

strong belief in God.”

Jim was a giant of a man not only in stature but in his love for

his riding and the people inside it. He was honest, he was loved, and he

will be missed.

Our sincerest condolences go out to Jeannette and Jim’s family and

friends. Jim was 77.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. James: I rise on behalf of the Clerk, who has a very special guest in the

gallery today, Sage Lacerte. Sage is certainly a remarkable young woman and,

I know, is well known to most of the members of this House as the Moose Hide

Campaign’s national youth ambassador. Sage is also a recent graduate of the

University of Victoria, focusing on Indigenous and gender

studies.

On behalf of the Clerk and on behalf of all of us, would members

please extend a very warm welcome to Sage.

Tributes

DARRELL NORTON

Mr. Speaker: Members, before going further, if I may take a moment to say a few

words about the upcoming retirement of one of our most valued

legislative employees, and that is Darrell Norton.

[1:40 p.m.]

Darrell was hired as a television technician in 1991, one of the

first employees brought on board for the assembly’s groundbreaking

television broadcasting facility. Darrell became supervisor of Hansard

television in 2002 and manager of Hansard broadcasting services in

Among his many technological achievements are the expansion of

broadcasting services to the Douglas Fir Room, the high-definition

broadcast service, broadcasting parliamentary committee audio from

locations through­out British Columbia and the installation of the

new sound system in the House.

Darrell’s greatest challenge was his most recent, as you’ll all be

familiar with. At the height of the pandemic lockdown, Darrell

successfully led his team in adapting the broadcast of chamber sittings

and the Committee of Supply meetings to facilitate the remote attendance

and participation of members.

The tremendous results that Darrell and his team were able to

produce are a testament to the long days and nights they devoted to

ensuring that the important work of members is supported and that

British Columbians continue to see their provincial representatives in

action.

Thank you, Darrell, for your contribution to this place, and best

wishes on a well-deserved retirement.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M208 — INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

J. Johal presented a bill intituled Insurance Corporation Amendment

Act, 2020.

J. Johal: I move that the bill intituled Insurance Corporation Amendment

Act, 2020, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper,

be introduced and read a first time now.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought with it many unexpected outcomes

that have proven to be very challenging for British Columbians. Most of

these issues have to do with financial strain. We, as a province, should

take the necessary steps to ease this burden as much as possible. One of

those avenues is to provide British Columbians with needed financial

remuneration from our public auto insurer, ICBC.

During the pandemic, especially in the first months, people drove

less. There were, in turn, far fewer motor vehicle accidents and, thus,

substantially less claims made. During that time, British Columbians

continued to pay the high cost of auto insurance with no rebate or

reduced rates to be seen. From March 16 to May 2, ICBC had 50,400 fewer

claims, meaning a savings of over $158 million. Those savings during the

state of emergency continue grow, up to and including today.

Many public and private insurers in Canada and the United States

have already passed those savings on to drivers. The Insurance

Corporation Amendment Act, 2020 aims to provide the mechanism for

government to match the resolve of other jurisdictions and give

financial relief that is so sorely needed by passing those savings on to

B.C. drivers.

I hope the government can see the merits of this bill and put

their support behind it. Supporting this bill simply means supporting

British Columbians through this pandemic.

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

Motion approved.

J. Johal: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2020, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M209 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND

LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT,

J. Yap presented a bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing

Amendment Act, 2020.

J. Yap: I move that the bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing

Amendment Act, 2020, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

As everyone is well aware, the past four months have been

extremely challenging for British Columbia’s restaurant and hospitality

sector. The COVID-19 pandemic quickly tossed aside our usual ways of

operating. That included going to restaurants, pubs and bars, and

enjoying that type of social experience. This also meant plummeting

revenue sources for restaurants, which already operate on profit margins

that are so thin during the best of times.

[1:45 p.m.]

One of the commonsense solutions brought forth by the opposition

over the past few months to give restaurants a fighting chance was to

allow establishments to sell unopened liquor as part of their takeout

and delivery programs. Those changes are set to expire this

fall.

This bill aims to make those changes permanent, while also

allowing establishments to begin purchasing liquor from any licensee,

including private retailers, increasing choice for consumers, keeping

costs down for business owners and providing opportunities to support

locally owned liquor retailers.

This bill also provides the necessary amendments to support the

recent decision by the Vancouver park board to allow responsible

drinking in 22 municipal parks, creating more opportunity for safe,

outdoor, socially distanced activities and encouraging people to get out

and support their local economies.

The changes outlined in the Liquor Control and Licencing Amendment

Act 2020 are supported by industry. This legislation is about giving our

province’s beloved but badly affected restaurant industry a fighting

chance to survive through the pandemic by providing avenues of revenue,

while still operating according to the necessary public health

orders.

I trust that you can all see that these common sense solutions

deserve permanent adoption and hope to see support from the House for

this bill.

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

Motion approved.

J. Yap: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M209, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SURREY NON-PROFIT SECTOR

RESPONSE TO

COVID-19

R. Singh: They say that it is during adversity that the mettle of people of

a society becomes evident. It is during challenging times that we see

the best of us come together to assure that they can help others in

whichever way we can. In our province, there have been many of those.

Today, I want to celebrate one such group of people, namely, all those

involved in non-profit work in and around Surrey.

To name each and every organization that has gone above and beyond

their capacity in these trying times would take me beyond the designated

time. However, I would like to name a few that have been tireless

advocates for people facing multiple challenges, like Atira, which has

continued to provide safety to women and their families escaping

violence; the child development centre, which kept its doors open for

the children of essential workers; and Surrey Women’s Centre, which

helped a rising number of survivors of domestic violence with vital

services during these testing times.

PICS, DIVERSEcity, Surrey Food Bank, Moving Forward Family

Services, Phoenix Society, Newton Advocacy Group, Options, MOSAIC,

Sources, Deltassist and SUCCESS — all became a beacon of hope for

people.

As a former non-profit employee and having worked with people from

various other similar organizations, I can certainly say that most

non-profit workers have an innate urge to help and care for those who

require a bit more. Despite being undervalued, underfunded and largely

underpaid, they continue to work and be there for the challenge and

vulnerable populations.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you and all present will join me in paying our

collective gratitude to all the non-profit workers for their unsung

service to the community and wish them strength and

perseverance.

PRIDE MONTH AND

NORTH SHORE PRIDE

WEEK

J. Thornthwaite: June was Pride Month in Canada, a month dedicated each year to

people celebrating the history, progress and impacts of LGBTQ-class

civil rights and to commemorate the Stonewall riots that occurred in

June 1969. As a result, many Pride events around the world are held in

June to recognize the impact LGBTQ people have had.

June 1970 was the first Gay Pride parade. However, it was August

that the first Pride Parade occurred in Canada in 1978 in Vancouver.

This week marks Pride week in Vancouver, and notably, for myself, North

Shore Pride Week.

[1:50 p.m.]

Normally, I would have proudly attended the Pride at the Pier

events at the shipyard, listened and danced to the great entertainment

and visited the educational booths. It’s always a festive time, because

everyone is dressed up in rainbow colours.

Many thanks to Conni Smudge and her tickle trunk for providing

colourful outfits, just in case you didn’t wear your own. Last night’s

virtual Pride Re-Imagined was also hosted by the unstoppable Conni

Smudge.

I also appreciate the presence of the non-profits, like Family

Services of the North Shore and North Shore Neighbourhood House, who

provide those in the LGBTQ+ community and their families with help and

support year-round.

A couple years ago my friend and constituent Gina Hole Lazarowich

produced a documentary, nominated for a Leo award, on Krow’s

TRANSformation , the story of a successful teen model who

transitioned into a boy, who is now a world-renowned trans model who has

walked the catwalks of Paris and Milan. But more importantly, his story

depicts his transition, how the relationships between his friends and

family evolved during this process and how love and acceptance is so

important for youth who are questioning.

Love and acceptance is important to us all, and in particular, for

everyone from the LGBTQ community and their families.

I’d like to congratulate the LGBTQ community on their virtual

Pride events this year and look forward to joining you in person next

year.

Love is love.

CHILD CARE SPACES

AND FUNDING DURING

COVID-19

B. D’Eith: If it wasn’t already apparent, this pandemic has brought to the

forefront the need for affordable, accessible child care. This July

marks the second anni­versary of the launch of the new spaces

fund, which has approved an average of 700 new spaces for funding each

month. So far, there are nearly 16,800 new spaces that have been funded

throughout the province, helping parents return to work, go back to

school or pursue other opportunities.

In Maple Ridge and Mission, the government has spent over $13

million to date in creating new, quality and affordable child care

spaces. In fact, there’s an estimate that Maple Ridge and Mission

parents have saved a collective $8 million in child care

costs.

The government has also invested $38 million provincially through

the temporary emergency funding program to help keep child care spaces

open during the pandemic. As of mid-July, child care providers in Maple

Ridge and Mission have received $3 million from this fund. More

specifically, in my riding, over 40 child care organizations received

temporary emergency funding. My office reached out to

several.

Many are in-home care providers, such as Fatoma Hosaini of First

Choice Daycare, Juli Abramyk of Exploring Minds Childcare and Bluebirds

Early Learning Childcare — all one-person operations. There are others,

like Little Willows Early Learning Childcare Centre in Maple Ridge, and

Buds and Blossoms in Mission. They said that the wage boost and the

temporary emergency funding have really helped them during this

crisis.

My office also heard initial concerns that providers had about

keeping their kids safe and adding burdens for hygiene. Nevertheless,

operators now feel confident with reopening. Half a dozen child care

providers spoke to my office about how effective the temporary emergency

funding was. We also got a lot of heartwarming stories. At Buds and

Blossoms in Mission, some of the older kids are helping the younger kids

practise hygiene.

I did want to thank all child care operators around the province

for the important work they’re doing in our society, caring for our

children, and how important that work has been.

NANAIMO WOMEN’S BUSINESS NETWORK AND

OCEANSIDE WOMEN’S

BUSINESS NETWORK

M. Stilwell: Opportunities for people to network and learn from each other are

incredibly important, especially now as the pandemic creates new

challenges and hardships for businesses and employees. Today I’m pleased

to bring attention to two groups that continue to create spaces where

women can connect, learn from, inspire and support each

other.

I’ve had opportunities to attend a Nanaimo Women’s Business

Network and an Oceanside Women’s Business Network meeting this year.

Both times, I was struck by the power in these like-minded women coming

together. These are women from diverse backgrounds.

In Nanaimo, for example, there are 70 members who work in fields

like entomology, the non-profit sector, banking, real estate and

marketing. Women can be self-employed or work for a business. They could

be in-between careers or even retired. What unites them is an

involvement in the business world, as well as their experiences and

challenges as women. They can draw on each other’s strengths, build

friendships and contacts and even motivate one another.

[1:55 p.m.]

Through the networks, there are also opportunities for

professional development and to help the community. The Nanaimo network

has donated to help women through the Society for Equity, Inclusion, and

Advocacy. They also give an annual bursary to two women in the business

program at Vancouver Island University. The Oceanside network gives

scholarships to local high school students, and last year they donated

to Haven House.

I am truly inspired by these communities of women who come

together and connect and support each other, especially now through this

pandemic. Thank you to Liza Taylor, the president of the Nanaimo Women’s

Business Network, and the board; and Sandy McLary, the president of

Oceanside Women’s Business Network and the board there for all the work

that they do.

There’s a slogan on the Oceanside Women’s Business Network

website, “Together we are stronger.” I think that has never been more

true.

FACE MASKS AND COVID-19

A. Weaver: I rise today to speak about some of the evidence concerning the

efficacy of face masks as a mechanism to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have been

conducted on the subject, and from this research, considerable evidence

has emerged that mandating the use of masks in all indoor and crowded

spaces outside people’s homes is a low-cost, high-reward measure that

policy-makers could and should be pursuing.

To begin with, even though it is difficult to prove causation, we

know that almost every nation that has seen widespread usage of face

masks has fared better at limiting the spread of COVID-19 than those

that haven’t. In many ways, this shouldn’t be surprising. Research

conducted well before the current pandemic began — and published in 2009

by Ben Cowling and others in the Annals of Internal Medicine —

found that the combination of masks and hand hygiene significantly

helped reduced the spread of influenza within households.

More recently a March 2020 study published in the Journal of

Medical Virology showed that homemade masks made of simple

four-layer kitchen paper and one layer of cloth can stop the

transmission of more than 95 percent of the virus contained within

aerosols.

Research conducted by Christopher Leffler, from Virginia

Commonwealth University — which is, admittedly, still undergoing peer

review — has found that “Societal norms and government policies

supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international

travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita

mortality from COVID-19.”

A comprehensive modelling study led by researchers at the

University of Cambridge, in the U.K., published in the prestigious

Proceedings of the Royal Society A in June, concluded masks

help to dramatically slow the transmission of the virus.

When taken together, mounting evidence is accumulating that the

universal use of face masks is one of the most effective tools we have

at our disposal to prevent the spread of novel coronavirus. While we

await the holy grail of COVID-19 vaccine, it appears that making masks

mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces outside people’s homes can

only aid British Columbia’s ongoing pandemic response.

To quote from the

summary of the Proceedings of the Royal

Society article: “My mask protects you. Your mask protects

me.”

FATIMA DA SILVA AND

NOURISH COWICHAN

SOCIETY

S. Furstenau: Exactly 30 years ago I made the decision to pack up my Toyota

Tercel and head west to start a new life in Victoria. I never imagined I

would end up in this building, although my early roots were planted very

close to here. My first apartment was on Michigan Street, my first job

was at the French Connection restaurant, where the Bent Mast is today,

and my first friend had also recently relocated here but from

Mozambique, much further away than Edmonton.

Fatima Da Silva was the lunch chef at the French Connection. I

loved her laugh, her humour, her warmth, and I was grateful to have a

friend who always made me smile. Our paths diverged, and I was beyond

delighted ten years later to go for lunch at Zanatta vineyard and find

Fatima cooking the most delicious meal I’d had since 1990.

Fatima has spent her life feeding people who have kept close track

of her restaurants, but starting in 2016, along with Anita Carroll and

Dina Holbrook, Fatima turned her attention and extraordinary skills to

feeding the children and families of Cowichan.

Nourish Cowichan started as a way for these women to address the

pressing issue that the impact of hunger was having on too many children

in Cowichan coming to school. They started with a pilot project that

provided breakfast in one school, and the results were so impressive

that requests came in from several more schools.

In February 2019, Fatima opened a kitchen at Mount Prevost school

dedicated to feeding children and families, and as of January 2020, she

and the many Nourish volunteers were providing meals and snacks to 13

schools, three daycares, the maternity clinic at Cowichan District and

giving cooking classes.

[2:00 p.m.]

When COVID-19 hit, Nourish hit the ground running, working with SD

79 to ensure that the children who had been relying on healthy food at

schools were getting that healthy food delivered to their homes. Over

5,000 food hampers have been delivered since March, 800 families are

getting food each week, and 200 more are on the wait-list.

Child poverty and hunger deserves our attention, and we need to

put our efforts to solving it.

Fatima is not waiting for us. I’m so proud, so amazed and so

grateful for my dear friend Fatima, who embodies everything that all of

us should strive to be in our lives.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF HOTELS

FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday I visited the neighbourhood north of the Save-On arena

here in Victoria. It’s a neighbourhood the Premier drives through every

day on his way to work, and it’s a neighbourhood that’s in a very, very

bad state these days.

Three motels have been converted to supportive housing, but it’s

hardly supportive. There are no clinical supports for these people. The

neighbourhood is being turned upside down by damage to property, by

crime, by threats. We talked to a number of businesses, from Dodd’s

Furniture to Paul’s Diner to Java Jo’s coffee shop, and they all shared

the same concern.

They want to see these vulnerable people properly cared for, but

they are not being cared for in any significant way. They are roaming

the streets. Java Jo’s has seen their business turned upside down since

the Comfort Inn was converted to supportive housing that is not

supportive — extensive property damage, threats to customers, violent

threats to Jolanda herself, threats to her staff, people defecating in

front of her shop. This is a business that struggled through COVID to

even stay open, and this is happening now every day at her

shop.

To quote Jolanda, who owns Java Jo’s: “None of us were told in

advance or prepared for this. Because of COVID, we can barely afford to

pay our rent or to pay our staff, and this is just tipping the situation

over the edge.”

To any member of this government who is prepared to answer in a

meaningful way, rather than with slogans or dismissive remarks or

generalities…. Can someone please answer the question put forward by

these business operators? Hard-working people like this are barely

staying solvent, and now they’re expected to absorb this government’s

plan for unsupportive housing. What is this government’s plan to provide

proper supports?

Hon. S. Robinson: I do understand that businesses are being impacted by this change

that we’ve had to make as a result of COVID. Remember, we were dealing

with a very challenging problem at a number of sites here in Victoria,

and B.C. Housing is on the ground, working directly with these

businesses to address these impacts.

Again, we need to remember that we inherited a problem, a

significant problem, because the previous government, frankly, ignored

homelessness. They did not do what needed to be done. So when we came

into government, we were really clear that we were going to deliver on

supportive housing for people around this province, people who had been

neglected. In just over two years, we have housed — I just

double-checked with our team — more than 2,500 people, who now have a

roof over their head.

Remember, they used to be in ravines. They used to be in parks.

They used to be on streets, the Whalley strip and other places. We have

moved, over the last number of years, thousands of people into housing.

We have 1,100 more of these homes that are under construction around the

province. We have, absolutely, more to do. No one is saying that we

don’t have more to do. We absolutely have more to do, and we’re

committed to working together with the businesses to address the current

challenges as we make this transition.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Sadly, the minister has said two things, in the last three

minutes, which are simply not true. We visited seven businesses

yesterday. One of them made the effort to go and talk to the B.C.

Housing representative at Paul’s Motor Inn and was told that, well,

they’ll pass it up the line and see what happens.

[2:05 p.m.]

The other six have had no contact whatsoever from B.C. Housing.

There is no attempt whatsoever to work with the businesses, as the

minister just said. She did not tell us the truth.

Let’s talk about what Marlen had to say, the owner of a motorcar

dealership in the area: a massive increase in vandalism to cars he’s

trying to sell; property crime; drug use on, around and between the cars

in the dealership during the day while he’s trying to introduce them to

customers. Marlen says:

“It’s not right that my employees and customers have to worry about

their personal safety while at work or shopping for vehicles. The spike

in crime at my business has been a direct result of the government’s

purchase of Paul’s Motor Inn. Businesses in the area should have been

consulted or, at the very least, advised of the government’s intentions

before this decision was made, but so far we’ve been told absolutely

nothing.”

Marlen is looking for some contact, some guidance, some input,

some kind of response from this government for having created a

nightmare in the north end of Victoria. It’s not getting

better.

So what is this government going to do to make it possible for

Marlen and these vulnerable people to carry on, when they’re living in a

completely unsupported collection of motels that are laying waste to a

neighbourhood?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have to say what a delight it is to finally hear from the

opposition leader that he actually does care about homeless people and

making sure that they have supports. It’s about time.

I have to say that one of the things that I find absolutely

frustrating is that he knows full well and his party knows full well…. I

think all the members of the House know full well how important it is

that we work together, that we bring people together to address a

significant problem. And we are working with the folks on the ground.

B.C. Housing is reaching out to businesses to address these

concerns.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. I do think that there

are some others who have to say exactly what we have been doing around

the province to deliver on supportive housing and the value that it

brings. I want to acknowledge and thank a number of the members in the

House who have spoken out and recognize the value it brings. We’ve

heard, certainly, from the member for Penticton, who has sort of

acknowledged the value that supportive housing has brought to his

community. We have heard from the member for Cowichan Valley.

I want to point out that the member for Richmond South Centre took

the time to write a letter to her editor around the value that

supportive housing has brought to her community in Richmond. I want all

the members to recall there was some concern about the challenges that

come with having supportive housing in communities.

This is what the member for Richmond South Centre had to say. She

said: “Homelessness is not something any of us would wish upon our

friends and neighbours.” She was pointing out that “we have an

opportunity to deliver homes to people in need in Richmond. We all need

a place to lay our heads at night, which is safe, dry and sustainable.

Poverty is not a crime. Mental illness is not a crime. Escaping domestic

violence is not a crime. We can offer a hand up to people who struggle

every day.”

She went on to say: “We have a glorious opportunity to build

housing that matters.” And she said: “I believe the heart of a city is

measured by how we treat those most vulnerable. I believe we can make a

concrete difference. My thanks to all who make transitional housing a

reality in Richmond.”

I want to take a moment to thank those MLAs on all sides of the

House who have been advocates for making sure that we continue to do

this work. We’ll continue to reach out to businesses that have been

impacted to address the impacts, to resolve some of the challenges. And

we will continue to move ahead to deliver on this critical housing that

makes a difference in people’s lives.

I would invite all of the members of the House to work with us, to

bring community together, so that these people can have the supports,

can have recognition and dignity and can have some piece of mind, while

we continue to address how to [audio interrupted] for everybody who is

struggling around this pandemic as well.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I think all of us need to reflect on the need to solve problems in

this House. Hearing the minister claim a monopoly on compassion is,

frankly, a sad thing. It would be easy to say it’s offensive, or it’s

inappropriate.

[2:10 p.m.]

I was in the clinic at St. Paul’s 36 years ago treating

home­less people, so there’s no monopoly on compassion in this

room. What we have to do, as legislators, is try to address this

problem.

Let me tell you the story that happened at a mechanics shop across

the street from Paul’s Motor Inn. Last week, one of the mechanics

discovered a man hidden underneath one of the cars. He asked him to

leave. The man came out with a two-foot-long machete, threatened his

life and chased him down the street. This, by any standard, is

unacceptable.

I’m turning to this minister and this government and saying: “If

we really are going to solve this problem together, let’s have a little

less condescension from the minister and a little more talk about those

supports that do not exist at these three motels in northern Victoria.”

Where are the supports for the supported housing?

Hon. S. Robinson: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. That behaviour is

unacceptable. That is a criminal act, and I would imagine that the

police would be called.

What I find really disingenuous and really frustrating and

disheartening — I have to say how disheartening it is — is when the

opposition suggests that there are no supports when, in fact, there are.

That, to me, is really problematic. It really creates a wedge in

communities and uses it on the backs of the most vulnerable in our

communities. That’s what I find more than irritating. I find it

disrespectful and really troubling.

Let me provide an example, if the Leader of the Opposition can’t

recall, when his member from Kamloops was, certainly, parading around

the suggestion that somehow there weren’t any supports. In order to

demonstrate that really was not the case, Alfred Achoba, manager of

operations from CMHA, one of the providers in Kamloops….

The member from Kamloops was saying that there aren’t enough

wraparound services. There aren’t any wraparound services.

The manager of operations went on the radio, and this is what he

had to say. He said: “No. I think I would have to respectfully disagree.

We have support staff on site doing wellness checks, having life skills

training with the residents. There’s employment assistance. We have

referrals, community services, support groups. We have access to

enriched support from street nurses to the community team to Interior

Health. They have pharmacies that deliver meds. There’s intensive case

management. There’s home support. They have a lot of wraparound

services.”

I beg to differ with the Leader of the Opposition around who is

being disingenuous right now.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, spent the day meeting with local Victoria businesses who

are suffering because of this government’s decision to warehouse at-risk

people without adequate, on-site supports. This government has totally

let down the most vulnerable in our communities and people who need our

help plus the small businesses who provide the jobs and security for the

people who make their livings there.

Byron Loucks of West Coast Appliance said: “There was zero

communication at the beginning, and there still is no plan. The only

support we’ve received is from the B.C. Liberals. I have emailed our

MLA. Nothing.”

This is Victoria, the riding of the Premier, the riding of the

Minister of Finance, the riding of the Minister of Education, the riding

of the Minister of Agriculture. They are doing nothing to help these

vulnerable people in our community as well as the small

businesses.

My question is to the Premier. Will he finally step up and give

those with mental health and addictions the supports that they

need?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, what we’re hearing from the opposition, suggesting that

nothing is happening…. Really? Really? Really, after 16 years of their

nothing?

Twenty-five hundred people now have homes. They’re getting meals.

They’re getting access to services. And 1,100 more are coming on

stream.

We have mayors all around this province who are working together

with us to deliver, from Kamloops and Kelowna. We have a mayor here in

Victoria who is looking for more opportunities to deliver on that kind

of housing. We have in Abbotsford. We have in Chilliwack. We have all of

these programs — in Richmond.

[2:15 p.m.]

We have been going full steam ahead to deliver for people who have

been ignored by the other side.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker. If the other side had done the

bare minimum, we wouldn’t be where we are right now. This is about us

playing catch-up, and we’re going to keep doing what we’re

doing.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: I think it’s time that the minister actually went and visited some

of these areas all across British Columbia.

The situation is so bad that these businesses are losing customers

because they no longer feel safe shopping there. Many businesses spend

an hour before opening each day cleaning up garbage, discarded needles,

human feces and urine.

At one small business we visited yesterday was a young man, going

through the garbage. Then there was another one that we saw right in

front of us, running across the street. He almost got run

over.

I looked at that young man — and I did look at that young man; I

did not look away — and he was creeping away when we approached. He

could’ve been my son. He could’ve been your son. He is somebody else’s

son.

This government has been a complete failure for people like this

young man, left to scrounge around in garbage bins. This is in the

middle of the day.

The Premier acknowledged, the other day, his failures. “It’s not

just Victoria and Vancouver where the challenges with homelessness

occur. It’s Nanaimo, Smithers, Kamloops, Kelowna, right across the

province.” That’s why we have a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

working hard to resolve these issues.

Resolved? Nothing has been resolved. In fact, we know it’s getting

worse, and there are no options for recovery. These people are simply

being housed in hotels and wander the streets at all hours of the day

and night with no supports at all.

Again will the Premier, will the Minister of Finance, who holds

the budget in this House, get up and finally admit that this ministry

and this government have failed these people, as well as the businesses

that live around them?

Hon. S. Robinson: I find it fascinating that here we are, and the opposition finally

decided to take a look at what their inactivity has done and how it’s

impacted people — finally.

I can tell the members opposite, and all the members of the House,

that when I first became minister, the very first thing I did was look

at the tent city that grew under their watch at Sugar Mountain. I went

to the Whalley strip that grew under their watch. The first thing we did

as government was put programs in place, bring housing online. We moved

170 people off the Whalley strip over three days. We moved them, and we

gave them supports. Their lives are changed.

We did the same thing in parts of Vancouver. We’ve done it in

Kelowna. We’ve done it in Abbotsford. We’ve done it in Chilliwack. We’ve

done it — I’m trying to think; there are so many — in Vancouver. We’ve

done it here on the Island.

We have so much more to do. No one is denying that we have fixed

everything. You can’t fix 16 years of bad in three. Do we have more to

do? We absolutely do. No one is denying that. I look forward to keeping

doing the things that we’ve been doing, because we’re making a

difference in people’s lives.

We need to be working together in communities, and there are so

many that are happy to work with us. If the members opposite aren’t that

interested, fair enough. But we have mayors, and we have business

improvement associations. We have the North Shore Business Improvement

Association in Kamloops. We have student groups that are eager to work

with us. We have church groups that are eager to work with us. We know

that there are people in communities right around the province that want

to work in partnership with us to deliver for people.

It’s hard to do. It’s hard work. We’re bringing everything we have

to build community for those who are most vulnerable. I’m excited to

keep doing the work. It is hard work. I know that with the non-profit

sector, with all of the partner groups, we’re going to keep delivering

and making a difference for these people’s lives.

ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

AND PILOT PROJECT

PROPOSAL

S. Furstenau: Current data ranks anxiety and depression as the sixth-leading

reason people visit their primary care providers, and that was before

COVID-19. As we discussed on Monday, a mental health shadow pandemic

looms.

[2:20 p.m.]

With heavy workloads and rapid patient turnover, GPs cannot be

expected to carry the burden of the mental health crisis alone. To get

additional psychological care, as the minister noted yesterday, people

often have to pay out of pocket, and even then, mental health treatment

is poorly integrated into our universal health care system, leading to

worse outcomes and higher costs.

We can’t wait for the federal government to solve our problems

when there are solutions available to us in province. Because every

dollar spent on mental health care saves our medical system at least

double that, one solution is to better integrate primary care

psychologists into primary care clinics. Despite their mental health

expertise, psychologists are currently ineligible to provide their

services through MSP.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Will the minister work with her colleagues in Health and Finance to

create a 12-month pilot project that would allow psychologists to work

alongside pri­mary care physicians and be eligible providers

through a government-funded billing system for consultation and

psychotherapy?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member for her questions, and thank you for the

opportunity to talk about our government’s work in this area, both to

support people through COVID-19 but also to build a system where access

to mental health care and addictions care does not depend on the size of

your bank account, which is very much the legacy that we have been

left.

We’re not waiting for the federal government. We believe they need

to step up to the plate, but we’re not waiting for them. That’s why we

were very excited to partner with Dr. Lutes and the B.C. Psychological

Association early on in the pandemic, where they stood up 250

psychologists to support people who are struggling with mental health

issues. We also partnered with the Canadian Mental Health Association

B.C., with Foundry B.C. and with 49 community agencies across the

province to whom we’ve provided funding to be able to provide no-cost or

low-cost counselling to thousands of British Columbians.

We know how important this is, because all of the surveys and the

polling indicate that the pandemic has had a significant impact on

people’s mental health, and it will continue to. That’s why I spoke

about an echo pandemic earlier in the week. Nearly half of British

Columbians report that their mental health is worsening, so that means

that we have focused programs to support people who are working on the

front lines of health care. It’s especially having an impact, also, on

young people and on seniors.

We’re working right now in our ministry on what further supports

we need to provide for people who are struggling with mental health

issues. We’re hearing from many of our partners, including the B.C.

Psychological Association, and we look forward to further discussions in

order to make decisions about what we need to do going forward to

support people through this pandemic and beyond.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister’s response. However, a patchwork of

programs and services is different from integrating mental health care

right into our universal health care system, which is what we’re

advocating for. As Dr. Lesley Lutes, professor of psychology at UBC

Okanagan and executive with the B.C. Psychological Association, has

advised, funding this pilot project would truly begin to change the way

that we treat mental health in our province.

The project itself is not entirely untested in Ontario. A group of

psychologists and family physicians secured funding that established a

practice model based on collaboration between family physicians and

psychologists, and over a 12-month period, the data collected showed

impressive results.

We all hope to build back better after the threat of COVID-19 has

passed. To do that, we must prioritize everyone’s mental

resilience.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions. Given our concurrent physical and mental health pandemics,

can we expect this government to review this 12-month pilot project

proposal, which, in addition to greatly helping patients, could also

help us transform our health care system into one that encompasses both

physical and mental well-being?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you again to the member. The House Leader for the Third

Party knows very well my commitment and this government’s commitment to

get to a place where we have equity between physical health and mental

health.

[2:25 p.m.]

We certainly welcome the proposal from the B.C. Psychological

Association, and we will be engaging with them further, as we will be

engaging with a number of our partners who also have proposals.

Absolutely, we need to go beyond the kind of system that we inherited

that is very much a patchwork system. That’s why we intervened very

quickly as a government when the pandemic hit.

Within two weeks, we stood up programs, worked with the B.C.

Psychological Association but also worked, very importantly, with

Foundry B.C., which we’re expanding to 19 locations across the province.

Thousands of people have accessed those services. The Canadian Mental

Health Association — we’ve significantly expanded support to them over

the past few years and supported them to stand up virtually, and they

have reached thousands more people than they reached before.

We have a new 24-7 advanced student help line for students in

post-secondary education that never existed before in the province.

Programs like Confident Parents, Thriving Kids, delivered by CMHA, are

reaching more people than they ever have before. We have a really,

really solid project happening with SafeCare B.C., CMHA and front-line

health care workers and their unions to ensure that people on the front

lines, who have been bearing a lot of the brunt of this, including the

mental health impacts, get the support that they need. Just this week we

opened the Royal Columbian Hospital Mental Health and Substance Use

Wellness Centre, a significant addition to the continuum of care for

mental health and substance use.

We’ve got more announcements to come in the coming days that I

know that both the opposition and the Third Party will welcome, I’m

sure. We look forward to hearing a positive response to those upcoming

announcements.

Mr. Speaker: Next it’s the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. And don’t worry

about the time, because I’ll be allowing your supplemental.

FACE MASKS AND COVID-19

A. Weaver: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. I must say I’ve been here seven

years, almost eight years, and this has set a new record. We’ve just

finished three questions, and there are only four minutes left in

question period. I’m not so sure this is the way this place is supposed

to function, and I’m a little disappointed in my colleagues for taking

that up and shoving me to the last couple of minutes of question period

here. It’s unfortunate. The answers were not targeted, and the questions

were rambling, in my view.

Anyway, as more and more evidence about the role that masks can

play in reducing the spread of COVID-19 has emerged, growing numbers of

jurisdictions have adopted laws making face masks mandatory in all

scenarios where it will be difficult for people to remain physically

distant.

Just last week France introduced measures mandating masks in all

enclosed public spaces. Across the pond, the U.K. began implementing a

law that makes masks mandatory in grocery stores, shopping malls, post

offices, banks and other busy establishments. Here in Canada, Quebec has

made masks mandatory in indoor public spaces, while Toronto has

established similar rules. And masks will be mandatory in indoor spaces

in Nova Scotia, starting this Friday.

A recent poll from Angus Reid has found that there is broad

provincial support for rules that would make masks mandatory in public

spaces, with over 70 percent of British Columbians in favour of the

changes. And although not all members of the public would be able to

adhere to these rules, due to underlying physical or mental health

conditions, the vast majority of the public would be able to follow them

with relatively few personal costs.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Given the evidence in

favour of universal wearing of masks and the broad public support for

such a measure, will this government implement a law or public health

order that makes masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces,

outside of people’s homes, and if not, why not?

Hon. A. Dix: I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his consistent and thoughtful support for public

health measures during this pandemic. It is much appreciated, and I

thank him for his questions. He will know that Dr. Henry has answered

this specific question a number of times in the past few weeks. Let’s

see how I do, hon. Speaker.

You’ll know that, in July, we understand right now quite a bit

about community transmission of COVID-19. That’s why we’ve taken

specific public health measures — for example, public health measures to

deal with houseboats, to deal with temporary accommodations, to deal

with rental accommodations and resorts, to deal indeed with bars and

with nightclubs and even with strip joints, and specific steps to deal

with what is a significant issue in the agricultural

industry.

[2:30 p.m.]

Dr. Henry doesn’t believe, and I don’t believe at this time, that

community transmission in B.C. justifies a mandatory mask mandate — not

at this time. We think that it would not be justified in light of the

significant challenges in both putting it into place and the very

significant exemptions, which I know the member would understand, that

would be required to do so.

He also knows — I know we have a little bit of time, he and I, for

these questions, so I’ll just give him a little bit more information —

that masks are, well, very important in terms of the hierarchy of

measures we can take. It’s less effective than physical distancing and

barriers and administrative measures. That said, Dr. Henry recommends,

and I recommend, wearing a non-medical mask in circumstances where

physical distancing cannot be maintained.

I wear a mask in stores. I wear a mask in grocery stores. I wear a

mask on public transit. I think, in these times — in particular, in

these times — wearing a mask is a reflection of good COVID sense but

also a reflection of community respect. Many businesses, in fact, which

have small spaces are mandating masks within their businesses, within

their COVID-19 plan.

I want to assure the member that this is our view for the moment,

that we consistently have adapted based on the evidence, and we will

continue to do so. The efforts of Dr. Henry, of public health, of the

government and, indeed, of all the people of B.C. will continue to be

founded on evidence and on science, and I know he appreciates that

fact.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I do note that the member opposite said my question was one minute

and 30 seconds long. I just will say that, indeed, it was, and that we

should have been able to have 20 such questions in this period, but

we’re not getting to it.

I’d like to thank the minister for his response. I do appreciate

government’s reservations about imposing a law that would make masks

compulsory, and government should be commended for the job done so far

in limiting the spread of COVID-19. But lurking in the background of

discussions about masks and COVID-19 are concerns around the potential

for government overreach. I understand that there’s a slow pace.

However, we’re sitting in a once-in-a-century pandemic. Measures will

need to be taken that will temporarily restrict some of our normal

freedoms in order to preserve our collective safety.

One study, for example, that I referred to earlier in statements

today, shows that even with a 50 percent efficiency, instead of a 95

percent type efficiency of most masks, you still get a lower R-rate

number than you would without wearing masks. Since enforcing regulations

around mandatory masks is frankly impossible for any government to

handle by itself, many jurisdictions have appealed to the private sector

to help with these rules, like in Quebec, for example, where periodic

inspections have been in place. And in instances where individuals or

businesses are caught, authorities have typically been empowered to

apply fines.

My question is once more to the Minister of Health. If government

does so choose to take this public mandate to require masks, how do they

plan to implement and enforce said rules in the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: As noted — and this is the strong view of public health, with Dr.

Henry, and it’s my strong view — at the moment, a mandatory mandate for

masks is not required, is not desirable in British Columbia, for some of

the reasons that we have discussed at length and I’m happy to continue

to discuss, because I think it’s an issue of public interest and debate.

I applaud people who take the steps, because I think it’s

an act of

respect to wear non-medical masks, especially in areas where physical

distancing can’t be maintained. That is of vital importance, and it is

part of our collective response to COVID-19.

What we’re going to continue to do in B.C. is follow the science

and follow the evidence in our pandemic. Yes, what happens in Quebec and

what happens in France and what happens in Alberta is important, but one

of the reasons we have been successful in B.C. is a determination also

to follow our own B.C. course to deal with our own B.C. pandemic. That

led to our response and our single-site order in long-term care. It led

to our action, different from other jurisdictions, in dealing with

temporary foreign workers in agriculture. I think these sorts of steps,

which demonstrate a commitment to public health and to breaking the

chains of transmission have been what have made us

successful.

But I want to say this. I appreciate the comments of the hon.

member, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members

of the House, as people have consistently made positive suggestions,

been supportive.

[2:35 p.m.]

This has been our response, our collective response to the

COVID-19 pandemic, and it has been successful so far, I think, with

extraordinary challenges and with some considerable losses. But we need

to continue to do this together. There are weeks and months and maybe

years to come, and that will require generosity and a positive spirit

together to continue to do that.

I encourage people to make suggestions, to engage in public debate

on these issues, but mostly to be respectful of one another and for all

of us to take our responsibility — as the government is, as we as a

Legislature are — in breaking the chains of transmission of COVID-19 in

B.C.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Bond: I would like to present a petition today on behalf of over 200

residents of Alpine Village in Prince George. These residents, many of whom

are single parents and on low and fixed incomes, are facing “potentially

bankrupting increases of 300 percent in strata insurance costs.” These

residents are facing undue hardship and are calling on the government to

limit strata insurance increases and place a moratorium on future

uncontrolled rate increases.

I will forward the petition to the Office of the Clerk on behalf of

these residents.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of items before I call the bill. One, by leave, motions that

have been circulated to the opposition caucus and the Third Party

caucus.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION C,

NOT TO MEET JULY 31,

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Sessional Order

establishing special procedures respecting the regulation of the conduct

of proceedings of the Committee of Supply in exceptional circumstances

(COVID-19 pandemic) adopted on June 22, 2020, the Committee of Supply,

Section C, not meet on July 31, 2020.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

TO DEBATE BILL 23 ON JULY 31,

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the interests of time, I will not read the entire motion that’s

following.

By leave, I move:

[That, notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, a Committee

of the Whole be struck and authorized to meet on July 31, 2020, and that

Bill (No. 23), Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020 , be

committed to the said Committee;

And further, that:

1. For greater certainty, the Committee be authorized to sit during

a period in which the House is adjourned.

2. The Committee be authorized to conduct its proceedings by way of

Zoom videoconferencing technology.

3. Members participating in the proceedings of the Committee by the

approved videoconferencing technology must have the audio and video

functions enabled with their face clearly visible in order to be counted

towards quorum, to participate in debate, and to vote.

4. The Committee have two distinct meetings: 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon,

and 1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., unless otherwise determined by the

Committee.

5. The Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or their

designate, shall preside in the Committee.

6. The Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole be empowered to

exercise discretion in the

interpretation of any provision of the

Standing Orders or Sessional Orders that may require leniency or

alteration in order to allow all Members to be able to fully exercise

their duties and rights in the proceedings of the Committee.

7. The Committee consist of 17 Members, not including the Chair,

being eight Members of the Government Caucus, eight Members of the

Official Opposition Caucus, and one Member of the Third Party

Caucus.

8. The Members of the Committee be: the Minister in charge of Bill

(No. 23) and Garry Begg, Bob D’Eith, Mike Farnworth, Rob Fleming,

Carole James, Bowinn Ma, Bruce Ralston, Dan Ashton, Donna Barnett,

Coralee Oakes, Tom Shypitka, Jordan Sturdy, Ralph Sultan, Steve

Thomson, John Yap , and Adam Olsen .

9. Substitutions for Members of the Committee be permitted. Advance

notice of substitutions shall be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk

by the respective Whip at least one hour prior to the scheduled meeting

time.

10. At the discretion of the Chair, all Members of the Legislative

Assembly be permitted to speak to any clause of Bill (No. 23) under

consideration by the Committee and to propose amendments and

subamendments.

11. The provisions of Standing Order 45A,

Schedule 6, setting out

the time limits on speeches, apply to the proceedings of the

Committee.

12. Consistent with Standing Order 6, the presence of at least ten

Members, including the Chair, shall be necessary to constitute a

proceeding of the Committee for the exercise of its powers.

13. For greater certainty, Standing Orders 61, 62, 63, 64 and 84,

and any other Standing Orders regulating the proceedings of a Committee

of the Whole, continue to apply to the proceedings of the

Committee.

14. Only the Members of the Committee or duly authorized

substitutions shall vote in a division.

15. When a division is requested in the Committee, the Chair shall

announce that a division has been called. No longer than 15 minutes

thereafter, unless the Committee unanimously agrees otherwise, the Chair

shall again state the question. No Member shall connect to or disconnect

from the approved videoconferencing technology after the final statement

of the question until the division has been fully taken, and every

Member of the Committee or duly authorized substitution present shall

vote.

16. During a meeting of the Committee, if a division is underway,

the Committee shall sit beyond the time of adjournment set in

section 4

of this order until the division has concluded and any consequential

business has been disposed of.

17. The Chair shall report to the House at the next sitting day of

the House.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 18, Economic Stabilization Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION

(COVID-19)

ACT

Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment

Act, 2020.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

section 11 (continued) .

M. Lee: I wanted to continue with the discussion we had at committee stage

with my colleague the member from Chilliwack as well as myself in terms

section 11.

If we can just turn back to the existing

section 123 of the act,

the minister had referred in some of his responses to the fact that

WorkSafe already has the authority to correct administrative errors such

as clerical, typographical or computational errors in agreed statements

of fact at any time and makes these types of corrections when

necessary.

To clarify again, under the current

section 123 of the act, the

board has the full authority to deal with, on its own initiative, any of

those reconsiderations of any decision or order made under a

compensation provision by the board or an officer or employee of the

board. Is that correct?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think we canvassed this question a number of times. The member

knows that the WCB can do a review on their own initiative, but within

75 days. Not after 75 days.

M. Lee: Just clarifying. When the minister responded to our questions

yesterday, he paid particular attention to these types of administrative

errors. But we will certainly come back to that point.

What is the board policy that might be in place in connection with

the utilization of the discretion and authority, under

section 123, of

the board?

Hon. H. Bains: The policy is rooted in the statute the board uses, but that is

within 75 days. That’s for the obvious errors that they may acknowledge,

or the omissions.

What we are trying to do here is…. The Ombudsperson and many

others who have been dealing with WorkSafeBC, for a number of years —

for almost a decade — have been asking WorkSafeBC and the ministry to

review and revisit this policy, because it does not make sense that you

acknowledge on the 76th day that there’s an obvious error and omission,

but you can’t change that because 75 days have gone by. It just puts the

whole system in gear to go through the review system again, and then you

need resources, you need time. And the cost.

I think we are trying to avoid…. Everyone, including the

Ombudsperson, has recognized — and the stakeholders have recognized —

that this system needed to be revisited. That’s the whole purpose of

what we’re doing. We’re trying to cut red tape, trying to cut the extra

work that is required now. We’re only talking about the obvious

omissions or errors that they recognize that exist. Just because of one

day over 75 days, they cannot do that.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think this is a commonsense thing. It is something to alleviate

so much red tape, so much cost and resources for all parties concerned.

If there is acknowledgment that there are obvious errors made in

calculating someone’s wages or placed them in a wrong category, I think

it just makes sense. That’s the whole purpose of what we’re trying to do

here.

M. Lee: The minister just referred back to two of the three examples he

referred to when talking about what an obvious error or omission might

well be under

section 11. We’ll come back to those two specific

examples.

Also, he included another example relating to policy, which opens

a line of consideration as to the nature of this section. Before going

there, I’d still like to fully explore with the minister the current

legislative framework that the minister refers to as red

tape.

This act has time periods which are clear — 75 days for the

exercise of broad discretion by the board to reconsider its decision

under

section 123. Fifteen days later, under

section 270 of the act,

there is the opportunity for a party to apply and request a review of

that decision or a decision that hasn’t been reconsidered by the board

under

section 123. Under that review, it runs for, typically, another

150 days.

There are specific time frames that are set out under the act for

the benefit of all parties, including the board. The clear parameters

enable what would expect to be a clear, certain understanding of how all

parties are to work with WorkSafeBC to ensure a correct

decision.

Yesterday in committee, the minister talked about of course

understanding the quality of the decision of the board in the first

place. If there is an error of any nature discovered or raised with the

board by any party — including internally by any staff member, employee,

officer of the board — the board has the opportunity to reconsider its

decision under

section 123. That’s what is set out in the

act.

The minister referred yesterday that, under

section 11, there

would be over to the board to determine a policy as to how they would

exercise new

section 11, which would be the amendment to

section 123,

where there is a decision or order that contains an obvious error or

omission. I didn’t hear from the minister just now that there’s a clear

answer about a policy currently under

section 123.

What is the obligation of the board, after it makes its decision

in the first instance, to do or conduct some sort of internal review

within that 75-day period to ensure that the decision that’s been made

in the first instance is correct and, if not correct, to address the

error? What is that obligation?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, you asked me a question earlier on: “Where is the board

policy? What kind of a board policy is there to deal with

section 123

now?” There is a policy that exists, and I think you could go online and

check that. It’s about five pages long, I’m told, and the last time they

updated it was April 6. If this

section is passed, then they will update

that policy. That policy is for them to review errors and omissions

within 75 days, but once there’s a 76th day, then they can’t do

that.

I think this will give them the opportunity to update that policy

that already exists. It will save so many people — so many clients, the

stakeholders who are dealing with WorkSafeBC — time, money and

resources.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. With respect to

that policy, it clearly sets out the parameters and the policy

guidelines under which the board would exercise its discretion to

reconsider a decision. So there is a process under which the board

applies and utilizes

section 123. I appreciate, as has been raised, that

there have been instances where workers have gone to the Ombudsperson

and have been somewhat challenged in dealing with WorkSafeBC.

What progress, if any, or alternatives have WorkSafeBC considered

over the last ten-year period, as the minister states — where there have

been issues with WorkSafeBC’s handling of certain cases or decisions,

from a worker’s point of view or an employer’s point of view — to ensure

that all parties are aware of and understand their rights, their

obligations, their timing parameters and how this particular set of

processes work, if they have an issue or do identify an error with a

decision, so that the board can exercise its authority, under

section

123, for that 75-day period?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, the policy gets updated on a regular basis. As I

have suggested, they updated that policy April 6 this year. But still,

something gets missed, and they’ve been updating that policy over and

over. That’s why people continue to go to the Ombudsperson and continue

to come to the ministry, saying: “Look. There are certain cases that

still get missed.”

It does not make sense to put people through the rigour of the

review system again, come up with the money, come up with the resources

and time when you know that all parties acknowledge there was an obvious

error made. Why not fix it, rather than putting the whole system in

gear? It’s costly and time-consuming, and I think it needs

fixing.

The Ombudsperson was very clear — we’ve been working on this for

the last ten years — and very happy now that we’re dealing with

it.

M. Lee: I know that in our discussion yesterday at committee level, the

minister indicated that we’re talking, likely, about a handful of cases

here — instances where this issue arises.

All I’m suggesting, of course, is that when we focus on the

existing framework, there are clear timing parameters, certainty for

everyone involved and finality. There should be obligations on the

board, their office’s employees, to ensure that they do an internal

review of their decisions to determine within the 75 days if they need

to address any error — they can do that under

section 123 — and that all

parties are fully informed of their rights, with the expectation that if

a party has identified any error, that party should raise it.

If that party does — which I expect that they do, for those who

are knowledgable and aware — the board will address that under

section

123. But if I come back to the three examples the minister provided

yesterday, two of which he just referred to again here, the first

relates to some question about the classification: “assigning an

employer to an incorrect classification group, which could require the

employer to pay a higher premium than they should be paying.”

Isn’t that kind of error already dealt with under the act on an

annual basis, under subsection 244(2)?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I’m advised that

section 244 gives the board the authority to put

an employer in a classification. Once they are placed in that

classification, they are there. Also, I think what we are talking about

here, in

section 11, is…. Perhaps through a review or some case, the

board decides that they should be in a certain classification. In that

situation, if the 75 days have passed, then you’d have to go through the

review process again.

I think it’s a different thing.

Section 244 gives them different

authority under different circumstances. What we are doing here…. If the

board decides, through some procedure, that they be placed in a certain

classification, then on that decision — unless it’s acknowledged within

75 days — you’d have to go through the review, come up with the

resources and ask for the extension of 90 days. So I think it is kind of

a win-win situation for everybody.

As the Ombudsman has said, this system does not make sense. In

order to deal with obvious errors and omissions that have been

acknowledged, why tie anybody’s hand, to go through the procedure of the

review process again? Why not fix it, as they’re able to do, within 75

days?

M. Lee: Well, we can come back to timing and the legislative framework, as

I already indicated my view of that to the minister. We will continue to

come back to that, in terms of the nature of what’s being proposed under

section 11. I am only attempting to work through the three examples that

the minister provided in this House for clarity to understand the scope

of the term “obvious error or omission” under the proposed

amendment.

Still dealing with this first example, my reading of subsection

244(2)(

e) suggests that the board may “withdraw any of the following

from a class and transfer it to another class or subclass or form it

into a separate class or subclass” and that “the following” includes “an

employer, independent operator or industry.” Other subprovisions of

subsection 244(2) would appear — on the surface, on a reading of the act

— to provide for the same opportunity to effectively reclassify, change

classification, transfer classification, of an employer — dealing with

the same concern the minister raised.

Here we have an example that the minister has provided to this

House and that is already dealt with in the act. Is that not

correct?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I think the example I used, 244, does give the board the

authority to place an employer at a certain classification or to change

classifications.

Once that is done…. Say, for example, the employer appeals that.

Then the board will make a decision. That decision, that there was an

obvious error made…. That particular time, the 75 days, is the rule that

we are trying to fix here. You could fix it within 75 days but not past

75 days.

Generally speaking, yes, 244 gives them the right and the

authority to place them in a different classification or to change

classifications. Once you go through the appeal process, for example,

there’s initiative taken by the board, as a result of that action, and

then the decision is made. Then they realize and acknowledge that there

was an obvious error, an omission, made in that decision. Then the 75

days kicks in.

You must deal with it within 75 days. If they didn’t notice it

past the 75 days, then you have to go through the appeal process

again.

M. Lee: Just to belabour this one last point here on this particular

example. The minister is responding about timing within timing. Again,

the 75-day period, which is clearly there under

section 123….

When does the board exercise its authority, under

section 244(2)?

How often does the board consider these classifications to ensure that

employers are in the correct classification, whether they need to

withdraw or transfer a particular employer from a particular

class?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is a process in place based on…. Sometimes the employer could

request. Sometimes WCB, on their own initiative, could do that. I think

it depends on different circumstances at different times. Forestry did

it on their own. There are other employers who would be in that group,

or an individual employer may suggest that that employer should not be

in that particular group.

I think this is where the issue is. Once they go through that

process and then the WCB makes a decision, then we’re saying that if you

didn’t acknowledge that within 75 days, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s

the 76th day or 77 days. Once they acknowledge that there’s an obvious

error or omission, they should be able to fix it.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. I would suggest that

that exchange demonstrates the nature of the importance of timelines and

certainty and that there is flexibility under this act for the

particular issue that the minister identified as an example for the

reason why

section 11 is required here. I would differ with the minister

on that in the sense that, clearly, all parties need to have the

certainty and the process and understand the rules.

What’s being presented here is

section 11, which is not defined,

open-ended, without timelines. The board can, at any time beyond the

initial 75-day period that’s currently under

section 123, on its own

initiative, reconsider a decision or order if that decision or order

contains an obvious error or omission. But the first example the

minister provided is clearly already dealt with within the

act.

In the minister’s last response to me, it certainly indicates that

the board or the employers can utilize, with the board’s agreement, this

provision to reclassify, to get the correct classification. As to

whether a party wants to challenge the decision of the board to

classify, reclassify or not reclassify, sure, that’s the application of

section 123. That’s what the minister is indicating.

How long does the board need to get it right? It’s no wonder when

the minister talks about red tape. This provision is just creating

increased uncertainty. No timelines, no definition. How are employers

and workers supposed to operate with that when they don’t know, and they

can’t rely on the WCB to get it right in the first place or to get it

right in the second place over 75 days? Well, we’ll give them a third

opportunity, which is open-ended.

Let me come back to the second example, which is that a…. Another

example: using an incorrect wage rate for a workers compensation benefit

which could result in a lower benefit for the worker than they should be

receiving. Is that not an example of an administrative error?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think we’re spending a lot of time…. I’m prepared to continue on

with this, but again, I think I said yesterday — the member acknowledged

that as well — that there is only a handful of cases that we are talking

about here. I don’t think it’s a good policy to allow even a handful of

those, and put them through the rigour of a review system, when it can

be easily fixed.

Maybe, Member, this could help. I’m going to read what the

Ombudsperson has said:

“Generally, if WorkSafeBC makes a decision on a claim file,

WorkSafeBC has a 75-day period to reconsider the decision. At the same

time, the worker or employer has a 90-day time limit to appeal the

decision to the review division. What happens, however, if a WorkSafeBC

decision is incorrect but the error is not clear to anyone until after

90 days?

“Under these circumstances, it seemed that WorkSafeBC was unable to

correct its own error after the 75-day reconsideration period was over.

If the worker or employer didn’t appeal the decision to the review

division within the 90-day period because he or she didn’t know that the

decision was incorrect, then there seemed to be no remedy to correct the

error. We ask WorkSafeBC to explore how an acknowledged error on the

part of WorkSafeBC could be corrected.”

I think this is what we are trying to do here.

You’re using the second example. The worker could have presented

all kinds of data about their wages to the appeal division. They come

back with a decision, and the worker may have felt that, yes, they

considered all of that. But then 75 days have passed or 90 days have

passed for his appeal. They realize, reviewing this case themselves, the

board themselves…. “We didn’t consider all of that

information.”

That’s not an administrative error. That is something that got

neglected. They made a mistake, although the information got passed on

to them. I think it only makes sense to fix it, rather than going

through the appeal system all over again.

M. Lee: Certainly, thank you to the minister, again, for restating, from

his perspective, from the ministry’s perspective, that it is a handful

of cases that are being addressed here.

I want to clarify, though. Is this not an example, though, of an

administrative error?

Hon. H. Bains: I think, Member, it could be more than an administrative error.

The example that I used….

[3:25 p.m.]

There are people who are working different jobs. They have

different rates. The worker could present to the appeal board all of

that information, but they failed to pick up one piece, which could be

the key piece, to calculate the wages for the person. Then they realize:

“Yes, we have this information available, but we failed to acknowledge

that. We failed to calculate that.”

That’s not administrative. They made a mistake by not considering,

not just in calculating. They did not consider. I think that’s one of

the examples where this kind of change would allow the board to fix

that, rather than going through the appeal process again.

M. Lee: Just to go to the third example, which is also connected, in some

sorts, with another statement the minister provided on several occasions

in responses to my colleague the member from Chilliwack on his questions

on this particular section.

The third example the minister provided is where WorkSafe, the

board, is relying on a policy that is not applicable to a case. Then,

secondly, what’s coupled with that is the intent to permit WorkSafeBC to

correct an obvious error that is not supported by the law, policy or

facts. That does introduce consideration around something beyond

administrative error as to the appropriate use of this

section 123

beyond the 75 days.

Within 175 days, the board, for any reason, on its own initiative,

may reconsider its decision. That has been viewed to be the certain time

frame under this act. What is being presented in

section 11 is to extend

the application of that provision for a decision or order that contains

an obvious error or omission. The minister has indicated that that is

something more than an administrative error. I’d like to get some better

definition with the minister about what that might be.

First of all, is there any time frame under which the board must

utilize its discretion under

section 11 of this bill?

[3:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member can…. Obviously, I can draw his attention to

123(3), what we are proposing here: “The Board may, on its own

initiative, reconsider a decision or order after the 75 days referred to

in subsection (2) (

a) have elapsed, if the decision or order contains an

obvious error or omission.” There’s no upper limit. I mean, we have said

this before: the board strives to make decisions that are correct and

factual in the first place. But errors are made; it does

happen.

Hopefully, most of those errors and omissions are caught within 75

days, but if there are a few that go over 75 days, the person has an

appeal process that is within 90 days past. Then if they realized — both

sides, and the board has acknowledged — that there’s been an error made,

then this will give them the authority to catch those few that go past

My hope is that a case isn’t lingering on for five years or ten

years and that it will be caught on to before that, much closer to 75

days, but this one will give them the authority to look beyond 75

days.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response. When I look at the

nature of the request for review, under

part 6 of the act, it sets out

the matters, under that division, that can be requested of a review

officer to review, in a following case. Could I ask…? There is,

certainly, review of decisions made, including relating to compensation.

How is this provision different from what might be reviewed under part

Hon. H. Bains: The review, Member, as you full well know, is when one party or

the other does not agree with a decision. Then they would ask for a

review. But this is not what we are talking about there. We’re talking

about an obvious error or omission made. It’s acknowledged by WorkSafeBC

that there’s an obvious error or an omission and that they could fix

it.

M. Lee: The nature of the obvious error or omission, as the minister has

indicated, can include a decision that is a decision that is not

supported by law, policy or facts or on a policy that is not applicable

to a case.

[3:35 p.m.]

Given the fact there is no end to when this board can exercise

this authority under

section 123, that would mean, of course, that

beyond the initial 75 days that the board can reconsider its decision,

the 90 days by which a party can file a request for review of a decision

made by the board and beyond 150 days after that, 240 days, a board can

continue to revisit its decision on its own initiative.

There is no end to that process. There is no certainty in that

process to the parties, to those that might be relying on the decision

of the board.

That does raise a question as you work through that timeline. Is

it correct that given there is no end point to this authority, that even

after there has been a review requested by a party, as the minister just

described, and that review has been completed, and even after that has

been further appealed, that the WCAT, the board, could come back and

still reconsider its decision under

section 123 as amended by

section 11

of this bill? Is that correct?

Hon. H. Bains: I think I made this clear yesterday in a question from the member,

whether it was the member from Chilliwack or the member questioning

today. Let me read that again. The existing restriction that WorkSafeBC

cannot reconsider a decision once a former review has been requested or

a notice of appeal filed will continue. As such, WorkSafeBC will not be

correcting obvious errors if a decision is already in the review or the

appeal process. In this situation, errors will continue to be addressed

through the review and appeal procedures.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response. In the event that

there is no review requested by a party, and even if there’s no

subsequent appeal to WCAT, the board, though, can still exercise its

authority under

section 123 to revisit its decision. So that can go out

far beyond the time frames that are available, including, of course, the

90 days to actually request the review under

section 270. This would

mean, of course, that the board could end up revisiting its decision a

year after the decision itself or a year after the expiry of the 75

days. Is that correct?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think I answered that question before. The board strives to make

decisions that are factual, decisions that are quality. But there are a

handful of those that could slip through the time limits. Then they

could actually come back and reconsider obvious error or omission is

acknowledged.

My expectation is that most of them are caught within 75 days or

90 days. If one or two or a few slip by, and no one noticed, then yes, I

think you’re correct that it could be picked up even a year from the day

the decision was made.

M. Lee: Recognizing that the minister continues to convey to this House

that it’s a handful — one, two, three — in any period of time, could I

ask: could he give an example of where this has occurred, where

WorkSafeBC needed to correct an obvious error within 75 days, where that

error was not supported by the law?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member knows. I read it. There are examples that the

Ombudsperson has brought forth saying that we received several

individual complaints about the apparent inability of the Workers

Compensation Board — WorkSafeBC — to correct its own errors after a

75-day considered period. I also have suggested to the member that the

board has a policy right now, five pages long. That policy determines

how and what they actually need to do, what processes are needed, to

deal with obvious errors within 75 days.

What would happen is if this

section passed and they would expand

that policy to include obvious errors and omissions that are caught

after 75 days, then they would include that, and that would be a policy.

Hopefully, there are not that many that would go to the Ombudsperson or

go through the appeal process or reach out to the ministry.

I think this is something that is a commonsense thing to do. The

Ombudsperson recognized that. That’s why this, in my view, makes

sense.

M. Lee: Let’s try this question a different way, then. When we look

forward as to how this wording would be applied, would there be any

grounds under which the board would exercise its discretion, under this

new section, where there’s been a change in the law — that is, there’s

been a legislative change?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no, because that would not be an obvious

error.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: When we look at decisions of the board that might make an

assessment where a worker is, for example, putting to the board that his

or her lung damage or difficulties is caused by a pneumatic drill, and

the dust that came out of that drill was causing long-term lung disease;

and the medical evidence at the time the board was reviewing that

worker’s situation determined there was no causal link between what that

worker was suffering from — meaning the workplace, using that drill at a

minesite — and that individual’s lung disease; and at the time of

review, there was no medical evidence to demonstrate that but then

subsequently, some time later, the evidence showed there was a causal

link.

Is that an example of where the board, given there is no

limitation on time here, would revisit its decision under this section?

Is that an example of obvious error or omission?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no. That is a normal way the claims are processed.

Claims are filed. Sometimes the medical evidence is all there. Sometimes

it’s not all there. So the decision was made accordingly. Then when you

have new medical evidence that is available, then they go through the

reopening of the claim and review of the claim. That’s a normal process.

That’s not what we’re talking about here.

M. Lee: It’s really an attempt here in this exchange to understand, of

course, what this new term will mean, and how it is intended by

government to provide this board additional discretion. So if we go back

to the point that was made before by the minister that it would also be

an opportunity for WorkSafe to correct an obvious error that is not

supported by policy…. Can the minister please provide us with an example

of the use of this

section in that instance?

Hon. H. Bains: I think one thing is clear here. The board already has a policy to

deal with exactly what we are talking about, but within 75 days. We’re

not giving them any extra, broader powers. All we’re doing is that now

they can apply the same policy if the error is acknowledged after 75

days. That’s all.

[3:50 p.m.]

The member is talking about…. Again, if they made a decision, rely

on a wrong policy that is not applicable to that certain case, that

particular case, yeah, that would be an obvious error. But within 75

days — they do that work now. All we are doing is expanding that past

the 75 days. They could apply the same policy, obvious errors and

mistakes and omissions. What happens before 75 days…. Now they can do it

past 75 days.

Like I said, they strive to come up with quality deci­sions.

If they make an error or a mistake and it’s caught within 75 days, no

issue. But there are a few that may go beyond 75 days. It’s just a few

cases we are talking about. Rather than putting the employer and the

worker through that review process again and bringing the whole WCB

system into action…. It’s costly, and I think it does not make

sense.

The Ombudsperson has been asking for this change for a long

time.

M. Lee: I would, at this point, like to table an amendment to

section

Section 11

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined

text as shown:

Section 123 is amended

(

a) in subsection (2) by striking out

“ The Board may not ”

and substituting “ Subject to subsection

(3), the Board may

not ” , and

(

b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) The Board may, on its own initiative, reconsider a

decision or order after the 75 days referred to in subsection (2) (

a) have elapsed, if the decision or order contains an obvious error

or omission.

any of the following:

(

i) a clerical or typographical error;

(ii) an accidental or inadvertent error, omission or other

similar mistake;

(iii) an arithmetical error made in a

computation. ]

The Chair: The House will be in a short recess while we are distributing

the proposed amendment to all participating members.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: On the proposed amendment, Member, any comments?

[4:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Yes, if I may. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this

amendment, which the member from Chilliwack and myself are tabling

here.

This is an amendment to, effectively, clarify specifically the

terms that are being utilized here, recognizing that we’ve had — the

minister and myself and the member from Chilliwack — some meaningful

exchanges around the use of this provision,

section 123, the fact that

it’s not limited at all for the 75 days and that, in our view, the

responsibility should lie on the board and its officers, employees to

ensure that their decisions, as the minister has indicated several

times, are quality decisions and that no decision is made with an error

of the nature that the minister is describing — but even if it is, that

that error is addressed within the 75-day period as currently set out in

the act.

It should be the responsibility of WorkSafeBC, as well, to ensure

that all parties understand the time frames that are available to them

so that they can raise any issues, any concerns they may have about a

decision so that the board can then exercise its discretion, on its own

initiative, to reconsider a decision or order within the 75 days

currently contemplated under

section 123.

Having said that, I do acknowledge that there may be some

decisions that may be of a nature that is administrative. Certainly, the

minister provided at least one example of that, and we had some

discussion about that here. I’ve indicated that in response to some of

his other examples, we’ve discussed how other provisions of the act

would apply to enable the board to deal with classification.

I appreciate that there may be other examples that the minister

and the ministry are looking at, but having said that, we’re just trying

to define in a more clear way this further discretion that is being

provided to the board. In our view, this would be an appropriate

amendment to make.

This amendment would effectively bring over, of course, the

language that is there under

section 307 of the act for WCAT. That’s

something to consider here as we look at this amendment, because the

WCAT language is specific. It specifically defines the kind of error

that might be addressed. Here, for the board, it’s not defined for 75

days. That is the period of time that we’re discussing that the board

has that responsibility under its policy to deal with the kind of error

that the minister is describing.

But the kind of error that the minister is describing is also

open-ended. It’s open-ended in terms of time, in terms of when the board

can reconsider its decision under

section 11, and in terms of the

nature. There is no clear understanding as to the nature of this obvious

error or omission.

When the minister talks about an error that is not supported by

law, policy or facts or relying on a policy that is not applicable to a

case, that is a decisional order, a decision that should be addressed

within the first 75 days. If we are to expand

section 123, it should be

with clarity and certainty. That’s why the proposed language that we’ve

tabled is to address that.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for at least trying to understand the

issue and trying to fix the issue. Let me say this. The language that

the member is proposing exists in

section 307. That permits WCAT to

amend a final decision of theirs — to amend their final

decision.

The

section 307 change to what we are proposing under 123 has

different purposes.

Section 307 is for the purpose of WCAT, as I said,

amending an appeal decision to correct the specified errors. The purpose

of this amendment to 123, on the other hand, is to correct an obvious

error in an original WCB or WorkSafeBC decision or order. This type of

error would be more than a clerical error — such as a typo, as is being

proposed — that such addressing the error could technically be

considered a reconsideration.

Currently if the 75-day limit has passed, the only option to fix

such an error is the formal process of first applying for an extension

and then form a review. Again, this is all for fixing an error that

WorkSafeBC fully acknowledges.

WorkSafeBC already corrects administrative errors such as

clerical, typographical or computational errors or errors in agreed

statements of facts at any time. It can do this because such a

correction is not considered a reconsideration of the original decision.

So correcting a clerical, typographical or computational error is not a

reconsideration, because such corrections do not change the intent of

the decision or order. Therefore, putting language similar to 307, as

the member is suggesting, for administrative corrections, does not

properly belong in

section 123, which deals with

reconsiderations.

If language similar to 307 was added for the purpose of a

WorkSafeBC decision, it would not address the problem that the

government, through this bill, is proposing to change — through Bill 23,

is intending to address. Obvious substantive errors could still not be

corrected after 75 days because of the 75-day limit for reconsideration

decisions. So for those reasons, I’m speaking against this amendment. I

think WorkSafeBC already has a policy to deal with such issues within 75

days. They have a policy to deal with them.

All we’re doing is extending their powers to look at those types

of errors or omissions past 75 days. Again, like I said, decisions are

made that are very thoughtful, but there are a few where mistakes are

made. And then again, they’re caught within 75 days, but there are a few

that slip and pass 90 days — the appeal process. I think that this would

deal with that issue, rather than going through the process all over

again — the review, the resources, the money. I think that’s why we

would be rejecting, and I will be rejecting, this amendment that the

member is proposing.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we’ve had many rounds on this provision at this

point, this section, including in the last exchange. It’s clear that the

view that we’re taking is that there should be complete certainty under

this act and that when the government, with this minister, is proposing

changes to the act that introduce greater uncertainty, lack of

definition — when we’re talking about no time frames on the exercise of

this discretion — that undermines the important certainty that workers

and employers need to have under this act.

It’s clearly the intention of this amendment to be clear about

what authority the board can extend beyond the initial 75 days. When the

minister talks about correcting clerical, administrative, accidental or

computational errors, that is alongside of any other error of any nature

that the board has the ability to reconsider or deal with to rectify

under

section 123 of the act.

[4:10 p.m.]

There is no debate about that. The question is timing. The

question is certainty. This is one of the primary examples of this bill

that undermines that certainty and finality. There are review and appeal

processes already built into the act. We’ve had that discussion. If

there is any need, at least with one of the examples that the minister

has provided, for administrative error, that’s what this amendment

provides in a clear, certain way.

I certainly urge members of this House to consider this amendment

and support it.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

J. Martin: Chair, I had my hand up starting on

section 12.

The Chair: Oh, I didn’t….

J. Martin: It’s been up there for three sections.

The Chair: We didn’t see that hand up, Member. But we’ll go back to

section 12, by agreement.

J. Martin: I appreciate that.

section 12.

J. Martin: On

section 12, compensation for mental disorders. In the Parr

report, employer representatives noted “more complex claims, including

mental health claims and dramatically rising health care costs, are

expected to add about $200 million annually to claims costs.”

Has the minister had an opportunity to calculate the costs of

these to WorkSafeBC’s finances?

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, Member. I think this

section actually is to clarify

what already exists.

[4:15 p.m.]

It provides greater clarity and certainty on the compensation

payable for a mental disorder by explicitly providing that the

compensation is payable for a work-related mental disorder, as if the

mental disorder were a work-related injury. I think there are different

languages. As we experience mental health injuries, illnesses more and

more, we’re learning more. This

section just clarifies what actually is

happening within our current policy and how to handle those

claims.

J. Martin: Can the minister share the anticipated number of mental disorder

claims?

Hon. H. Bains: Currently

section 135 provides that workers are entitled to

compensation for work-related mental disorders, but it does not

explicitly set out that compensation is payable as if the mental

disorder were an injury. It just clarifies the language. This section,

on its own, we expect not to add any more mental disorder claims. We

already have mental health disorder claims accepted by WorkSafeBC today,

but this just clarifies, as I just mentioned,

section

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

J. Martin: On

section 13, can the minister please explain the purpose for

removing the requirement to report a worker’s death to the board’s local

representative?

Hon. H. Bains: The term “local representative” is outdated, and it is not used

elsewhere in the act. It’s believed that it’s sufficient for the

employer to report a worker’s death to WorkSafeBC as per current

practice. It’s something that is not being practised. They advise the

board, and the board will take care of it from there.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

J. Martin: This is

section 14 on setting a one-year time limit on mental

health disorder claims.

[4:20 p.m.]

In the Parr report, employer representatives say, “The one-year

time limit should commence on the date of diagnosis or date of

disablement, whichever is sooner,” while labour representatives say:

“The one-year limitation period should not commence on the date of the

traumatic event or significant stressor.”

Can the minister provide clarity as to when the one-year time

limit starts for mental disorder claims, please?

Hon. H. Bains: I think we all understand that when you are talking about physical

injury, you’re talking about someone breaking their leg or arm. You know

exactly what that date is. But mental health is an accumulation of a

number of traumatic incidents that the worker may be involved

in.

I think, Member, you’re talking about the same thing that Parr has

recommended. What this

section will do, listening to the conversation

that you are reading from, the employer rep and the others…. The Jeff

Parr review recommended that we should amend the act to allow WorkSafe

B.C. to establish policy on the date of mental disorder for the purpose

of the one-year application time limit, which is what the proposed

amendment does. I think that’s what will be considered. The board will

be looking at exactly the type of example that the member has suggested,

and then they’ll come up with a policy on how a one-year time limit

would apply in mental health claims.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

J. Martin: For the purposes of the bill, can the minister share how many

claims are accepted by WorkSafe B.C. versus the number of claims that

are not?

Hon. H. Bains: I’m advised that about 90 to 95 percent of claims are

accepted.

J. Martin: So 95 percent of claims are accepted — we’ll go with that — the

remaining 5 percent being rejected. What’s the cost of covering the

additional 5 percent that are eventually rejected?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think, if we are talking about

section 15….

Section 15 talks

about WorkSafeBC’s ability to provide health care, preventative and

prophylactic treatment or other services on an expedited basis, where

medical evidence indicates that the worker’s health is “at risk of a

significant deterioration” without such services.

I think there are claims…. If the member was talking about overall

claims, I gave you that number: 90 to 95 percent. But when we are

talking about, for example, our first responders…. If someone is pricked

with a needle — now for them to wait for their claim to be accepted,

sometimes it takes weeks — they need that treatment now, because it

could deteriorate the person’s health. It could make it worse. Those are

the types of circumstances where the board already accepts some of those

claims.

We are basically giving them legal authority to continue to do

that so that the board can provide them with the health care and other

supports that the worker may need, rather than having them wait until

the claim is accepted, when the situation could deteriorate to a point.

For example, with a mental disorder — again, that’s another example I

could use — there may be someone who is suicidal, and you don’t want to

wait until the claim is accepted to provide that person with

support.

I think this is what this bill

section is intended to do — to

provide, in those types of circumstances, health care or psychological

care that the worker may need at that particular time, as soon as

possible, so that the condition isn’t deteriorated, when it would become

more costly to the system as well. In the meantime, I think it could be

a life-or-death situation. That’s what the purpose of this

section

is.

J. Martin: Can the minister please share the costs related to covering

supplies and services — for claims that are eventually rejected — for

more complex conditions with lower acceptance rates, like mental

health?

[4:30 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister of Labour.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

I think if I go back to what I have stated, Member, WorkSafeBC

already has a policy to pay for medical support and psychological

support in certain situations. This will give them what they already

have — an authority to continue to pay.

Terry Bogyo, who was hired by the board to look at how to deal

with this situation, tried to figure out how much extra cost there might

be. They couldn’t figure out how much extra cost, because they don’t

know. There might not be any, because the board, in certain

circumstances, already has a policy to pay, as a preventative measure,

to save themselves money in the long run.

I think it could save money rather than cost money. That’s one

argument. It is more to deal with workers who may be suicidal, to

provide them psychological support that they need in a timely fashion,

and also for exposure to HIV infection, to provide them support in a

timely fashion. This will avoid a future cost. I think it could save

money to the system rather than costing money.

J. Martin: Has the minister taken the opportunity to consider alternatives,

such as government and our health care system assuming the cost for

early treatment and then billing WorkSafeBC after a claim is

accepted?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC already has, I’m advised, an agreement with the health

care. Claims are filed all the time. It could be a car accident, which

could be a question of whether it is work-related or ICBC. So for

WorkSafeBC, there are times when they pay for some of the costs. But

when it’s determined that it’s not work-related, then they have an

agreement with the health care that they would pass the bill over to the

health care.

M. Lee: In response to a question from my colleague the member for

Chilliwack, I’m just coming back to this point. When we’re asking about

the costs that will be incurred by virtue of this

section 15, the

minister replied in a couple of different ways. One way he replied was

in respect of the current policy of the board to cover some of these

preventative costs prior to the determination, by the board, of a

worker’s entitlement to compensation. Given that that is the case, what

is the accounting by WCB, in terms of the costs of that

reimbursement?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I think the board has looked at this policy over the

years, and it is believed that it could actually save them

money.

[4:40 p.m.]

The amendment clarifies and enhances existing WorkSafeBC practices

where, in limited situations, it has been deemed appropriate to provide

immediate treatment to individuals who have claims in the system,

because the treatment will prevent a significant deterioration in the

worker’s health. WorkSafeBC’s efforts to give immediate treatment in

these cases can save the system money by reducing the long-term impact

of injuries.

There’s no expectation that this amendment will lead to any

scenario where the workers compensation system is routinely funding

treatment costs for injuries or disorders not occurring in the

workplace. However, the proposed subsection 156(1.1) will provide clear

assurance to a hesitant worker that with WorkSafeBC direction, they

should seek important and necessary treatment prior to the acceptance of

their claim in order to minimize the long-term effect.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. Just reflecting through the language

that the minister has used, it’s a belief by the board that there will

be savings. Certainly, I understand the point about clarification in

terms of putting it in the act. That’s the purpose of this

amendment.

But I’m still not hearing an exact answer as to what the cost of

this will be. The answer I’m receiving is a belief that there will be

savings. What is the amount of the savings?

Hon. H. Bains: We must appreciate, Member…. Let’s take a scenario. It’s difficult

to put a real cost on, or savings, because there could be a case where

WorkSafeBC spent $1,000 in preventative treatment. If you didn’t pay

that $1,000 up front, it could have cost you $100,000 later if the

situation deteriorated to a point that now it’s out of hand and it costs

a lot more medically, and a lot more time lost. It’s hard to put a cost

on it, but it is a practice that the board already has in those types of

situations.

How do you put a cost on saving somebody from suicidal tendencies?

How do you put a number on how much money you have saved by providing

help to that person who has suicidal tendencies up front and the person

now is a productive member to go back to his or her family and go back

to work?

[4:45 p.m.]

I think it’s difficult to put a cost on. I think the board and Mr.

Bolger tried to put a cost on, and it’s difficult to put it, given the

circumstance that I’m giving you.

It is, actually, a commonsense approach. They believe it could

cost them money, and probably will save them money over the long run,

when you provide someone, in those types of situations, with early

treatment and early support.

HIV infection, for example, could be very, very serious if not

treated in a timely fashion. You provide them the support. It costs you

maybe $500 to $2,000. It could save you, possibly, hundreds of thousands

of dollars later. I think that’s why it’s very difficult to put a cost

on it.

It’s something that the board already does. They are already

providing that support. All we are doing, through this change, is

clarifying what their authority already is.

S. Furstenau: I have a few questions on this

section as well.

Thanks to the member opposite for working this out. Always a

pleasure to do work….

To help me understand, starting with prophylactic treatments. This

section allows the board to order payment for treatment before a claim

is approved or if they are satisfied that the medical evidence indicates

that, without immediate treatment, the worker is at risk of a

significant deterioration in health.

Could the minister clarify in which cases prophylactic treatment

is already covered by WorkSafe’s policy and what additional prophylactic

treatments will be covered in this amendment?

Hon. H. Bains: The examples are a post-exposure prophylaxis following

occupational exposure to an infectious disease, such as anti-retrovirals

medication after a potential exposure to HIV. In the context of mental

disorder claims, preventative measures may include counselling services

following a worker’s exposure to a traumatic event before the worker

meets the diagnostic criteria and/or receives a formal

diagnosis.

S. Furstenau: Can the minister then confirm…? This amendment bills WorkSafe for

these types of prophylactic treatments in the cases that he has just

outlined. What happens if a claim is rejected? If it’s found later not

to be work-related, does it still end up being billed to WorkSafeBC, or

is there another mechanism at that point?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, I think I tried to explain that earlier on. WorkSafeBC

already has arrangements with health care. In certain circumstances,

they do bill the health care system.

The worker is the one…. It is preventative for a worker to seek

help in the event that they know that they have to pay out of pocket.

The board pays for these types of services and the support for the

workers now. In the event that they determine the claim is not

work-related…. In certain circumstances, they do have arrangements with

health care to bill them.

S. Furstenau: As we know well, employers are very concerned about this section,

particularly as it relates to mental health. I will just say, in their

words….

They’ve said: “Given the complexity of psychological illness and

the much lower acceptance rate of these claims, employers will be

funding a large percentage of psychological injury care and treatment

with no relation to the workplace…. A more meaningful approach would be

for government to assume responsibility for early treatment and then

bill WorkSafeBC for reimbursement when work causation is clearly

shown.”

My question for the minister is: why did government not choose to

go this route? WorkSafeBC is billed when the injury is clearly

work-related. Otherwise, government pays for treatment.

Hon. H. Bains: Member, one of the things that we need to understand…. That policy

already is there. WorkSafeBC already practises what I have

suggested.

What we are doing is clarifying and giving the legal authority,

under the act, that they could continue to do that. It’s not an

additional cost that we are adding on to the system or to the WCB.

WorkSafeBC already, as I have said…. It’s hard to put a number on how

much savings they have under this policy or what additional costs could

be if they didn’t have this policy.

I will use a couple of examples. HIV infection. If you are

exposed, timely treatment could save you hundreds of thousands of

dollars, which they may have. Our front-line workers are faced with that

all the time. Someone who is suicidal, mental health injuries suffered

at the workplace…. Again, the first responders are the nurses and the

emergency nurses.

I think it’s a policy that already exists. It’s not additional. No

one could put a number on it — whether there are going to be a lot more

claims. It is something they already do. It just clarifies they will be

allowed to continue to do this under the act now.

S. Furstenau: I think we’re in agreement on the idea of the need for access to

mental health care. Indeed, we’ve been canvassing this all week in

question period and recognizing that, ultimately, every citizen in B.C.

should have access to health care, and that health care should include

mental health care.

[4:55 p.m.]

I think the struggle is that this is an avenue for access to

mental health care through WorkSafeBC, as opposed to recognizing that

mental health care really should be part of our wider health care

system. It shouldn’t be through WorkSafeBC as a means for people to get

help with psychological issues or mental health issues that may or may

not be work-related.

I guess my question…. I recognize this minister’s focus is on

labour in this specific bill. But does the minister see that there

should be more time and thought given to the mental health issues

generally and that this is, perhaps, too narrow of an avenue to be

talking about when we should be talking about mental health care and

access as part of our wider health care system?

Hon. H. Bains: I think, Member, I wouldn’t disagree with, overall, generally

speaking, what your approach is. But we are talking about work-related

injuries. People don’t run to WorkSafeBC when they get hurt in a plane

or car accident or other injuries that they incur at home, generally

speaking.

I’m talking here about our first responders, our essential

workers, when we talk about mental health. It is recognized now as a

workplace disease. Many people, our paramedics, the police, fire…. Many

of them are subjected to, over their life, many very, very traumatic

incidents on a daily basis. That is a part of their job.

Imagine a firefighter going into a burning building and bringing a

small child. It impacts them. There have been cases of suicide by

firefighters, by police officers. They couldn’t handle the mental

disorder that that caused them over time.

That’s what we are talking about here. It’s work-related. They go

to WorkSafe and file a claim. When the medical evidence is such that the

worker’s health is at risk, that’s the time that WorkSafe will, as they

do now, continue to provide them the support for mental health or for

the other types of different conditions that I mentioned. It did, they

believe, prevent injuries or illnesses from deteriorating, which could

cost them a lot more later.

There may be a few cases where they have paid, but they determined

later that it wasn’t work-related. It happens. They also have some

arrangements with health care, like I suggest. They could make some

arrangements with the health care system. They have that

agreement.

Generally speaking, what we’re talking about are work-related

mental health injuries. That’s the area that we are talking about. Other

times we’re talking about people subjected to HIV or those types of

illnesses — body fluids from one to another when they are giving

treatment.

I think it’s when WorkSafe, through medical evidence, determines

that there is a condition. It happened at work, and the claim should be

processed. The help is needed today, and weeks later it’s determined

that the claim is accepted. In the meantime, that situation could

deteriorate to a point that it could cost them hundreds of thousands of

dollars later, and it could end up with someone losing their

life.

I think that’s the whole purpose. They’re already doing it. All

we’re doing is clarifying and saying, through the act, that they can

continue to do that.

M. Lee: Thank you to the House Leader for the Third Party for raising

those very important considerations. I actually did, also, want to ask

some questions related to that to the minister, relating to mental

health, but I’ll circle back to that in a moment.

[5:00 p.m.]

I wanted to come back to the minister to talk further…. I think we

all recognize, of course, the importance of ensuring that workers or

others get immediate health care to address, and not delay. But we are

talking here, of course, as the minister has indicated, about putting

into the act what has bee