2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jann Bailey

Hon. T. Stone

Clarence Jules

Hon. T. Lake

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

55-plus B.C. Games

R. Sultan

Martin Mars waterbomber

S. Fraser

Stories and imagination

G. Hogg

Hunting in northwest B.C.

D. Donaldson

Clean energy industry

J. Sturdy

Volunteerism in Burnaby

R. Chouhan

Oral Questions

Government response to deaths of youth in care and aging out of care

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

Child protection system funding and staffing

D. Donaldson

Hon. C. Clark

C. James

Hon. S. Cadieux

Call for inquiry into death of Alex Gervais

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Cadieux

Mountain View facility closing and mental health beds in Fraser Valley

S. Hammell

Hon. T. Lake

By-elections for vacant seats in Legislature

S. Simpson

Hon. C. Clark

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2014-15

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 34 — Red Tape Reduction Day Act (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. C. Oakes

A. Weaver

G. Heyman

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 34 — Red Tape Reduction Day Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2015

Hon. S. Bond

S. Simpson

G. Kyllo

B. Routley

D. Barnett

G. Heyman

J. Thornthwaite

H. Bains

J. Martin

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Fassbender

[ Page 9621 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have the great honour today to introduce to the House Mr. Arjan Singh Bhullar, who is also joined by his fiancée, Neenu Dhalliwal.

Mr. Bhullar is an accomplished Olympic freestyle wrestler from Vancouver. Wrestling has a strong history in the Bhullar family. His father, Avtar, was the first in the family to master both traditional Indian-style Kushti wrestling as well as Olympic-style wrestling.

All ten of the Bhullar brothers went through rigorous training regimens at the akhara gym that was built by the family farm.

[1335]

Arjan went on to win numerous provincial, national and high school championships. From there, he went to Simon Fraser University on a wrestling scholarship, while studying political science, where he went on to win multiple national titles for SFU.

As the first wrestler of Indian heritage to represent Canada at the Olympic Games in freestyle wrestling, Mr. Bhullar has enjoyed many athletic highlights, including a gold-medal win at the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the only gold medallist on Team Canada; the 2011 Sport B.C. University Athlete of the Year; and the 2009 Canadian wrestler of the year. Also of note, Mr. Bhullar is also a recipient of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Arjan and his fiancée to the House.

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the House today is Ms. Kleo Landucci, vice-president, projects and development, at Ashcroft Terminal. Kleo is one of those rare leaders in our province. She’s visionary, she’s capable, and she’s taken the Ashcroft Terminal to new heights.

Ashcroft Terminal is a 320-acre, privately owned, inland transload and storage terminal with 350 acres of surrounding buffer land. It provides direct access to major highways and both the CPR and CNR rail lines, while providing competitive pricing to customers while they can streamline their logistics operations.

Would the House please make this leader very welcome.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’m fortunate enough today to make a couple of introductions. First of all, I’d like to let the House know that my administrative coordinator, Lara O’Connor-Dixon, is in the House today, as well as my constituency assistant, Cindy Fisher, if the House could please make them welcome.

Also in the House today, I’m pleased to welcome 18 teachers from across British Columbia and one from Washington state who have been selected to participate in the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. Joining them are also two observers from our neighbouring jurisdiction, Joan Fitzpatrick and Brooke Stuckey from the Alberta Legislative Assembly. They will be with us for the remainder of this week expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary system.

They are also joined by three of their peers who are returning alumni acting in the role of facilitators: Ms. Sarah van Neus, Mr. Jonathan Boone and Mrs. Yvonne DeWith. I hope that all members of the House will take the opportunity tomorrow to meet with all of them up in the Ned DeBeck Lounge for lunch.

Would the House please make all of them welcome here today.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s my great honour to introduce today in the House individuals from the B.C. Bioenergy Network. With us today in the House, we have Dr. Bryan Imber, president and CEO of the ICC Group; Michael Weedon, executive director of the Bioenergy Network. We have Brent Sauder, chair of the B.C. Bioenergy Network board, and Marnie Plant, strategic adviser to the Bioenergy Network.

Bioenergy does not often receive the recognition it deserves in keeping forests healthy and in generating renewable energy. A recent Canadian clean energy technology report forecasts that the global market for clean technology and services is to grow to $3 trillion by year 2020.

These individuals are positioning B.C. to be on the cutting edge of clean tech. May I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming the B.C. Bioenergy Network to the House.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us today are two representatives from the from the Nature Trust of B.C. — their CEO, Dr. Jasper Lament, and their leadership-giving manager, Steve Housser.

As members know, the Nature Trust is a leading land conservation organization. It acquires ecologically significant land through purchase, donation, covenant and lease. They care for that land and protect the natural diversity of wildlife, plants and critical habitats. Government has been able to partner with them in managing a number of wildlife management areas in the province.

I’d ask all members of the House to make them welcome today.

[1340]

D. Donaldson: I have a couple of introductions today. Irene Ronalds, Miller Kriese and Kevin Kriese will

[ Page 9622 ]

be in the precinct today. They’re from Smithers. Miller is a grade 8 student. He’s very interested in politics and has come to question period today. His father, Kevin, is down with his family because he’s being honoured with his 25 years of public service tomorrow. He’s an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, based in Smithers. We like that decentralized model up north.

I would also like to introduce Jonathan Boone, who’s a teacher at Bulkley Valley Christian School. He’s here for the B.C. teachers institute. I’ve been to his class, discussing civics and how the provincial Legislature works. He organizes debates at the school, as well, for the provincial and federal campaigns.

I’d like to ask the members to join me in welcoming Jonathan and Irene, Miller and Kevin to the precinct.

Tributes

JANN BAILEY

Hon. T. Stone: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I would like to inform the House of the sad news of the passing of a renowned community leader in Kamloops. Jann Bailey’s passing on October 9 is a blow not just for the Kamloops Art Gallery but for the entire arts community in Kamloops. As its executive director, Jann was, in so many ways, not just the face of the gallery but, indeed, the entire arts community.

Bailey earned her share of honours in recognition for her work, including the Governor General’s Canada 125 award in 1993, the Y’s Women Of Distinction Award in 1995, the Queen’s Jubilee Medals in 2002 and 2012, and also an honorary doctorate from Thompson Rivers University in 2008.

She was instrumental in creating and organizing the annual Mayor’s Gala for the Arts and was an outspoken advocate for arts funding. Her passion for the arts was truly inspiring. When you think of builders and community leaders who have left a hugely positive legacy for their community, you think of people like Jann. She indeed will be greatly missed.

Hon. Speaker, I would ask that the House please join the Minister of Health and me in sending our heartfelt condolences to her family and friends, who are in our thoughts and prayers today.

CLARENCE JULES

Hon. T. Lake: It is for another sad reason that I stand — to report the passing of another notable member of our community of Kamloops, who passed away this September. Clarence Jules was a husband, a father, a leader and member of the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame.

During his decade as chief of the Tk’emlúps Indian Band and as a councillor, Chief Jules oversaw the transformation of his community, improving infrastructure, creating opportunities for skill development and helping oversee the historic purchase of the Harper Ranch.

He played a vital role in forming the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and he was a firm believer in, in his words, “moving at the speed of business” to achieve prosperity and opportunity on reserve.

His son, Chief Manny Jules, has followed in his footsteps as chief of one of British Columbia’s most forward-looking and innovative First Nations communities. He continues his father’s important work of ensuring that First Nations share in the benefits of economic development. Chief Clarence Jules left his mark on the Tk’emlúps community, on the wider Kamloops community and on our province.

The Minister of Transportation, the Premier and I have all expressed our condolences to the Jules family and hope, hon. Speaker, you would do so on behalf of all members.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: This past Saturday, government proclaimed Conflict Resolution Week in British Columbia. The week is raising awareness about the benefits of mediation as both an affordable and an effective alternative to going to court.

Joining us today are representatives from the Ministry of Justice, who play a vital role in our public mediation service and in improving access to justice for British Columbians.

I’d like to introduce James Deitch, acting assistant deputy minister, justice services branch; Dan VanderSluis, executive director, family justice services division; Lisa Nakamura, acting executive director, dispute resolution office; Ruth Greig, child protection mediation program, family justice services division; Peter Sperling, local manager, Victoria Justice Access Centre; and Kathyrn Platt, senior policy analyst, dispute resolution office. Kathyrn is, in fact, watching the proceedings from Vancouver but played an important

part in realizing Conflict Resolution Week.

I’d like to recognize the hard work of these individuals, both for the ministry and for the people of British Columbia. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Fleming: I would like to just follow on the Minister of Education’s introduction of the number of teachers who’ve joined us here for the B.C. parliamentary institute for teachers. I look forward to speaking to them in more depth this afternoon, participating with three other colleagues from this House in an MLA panel.

[1345]

I’m very pleased to see that there are observers from Washington and Alberta to come and learn here about

[ Page 9623 ]

what has really become a very valuable institution in our province. It’s wonderful to see teachers from the Okanagan, the Interior, the Lower Mainland and, particularly — not particularly, but self-interestedly — from the Victoria school district in Saanich right here closer to home.

Thank you very much and welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

D. Bing: I have four visitors to the House today, two of them from Vancouver. Joining us are my cousin Shirley Marr and her son Clifford Marr.

Also, from Victoria, I have my cousin Beverly Hea and her niece Kristen Low. Kristen is with the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy program. She is a second-year teacher at the Pacific Christian institute, and she teaches grade five. Also, she has a sideline. She teaches tap, jazz and hip-hop dance three times a week at local studios.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, as a former teacher, I’m always delighted to welcome young people to this assembly, and today, visiting from my riding, are 76 grade 11 students from Richmond Christian School with their teachers, Sigfried Ong, Angela Wilson, Deanna Smith, Brad Martens, Leanna Leong and Anthony Beutel.

I’d ask the House to please joining me in welcoming, perhaps, the best school.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

55-PLUS B.C. GAMES

R. Sultan: In late August, I attended the opening ceremonies of the 55-Plus B.C. Games, previously known as the Seniors Games, in North Vancouver.

They turned out over 2,000 volunteers and about 3,000 competitors in 24 different sports, ranging alphabetically from archery to whist. Under the “s” alone, we have slo-pitch, swimming and soccer. While I did not feel quite up to pole vaulting that day, I did consider competing in darts.

B.C. Seniors Games Society is organized into zones, and they hand out lots of medals. This year, Peace River–Liard zone went home with nine gold, five silver and four bronze, and Fraser Valley zone won 199 golds, 145 silver and 131 bronze.

Among my constituents, Gail Gladwell won four silver medals, one bronze and one fourth in breast stroke and freestyle swimming. Peter Lazenby won a bronze in cycling; David Howe, two silvers in javelin and discus. Patrick Downey placed fourth, sixth and ninth in the cycling time trials, road racing and uphill. Bill Mustaklim placed fifth in the 100-metre track for men 70 to 74. Sally Spires won three gold medals in time trials, road racing and uphill cycling for women 65 to 69.

Do the contestants take all of this seriously? They certainly do. They also have a good time, and their higher level of fitness warms the Health Minister’s heart. Next year, it’s Coquitlam’s turn. Seniors, polish your horseshoes.

MARTIN MARS WATERBOMBER

S. Fraser: So 2015 was a bad fire year in B.C., with wildfires consuming more than 300,000 hectares of forests, and more than 50 structures burned down, the highest number since 2003.

There are many tools in the provincial tool chest to deal with this reality, and we may need all of them as climate change increases the odds that this year was more the norm than the exception. Small, nimble aircraft are certainly part of that tool chest, but they are not the only tool in the chest.

The Martin Mars water bomber station at Sproat Lake, near Port Alberni, is in a class by itself. Built in 1945, at the time, it was the largest aircraft in the world, and it remains the second-largest air tanker that there is.

Let’s put that into perspective. The Mars can fill up within 32 seconds by skimming across a lake’s surface, not even landing, and boy, does it pack a punch. Four acres of water or Thermo-Gel mix in one drop, and that drop amounts to 2,000 gallons per second.

The beauty of this massive capacity is that it can knock out a fire in its inception. A wildfire typically grows very fast — three acres per hour — and the Martin Mars’ claim to fame is that it can be airborne, loaded and hitting a fire in less than one hour, before it can get out of control.

[1350]

Arguably, if it had been on contract and on standby this year at its home base in Sproat Lake, the Mars would have knocked down the fires near Port Hardy and Sechelt and, ironically, Sproat Lake before they became big, costly, dangerous problems.

Let’s learn from our mistakes and ensure that we don’t overlook this incredible firefighting tool ever again.

STORIES AND IMAGINATION

G. Hogg: By age nine, my dog Rusty and I had saved our family and our community from many untold and unknown threats. We protected everyone as we travelled to our secret forts and plotted ways to keep the world safe. Sadly, very few such forts exist today.

Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor told us about the constructive role of imagination in shaping our sense of how things are — our grasp of the world as an integrated, imaginative act involving our practices as much as our theories, our feelings as much as our ideas and our common fund of stories as much as our learned discourses.

Our understanding of our family’s tradition and our society’s culture is passed on through stories, stories augmented by our imagination. They are how we make sense

[ Page 9624 ]

of our lives. Without stories, we have no way to discern patterns in time, no way to find meaning or direction or joy. Stories help us to understand. They help to connect us, to make us human.

All cultures tend to teach their values, their mores and their beliefs through their stories and their processes of play, and at their very best, they ignite the spontaneous sense of joy. But much play has now become more structured, sanitized and adult-monitored. We have lost many of the ways that allowed us to explore and to learn and to experiment.

Henry David Thoreau preferred the miracles of nature to the problems of humanity, but not many places like Walden Pond are left in our modern world. I think Thoreau would now say that the miracles of nature and the problems of humanity can no longer remain separate, that we must find balance if we’re going to survive.

If, as Dan Quinn believes, what mother culture whispers in your ear is what you become, then we must ensure that the stories that we hear, the stories that we whisper, inspire us and others to imagine in a way that will bring about a new reality grounded in the traditions of the past — traditions of spontaneity, games and unstructured play; traditions found in our experiences with nature and with dogs like Rusty.

HUNTING IN NORTHWEST B.C.

D. Donaldson: In the northwest, the leaves are off the trees, the steelhead season is coming to a close, and if you go out into the woods, you might hear a long, strange bellowing noise. That’s because hunting season is upon us, and that strange sound you hear could be a hunter trying to get a bull moose’s attention by imitating the call of another bull in the first guy’s backyard.

People hunt for many reasons in the northwest. Most of the people I know, First Nations and non–First Nations, hunt in order to put good-quality meat in the freezer or in canning jars. This is especially important in many remote rural communities where the cost of food is high. Imported food tends to be less nutritious, and having moose and other wild meat in the freezer or jars in the pantry is essential for healthy living and is truly a definition of what it means to be wealthy.

Hunters that I know recognize it’s a means of being out on the land and in the mountains, of reconnecting with the natural environment and keeping track of changes in prey, predators and habitat — truly boots on the ground, with an eye to conservation.

I also know father-son and father-daughter combinations hunting in the forests and on the mountains this fall, so it’s also about creating stronger family bonds and connecting with friends.

The land provides sustenance for the body and the soul, and also economically. Hunters pay over $7 million in fees and permits each year in B.C., but what they spend at the retail level in small towns in the north is even more significant when it comes to the local economy. The guiding business in B.C. brings in $120 million annually, most of which goes to support people in rural areas wanting to stay local, to work on the land and in close connection with nature.

If we take care of the animal populations based on science, put the right amount of government resources into conservation, and ensure the land and water is properly taken care of, then hunting will be a sustainable activity for generations to come.

CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY

J. Sturdy: Today in Vancouver, the provincial government and B.C. Hydro have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Clean Energy Association of British Columbia that supports continued collaboration to deliver clean, reliable and affordable electricity to British Columbians.

[1355]

The private renewable power industry has grown into an essential part of B.C.’s reliable electricity network. Since 2001, the industry has expanded from supplying 4 percent to nearly 25 percent of B.C. Hydro’s total supplied energy.

Investments in independent power projects are spread throughout the province. They create jobs, often in remote areas and in many First Nations communities. It’s our goal to maintain and grow the IPP industry in British Columbia and to maintain affordable electricity rates and good management of our highly regarded system.

The MOU sets out goals and understandings that will strengthen our competitive advantage of reliable and affordable clean electricity and will support continued investment and growth in the independent power sector. I want to commend B.C. Hydro and CEBC for working together with the government on this MOU, and I want to acknowledge their contribution to making the clean energy sector a vital part of our electrical system.

Clean Energy B.C. has represented the independent power sector for 25 years and has 160 members across a wide range of clean energy technologies. It is a strong and visionary advocate for clean energy in British Columbia and for engineering, financial, environmental and legal firms that support this sector.

Given the scope of B.C.’s energy needs, B.C. Hydro needs a partner to develop the electricity generation projects. The independent power industry has delivered, and we’re going to work together to build upon our partnership in this important sector.

VOLUNTEERISM IN BURNABY

R. Chouhan: Every year, the city of Burnaby has identified and recognized local heroes. These individuals are of diverse interests and backgrounds who give back to

[ Page 9625 ]

their community in a wide variety of ways. Examples of activities include volunteering for a local agency or a community school, coaching a local sports team or helping recent immigrants settle into the community. Their contribution to the community is over five years through a minimum of two activities.

This year, the award recipients were George Doering, Janice Froese, Aliya Jiwa, Maureen Kirk, Lindy McQueen, Heather Podrow, Claire Stegen and Tony Wong. I am pleased to say that I had the honour to nominate two of these recipients, George and Lindy.

George Doering is an 84-year-old young man. He teaches workshops through the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., was a member of the New Vista Society executive for 18 years and has volunteered at my office for a decade. George has been a tireless advocate and volunteer all his life. He has been an instrumental member of the Burnaby-Edmonds community.

Lindy McQueen was nominated for her work in the community at Gordon Presbyterian Church. She recently founded an organization called Edmonds People in Community. In short, it’s known as EPIC. She has organized events like the Music in the Park and has been helping seniors to get community services when they need it.

I want to say thank you to all of them for their dedication, commitment and passion for keeping our community vibrant, safe and enjoyable for all.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO DEATHS OF

YOUTH IN CARE AND AGING OUT OF CARE

J. Horgan: Yesterday we asked the Minister of Children and Family Development about the death of yet another child in care.

Last spring, Peter Lang and his spouse put their son Nick into the care of the ministry to address his serious addiction issues. They did so with some comfort that the ministry and the government would be there for Nick, as they were not able to do so. Regrettably, there were tragic consequences. Six days after going into care, Nick took his life.

We asked the minister yesterday if she would be accountable for her decisions — her decisions with respect to policy, her decisions with respect to funding. She refused to do so.

My question today is to the Premier. Will she take responsibility for funding decisions in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and will she take responsibility for the tragic death of Nick Lang and the consequences for his family?

[1400]

Hon. C. Clark: This is just a tragic loss for Nick’s family, for everybody who loved him, for his foster parents, for the community and for all of us in British Columbia who are concerned about the safety of children in government care.

The ministry works very hard. Social workers put their hearts and souls into this work every single day. It’s the most difficult work that government does. Everybody tries to do their best, but I certainly acknowledge that we have to do better. We have to continue to strive to make sure that the Ministry of Children and Families is meeting current, present-day challenges as the demographics that we serve change, as the needs change. We need to recognize that the work of social workers also changes. We are ensuring that we do that.

There are a number of reviews underway in the ministry. We’re very much looking forward to those reports. We were also happy to receive the representative’s report and have been able to respond to that.

We are learning every day from the things that go well and the things that don’t go well in the ministry. Our challenge, which we are taking up, is to make sure that we take that learning and turn it into action.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It seems to be a continued refrain from the government, talking about yet another review, upon another review, upon another review. But within that rhetoric, there is never accountability — never accountability.

With the case of Nick Lang, it gets worse. Nick Lang’s father, Peter, spoke out because he learned that Carly Fraser, after she lost her life, would not get a review because she had aged out 20 hours and 35 minutes after her 19th birthday. Pete Lang spoke out because of Alex Gervais being left alone in a hotel room without any supports.

What was the response from the government? What was the response of the Ministry of Children and Family Development? They didn’t advise the Lang family of the passing of their child, but they were quick to write a letter. A lawyer wrote to the family and said they were violating the privacy of their dead son. If that’s not the most heartless thing you’ve ever heard…. I would be quite challenged to hear something worse.

My question, again, to the Premier. If we have enough resources to send lawyers’ letters to stifle families looking for answers, why in goodness’ name can we not get resources so that social workers, overburdened, can respond when children die?

Hon. C. Clark: I understand that lawyers at the Ministry of Attorney General have their jobs to do. They follow policy, and they’re working hard as well. But I think it is the obligation of everyone to make sure that when we’re working with the citizens who elect us and who we work for, we respond to them as sensitively as we can.

[ Page 9626 ]

Frankly, that letter that came from the Attorney General’s ministry didn’t represent that kind of kindness, that kind of compassion and the kind of thoughtfulness that was required. I cannot imagine how much pain that family was in, learning of the death of their son. Exactly the wrong time to receive a scolding from government about responding, about the way you respond.

That family wanted to talk about their loss. They needed to talk about it. I think what government should have done — and would have done better — would have been to, rather than send a letter on policy asking them not to speak about it, instead, reach out, welcome the family’s comments and criticisms, and figure out how we could best support them in doing that.

I regret that that letter ever went out. It shouldn’t have. I think we have a greater duty to our citizens than that. As part of the work that the Minister of Children and Families is undertaking now, we intend to make sure that we continue to strive to ensure that the ministry is doing the best that it can, to do better in supporting children who are in our care.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: The Premier’s regret at the actions of her government seems to be a weekly occurrence. In this instance, the most heartless of activities took place. A government employee, under the watch of the Ministry of Attorney General or the Ministry of Children and Family Development, tried to stifle a family that was grieving.

[1405]

Why did they speak out? Because they had seen death after death after death under the care of the Ministry of Children and Families go without accountability.

It’s all well and good for the Premier to stand today and say: “That’s a shame.” Why not, instead, stand today and say, “We will review the loss of Carly Fraser’s life,” which we are apparently not going to do because she aged out 20 hours and 35 minutes after her 19th birthday, before she leapt to her death off the Lions Gate bridge?

Rather than saying, “I’m sorry for the actions of the Ministry of Attorney General or the Ministry of Children and Families,” why not stand and say: “We have 200 fewer social workers now in the Ministry of Children and Family Development than we did in 2002”?

Address the issues. Be accountable. The decisions made by the Premier are directly affecting the lives of children in B.C. Wake up, Premier. Do something about it.

Hon. C. Clark: The number of children who are in the care of the government has dropped to the lowest rate it has been since 1995, and the minister herself, on her watch, has added to the number of front-line workers working in the ministry. She has been working hard, as has the government and as have all of the people who represent the ministry, to make sure that we are doing the best that we can to support the number of children who remain in government care.

There is more, though, as I said, that we can do: the rapid response team model; making sure that service providers are clearly and regularly reminded of their duty to report when someone is at risk of harm; reviewing all of the youth who are in care who live in or are frequently in the Downtown Eastside; a revised policy that is going to allow us to review the fatalities of former youth in care who were up to 20 years of age and who were in care up until they were 19 years of age; and, of course, a cross-jurisdictional look across Canada at how other provinces are dealing with the issues of adults who are transitioning into adulthood from government care.

We believe that there is a lot to be learned from that.

As I said, we are working hard to make sure that we learn all of the lessons that we need to in order to make sure that we are doing the best job we can to protect children in care. This is a very difficult job. It’s one that the people who deliver these services deliver with passion and compassion. But it’s always something that we must strive to do better, and it is something that we are striving to do better.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

FUNDING AND STAFFING

D. Donaldson: Well, Premier, your government has been in power for 14 years. I would think the list of things you just addressed there would have been addressed by now with a government who cared about children in this province.

Madame Speaker: All remarks through the Chair.

D. Donaldson: The representative’s latest report makes it clear that resources are needed to save the lives of children in this ministry.

I’ll quote from that report: “Many social workers are unable to assess children and their families in a timely manner. These children may be left in risky situations.”

Another quote: “Workers’ inabilities to address incoming reports in a timely manner can leave children at risk of future abuse, neglect and maltreatment” — abuse, neglect and maltreatment. B.C. Liberal cuts to this ministry have resulted in tragic consequences.

Why does the Premier continue to starve this ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said in my previous answers, there are 7,200 children in care today, which is the lowest number of children in care that we’ve served in the last 15 years. That’s a significant change and an important one.

We recognize it is much better for children to be supported in their families than to go into government care, wherever possible. That has been a concerted and purpose-

[ Page 9627 ]

ful effort on the part of the ministry and social workers over the last decade — to reduce the number of children who are taken from their roots, who are taken from their families, which happened in record numbers throughout the 1990s, and supported by their families instead.

[1410]

For those children who are in care, though, we recognize that we continue to have a fundamental duty, and that’s to make sure that they are looked after — increasing front-line staff by 21 percent; another 110 child care workers added this year, which is an increase of 11 percent; 273 youth placed for adoption this year, an increase of 21 percent; permanent homes for young people, who, in some cases, have never known where they were going to be celebrating their next birthday. Those are significant changes.

We have much more to do, though. We are striving to make sure…. We’ve set that roadmap to ensure that we are doing those things and making those changes in the right way. We want to make sure that we are protecting the children who are remaining in our care, because we have a fundamental duty to do that.

Madame Speaker: I would caution all members to direct their remarks through the Chair.

D. Donaldson: Well, perhaps the Premier doesn’t keep track of the budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. One hundred million dollars, in real dollars, was lost between 2008 and 2013. I don’t understand how she can stand and say — the Premier, that is — that they support families when that’s the kind of action this government has taken to support families. That’s a cut of $100 million — real dollars.

Every single office the representative visited said that short-staffing has left them unable to protect children. This began when the Premier was Deputy Premier in 2002, when massive cuts were made to this ministry. It continued in 2013, when the Premier and her government slashed the number of child protection workers.

The Premier knows that children are in danger because of these cuts, so why does she continue to starve this ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I think it’s important to correct the record in this chamber, where I know it’s possible for members to say anything that they want. But I’d like to correct the record based on the budget.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: The Ministry of Children and Families, it’s important to note, is one of the very few ministries that has received a budget increase over the last few years. Despite what this member just said, the budget for the ministry has increased by $338 million since 2004-2005, and in this last year, we added another $39 million to the budget. Ninety percent of that goes to support clients in communities. That’s work that is important. That’s why we are continuing to invest in it.

Can we make sure that those resources are deployed better? I’m sure we can. Can we make sure that we are doing more to protect young people? I am sure we can. But the member should not leave anyone with the impression that this is a result of the fact that the government has cut money to the Ministry of Children and Families.

The opposite is true. The budget has grown. The budget has grown in previous years, and the budget has grown this year — proof of our commitment to make sure that we continue to do everything we can, and strive to do better, in protecting the children who depend on us to look after them.

C. James: I’d remind the Premier to go back and look at what happened to the Ministry of Children and Families in 2002 and 2003 and 2004, when the budget was cut, when this government reduced it, and when they got rid of the independent voice so that they wouldn’t have anybody speaking out about the awful things that they were doing against children and families.

I heard this Premier speaking about fewer children in care. Well, when the Premier is speaking about fewer children in care, she’s completely ignoring how Carly Fraser was actually pushed out of care when she was 16. The Premier is ignoring offices so overwhelmed that they don’t even have time to pick up the phones. The Premier is ignoring the fact that during the review of front-line workers, the children’s representative found six cases where children were in danger. Those children weren’t in care before the representative reported them in danger, and that’s nothing to be proud of.

As the Premier said when she was on this side of the House: “It’s not the number of children coming into care. Whether ministry funding is keeping up with the needs that are out there is the fundamental question.”

[1415]

My question is to the Premier. Does she really believe that the children’s ministry has kept up with the needs of children like Paige, like Alex, like Nick?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think it’s important for the members opposite to remember that the safety and the protection of vulnerable children in this province is and will always remain the top priority of this ministry.

It is evident, I believe, through the work that we’ve done over the last number of years — especially with the addition of 110 new front-line workers and the promise and the commitment to another 90 by the end of this year — that we are meeting that commitment. We are absolutely, steadfastly committed to the children of this province and to ensuring their safety and that our front-

[ Page 9628 ]

line workers have the tools and resources they need to do that work.

Madame Speaker: Member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The Premier knows that care standards aren’t being met. The Premier knows that they can’t be met without additional resources, and it’s not simply just a lack of social workers. It’s also a lack of appropriate care facilities. It’s a lack of mental health resources, and it’s a lack of leadership in this ministry and from this Premier.

What will it take for this Premier to admit that her choices have left children in this province in danger?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The improvements in the Ministry of Children and Families continue, with the addition of front-line workers; with changes in how we do business to reflect the changing times, taking administrative duties away from the front line so they can spend more time working directly with families; with changes to how we do social work to ensure that we put in place family development response, providing supports to families so children aren’t taken into care.

There are substantial improvements on an ongoing basis. We’re leading Canada in our youth justice outcomes in British Columbia. We are up in the number of children being placed for adoption, which is finding permanent homes for children and youth. The ministry provides supports to families in the way of child care. That spending is up. The number of children in care turning 19 with a Dogwood diploma has increased from 22 percent to 27 percent in just a couple of years.

These are improvements that are examples of the hard work of the front line of the Ministry of Children and Families on an ongoing basis — the continual improvements and the continual hard work and efforts that are put into protecting children in this province.

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO

DEATH OF ALEX GERVAIS

S. Fraser: The Premier appointed Grand Chief Ed John as her adviser on aboriginal children in care. He is a man well known to British Columbians and respected by all in this House.

On October 6, Grand Chief Ed John and the First Nations Leadership Council called on the Premier to launch an independent investigation and inquiry into the death of Alex Gervais. It’s pretty clear that the Premier has stopped listening, certainly, to the families of children like Nick and Carly who are asking for investigations. Will the Premier…? How is she going to respond to that same request from her own respected adviser?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member knows, this ministry has a number of processes and policies and external mechanisms in place to provide scrutiny and oversight. That is essential in a ministry that is doing the work with vulnerable children in the province. We welcome that oversight, and it is vast.

[1420]

The appointment of Grand Chief Ed John as a special adviser to me is an example of our commitment to working with First Nations peoples to improve the outcomes for children and youth in this province. Chief Ed John and I share a commitment to that work. We share an understanding that that work can only be successful when we work directly with First Nations communities and hear from them about how best to achieve that work, and that is what we’re going to do together.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I’m not questioning Grand Chief Ed John’s commitment.

I’d like to quote from his letter, as a matter of fact. “We are extremely concerned that the Premier’s inflammatory comments to the media blaming a delegated agency have negatively impacted the whole bureaucracy’s ability to assess Alex Gervais’ death.” Further, he says: “When the ministry fails to protect children from harm, the Premier defends social workers in superior courts. When a delegated agency fails to protect children from harm, she vows consequences.”

Given these comments from her own adviser, will the Premier call for an independent inquiry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As we’ve spoken about numerous times in this House, there are policies in place when there is a death of a child in care.

In the case of a tragedy like this, the provincial director of child welfare has the authority and responsibility to conduct a review. A review is underway into the case specified. When that review is complete, it is forwarded to the independent Representative for Children and Youth, at which point, if the representative feels it is required, she can launch an investigation of her own.

MOUNTAIN VIEW FACILITY CLOSING AND

MENTAL HEALTH BEDS IN FRASER VALLEY

S. Hammell: My question is to the Minister of Health.

J.K. was referred to Mountain View Home from a psychiatric ward in Abbotsford Regional Hospital for care and treatment. He was doing well and was safely housed there for four years.

Then Fraser Health Authority moved him to a more independent setting in the city of Abbotsford. Shortly after, he ended up back in the Abbotsford Regional psychiatric ward for months, then to Cypress Lodge at Riverview in

[ Page 9629 ]

tertiary care. He wanted to go back to Mountain View, but he did not have a referral.

Now there’s a Canada-wide warrant out for his arrest. A Corrections bed costs $74,000 a year. An acute care bed costs over $1,000 a day.

My question to the minister is: why close a cost-effective facility like Mountain View that can support people like J.K. to live a satisfied and meaningful life?

Hon. T. Lake: We canvassed the issue of Mountain View yesterday extensively, but I’m happy to repeat the fact that Fraser Health is designing a model of care that increases the number of spaces available for mental health patients and, also, the flexibility to continue 24-7 residential care at a new Marshall Road facility one year from now.

In addition, there will be assisted living and more independent living for those patients and families that feel that they would like a different approach and a continuum of care that takes them back to community on their journey with their mental health issues. That, I believe, is the right thing to do.

What also is the right thing to do is ensure that Fraser Health works with each and every family to help them understand the transition and to make sure they are comfortable with that transition. That is what Fraser Health is going to do.

[1425]

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: On October 8, the Health Minister released a discussion paper on mental health to 180 stakeholders that stated our province’s mental health system is founded on the principle of recovery, and recovery “refers to living a satisfied, hopeful and meaningful life as defined by the individual.”

The minister proudly releases a discussion paper stating the mental health system will be based on the principle of recovery and, on the other hand, closes a facility with an excellent record of supporting recovery for people with severe and persistent mental illnesses like J.K.

My question to the minister is: why are you closing 25 desperately needed licensed care beds when the evidence is clear that the region needs the beds at Mountain View as well as the new beds promised in 2016?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said to the member yesterday, the closure in one year of Mountain View, of 25 beds, will be replaced with 50 beds at the Marshall Road facility — 50 beds.

The member mentioned that every patient, and their families, should be treated individually for the kind of recovery that they are seeking to have and have comfort with their pathway to recovery. That is why Fraser Health is working with each and every one of these families to ensure that they get the kind of treatment that their families and the patients involved require at the new facility that will open one year from now. This is an increase of services to the people of the Fraser Valley, and that is something that we’re very proud of.

BY-ELECTIONS FOR

VACANT SEATS IN LEGISLATURE

S. Simpson: It’s been over 100 days since Jenny Kwan resigned her seat as the MLA for Mount Pleasant on July 8. It’s been two months since Doug Horne resigned as the MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on August 14. Yet no by-elections have been called to ensure that the constituents in those two areas have the elected representation they deserve. Contrast this with West Kelowna, where it took the Premier seven days to call a by-election for herself after Ben Stewart announced his resignation.

Will the Premier allow the citizens of Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain the same rights to representation as the people of West Kelowna and finally call these by-elections?

Hon. C. Clark: I mean, what the member doesn’t point out is that, you know, there’s been the longest federal election in Canadian history underway since the member for Disneyland headed off to Ottawa to get on the rides out there. But the….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order. Members.

Hon. C. Clark: Let me say this. Certainly, we want to make sure that the people in those communities are represented in this Legislature as soon as possible and very much looking forward to the chance of getting a campaign underway, because when we get that campaign underway, we can get a chance to talk about the difference between what the NDP candidates stand for and what the B.C. Liberal candidates stand for.

While on that that side of the House, those folks spend all of their time thinking about just simply how they can make living in poverty easier, on this side of the House, we are thinking about how we can lift thousands of people out of poverty. They want to make the services that we provide more expensive. We want to make the services we provide better and higher quality. They believe that shutting our doors to the world is the way to create jobs. We believe that opening them up and welcoming the world in is the way to create jobs.

[1430]

I’ll finish with this. The difference between us and them is ultimately this. They are afraid of change. We

[ Page 9630 ]

welcome it. They look at the future, and they fear it. We look at the future, and we feel hope.

[End of question period.]

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the gallery, I just noticed the pride of B.C. — pride of Canada, I could say — who, with his wrestling skills, made us nationally and internationally proud. I can’t forget the moment when, one evening, I turned the TV on. Here he was, Arjan Bhullar, winning a gold medal for Canada at the Commonwealth Games.

He has decided to settle down. I think the biggest medal that he won is when Nina Dhaliwal, one of my favourites, said yes to him — to get married. Please help me welcome both to this House.

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have the honour to present the 2014-2015 annual report of the Islands Trust.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: The business of the day. I call committee stage on Bill 34.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

A. Dix: We’re going to bring the debate on this legislation to an end. I just wanted to briefly summarize the debate from our perspective.

The Red Tape Reduction Act was brought into this Legislature without due consultation, without anything like the consultation on any of the other days we’ve legislated in the House. It was, unlike all those days, a reflection of the government’s attempt to create wedge issues rather than to take seriously the issues facing British Columbia. It diminished, I would argue, other days that have, I think, a more solemn and collective purpose.

We asked the minister repeatedly why red-tape-reduction day met the standard of Terry Fox Day, Holocaust Memorial Day, B.C. Day, Douglas Day and Family Day. The minister was completely unable to answer this question, refused to answer the question and simply failed to provide any explanation as to why we would take a measure that has engendered serious debate in this House and brought people together and use it as a technique to divide people.

The minister was asked about other days that are proclaimed by cabinet, because red-tape reduction had already been proclaimed this year by cabinet — all those days from Child and Youth Day to World Pancreatic Cancer Day, to National UNICEF Day, to Every Girl Matters Day. The minister was unable to explain why this measure was more important than those measures and required legislative action. The minister was unable to cite any other jurisdiction that has done this, and the ones that she attempted to cite were proposed legislation that did very different things and that had specific measures.

The minister repeatedly claimed there were things in the legislation that aren’t in the legislation, including requirements for government action. All this bill does is proclaim a day, and, given the fact that all it does is legislate a day, and given that the government had already proclaimed a day, it failed to deliver in that sense.

If you look at what every jurisdiction in Canada does, this kind of behaviour is really an insult. It’s not serious. It’s not a serious reflection of support for small business, which I think has the support of everybody in this House. Instead, it’s an effort by the government to take something real and important, something that we’ve used to memorialize the Holocaust and recognize our collective success as a province, and turn it into a cheap trick by the Liberal Party.

In short, is this an irrelevant measure? Yes. Is this the government wasting our time? Yes. Is it harmless? I suppose so, since it doesn’t do anything, as we’ve established in this committee stage debate.

In short, what we have is an effort by the government that has consequences. Those consequences have been to show that this government, unlike all the previous governments of all the different partisan stripes, and this minister, unlike all the other ministers, think that anything goes and that if you can play tricks and divide, parliamentary tricks are what we do.

Well, that’s not what any party has done in the past. That’s not what Premier Bennett did. That’s not what Premier Barrett did. That’s not what Premier Harcourt did or Premier Clark did. That’s not what Premier Campbell did. None of them used these measures. Until now, that’s not what this Premier has done either. After

[ Page 9631 ]

all, we came together to establish Terry Fox Day in this session of this parliament.

I think, to summarize the debate, there has been no defence by the government to the questions we’ve asked. No answers to those questions. An attempt to claim things that are in the bill that aren’t in the bill. How do we know this? Because we can read the bill in about three seconds. We have, I suppose, a reflection of tactics at work in politics.

I think all of us oppose unnecessary regulation. Sometimes, in society, we have a debate about what is necessary and what isn’t.

[1440]

That is a good debate and a hopeful debate. Government and oppositions in this Legislature should be working on that every day.

What we have here, instead, is a new law, an increase in the legislative and regulatory burden, designed simply for the Liberal Party to acquire what belongs to the people of British Columbia — namely, the right to celebrate and to recognize special moments in our future, in our life today and in our past.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is an ongoing strategy that we have, to support small businesses in British Columbia. The test we have is that small businesses across British Columbia have continued to tell us that reducing red tape and ensuring that we have that top of mind is important, to ensure that we are creating jobs in British Columbia and that we retain our commitment to growing our economy.

The member opposite mentioned that no other jurisdiction in Canada has similar legislation. Well, we believe, in this House, that we should be looking at best practices that exist around the globe. We know firsthand that jurisdictions such as what we had recognized in Australia do in fact have legislation that has a regulatory-reduction day. It’s twice a year in Australia. When you are able to measure performance, it ensures that we are able to see significant things happen.

That is why the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has graded British Columbia with a grade A — because of the continued effort, the continued leadership, the continued vision that this government has towards ensuring that we have successful small businesses in British Columbia.

We also recognize that this is an opportunity for us to look at the success we’ve had with the small business community to enhance it, to ensure that we are looking at the same types of efficiencies that we’ve seen in the small business sector and to move it cross-ministry to every single ministry. We’ve defined clearly the purpose of this bill as part of our ongoing strategy to ensuring we have success in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: I do have a final question on

section 1. But before I start, I would like to address that comment, because it is relevant.

Frankly, this government does not have a vision. The vision they sold British Columbians on was one of wealth and prosperity for one and all from a vibrant LNG industry, this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that they are continually chasing. The reality is that this misled British Columbians because it was never in the cards, because the economic reality was that LNG was not coming to British Columbia soon or anytime soon.

In a desperate attempt to divert British Columbians’ attention away from their disastrous policies — yes, disastrous policies — on LNG, they bring us red-tape-reduction day. And in doing so, they’re trying to repurpose their campaign for 2017 to try to rebrand themselves as the party of small business. But they are not the party of small business. A party of small business would not throw small business under the bus and, in a desperate attempt to try to bring LNG here, send a signal to the clean-tech sector that they’re not welcome in B.C. — desperately trying to bring them back.

This is a cynical bill. It is a bill that will do nothing for the betterment of British Columbia. My question to the minister is this. It’s a question that is also in the mind of the member for Delta South. How much of the B.C. taxpayers’ money is the government going to waste to promote this bill, to create staff to administer it, to actually promote this day across schools? How much money? And how much red tape is being introduced in B.C. through the passage of this bill?

The Chair: Can I call the question on

section 1?

[1445]

A. Dix: A point of order. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head asked how much the minister expected the bill to cost B.C. taxpayers, in terms of all the things she claims are happening with respect to it. We’d be very interested in the answer.

Interjections.

A. Dix: No, no. I get to stand up in my place and speak. I say to the Minister of Jobs — which I’m doing right now. Under the rules of the House….

Interjections.

A. Dix: I’m just saying that the member asked the most basic question you can ask: how much does it cost? The minister, I was about to say — before I started getting heckled by the Minister of Health, who must be embarrassed about this — has every right not to answer, of course — stay in her seat and not answer how much it costs. But the record will show that she was unable to answer that question.

[ Page 9632 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: We are using existing government staff in my ministry and the government’s citizen engagement team to support this initiative.

G. Heyman: To the minister: if you’re using existing government staff, what other functions that they would normally do will they not be doing?

Hon. C. Oakes: As this is a new ministry and the ministry is Small Business and Red Tape Reduction, this is an initiative that is part of our ministry.

G. Heyman: If that’s the case, perhaps the minister could answer the question as to how much this is going to cost.

Hon. C. Oakes: It will be the third Wednesday in March. We’ll be using existing resources that we have within our ministry to achieve that.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1450]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT

Bill 34, Red Tape Reduction Day Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1455]

YEAS — 70

Lee

Sturdy

Hogg

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Letnick

Bernier

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Dix

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Austin

Fraser

Martin

Larson

Foster

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

D. Routley

Dalton

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

Chouhan

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 2

Huntington

Weaver

Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading on Bill 35.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2015

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 35 be read a second time now.

Throughout the spring and summer of 2015, two very significant coroners’ inquests were undertaken in the province. The first of the two considered the circumstances surrounding the incredibly tragic deaths of Glenn Roche and Alan Little, who were working at the Lakeland sawmill in Prince George when an explosion occurred. On May 14, 2015, the coroner’s jury issued the formal verdicts respecting the tragedy and provided 33 recommendations aimed at both government and non-government organizations.

The second inquest examined the deaths of Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie, who also tragically died in a separate mill explosion which occurred in Burns Lake at the Babine sawmill. The Babine inquest issued its verdict on July 31, 2015, along with 41 recommendations also aimed at both government and non-government organizations.

[1500]

Of the 74 recommendations flowing from the two inquests, 40 were directed to the provincial government or provincial government agencies such as WorkSafe B.C. As the Minister Responsible for Labour, I have taken the lead role in coordinating the response to the coroner’s office and following up with my colleagues across government to ensure that the recommendations are considered carefully and that the appropriate action is undertaken on them.

[ Page 9633 ]

I want to say that the coroner jury recommendations were very thoughtful, and in fact, they provide us with numerous opportunities to act in ways that will further the safety of workers in this province and help prevent accidents like those that occurred at the Lakeland and Babine mills from happening again. In addition, action on the recommendations creates, as we have said previously, a legacy for families who so tragically lost their loved ones in these two tragedies.

I recently sent a letter to the chief coroner setting out government’s response, to date, related to the Lakeland inquest recommendations that were directed to the provincial government and its associated agencies. That letter is available to the public on the coroner’s website. Shortly I will send a similar response for the Babine inquest recommendations, once government receives the chief coroner’s formal request for our response. We will provide updates to the coroner as further action is undertaken by the government in the future.

With that brief background, I want to speak more specifically to the bill that is before us today.

This bill addresses recommendations to my ministry from both inquests. Among the two sets of coroner jury recommendations, five of those recommendations specifically called for amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. Bill 35 responds with legislative amendments to directly respond to all five of the recommendations.

In response to recommendation 11 issued by the coroner’s jury into the Lakeland tragedy, Bill 35 requires employers to immediately report to WorkSafe B.C. all workplace fires or explosions that have the potential to cause serious injury to a worker. This will be an important contribution to ensuring worker safety through proactive awareness and appropriate follow-up at WorkSafe B.C.

The Lakeland jury heard evidence at the inquest that there were two significant explosions, fires, at the Lakeland mill in January 2012, which were not reported to WorkSafe B.C. or fire officials. The jury rightly determined that near misses should be treated as important opportunities to consider and alleviate risks, and we agree.

In response to recommendation 30 issued by the coroner’s jury into the Babine tragedy, Bill 35 requires disclosure of employer investigation reports to the workplace health and safety committee or worker health and safety representative. This amendment will help ensure that lessons learned in the face of a workplace accident are communicated to health and safety committees.

In response to recommendation 9 from the Lakeland inquest, Bill 35 specifies meaningful participation for worker and employer representatives in employer accident investigations. The amendments lay out specifically that worker and employer representatives may be involved in viewing the accident site, providing advice during the employer investigation.

In response to recommendation 7 from the Lakeland inquest, Bill 35 specifies that workplace health and safety committees should provide advice to the employer on significant proposed equipment and machinery changes that may affect worker health and safety.

Here, the intent is that in the term “significant,” that term will be read in conjunction with the existing requirement that the proposed changes in question are ones which may affect the health and safety of workers. In this context, significant proposed changes to workplace equipment or machinery are changes that would affect health and safety risk factors associated with the work as opposed to changes that are more cosmetic in nature or relate to financial, productivity or technological changes that are not directly connected to the safety of workers.

[1505]

Finally, in response to recommendation 29 from the Babine inquest, Bill 35 will allow WorkSafe B.C. to proactively assist health and safety committees in resolving disagreements over health and safety matters.

These proposed amendments are not revolutionary in the sense of drastic changes to the Workers Compensation Act. But they are evolutionary in the sense that they offer meaningful and practical changes that will contribute to worker safety in all workplaces in British Columbia — and not just in sawmills, where these events occurred.

It should be stressed that Bill 35 and the work done by the coroner jury inquests more broadly build on the amendments we made to the Workers Compensation Act through Bill 9 earlier this year. Those amendments implemented recommendations contained in Gord Macatee’s action plan for WorkSafe B.C. to improve worker safety in the province, particularly in B.C. sawmills; to establish a world-class inspection and enforcement regime at WorkSafe B.C.; and to help make workplaces safer, to help prevent accidents like the 2012 sawmill explosions from happening again.

The amendments proposed here in Bill 35 are one more step in ensuring worker safety. They reflect government’s commitment to fully address the coroner jury recommendations made to my ministry.

Finally, in terms of the bill specifically, I should mention that this legislation does include several other amendments which are not related directly to the coroner’s recommendations but which address WorkSafe B.C. administrative practices. It’s always my view that when you are going to make amendments to a bill and there are other things that you can correct at the same time rather than make frequent trips to the Legislature, you should be judicious about that and include those things that you can include at that time.

I made the decision to include a change in the annual due dates for WorkSafe B.C.’s annual report and service plan to move it in line with other publicly accountable enterprises. That’s necessary because in 2012, WorkSafe B.C., like those other agencies, those other enterprises, adopted international financial reporting standards.

[ Page 9634 ]

WorkSafe B.C. has an extremely complex investment portfolio. I have been asked by the critic opposite about this several times: why isn’t WorkSafe actually meeting their target? What I’d rather do is make sure they have a target they can actually meet. Because of the complexity in the returns of the portfolio, we need to adjust the date. This will allow WorkSafe to be in compliance and do the work that they need to do. It also standardizes the approach across other agencies.

The legislation also updates the annual report and service plan provisions to be consistent with other provincial legislation. It requires WorkSafe to deliver the annual report to the minister rather than the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The legislation also requires that the report be tabled with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislature is not in session when the minister receives the report so that it can be made public in a more timely way. There was a requirement that often precluded us from being able to table the report in a timely way, since it has to be tabled in the Legislature. We’re going to make the adjustment so that it can be tabled with the Clerk.

Bill 35 also repeals the requirement that cabinet must approve changes to the superannuation or pension plan. This amendment, again, streamlines a process that consumes considerable government resources without really adding meaningful value to the process. Once again, it brings WorkSafe into line with public agencies, such as ICBC, who manage changes to their pensions without formal cabinet approval. It’s done by many other agencies. In fact, WorkSafe was an outlier, and there’s no need for us to continue that practice.

But the primary purpose of this bill…. There has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of days about the need for us to be here, about running out of agenda items and that there’s no work to be done. I consider this bill and these amendments essential. One of the things that allowed us to do the work that we did as quickly as we could, based on the inquest and the recommendations that were provided, was the ability for us to bring these changes forward quickly.

Families deserve that. Communities deserve that. Most importantly, workers across this province deserve that. This bill is completely intended to implement the recommendations that were made by the jury inquests that requested that legislative changes be made.

[1510]

I am sure that there are ways that we could have looked at making these changes, other ways that did not require legislative amendments. But when I reviewed all of the recommendations and the reasons behind them, it was important that these changes be made and be made permanently and reflect the weight of the law in British Columbia.

So I made the decision to bring these amendments based on the fact that I think it is the least we can do to show families that the inquest had meaning, that government took all of the recommendations seriously, and we continue to work aggressively on the ones that are directed to government directly but also to agencies like WorkSafe.

I urge members to go and look at the letter that I have sent to the chief coroner, which details in very specific detail how each recommendation is being managed. We will continue to update that letter and others as we move forward.

It’s also my hope that there are others who have received recommendations from the inquests. There are the steelworkers, there are employers, and there are others. I am hopeful that those recommendations will be taken as seriously and dealt with as expeditiously as we are attempting to do here today and in other work that’s been done.

Again, I’m going to end my comments by simply saying that while this may seem like very little to offer families who have lost their loved ones, it is also an important step in, I hope, creating a legacy to those families and those workers who lost their lives or were injured.

I hope that, today, it will bring some small measure of comfort knowing that the recommendations of the inquest are not going to gather dust. They are not going to sit on a shelf somewhere. We have taken them seriously, and these amendments, I hope, will speak to the families about the seriousness with which we take the recommendations that were provided by the jury in both circumstances.

Thank you for allowing me to make those opening comments, Mr. Speaker.

S. Simpson: I look forward to being able to participate in the debate on Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, and I would note for you, hon. Speaker, that I am the designated speaker for the purposes of this piece of legislation.

As the minister said, the reason that we’re debating, that Bill 35 is before us now, goes back to the results of the juries of two coroners’ inquests and the recommendations of those juries.

These are juries that made recommendations based on two of the most tragic industrial accidents in the history of this province. They are the coroner’s jury for the Babine explosion in Burns Lake on January 20, 2012 — an explosion that killed Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie and injured many others and devastated that community.

This legislation is a response to the coroner’s jury recommendations from the Lakeland disaster on April 23, 2012, just a couple of short months after Babine, where Glenn Roche and Alan Little were killed. Again, many others were seriously injured and had their lives affected, as the families of those who passed away had their lives affected in ways that they may never truly recover from.

[1515]

When those accidents, those things, occurred, there was shock — a lot of shock when the Babine explosion happened. And we know from that that there were a lot

[ Page 9635 ]

of questions that were raised by Babine in how WorkSafe B.C. did their job, how the company did their job, how the union did their job, how everybody did their job and in where the shortfalls and the holes had been that had allowed this to happen — an explosion that we now know was caused primarily by dust buildup — a fine dust called a flour by some — which largely came from the nature of beetle-kill wood.

That explosion, I think, shook everybody. But in some ways, the Lakeland explosion was even more shocking because it came months later, after Babine. There had not been, it appears…. We’ll talk about this. Arguably, the inquests’ findings themselves suggest that there was not the kind of action that you would expect to be taken by the regulators between Babine and Lakeland and what occurred, not the kind of action that might have helped to ensure that Lakeland didn’t occur. We don’t know that, and we’ll never know that, but there are serious questions to be asked there.

This legislation, Bill 35, deals, as the minister said, primarily with issues that relate to the joint health and safety committee, their powers of investigation, how those investigations will move forward and how they will proceed. They talk to a situation that we now know….

I had the opportunity to sit through a few days of the Lakeland inquest in Prince George and to listen to testimony from some of the workers who survived the Lakeland explosion.

They talked about their challenges and their concerns that they expressed at various times about the dust buildup — whether that dust buildup was a risk to them and their co-workers — and about what appears certainly to be the lack of an effective, functioning joint health and safety committee at the Lakeland mill, a committee that should have been involved in investigations back in January when incidents occurred at Lakeland immediately preceding the explosion at Babine, but a committee that for all intents and purposes appears to have been dysfunctional and not working.

What this legislation, it’s my sense, appears to do is to try to address some of the jury recommendations that were put forward to improve that situation. The jury did a good job. I think there are questions about whether the inquest was the appropriate venue for this discussion. The minister will know, the House will know that we on this side and some others called for an independent inquiry, and the government chose the coroner’s inquest as the appropriate venue to do this investigation.

The juries did a good job. There were challenges around those coroners’ inquests. We’ve spoken about that before — critique from our side around whether the families, in particular, had the kind of representation they should have at those inquests. They didn’t have legal counsel of their own. They were represented…. The government and the minister and the coroner said they were represented by coroner’s counsel and that that was the appropriate venue. It was our view that they should have had counsel of their own to allow them to make determinations about appropriate questions that needed to be asked.

We’ve debated that here. We’ve debated it in estimates. We debated it in Bill 9. We have a different view from the government on what should have occurred, but what happened did happen. The inquest happened. There’s a series of recommendations.

I’ve spoken to a number of the parties who have followed this closely, and those parties would all tell you that the juries worked hard and worked with integrity and that the recommendations that they put forward, if they’re implemented and managed properly and enforced properly, will make for a better situation in these kinds of workplaces.

[1520]

The juries deserve credit for that, and they deserve our thanks for that. I heard enough of the testimony, and I didn’t hear but a bit of what they listened to every day. It was not an easy job. It was a challenging and difficult job and pretty heart-wrenching, at times, to sit through those events.

What is the situation that we face, then, with this bill? We had the two explosions. We had the explosions that created this incident. We know from what we’ve read, from what we see in the coroners’ inquests, that there’s a recognition that there were levels of negligence here. There were things that should have been done by parties to this.

I believe there was negligence on the part of the companies in terms of how they managed their responsibilities around cleanup and around ensuring that those workplaces were appropriately taken care of.

There was negligence, clearly, as it relates to WorkSafe B.C. I know that everybody in this House is aware of that. I know the minister is aware of that. I know the minister and the government…. The action that they took essentially led to the removal of Mr. Anderson, leaving as the president and the CEO, the appointment of Mr. Macatee as an administrator to come in and do quite extensive work, the criticism that came when WorkSafe B.C. was looking to recommend the potential for charges under the act, which the RCMP and the criminal justice branch declined to take forward.

They felt that critical evidence, among other things, may have been compromised by the nature of the investigations of WorkSafe, which would not allow them to take that forward as a potential prosecution. That, I think, was really devastating for everybody.

The other frustration there — and we saw this in the coroner’s inquest — was the frustration that the family felt. I think it was probably one of the primary frustrations around the process of the inquest versus, say, an inquiry. Those families and those workers who survived and those workers who saw their co-workers killed in those terrible, terrible accidents wanted to know who was responsible. They wanted somebody to be held accountable, somebody to be held responsible.

[ Page 9636 ]

We all know, and it is the nature of a coroner’s inquest, that that’s not what inquests do. They look to see if they can provide some insight and some recommendation as to how to correct the problems that are identified in any given circumstance.

In this case, there were significant problems, and the coroners and the juries made those recommendations to try to correct those problems. But it left the families…. I know after speaking to the families at Lakeland after that inquest that they continued to feel the frustration about not having the answers to the questions that, for them, were the most fundamental questions.

They may be questions that they will never get a definitive answer to. Certainly, those families have their view of what occurred. They believe that they have a pretty good idea of where the responsibility lies, but that will never be conclusive because of the nature of the inquest process.

With WorkSafe, as I said…. Many of these recommendations, as the minister says…. The legislation, I should say, is focused very much on dealing with four or five key clauses in the Workers Compensation Act. We’ll get to the specifics of those in a minute.

We know that there are fundamental challenges. We saw Bill 9, which the minister referenced in her opening comments to Bill 35. Bill 9 was essentially about trying to address some of the issues related to how investigations work and creating the necessary firewalls to allow investigations to work — some other changes around that.

[1525]

It’s my belief that there are other steps that should have been taken there, including the notion — we know this has been done in the past — of seconding a prosecutor to work closely with WorkSafe. But the decision was made not to go that route, and fair enough. That’s a decision that the government made.

We will see over the coming period of time…. Hopefully, we won’t see a kind of tragedy like this where we have to revisit it again. I believe that the reality is that we will see, in time, whether in fact the changes that Bill 9 created do provide the levels of separation and controls on investigatory practices that will be necessary to ensure that if criminal charges are warranted, the criminal justice branch has confidence that the evidence they need can be gathered in a way that will allow them to advance charges, if that’s what they see fit, and not have that compromised.

To be fair there, the issue, of course, is that the investigation and evidence related to a criminal activity set a higher bar, quite frankly, than an investigation related to a workplace accident. We know that you need to approach these in different ways if you believe that, ultimately, you’re looking at the potential of a criminal charge, a criminal prosecution.

WorkSafe hasn’t done that. They did not do that well. Some of that, I think, is a cultural problem with WorkSafe, a problem that I hope will be corrected. I hope there’s some change in the thinking. WorkSafe has come a long way from, I think, 1917 or whenever it was that the Workers Compensation Board was put in place. It has evolved.

We know that the Workers Compensation Board…. This was a bargain, and it was a deal. It was a deal that said: “We’re going to create this institution that will protect workers by trying to have proper oversight and prevention procedures that make workplaces as safe as they can reasonably be made. We will take care of workers and provide income and rehabilitation and support for workers who are injured on the job.” In return for that, litigation is off the table. There will be no litigation. There will be no suits. And employers will essentially pay for that structure.

The model is a good model. The model is a model that has worked for a long time. The challenge that we’ve seen over the last number of years, I believe, is that WorkSafe has become much more of an insurer. I’ve had people who pay close attention — whether they be legal counsel that take WorkSafe cases and legislation, whether they be others who are active around this — talk about WorkSafe as becoming much like an insurance company that provides that protection and has a concern about premium costs. We should all worry about costs. But their concern is whether those premium costs and how those are handled have swung too far. Is that a detriment to the interests of workers?

This is a bigger discussion than Bill 35. It’s a discussion that needs to be had, and it’s a discussion that we need to proceed as we move forward. Bill 35 — much like Bill 9, much like the work of Mr. Macatee, much like the public debate that happened because of the tragedies of Babine and Lakeland — has stimulated and motivated a great amount of that discussion in a whole lot of places. That is a good thing. It’s very sad that it took tragedies and deaths to generate that discussion, but it clearly has done that. It has generated that discussion. We’re going to pursue that discussion, and we will see, as we move forward, how we engage that.

[1530]

When you look at what happened and at some of the challenges with what happened…. I think about maybe one of the biggest ones. Again, I spoke to the issue of Lakeland in particular, because Babine was a tragic, tragic situation.

What is most difficult is that we saw little, if anything, that suggested that we had learned much from Babine that might have helped to have not had Lakeland occur. When I read the verdict of the coroner’s inquest for Glenn Roche, on page 3…. These are the presiding coroner’s comments, the comments of Ms. Lapointe, the chief coroner, who presided over the Lakeland situation.

She talks about the concerns that were raised there that are reflected, I believe, in the need to have committees that are much more proactive and much more engaged. I’ll look forward to talking more about 174, 175

[ Page 9637 ]

and 176, about whether, in fact, the engagement and the level of investigation that is intended in this legislation actually gets there. We’ll go through those quite specifically in a minute.

As the coroner said in her observations:

“Several workers testified that they had been concerned about increased dust accumulations at the mill in the months prior to the explosion. A number of reasons were offered for this, including the addition of a third shift, the lack of time for regular cleaning, disagreements about cleaning responsibilities and ongoing problems with the baghouse, a device designed to filter sawdust and other particulates from the air. Most significantly, the wood processed at the mill had become significantly drier over the years, as much of it was beetle-kill wood.

“The inquest was told that when the baghouse went down, workers couldn’t breathe or see. The company had built boxes for the paper dust masks that workers would don when the dust became extreme.”

There was a problem here. This was not functioning in a way that a reasonable person should expect one of those mills to function. Yet there was little or no action. The coroner goes on to say:

“During the week of January 16, 2012, there were two explosions and resulting fires at Lakeland Mill — the first on January 17 and the second on January 19. The first was caused by a motor and was quickly extinguished by workers. The second occurred as a result of sparks when a saw contacted metal at the large head-rig. The resulting explosion sent a fireball approximately 30 feet into the air.

“Workers using extinguishers from above and beside the fire eventually put it out, but many testified that they were increasingly afraid of a catastrophic event. Though numerous millworkers testified that they had significant concerns about the cleanliness of the mill and had raised the concerns with managers, these concerns were not reflected in the minutes of the safety committee meetings, nor were they reported to the union.

“Nobody refused work on the grounds that it was unsafe, though Mr. Little” — who died in the explosion — “reacting to concerns by workers, shut the mill down twice for cleaning. While there were concerns about dust accumulation and dust as fuel, the combustibility of wood dust wasn’t well understood amongst workers.”

I would go back and reference that when the coroner talks about those two fires, and the second one on January 19, the fireball 30 feet in the air, that was one day before Babine. The next day, on January 20, the explosion at Babine occurred. Workers were killed; the mill was levelled; people suffered serious, serious injuries; and a community was devastated.

Somehow, neither of these incidents, January 17 or January 19, were deemed important enough for a report and an investigation. WorkSafe says they were never told about them. They were never deemed important enough, and it does come back to the question, certainly, of a functioning committee. But it also comes to the question of what was occurring with WorkSafe B.C.

[1535]

I go on further. About two weeks after that incident, the January 19 incident, that the jury, and I’m again quoting from the coroner’s observations:

“The jury heard that on February 6, 2012, a WorkSafe B.C. occupational safety officer and an occupational hygiene officer had visited Lakeland mill in response to an anonymous call to WorkSafe B.C., expressing concern about large amounts of sawdust at the mill. The call had been received a few days after January 20, 2012, when an explosion and fire had decimated the Babine Forest Products mill in Burns Lake, resulting in the deaths of two workers.

“The occupational safety officer testified that he wasn’t aware of the hazards of combustible dust. He determined that conditions at Lakeland mill on February 6 didn’t warrant a housekeeping order but that the mill was the dirtiest he had ever seen. He testified that Lakeland had previously been a clean mill. He also stated that at the time, he had no reference point with which to assess dust levels. The occupational hygiene officer testified that she did know about combustible dust, but reported that she didn’t observe a violation on the February 6 visit.”

This raises serious questions about what was going on here. I accept what WorkSafe B.C. told me, as the president told me, that WorkSafe was never told about the January 19 explosion — fireball — at Lakeland and that the company should be culpable for that.

As we know, even though WorkSafe recommended charges related to other matters on the mill, they were never going to proceed. But WorkSafe had their people there a little over two weeks later, on the sixth of February, in a situation in which one of them, the occupational safety officer, said that the mill was the dirtiest he had ever seen it. They did not order anything. They did not order cleanup. They did not order housekeeping. They did not say to the company: “You need to act now, and this mill is not operating until you clean it up.” WorkSafe has to be responsible for that. They have to be responsible for that.

We know that there has been no shortage of work done, primarily in the United States over the last number of years, on the issue of combustible dust. There’s been significant work done, and research and science, in the United States over the last number of years on combustible dust. We know that WorkSafe is a sophisticated, large organization, an organization that works closely with their counterparts internationally.

How is it that you get safety officers going out to investigate a situation like that and saying: “I didn’t have knowledge about the potential of combustible dust. I didn’t understand this issue. I’m going out to look at a mill, and I’m going out to look at a mill that I say is the dirtiest I have ever seen it. Somehow, I walk out of that mill, and I don’t do a further review”?

The question I have is for the administration of WorkSafe — the leadership of WorkSafe, which passes policy all the time — which has a regulatory regime that they are responsible for. WorkSafe is a quasi-legislative body in many ways. They get to adopt policy and adopt regulation that never goes for order-in-council, that never comes to this place. They have that authority at WorkSafe. That authority comes with an additional responsibility.

How is it that there is not the responsibility there, in the leadership of WorkSafe, to say to their staff, when they send them out: “When you see problems, it’s not good enough to say, ‘I don’t understand the problem.’ You have to say, ‘I am going to understand the problem, and

[ Page 9638 ]

I’m going to learn about it, and I’m going to correct it, if I learn that it creates a risk’?” That didn’t happen in this situation. It didn’t happen.

[1540]

What’s the consequence of that? You have a situation where the families continue to be frustrated by this process. We know what’s happened to them. We know that they’re not feeling like they’ve had their questions answered. We know just from the interaction that they don’t feel confident that WorkSafe B.C. did everything that they needed to do to provide the safest possible environment for their loved ones to go to work. Clearly, the consequence is one we all know, and we all know today.

My sense from those families is they still are not confident that the actions that have followed subsequent to these two tragedies have created the situation where WorkSafe will, in fact, in the future take the preventative actions that they need to take in order to do their best to ensure that this never occurs again. We know that you can never say never with these situations, but there was more to do, and that’s very clear.

There was a negligence. There were challenges. We know the government understands that, because the government made changes in the leadership of WorkSafe and they made changes in the operation of WorkSafe. It’s all clear from Mr. Anderson’s leaving, Mr. Macatee’s arrival, a new president and CEO, and pieces of legislation that the minister has said she hopes will be incremental steps in the right direction. Today we’re talking about one of those: Bill 35.

WorkSafe has a lack of investigatory powers, it appears, or they’re not conducting them in the way that they should. There are supposed to be committees in place at the worksites — joint health and safety committees — that are critical. They’re in legislation.

The government clearly knows how important these committees are. They legislate the committees. They’re not a whim. They’re not somebody’s idea. They’re not just a good idea. The government legislates these committees as compulsory, as an obligation of doing business.

We all know that you can have all the committees in the world, but if the committees don’t function properly, if the committees don’t have proper authority and if the committees don’t have the ability to whistle-blow when they need to whistle-blow, they’re not going to get the job done. We’ve seen how tragic that can be in the accidents that we’re talking about.

What happened here is a situation where you have legislation that clearly needed to be revamped. Let’s take a look here at what Bill 35 does on its substantive areas. The bill really changes…. In my reading of Bill 35, it affects, in large part, five sections of the act: sections 130, 132, 174, 175 and 176. Those are the sections of the Workers Compensation Act that get directly impacted by this piece of legislation.

Now, when we look at what we’re talking about here…. I want to take some time to just walk through these and make sure that we’re pretty clear about them. Let’s just go through them in the order that they arrive.

Section 130. This is a

section that deals with the duties and the functions of the joint committee. Again, this is a committee that is comprised, if we go back to that division…. There’s a whole division of the act that deals specifically with joint committees and worker representatives.

It says: “An employer must establish and maintain a joint health and safety committee (

a) in each workplace where 20 or more workers of the employer are regularly employed, and (

b) in any other workplace for which a joint committee is required by order.”

[1545]

The membership of the committee. A joint committee of a workplace must be established in accordance with the following: “

a) it must have at least 4 members or, if a greater number of members is required by regulation, that greater number; (

b) it must consist of worker representatives and employer representatives; (

c) at least half the members must be worker representatives; (

d) it must have 2 co-chairs, one selected by the worker representatives and the other selected by the employer representatives.”

It says the worker representatives on a joint committee “must be selected from workers at the workplace who do not exercise managerial functions at the workplace, as follows: (

a) if the workers are represented by one or more unions, the worker representatives are to be selected according to the procedures established or agreed on by the union or unions.” That would be the case here. It goes on to lay out a number of other details around selection.

The

section that will be impacted by this bill is

section 130. What 130 says is this:

“A joint committee has the following duties and functions in relation to its workplace:

“(

a) to identify situations that may be unhealthy or unsafe for workers and advise on effective systems for responding to those situations;

“(

b) to consider and expeditiously deal with complaints relating to the health and safety of workers;

“(

c) to consult with workers and the employer on issues related to occupational health and safety and occupational environment;

“(

d) to make recommendations to the employer and the workers for the improvement of the occupational health and safety and occupational environment of workers;

“(

e) to make recommendations to the employer on educational programs promoting the health and safety of workers and compliance with this Part and the regulations and to monitor their effectiveness;

“(

f) to advise the employer on programs and policies required under the regulations for the workplace and to monitor their effectiveness;

“(

g) to advise the employer on proposed changes to the workplace or the work processes that may affect the health or safety of workers;

“(

h) to ensure that accident investigations and regular inspections are carried out as required by this Part and the regulations;

“(

i) to participate in inspections, investigations and inquiries as provided in this Part and the regulations;

“(

j) to carry out any other duties and functions prescribed by regulation.”

[ Page 9639 ]

Pretty complete — a pretty complex set of recommendations around what is supposed to occur.

What did the coroner’s jury say? They said, in their recommendation No. 7 in Lakeland, the inquest for Mr. Roche: “Amend

section 30 of the Workers Compensation Act to ensure that the joint occupational health and safety committee reviews any changes to equipment, machinery or process to assess impacts on workers’ health and safety.” The coroner’s comment as to why that recommendation is important is that the inquest heard that regular evaluation of process hazards is important to ensure potential risks to workers are identified, particularly when process or equipment is changed.

Now, it’s a recommendation here because, in fact, it certainly appears that this was not occurring. It wasn’t occurring. So it’s an important recommendation. It’s a recommendation, as the minister said in her opening comments, that will make a difference, if we have some ability and control over the situation with changes to equipment and machinery.

I’m glad to see this recommendation. I’m glad to see this clause in the legislation, picking up on the recommendation as put forward by the jury.

It’s a recommendation that I think we’ll see maybe ensuring that when the company makes those kinds of changes around equipment and makes those kind of adjustments, we’ll be able to ensure that there is some oversight.

[1550]

I would note, though, that at the end of the day, the committee has to be a functioning and effective committee in order to make that work and in order to ensure that the committee can make the comments and be able to look at those issues. What happened in this case would not have allowed that to happen, because the committee was essentially not functioning, for all intents and purposes, as a committee.

There were issues around who was on the committees. There were issues around how the committees didn’t meet, didn’t review matters of importance. So we can have

section 130 amended, but in order for it to be effective, there’s going to have to be enforcement. That enforcement has to come, and it’s the responsibility of the players to this — the employers, the unions, but ultimately of WorkSafe B.C. It’s their act that this is in. It’s their responsibility to make sure those committees are up and running and functioning.

The next

section is

section 132. What

section 132 in the act says is: “If a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace, a co-chair of the committee may report this to the Board, which may investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the matter.”

Now, what we have here, of course, is the recommendation of the inquest, of the jury on this matter. The jury, when they were looking at

section 132…. It says: “If a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace, a co-chair of the committee may report this to the Board, which may investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the matter.” That’s the clause as it stands now.

It then adds: “If the Board considers that a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace, the Board, on its own initiative, may investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the matter.”

Now, that suggests a proactive approach by the board, and I support a proactive approach by the board. I believe that they have the responsibility, the resources and the capacity to be proactive. But they have to have that sense in the culture of the board. They have to have that sense.

I go back and remind the House again of what the coroner said in her observations, where the coroner talks about what happened at Lakeland. I’ll go back and remind, as I said, that on February 6, you had an occupational safety officer and an occupational hygiene officer visit the mill. This was weeks after Babine, when I have to assume the sensitivity of WorkSafe to the potential risk of dust and explosions and risk at mills after Babine should have been very high when they’re looking at other operations like Lakeland. They did not demonstrate that kind of response.

I accept that the workers are out there and that they’re working hard and doing what they’re doing, the people who represent WorkSafe. My problem is that there has to be leadership from the top on the culture of the organization that says: “You’ve got to go that extra step. You have to take that action.”

What this does, potentially…. It certainly says, “You can go to the board if you don’t think you can resolve this” — one of the co-chairs, presumably. I’m betting, in most cases, the worker representative co-chair. “You can go to the board.”

[1555]

But it also says the board needs to be prepared to be proactive in its action. That’s what this change intends. So the challenge will be how that’s going to work.

The other thing that will be an issue here, and we’ll talk about this a little in the committee stage — and to clarify, I’m confident that this is the case, but we’ll get the minister to clarify it when we get to committee — is that this should not imply that the joint health and safety committee cannot be going to the board for other assistance and other supports and that somehow, by adding this very specific area, all of a sudden that will limit the potential for interaction.

I don’t believe that will be the case, but we’ll clarify that when we get there — that the board will still be very available to members of the joint health and safety committee and to other representatives of workers to act in an investigatory way when they have to.

If we’ve learned something from what’s occurred here, we’ve learned that when somebody says, “There’s a risk here, and I don’t feel safe, and I don’t know how to deal

[ Page 9640 ]

with this,” somebody has to intervene, and the people who need to intervene are WorkSafe. That is their responsibility, and they have the authority. They need to intervene and take action and do the assessments necessary and, if they find failures, correct those failures or require and oblige the owners to correct those failures.

The question that gets raised is whether this puts limits in other areas, but we’ll get to that conversation when we get to the appropriate discussion in committee stage.

The third piece, the next piece that gets adjusted here in this, actually, is

section 172. This is a change to this section, and what it says is:

“

(1) An employer must immediately notify the Board of the occurrence of any accident that (

a) resulted in serious injury to or the death of a worker, (

b) involved a major structural failure or collapse of a building, bridge, tower, crane, hoist…(

c) involved the major release of a hazardous substance, or (

d) was an incident required by regulation to be reported.

“

(2) Except as otherwise directed by an officer of the Board or a peace officer, a person must not disturb the scene of an accident that is reportable under subsection (1) except so far as is necessary to (

a) attend to persons injured or killed, (

b) prevent further injuries or death, or (

c) protect property that is endangered as a result of the accident.”

What the change will do here is make an adjustment at the end of paragraph (c), which is “involved the major release of a hazardous substance, or (c.1) involved a fire or explosion that had a potential for causing serious injury to a worker….” That’s what that

section does.

What the jury said when they made this recommendation…. Their recommendation was to review

section 172 of the Workers Compensation Act “to ensure that an employer must immediately notify the board of any fire or explosion that causes a business interruption.” The coroner’s comment was:

“The inquest heard that there were two significant explosions/fires at Lakeland Mill in January 2012, neither of which was reported to WorkSafeB.C. or fire officials. Evidence indicated that near misses should have been treated as important opportunities to consider and alleviate risks.”

Those are those two explosions, the 30-foot fireball — the two explosions that were talked about, the second one the day before Babine.

[1600]

This is a very important section. This is a

section that will not allow the company to choose the discretion to not talk about this, to choose the discretion to remain silent, to choose the discretion to just say: “I’m not going to tell people that this happened.” It’s possible, and we will never know.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

But if there had been a significant investigation of the January 17 and January 19 accidents, fires, at Lakeland, who knows what actions might have been taken by WorkSafe at that time that might have been directed to the company that may have proved to have protected those workers from what occurred in April.

Section 174 is the next

section that is amended by this act. What

section 174 is about is the investigation process. So the pieces that we’ve talked about up to now talked about needs for reports, talked about committee composition, the activity of the committee. There still has to be the will to make sure that those committees function, and there are lots of people responsible for that. But when you get to the investigation process, this is particularly important.

It’s important because, among other things, you have the workers here who, in the case of the January 19 incident at Lakeland, were not part of the discussion and the investigation, and they reported that they did not participate.

They should be full participants in this. They reported that they did not participate. They were not consulted in any formal way. And the committee did not report on it.

What 174 says today is:

“

(1) An investigation required under this Division must be carried out by persons knowledgeable about the type of work involved and, if they are reasonably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative….

“

(3) The employer must make every reasonable effort to have available for interview by a person conducting the investigation, or by an officer” — and an officer, in this case, is somebody from WorkSafe — “all witnesses to the incident and any other persons whose presence might be necessary for a proper investigation of the incident.

“

(4) The employer must record names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons referred to in subsection (3)” — those who may have been interviewed in subsection (3).”

What this change does in this case is that it amends a new subsection. The subsection will read as follows: “An investigation required under this Division must be carried out by persons knowledgeable about the type of work involved and, if they are reasonably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and the worker representative.”

It then goes on to say:

“

(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: (

a) viewing the scene of the incident with the persons carrying out the investigation; (

b) providing advice to the persons carrying out the investigation respecting the methods used to carry out the investigation, the scope of the investigation, or any other aspect of the investigation; (

c) other activities, as prescribed by the Board.”

Now, there are questions around this, and the questions come as it relates to this. Let me just tell you what the jury said in their findings. They said: “Clarify the meaning of the term ‘participation’ in

section 174 of the Workers Compensation Act to ensure full and meaningful participation in the investigative process by both the employer and the worker representative.”

The coroner’s comment to the jury recommendation was: “The inquest heard that access to the Lakeland mill site by the employer’s representative and a worker representative was denied or limited, hampering the employ-

[ Page 9641 ]

er’s ability to comply with

section 175 of the Workers Compensation Act.”

[1605]

They were denied the right to do this. What the jury has said is that there should be greater participation in the investigative process by both the employer and worker representatives and that that participation needs to be guaranteed. This change is to make that law.

There is concern about this section, though. The concern is that the language that’s used in this

section talks very specifically about viewing the scenes of the incident with persons carrying out the investigation, providing advice to persons carrying out the investigation. That seems to be the talk. It is talk of what seems to be more of a consultative and an observer’s role, an advisory role, rather than a role, as the jury said, of”meaningful participation in the investigative process.”

The debate is: does that constitute meaningful participation in the investigatory process? There is some concern that it may, in some cases, potentially dilute worker participation, make it more of an observer role. It could work at cross purposes, also, with the intent of

section 130, which talks to the workers’ roles in investigation.

When you look at

section 130, it says: “A joint committee has the following duties and functions…to participate in inspections, investigations and inquiries as provided in this Part and the regulations.” The concern is: are you going to limit in some way? Again, I don’t believe that the minister wants to limit that participation, but there are issues around the language here.

I would hope that the minister and her staff would take a look at that and talk to some of the people who are raising these concerns. I know her senior staff are fully aware and have engaged in these discussions with some, particularly the union representatives, who have flagged these issues.

I would hope that there will be some serious consideration about whether there may be very minor amendments to this legislation that begin to satisfy those questions — to ensure that what’s happening with this amendment, as the act puts it forward, in fact is enhancing and revitalizing the role of these committees and the role of the people who are involved, whether they represent the workers or the employer, in the investigatory process.

That ensures the people who both know what is happening on a day-to-day basis in a given workplace and who know full well how the system works, in fact, are full and complete players in those investigations and have the ability to speak their mind, to be heard, to have their views recorded and to be able to take subsequent and further action if they feel they’re not being listened to in a reasonable way. That action, of course, is to go to the board and ask the board to investigate further.

There is a challenge here around 174. I’m hopeful that it’s a challenge that the minister will be able to explain more fully, the response of government to those questions that have been raised, when we get to committee stage, and that the minister will, I would hope, consider whether there are some minor amendments here. I don’t think it takes a lot to satisfy this, to leave everybody feeling comfortable that this is doing what, I believe, we should all be wanting to accomplish here.

The next

section is

section 175. What

section 175 says is: “Preliminary investigation, report and follow-up action.” It says: “An employer must, immediately after the occurrence of an incident described in

section 173, undertake a preliminary investigation to, as far as possible, (

a) identify any unsafe conditions, acts or procedures that significantly contributed to the incident, and (

b) if unsafe conditions, acts or procedures are identified under paragraph (

a) of this subsection, determine the corrective action necessary to prevent, during a full investigation under

section 176, the recurrence of similar incidents.”

[1610]

It goes on and talks about this preliminary investigation. It needs to be: “(

a) prepared in accordance with the policies of the board of directors, (

b) completed within 48 hours of the occurrence of the incident, and (

c) provided to the Board on request of the Board.” Following the preliminary investigation, the employer must, without delay, undertake corrective action determined to be necessary under subsection (1). And it goes on.

It talks about that. It says: “

(4) If the employer takes corrective action under subsection (3), the employer, as soon as practicable, must (

a) prepare a report of the action taken, and (

b) either provide the report to the joint committee….” That’s what that says.

The coroner’s jury said to review sections 175 and 176. We’ll talk about 176 in a minute, which is the full investigation. You have two tiers of investigation here. The preliminary investigation happens within 48 hours. The full investigation is a more complete and more extensive investigation, and we’ll talk a little bit about that in a second.

In this case, with the review of sections 175 and 176 of the Workers Compensation Act to determine whether employer investigations are required — under what terms — the coroner’s comment was: “The inquest heard that the employer did not prepare an incident investigation report as required by the Workers Compensation Act.” That goes back to these incidents in January.

The problem we have here is that there is no requirement here for providing the joint committee with the preliminary investigation report that’s being introduced under

section 175. That’s where our concern is being raised — around that. The issue, of course, is that if you’re going to do that preliminary report, you have to ask yourself why that report shouldn’t be given to a joint health and safety committee. That was a debate that was…. I think we debated this issue as it relates to Bill 9, since some of the changes here reflect back to there.

What you’re hearing from worker representatives is that this immediate report, which is done in 48 hours….

[ Page 9642 ]

It, presumably, will involve worker representatives in some fashion, whether it’s that they’re being interviewed to determine the report or they’re providing specific detail to the report that will be produced in two days. That is an important report to decide if immediate action needs to be taken to ensure that if there are glaring safety problems, they’re addressed immediately. But the joint health and safety committee, which is obliged to stay on top of these issues, to be the eyes and the ears in that workplace for worker health and safety…. There’s no obligation for them to receive this report immediately.

I’m not certain why that is. I’m not certain why it is that this committee, which may well have insights that would be helpful in dealing with any problems, doesn’t get to see that. They get to see the full report; they don’t get to see this report. There are concerns being raised about why that is.

I look forward, when we get to the committee stage, to having this discussion with the minister and to understanding why there isn’t an explicit requirement in this bill that the joint health and safety committee should be privy to any reports or documents that relate to health and safety matters within a given workplace — why the committee, if they have an obligation under the law, under the act, to deal with certain matters, is not, as a matter of course, privy to that information and privy to what occurs there.

Section 176. This is the last of the substantive sections. The minister talked earlier about some changes around reports and service plans, and that’s all for other reasons. But we would all agree, I think, that these are the core sections.

[1615]

What

section 176 is, is the requirement under the act for full investigations, reports and follow-up action. What it says is:

“

(1) An employer must, immediately after completing a preliminary investigation under

section 175, undertake a full investigation to, as far as possible, (

a) determine the cause or causes of the incident investigated under

section 175, (

b) identify any unsafe conditions, acts or procedures that significantly contributed to the incident, and (

c) if unsafe conditions, acts or procedures are identified under paragraph (

b) of this subsection, determine the corrective action necessary to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

“

(2) The employer must ensure that a report of the full investigation is (

a) prepared in accordance with the policies of the board of directors, and (

b) submitted to the Board within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident.”

It then goes on to say that the board may extend time periods, if they consider it appropriate.

“Following the full investigation, the employer must, without undue delay, undertake any corrective action determined to be necessary” under the section. If the employer takes action, the employer, as practicable, must “(

a) prepare a report of the action taken, and (

b) either (

i) provide the report to the joint committee or worker health and safety representative, as applicable, or (ii) if there is no joint committee or worker health and safety representative, post the report at the workplace.”

The issue here with this is the change that would occur. The change would say…. It goes on. The employer must ensure the report of the full investigation is prepared in accordance with the policies of the board and submitted to the board within 30 days. Within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident, either “(

i) provided to the joint committee or worker health and safety representative, as applicable, or (ii) if there is no joint committee or worker health and safety representative, posted at the workplace.” Other amendments are a bit of housekeeping.

It says that within the 30 days, that report, that full investigation, has to be posted. The incident here is that…. You have to ask yourself: if that’s what you’re going to do — and it’s a good thing that the committee is going to get that — then why isn’t that preliminary report that we talked about i