Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 16, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 115

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 16 — Securities Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Construction and skilled trades sector

R. Kahlon

Public surveillance and protection of

privacy

L. Throness

Violence against women

M. Dean

Westside Wine Trail upgrade project

B. Stewart

Talk With Our Kids About Money Day

R. Glumac

Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society and affordable

housing for seniors

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Meeting with Prime Minister on Trans Mountain

pipeline and protection of B.C. coast

M. Polak

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

A. Weaver

Meeting with Prime Minister on Trans Mountain

pipeline and economic benefits of project

A. Weaver

Hon. J. Horgan

Status of ocean protection plan

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Construction of spill response bases and protection

of B.C. coast

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. G. Heyman

I. Paton

E. Ross

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and

impact on fuel supply and prices

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, service plan, 2018-19–2020-21

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Simpson

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 14 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

A. Olsen

Hon. C. James

Bill 12 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Sullivan

M. Dean

A. Olsen

T. Stone

B. D’Eith

L. Throness

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. H. Bains

Hon. S. Robinson

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Public Service Amendment Act,

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

J. Rustad

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: Today we have in the House four guests from my riding. I am the MLA

for Skeena, but I am represented by my chief and council. The chief

councillor for the Haisla Nation is Crystal Smith. She’s the second female

to be elected chief councillor. From my band, we also have Coun. Brenda

Duncan. We also have Kevin Stewart, who is a councillor; also, he’s a

Hereditary Chief. Travelling with them, as always, is Jason Majore, who is

the CEO of Haisla Nation Council. Would the House please make them feel

welcome today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, as you know, April is proclaimed Construction and

Skilled Trades Month. It’s my pleasure to introduce representatives of the

B.C. Construction Association who are joining us in the gallery today. They

are Alan Fletcher, the BCCA board chair; Angela McKerlich, the BCCA board

vice-chair; Mike Fawcett, the BCCA board treasurer; and Robert David Cooke,

the BCCA board past chair. Accompanying them is Lisa Stevens, the

association’s chief operating officer.

Other members of the BCCA board and the association president, Chris

Atchison, are not able to join us in the House as they are participating in

kicking off — which is why I’m doing this introduction — “Understanding Risk

British Columbia, 2018,” a first-of-its-kind symposium focusing on

implementing strategies to reduce natural hazard risk in B.C.’s built

environment, bringing scientists, policy-makers and builders. The event is

being held at the Victoria Conference Centre.

They’re doing amazing work. I’d like the House to make them all very

welcome.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce two of my friends

that are in the gallery today, Mark and Pat McKee. Mark is the mayor of

Revelstoke. He’s here to have a meeting with the minister tomorrow, and

we’re really excited about that.

It’s an amazing city that’s absolutely booming. They’ve had record

snowfalls this year, which is good for the skiing, although there is a

highway that runs through it. They’re going to be chatting about that. Mark

never leaves home without supervision. His wife, Pat, is with him, who’s a

huge advocate for the splash park in Revelstoke.

Please, let the House make them feel welcome.

M. Dean: As we all know, we do our work here on the traditional territory of

the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations. Today we’re very honoured to have Chief

Ron Sam from Songhees Nation here in the gallery with us. He’s here today

with the Lekwungen 2020 bid committee for the North American Indigenous

Games.

We also have, from the NAIG site evaluation team, with us today Kevin

Winkler, Ken Thomas, Rose Inglangasuk, Jason Peters. Also from the bid

committee are Gary Sam, Christina Clark, Chris McElroy, Alex Nelson,

Marianne Alto, Maurine Karagianis, Robert Bettauer, Kathi Springer, Lindsay

Player, Mary Conibear and Dena Coward. Joining them are some young lacrosse

players: Mike Maresca, Joshua Bryce and Nathan Sam. Would the House please

make them all very welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: Hon. Speaker, I also would like to join my colleague in thanking you

for hosting the committee, the representatives and the athletes for lunch

today in the dining room. I’d also like to join my colleague from Skeena,

across the way, in welcoming the leadership from the Haisla. That’s Chief

Councillor Crystal Smith, CEO Jason Majore, Deputy Chief Councillor Brenda

Duncan and Coun. Kevin Stewart.

Also, I’d like to thank them for the…. Yesterday evening a number of

members were able to have a meet-and-greet with them because of their

efforts. I want to thank them for that too. I look forward to fruitful

meetings this afternoon. Please help me make them feel very

welcome.

T. Shypitka: Last week I announced my youngest son’s tenth birthday. Not to be

out-trumped, I would like to announce my oldest son’s birthday. My youngest

son is ten. My oldest son is 29. Do the math.

Happy birthday, Dustin. I’m not going to win any family-planning

awards here today, but I’d like to celebrate and recognize my oldest son’s

birthday — 29.

[1:40 p.m.]

In the gallery today, we have members of the Kootenay Livestock

Association celebrating their 50th year of existence. If you know somebody

that eats food or if you perhaps eat food yourself, these are the people you

want to thank. They represent ranching and ranching communities all

throughout Kootenay East, and we’re really happy to see them

here.

Also in the gallery are Chris and Julie Botterill. Chris is a founder

and president of Genex Marketing in Cranbrook, and Julie is a registered

massage therapist.

For all those reasons, please welcome my guests in the House

today.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m happy to introduce today in the House Adam Lynes-Ford, a

campaigner with the B.C. Health Coalition; Kat Lanteigne, the executive

director of Bloodwatch; Nathaniel Lanteigne-Ball, who’s Kat’s young son;

Curtis Brandell, who’s with the B.C. Hemophilia Society; and Tomiko Spicer,

who’s Curtis’s wife. They’re here for meetings with government officials,

and I wish everyone here would make them welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend and a friend to

all of the B.C. Green community here in greater Victoria. I see Christina

Winter sitting in the gallery. Would the House please make her feel very

welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a delegation from Simon Fraser

University who are in the precinct today. I’d like to acknowledge the

important work of the president and vice-chancellor, former MLA Andrew

Petter, and members from the board of governors: their chair, Fiona Robin;

and vice-chair, Chris Lewis; as well as vice-president, Mike den Haan, who’s

in charge of advancement and alumni relations; and Joy Johnson, in charge of

research and international relations.

SFU is playing a huge role in the ecosystem for post-secondary

education. They’ve got a lot of great ideas. They’re advancing in tech,

science and math. Will the House please join me in welcoming all of their

delegates that are here today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a number of wonderful schools in my constituency. One of them

is here today. There are two classes from Archbishop Carney Secondary

School. There’s a group of 35 students and two adults and another of 37

students and two adults, accompanied by their teacher Brygida Reis. They’re

here to observe our Legislature and our parliamentary system of government.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Dean: I would like to introduce a couple from Colwood, in my constituency,

today. They’re here in the gallery — Chris and Cynthia Wright. Cynthia works

for the province as the deputy assessor of residential properties on

Vancouver Island. Chris was a member of the B.C. Forest Service for 17

years, before leaving to pursue research topics in physics. Would everybody

please join me in welcoming them both to the House.

A. Olsen: It was a great honour to spend some time over lunch celebrating the

North American Indigenous Games. As a proud NAIG 2008 alumni, in

communications for Team B.C., I’d like to acknowledge a mentor of mine who’s

in the chamber here today, Alex Nelson. Alex has spent a lot of time in

Indigenous sport and should be acknowledged for it. Would the House please

make Alex feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: It’s great to be back here on Monday so that we can continue to do our

work here and also meet with the important people of British Columbia. I

have two very important meetings today. This morning I met with the members

of the Kootenay Livestock Association. I thank the member for Kootenay East

for joining me. We had a meeting with Faye Street, Jordy Thibeault and

Sharon Mielnichuk.

This afternoon I’m meeting with members of the Wild Sheep Society of

British Columbia. Their president, Kyle Stelter, and member Mike Kirk will

be meeting with me about issues that challenge the populations of wild sheep

here.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SECURITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m going to try to introduce the Securities Act, 2018, very

briefly. I know we’ll have more opportunity to discuss this in second

reading.

This act amends the Securities Act to provide certain

self-regulatory organizations in the securities industry with the

ability to file the decisions they make with the B.C. Supreme Court.

This change is focused on improving the self-regulatory organizations’

ability to collect fines against individuals facing a monetary penalty

or costs following a disciplinary hearing. This change follows the

direction of many provinces across Canada to increase enforcement in

order to protect investors.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Securities Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CONSTRUCTION AND

SKILLED TRADES

SECTOR

R. Kahlon: I’m pleased to speak about B.C. Construction and Skilled Trades

Month. Welcome to the representatives of B.C. Construction Association

and extension, the more than 24,000 businesses that work in B.C.’s

industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors. We value

the work that you do and the significant role that businesses play in

the economic health of our province.

There is a need to raise awareness of the important work done by

B.C.’s construction workforce, as stated in the Construction and Skilled

Trades Month proclamation and supported by the appearance in the House

today. Our builders are the stewards of our built environment and

crucial contributors to our economy.

B.C.’s construction sector is larger than the forestry, mining and

fishing industries combined. Currently there are projects underway

valued at more than $75 billion. Ninety percent of B.C.’s construction

employers are small companies with less than 20 employees. Collectively,

these companies contribute 8.6 percent of our provincial GDP. The

average hourly wage in construction is $32, significantly above minimum

wage and $2 above the Canadian average.

The construction sector is booming in our province. There will be

over 59,000 job openings in construction by 2027. Where will those

workers come from? Women comprise only 7.8 percent of the construction

workforce. It will take commitment and effort to bring today’s youth and

equity-seeking groups into trades, and as the construction month

proclamation states, that effort must begin with showing that respect is

due and given to the tradespeople of our province and that trades

careers are rewarding and valued.

Success relies on building communities, not just building

structures. I am pleased to see BCCA leading the way to join government,

academia, science and technology to work together to build strong

communities for B.C.’s future and expand the industry’s profile in B.C.

This approach is crucial to our success — to today’s success and

tomorrow’s.

PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE AND

PROTECTION OF

PRIVACY

L. Throness: Years ago I visited Jeremy Bentham. He sits in a glass case at

royal university in London, where he has been for 186 years. He was an

odd man, as you might imagine of one who wills that his body be

preserved in this way. One of his more curious proposals was the

panopticon, or all-seeing place, a circular prison with tiered cells

around the outer walls. A high tower in the centre would shine a bright

light in the cells and behind it, a prison inspector able to look into

every corner of every cell. Because they would never know when they were

being watched, prisoners would always be sure to behave.

Fast forward to the present day, where China has installed 20

million public cameras and facial recognition software so accurate that

the government boasted last weekend that it detected a criminal suspect

in a football stadium among 60,000 fans.

In these days of rapidly advancing technology, the possibilities

of electronic surveillance are endless. That’s why we’re not allowed to

smile when we get our pictures taken for our drivers’ licences — so

facial recognition can catch the bad guys.

[1:50 p.m.]

That’s great for criminal justice, and one might say, “If you’re

innocent, you have nothing to fear,” but such powerful electronic tools

can also be used for social control. Think Facebook data affecting

elections, Russian bots manipulating Twitter or this: China plans to

assign each of its citizens a social score based on their friendliness

to the government. They will be able to track friends and enemies alike,

at all at times, in a total surveillance society.

It is much too easy for us, as well, to edge unwittingly toward

the same thing. We need to pay attention and limit the power of

government by debating in this House the limits of public surveillance,

as a panel did in 1811 when they considered and wisely rejected

Bentham’s panopticon. They understood that an important aspect of

freedom is privacy — the freedom not to be observed.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

M. Dean: There is an epidemic in our province, a public health issue that

is not new. It affects all ages, and its impact extends beyond the

individual to especially hurt children, to cause loss of productivity in

businesses and affect our economy. It significantly increases our health

care costs at all stages — emergency services, chronic illness and

counselling, for example. And it can be more pernicious among more

disadvantaged populations, such as Indigenous and transgender

women.

Every year there are fatalities — preventable and unnecessary

deaths — in our modern society, causing lifelong grief. Those who suffer

are not alone. Each year it affects 20,000 women in B.C. What am I

talking about? Violence against women. Fifty percent of women in Canada

have experienced sexual or physical violence.

I’m proud that April 15 through 21 marks Prevention of Violence

Against Women Week in B.C. It’s a time to recognize the devastating

effects of violence, including sexual violence, on women, families and

our communities, as well as the incredible efforts of local and

provincial organizations in supporting victims.

It is time to raise awareness of this issue and mobilize our

resources to build prevention, protection and recovery from such an

enduring and harmful issue. As the Ending Violence Association of B.C.

report of 2012 said: “We know what needs to be done. The challenge is to

do it.”

This week I ask everyone to consider how you can help, whether

it’s someone in your life or a local organization in your community, to

prevent violence and to ensure safe spaces for those escaping violence

and healing opportunities for survivors.

WESTSIDE WINE TRAIL UPGRADE PROJECT

B. Stewart: Construction began last week on the second phase of the Westside

Wine Trail’s Boucherie Road upgrade. I’m happy to report, by word of my

constituents as well as the city of West Kelowna, that things are on

track.

The wine trail is a connection between some of the oldest and most

acclaimed wineries in the Okanagan Valley. It is a scenic route for

biking, walking and adventuring in the heart of my community between

local businesses.

Boucherie Road is one of the main wine trails in the area, so we

were happy see it being maintained, as it is used and enjoyed by

visitors to Rollingdale, Grizzli, Beaumont, Volcanic Hills, Mt.

Boucherie, Little Straw, the hatch, Quails’ Gate and Mission Hill

wineries.

Upgrades will include cycling lanes and sidewalks allowing for

visitors to and from wineries by bicycle. These upgrades not only make

the wineries even more accessible, but they serve as a greater draw for

tourism.

I’m delighted to report on how innovative and responsive this

project has been. The project is being upgraded by Copcan Civil Ltd.,

and their attention to detail in the community has been

exceptional.

The upgraded wine trail will also feature roundabouts, ornamental

streetlights, trees, plants and retaining walls to keep the area

beautiful and safe for all to enjoy. The trail features unique and

unparalleled natural beauty. The picturesque landscapes add even more to

the experience.

I am proud to see this commitment to maintaining and enhancing the

natural beauty of Kelowna West. The project is expected to be complete

by November of this year. My community is happy to see these things are

moving ahead efficiently. I know that I, for one, will be looking

forward to November.

[1:55 p.m.]

TALK WITH OUR KIDS ABOUT MONEY DAY

R. Glumac: Wednesday, April 18, has been proclaimed Talk With Our Kids About

Money Day. On this day, we raise the bar on the level of financial

literacy education in our public schools and improve the financial

skills of all Canadians. Talk With Our Kids About Money Day encourages

teachers and families to learn essential financial skills such as

saving, budgeting, credit debt, loans and insurance, and learn these

skills at an early age in an effort to ensure that we are providing our

youth with the financial education they need in our society.

Last year over 5,000 schools and over 660,000 students across

Canada participated in this day. These efforts have been championed by

parents and volunteers across many communities in Canada that work in

partnership with the Canadian Foundation for Economic Education. Through

their work, teachers and families are empowered with the tools to talk

with our kids about money, not only on April 18 but

year-round.

I’d like to recognize my constituent Kumi Abercrombie for her

continued commitment to this cause and her efforts in bringing this

proclamation to the province.

KIWANIS NORTH SHORE HOUSING SOCIETY

AND AFFORDABLE

HOUSING FOR SENIORS

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to rise and recognize an organization that has owned and

operated affordable housing for low-income seniors on the North Shore

for 65 years. Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society, a merger between

North and West Vancouver, has a total of 636 units across the North

Shore. The rents are typically set at 75 percent of the market rent for

comparable rents and operate their portfolio in a fiscally responsible

manner, requiring no ongoing subsidies from senior

governments.

Kiwanis North Shore is in the early stages of developing 106 new

units of affordable seniors housing called the Lynn Manor expansion. The

project is a six-storey, wood-framed building located adjacent to their

existing 17-storey, 205-unit building located in my riding in Lynn

Valley. All of the units will be rented to low-income seniors who live

independently.

There are also two buildings in the neighbouring riding of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale and four buildings in West Vancouver.

Recently the district of North Vancouver completed their

affordable rental housing strategy, which calls for the development of

600 to 1,000 affordable rental housing units over the next ten years.

The Lynn Manor expansion project will meet one full year of the

forecasted need. The project is located in walking distance to Lynn

Valley mall, medical and dental services and right by bus

stops.

Kiwanis has a long history of working together with B.C. Housing

to deliver affordable housing for low-income seniors. They have a proven

track record in designing, building and operating projects that meet the

needs of our seniors in our community.

I hope that B.C. Housing and the district of North Vancouver will

recognize the merits of this project and continue working with Kiwanis

to deliver 106 new units of affordable housing for seniors on the North

Shore.

Oral Questions

MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND

PROTECTION OF B.C. COAST

M. Polak: Yesterday the Premier said: “I do not believe the crisis that has

emerged here should be trivialized.” Today the Alberta NDP has

introduced legislation that will hurt British Columbians, new spill

response bases that were to be built are now being halted, and of

course, British Columbia’s business reputation lies in

tatters.

To the Premier, does he have anything to show for his meeting with

the Prime Minister?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her ongoing interest and the question that

she just proffered here in the Legislature. I did go to Ottawa at the

request of the Prime Minister. I met with my colleague the Premier of

Alberta, and we had — the three of us, along with the federal Finance

Minister and federal Minister of Natural Resources — a frank discussion

about where we are and where we’re going. I think we all agreed that the

people of British Columbia — certainly the Prime Minister did — should

not suffer because of the issues being that are being raised by the

government of Alberta.

I have not seen the legislation the member refers to. I understand

it will be tabled today, and I look forward to reading it.

Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on a supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, in spite of all the comments from the Premier about the need

to improve tanker safety on our coast, he didn’t bring up any specific

suggestions in his meeting with the Prime Minister.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Prime Minister said: “We have worked with the current B.C.

government to respond to any issues of concern they have. Unfortunately,

over the course of almost a year, they have not specifically put forward

proposals.”

To the Premier, it’s clear he didn’t discuss greater protections

for our coast. What did he talk about with the Prime

Minister?

Hon. J. Horgan: The only focus I had in my discussion was the protection of our

coast and the defence of B.C.’s interest.

High-level officials have been working for the past nine months,

since the swearing in of the new government, to ensure that the gaps in

the ocean protection plan were filled. What we’ve done is we’ve taken

the extraordinary measure of ensuring that British Columbia has a role

to play in protecting the interest of British Columbians.

That’s why we’re making a reference to higher courts to ensure

that the jurisdiction that we believe we have and Alberta does not is

clarified in a court of law. That, again, is what I believe is

appropriate in this circumstance. We’re going to carry forward with that

plan.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a second

supplemental.

M. Polak: The Prime Minister was clear that he didn’t hear any specific

suggestions coming from this Premier or this government. I think there’s

a reason, actually, that the Premier was not talking about increased

coastal protections when he met with the Prime Minister.

The fact is, that’s never been the true motivation. If there has

ever been any doubt of that, we need look no further than the words of

his Environment Minister. “To talk about it” — referring to stopping the

pipeline — “or frame our actions around doing that, as opposed to

defending B.C.’s coast, would be inappropriate and unlawful.”

How exactly does he intend to improve tanker safety on our coast

when he doesn’t even raise it with the Prime Minister?

Hon. J. Horgan: Of course I raised it with the Prime Minister. That was the whole

point of travelling across the country, taking two days out of a

schedule that’s fairly busy, not being with British Columbians, as I had

planned to be over the weekend, but in Ottawa talking directly to the

Prime Minister about defending the interests of British Columbia. That’s

what I did.

For the Opposition House Leader, the former Minister of

Environment, to suggest that I don’t have an interest in defending our

coast…. I’ll remind her of the sinking of the Nathan E. Stewart

off the coast of British Columbia, just outside of Bella Bella in the

traditional territory, the unceded territory, of the Heiltsuk people. I

went to see what happened. I saw the devastating results of the spill.

The minister at that time did not.

T. Stone: Yesterday we learned from the Prime Minister of Canada that the

Premier actually had nothing constructive to say to the federal

government about ocean protection. Again, nothing constructive to say

about ocean protection. According to the Prime Minister: “Unfortunately,

over the course of almost a year, the B.C. government has not

specifically put forward proposals.”

My question to the Premier is this. If he thinks that the Prime

Minister is actually wrong, could he stand in the House today and

indicate which specific proposals he actually has put forward to the

federal government about ocean protection?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the intervention from the upland member from Kamloops

South today in the House. He wasn’t in the meeting, so I don’t think

that he can account for what happened inside the walls of the Prime

Minister’s office. He can refer to the comments the Prime Minister made

on his way from Lima to Paris.

What we talked about exclusively was defending B.C.’s coast. That

was the point. That’s why I went. We have been offering proposals at the

officials level over the past nine months, and we’ll continue to do

that. One of the upsides of the meeting was a reintroduction of each

other to the critical issues that we want to bring forward.

You’ll remember, in January, the Environment Minister brought

forward five points that we wanted to talk to British Columbians about.

That is, in fact, again, the role and function of the government of

British Columbia. That was rejected by the government of Alberta as

unconstitutional. I disagree. This side of the House

disagrees.

We’re going to be taking that question to a court of law to ensure

that we have the right to protect and defend our coast. That’s what the

people expect us to do, and that’s what we’re going to do.

[2:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the Premier says he’s focused on protecting B.C.’s coast,

but when the Prime Minister of Canada asks him for something

constructive — anything constructive — on ocean protection, he has

absolutely nothing to say for almost a year — nothing except rhetoric

and empty threats.

Again to the Premier, why has he consistently chosen to make empty

threats instead of offering specific, real solutions on ocean protection

for almost a year hence?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member’s references are inaccurate. We spoke explicitly about

the issues that are affecting British Columbia with the prospect of a

catastrophic diluted bitumen spill — the impact on our lands, on our

waters and on our coast. That was the whole point. That is why we

intervened in two court actions, when we formed a government, that the

previous government chose to ignore. That is why we’re making a

reference to a higher court to protect the jurisdiction of British

Columbians.

Not this government but every government from this point on should

have the right to defend the interests of British Columbians. I’m

surprised the people on that side of the House don’t agree with everyone

on this side and the vast majority of British Columbians.

A. Weaver: I must admit, it’s galling for me to hear members of the Liberal

Party of Alberta opposite wax eloquently about ocean protection — an

area that I actually served as an intervener on. I can assure you that

when there’s an ocean protection plan that’s predicated on the existence

of 20 hours of sunlight, nobody’s safety is being protected here in the

province of British Columbia.

Yesterday the Premier met with the Prime Minister and the Alberta

Premier to discuss the manufactured conflict over the Trans Mountain

expansion that has this side opposite, the Liberal members from Alberta,

all in a tizzy these days.

After the meeting, the Premier stated that he and the Prime

Minister agreed to protect our coasts by working together to close gaps

in the ocean protection plan. The federal ocean protection plan — let’s

be clear; that’s Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific; it’s all three of them —

doesn’t address the fundamental and unchanged fact that we cannot

protect our coast. We can’t clean up the diluted bitumen if there were a

spill. You don’t have to believe me. You can believe the Royal Society

of Canada or the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. — their expert

panel reports.

Will the Premier confirm that B.C.’s position is unchanged today

and that he will use every tool available to him to stand up for our

coast, for science and for our economy in the face of the proposed

reckless federal intervention in the Trans Mountain

expansion?

Mr. Speaker: Premier, before you answer the question….

Member, if I may ask you to retract your comment about the

Liberals from Alberta.

A. Weaver: Sorry, I retract the comment about the Liberals from Alberta. I

was trying to suggest that the members opposite are not putting the

interests of British Columbians first, are representing external

interests.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, the Leader of the Third Party, for his

question and, particularly, the reference to the Royal Society of Canada

and the gaps there are in the science — which, again, also brings me

back to the question from the previous member.

The government of British Columbia has been meeting regularly with

the federal government on the ocean protection plan and discussing the

gaps in knowledge, the gaps in science, that have been acknowledged by

the Royal Society. In fact, that was the foundation of our intervention

to go to the public and talk about these issues in January.

I reaffirmed those points, hon. Member, to the Prime Minister and

to the leader of the government of Alberta. I said very clearly and

without reservation that the province of British Columbia is extremely

concerned about the consequences of a catastrophic bitumen

spill.

I’ll remind the member for Skeena, who has been silent in this

House but active outside, of when he said, back in 2013: “There’s no

real way to pick this product up out of the marine environment. If they

can prove that, then they should show us where it’s being practised

around the world. I’m just not willing to actually” allow the Haisla

people to take a position on that.

So even some members on that side, hon. Member, agree with us that

there is inexact science. We need to do more work on this

subject.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PROJECT

A. Weaver: There’s growing evidence to suggest that Kinder Morgan set their

outrageous ultimatum as either part of an exit strategy or in order to

hand over the financial risk to Canadian taxpayers.

[2:10 p.m.]

During the NEB hearings on Trans Mountain — I get that the people

opposite don’t understand the economics of this — the company brought

forward projections that the price of oil in the base-case scenario — if

any of them had read the NEB process, they’d understand this — would be

$100 a barrel. It’s a best-case scenario, so prices reach $150 a barrel

by 2040.

Since then, the development and discovery of new shale oil

deposits, as well as OPEC policy changes, mean that oil has been trading

at between $40 and $60 a barrel. Even the most optimistic forecast for

2020 is out around $70 a barrel. Despite this new reality, the federal

and Alberta governments seem committed to transfer the economic risks

onto Canadian taxpayers.

My question is to the Premier. Did he bring up with the Prime

Minister the notion that subsidizing this project exposes B.C. taxpayers

and Canadian taxpayers to massive risk at a time when there is growing

uncertainty about Trans Mountain’s economic benefits, if any, and that

it is not in line with the type of economic development needed to

position Canada as a leader in the new economy?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. We did raise, with the

federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada, where the

an offshore company to invest B.C. and Canadian tax dollars in a

pipeline, when there were other more constructive investments that they

could make in the new economy, in the green economy. Or at a minimum,

even if they wanted to invest in diluted bitumen, to work with all

parties…. I’m sure members on that side of the House would agree that if

we could create more jobs in Canada by adding more value to our raw

materials, whether it be diluted bitumen or logs, we should do

that.

That was rejected by the government. They chose the course that I

believe they’ll be laying out for the people of Canada in the days and

weeks ahead, and it’ll be up to the Members of Parliament to debate

those mechanisms, those tools, as they come forward. But it will be up

to British Columbians and all Canadians to ask themselves if this is an

appropriate investment of tax dollars.

STATUS OF OCEAN PROTECTION PLAN

P. Milobar: Let’s remember this is a government that was told, on its first

day in office, that its promise to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline

expansion was inappropriate and unlawful. It seems the minister had a

choice. He could make empty threats anyways, or he could put forward

constructive proposals.

Can the Environment Minister explain a specific proposal he has

made to the federal government on the ocean protection plan, or is the

Prime Minister right?

Hon. G. Heyman: The facts are that officials from the Ministry of Environment and

Climate Change Strategy have met repeatedly with federal government

officials to talk about gaps in our spill preparedness, our response

capacity and the differences in geographic response plans that need to

be in place to deal with spills in different weather conditions and

different shorelines. We’ve talked about the necessity to have different

equipment. We’ve talked about the necessity to have regionally based

response plans. The last face-to-face meeting took place in February.

There will be more. We are engaged.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: It’s not just the Prime Minister’s words from all the way back to

yesterday. Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the federal

Environment Minister said: “Thus far, he” — he’s referring to the B.C.

Environment Minister — “and his government have not brought forward any

suggestions.”

When will the Environment Minister stop ignoring his

responsibilities and respond to the federal government’s

request?

Hon. G. Heyman: I might repeat my last answer, but I don’t want to bore the

members of the House or those watching. I have met with the

parliamentary secretary. I have discussed issues where he has asked

questions about spill response, although it is not, frankly, his

responsibility. We are engaged, deeply, with the federal government on

issues with respect to the ocean protection plan.

The real question that we have raised repeatedly is the lack of

knowledge in several significant areas about the behaviour of diluted

bitumen in the ocean under differing weather conditions, under different

geographic formations.

[2:15 p.m.]

There were seven specific gaps in knowledge identified by the

Royal Society of Canada. We proposed a scientific advisory panel to

review existing and new scientific research into those areas. The

federal government has committed $45 million in new scientific research

to address those gaps.

What we’ve said is British Columbians want to know what the

answers are to the threat of a spill — and the ability to respond

effectively to a spill and the ability to recover from a spill as

quickly as possible — before we subject tens of thousands of jobs and

billions of dollars in the B.C. economy and our environment and our

coastline and First Nations sustenance to the great threat of a spill of

diluted bitumen. That’s exactly what we will continue to do.

CONSTRUCTION OF SPILL RESPONSE

BASES AND PROTECTION OF

B.C. COAST

J. Thornthwaite: Not only has the Premier failed to bring forward ideas to the

federal government for ocean protection, but his recent actions are

responsible for stopping the construction on six new spill response

bases in British Columbia.

According to the Western Canada Marine Response Corp.,

construction has been stopped as a direct result of this government’s

obstruction on the Trans Mountain expansion. Today, right now, there are

14 U.S. tankers travelling through the Salish Sea carrying Alaskan

crude. Two are moving right past the southern tip of Vancouver

Island.

To the Environment Minister: how does the cancellation of six new

spill response bases to protect B.C.’s coast…? How are you going to

protect our coast from these threats?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I told the member when she raised this issue in estimates,

Western Canada Marine Response Corp. is a private corporation. They make

decisions with a view to what works for them at the time. The commitment

of the federal minister responsible, Marc Garneau, the Transportation

Minister with respect to the ocean protection plan, is that the federal

commitment of $450 million for British Columbia — that’s the share for

our coast — will continue.

The member would have us assume great risk without solutions to

mitigate that risk in order to save immediate investment in ways to

address the risk that we have not quantified properly, that we don’t

have scientific evidence about how best to respond. That’s not good

enough for tens of thousands of British Columbians who want to be

assured that the jobs they’re working in today will be there

tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m not talking about the ocean protection plan. I’m talking about

the $150 million Western Canada Marine Response Corp. investment. That’s

$150 million that they put on the table to protect our coasts against

oil spills.

This is not a hypothetical question. Construction has been stopped

because of the actions of this government. Again, will the minister

explain how stopping construction on these new bases protects B.C.’s

coasts from those tankers that are out there today, right

now?

Hon. G. Heyman: The actions that are responsible for the decision not to proceed

with this investment now are the actions of a private corporation, not

the answers of this government.

Let me quote from the former Minister of Environment, now the

Opposition House Leader, on January 11, 2016, when she said: “We believe

that right now all land base spills preparedness and response is not

sufficient in British Columbia.” But what did they do about it, hon.

Speaker? They did nothing. They did nothing to address the risk, and

they would have us continue to do nothing to address the

risk.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’re standing up for British Columbians in film and television,

in tourism, in the seafood industry. We’re reviewing the science. We’ve

invited the federal government to participate with us, to define the

jurisdiction.

The opposition would rather stand with a private corporation in

Texas and with the government of Alberta than stand with this side of

the House to protect tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars

in economic activity in British Columbia. That’s what we’re doing. We’re

fighting for British Columbia.

I. Paton: Well, here’s the headline of the day: “New Spill Response Bases on

Hold as Pipeline Paused.” The Premier has put at risk tangible

investments to protect our coast, including six new bases, 135 jobs and

43 new vessels.

This is what the Western Canada Marine Response Corp. says: “These

bases were going to be for any kind of spill. They will be a significant

loss if they don’t go forward.”

There are currently 14 U.S. tankers in the Salish Sea — one off

the coast of Sooke and another one right off the coast of downtown

Victoria. My question to the Environment Minister: will he explain how

this significant loss protects B.C.’s coast?

Hon. G. Heyman: For the last month, we’ve been consulting with British Columbians

on regulations pursuant to spill management. We are consulting on

response times, appropriate response times, in the event of a spill, to

which we can hold shippers and the carriers of the shipments.

We are consulting on geographically appropriate response plans so

that we have the capacity close to a place of a possible spill to

respond within the response times and with respect to the geographic and

weather conditions.

We’re proposing consultation on regulations to ensure that there

is appropriate compensation for loss of public use and First Nations

use, something that the previous government simply ignored in the case

of the devastating Nathan E. Stewart spill. And we are

consulting on the appropriate application of regulations to our marine

environment.

We are proposing a scientific review. We are taking concrete,

thoughtful actions in concert with British Columbians, with communities,

with Indigenous people and with stakeholders to protect British

Columbia’s coastline, our environment, our economy and our way of

life.

That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we’re going to continue to

do, and I would invite the members opposite to stand with us instead of

with Texas corporations and other governments.

Mr. Speaker: Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Well, the Sidney response base was supposed to open later this

spring with real, tangible coastal protections. It would’ve included

work boats and boom skiffs, a 36-foot landing craft, a 50-foot landing

craft and a 65-foot skimming vessel, not to mention 23 employees that

would be stationed at the Sidney base.

Again, my question to the minister: how is spending millions on

lawyers instead of building bases supposed to protect B.C.’s

coast?

Hon. G. Heyman: For a moment, I thought perhaps the member was referring to the

millions of dollars the former Liberal government spent on legal costs

for Basi and Virk after they pled guilty.

The fact is that the development of those marine response stations

is in response to federal laws and federal jurisdiction, and I would

invite the federal government to deal with the issue. We’re dealing with

issues within our control.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’re standing up for B.C.’s coast. We’re standing up for the $1.2

billion in sales from the seafood sector and the $17 billion in economic

activity from tourism that affects the entire province of British

Columbia.

We’re standing up for the wild salmon economy that employs 10,000

British Columbians. We’re consulting on regulations within our

jurisdiction to do that. And instead of standing with us, the members

opposite are asking questions of us that should be directed to the

federal government.

E. Ross: Thanks to the Premier for the reference to the work that my band

did in relation to crude oil. If it wasn’t for the work of our band, the

ocean protection plan wouldn’t have existed in the first place. So

please, thank my band council for that.

What we do hear is plenty of rhetoric from the Premier and talk

about going to court, but let’s look at the results on the ground. Right

now there’s a 251-metre crude oil tanker called the Eagle Bay

less than five kilometres off the coast of East Sooke Park, and

construction has stopped on new spill response bases in Sidney, Becher

Bay, Ucluelet, Nanaimo, Richmond and Port Alberni.

To the Environment Minister: how does the cancellation of the

construction on these new spill response bases protect B.C.’s

coast?

Hon. G. Heyman: When the member opposite was the chief councillor of the Haisla

Nation, he understood the importance of not accepting the risk of a

spill of diluted bitumen. He may have forgotten his words at the time,

but the Premier hasn’t, I haven’t, and British Columbians

won’t.

Does the member for Skeena really think British Columbians believe

that we should have a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic — without

knowing if we can prevent a spill, without knowing how we can

effectively clean it up and without knowing if we can have adequate

response times — in order to prevent a private corporation operating

under federal jurisdiction from slowing up spending that the federal

Transport Minister has assured Canadians and British Columbians should

go ahead?

I think that’s a bad bet. It’s a bad gamble, and it’s one we’re

not willing to take. We’ll do our job. The federal government should do

theirs.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES

M. de Jong: It’s worth assessing where we have come from and where we’re at

today with respect to this important issue. We have learned over the

course of the last few weeks that from day one the Premier, his minister

and the government knew they were legally precluded from adopting the

strategy they had laid out in detail to oppose — and use every tool in

the toolbox to oppose — this pipeline project.

We also know that as a result of the strategy that they have

employed, oil is shifting from pipelines that are at capacity to rail,

an inherently riskier mode of transportation. Moments ago legislation

was introduced in Alberta, we are told, that will see British Columbians

paying dramatically more for the fuel that they need and our economy

needs to continue to operate.

My question to the Premier: how high will the price of gas have to

go for consumers in British Columbia before he admits his error,

swallows his pride and admits that he has made a colossal mess of this

important file?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his just-under-the-wire question at the end

of question period.

It is critically important that the government of Alberta act in a

lawful manner. They chose not to when they banned B.C. wine imports back

in February. We took them to task with respect to that. They withdrew

that illegal action.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’m very certain, once we review the legislation that the member

just referred to, that we’ll find again they are violating legal rules

with respect to restricting access, unless they choose to reduce access

to Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Ontario as well. We’ll see how that

goes.

I want to also just remind the member for Skeena that in his

previous position, he would have probably endorsed the view of Dustin

Rivers, the spokesperson for the Squamish Nation, who said today: “This

pipeline and these tankers that will traverse our people’s territories

have not received our consent as a nation.” We take that very seriously.

I’m told the federal government does, and I bet the member for Skeena

does as well.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled

Service Plan 2018-19–2020-21 from the Office of the Auditor

General.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 9, Workers Compensation

Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued debate on

the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 9 be read a second time

now.

As Minister of Labour, my top priority is workplace safety, and

I’m firmly committed to making workplaces in British Columbia the safest

in Canada. But we also recognize that not all risks and health impacts

can be avoided, especially in professions where the job is, by its very

nature, dangerous. I’m speaking, of course, of our emergency first

responders — police, firefighters, paramedics — as well as those who

work in our justice system, such as sheriffs and correction

officers.

These are the people who rush towards danger, not away from it,

who are the first at crash sites to treat victims, who put their lives

on the line to battle raging fires and save lives and who deal with

criminals in our justice system. These are occupations that are

physically dangerous and, especially in the case of firefighters, can

have severe health impacts over the long term, which is why the Workers’

Compensation Act recognizes a number of presumptive conditions that are

linked to specific occupations.

A presumption under the act says that if a worker in a specified

occupation develops certain diseases or disorders, those illnesses are

presumed to be due to the nature of the job. The worker is then eligible

for benefits under the workers compensation system without having to

provide evidence or proof that it’s been caused by their job. For

example, the act specifies a number of cancers that, in the case of

firefighters, are presumed to have arisen from their work. It recognizes

that firefighters face exposure to toxic substances that, over the long

term, can lead to serious illnesses.

[2:35 p.m.]

Up to this point, the cancer presumptions for firefighters have

been limited to those employed by local governments, but we have been

asked by the federal government to extend those cancer presumptions to

federal firefighters, such as those who work on our military bases. This

change recognizes that the federal firefighters are also potentially

exposed to cancer-causing substances both as part of their regular

duties and also when they assist municipal departments at fires in local

communities. So that’s part of what these amendments to the act will

do.

The other large part of these amendments has to do with another

area of health impacts faced by our first responders and by certain

front-line workers in our criminal justice system, and that is the

mental and emotional impacts that can arise from the work they

do.

These are the workers who are frequently exposed to disturbing,

distressing and traumatic situations as part of their jobs. They go in

without hesitation to do what must be done — what most other people

could not handle doing. They put themselves in the path of danger when

others run from it. They save lives, but they also see lives lost,

sometimes under terrible circumstances. They deal with dangerous

offenders and may be traumatized by threats to their own life — assault

or violent acts.

We know these traumas can have long-term effects. They can cause

real injuries and serious health problems ranging from anxiety,

depression, physical and psychological illnesses and, at worst, lead to

suicide. We, as government, must do our part to protect and support the

brave men and women who find themselves dealing with mental illness as a

result of the difficult job they do.

These amendments to the Workers Compensation Act are adding a new

mental disorder presumption for first responders, sheriffs and

correctional officers. The presumption will cover recognized mental

disorders that may arise from exposure to traumatic events at work,

including post-traumatic stress disorder.

These mental disorders will presume to have been caused by one or

more traumatic events that an eligible worker was exposed to in the

course of their work, rather than having to be proven in order to obtain

workers compensation benefits and support. To be eligible for this

presumption and, in turn, workers compensation benefits, the existing

Workers Compensation Act required that a psychiatrist or psychologist

must diagnose the worker’s mental disorder.

The occupations that will benefit from the new mental disorder

presumption — paramedics, police, firefighters, sheriffs and

correctional officers — are occupations that are frequently exposed to

traumatic events at work. These amendments are about fairness and

compassion for those workers who experience traumatic events as part of

their jobs, because these brave men and women should not have the added

anxiety of providing that their diagnosed mental illness is work related

in order to receive the support they need.

The amendments include the ability to extend the new mental

disorder presumption to other occupations that experience traumatic

events at work. Over time, other workers can be added by regulation

where it would be appropriate to do so.

This proposed legislation is a very important first step to our

government, and it is just the first step. We know that there are other

workers in our province who do heroic work and face terrible sights and

sounds and who can be affected by occupational stress disorders. We,

upon passing this legislation, will begin the next steps in engaging

with those workers, their representatives, to collect data, science, to

support their case as well. We will examine those occupations, and we

will review the experience of workers compensation agencies across

Canada.

You’re not lost in our minds. We know the type of work that you

do, and the dangers, especially the mental health risks that you take,

and you take on those illnesses and injuries. We are thinking about you

as well.

[2:40 p.m.]

In bringing forward these presumptions, British Columbia is not

alone. Currently seven other Canadian jurisdictions — Alberta,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the

Yukon — have legislation around PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, or

broader mental disorder presumptions for workers

compensation.

I would like to note that my colleague, the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction, has long lobbied for these amendments

and introduced a private member’s bill for mental disorder presumption

last year. I’d also like to acknowledge and say thank you to many other

organizations and individuals who pushed and advocated on behalf of this

very, very important initiative.

Those are, in addition to my colleague the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction, Gord Ditchburn, B.C. Professional

Firefighters Association; Tom Stamatakis, B.C. Police Association;

Cameron Eby, B.C. Paramedics; Stephanie Smith, BCGEU; Robert Gagnon, the

BCGEU member who walked from Prince George to Victoria to raise

awareness about first responders’ occupational stress injuries; and

individuals such as Lisa Jennings, Terrance Kosikar, Kenneth McLeish,

Darren Gregory, Joe Hudon.

I want to say that those are just some of the few names that I’d

mention. There’s always a risk of missing some when you do that. I want

to say thank you to all of you for continuing to push for this very,

very important issue so that we could provide the help to those who need

help at the time they need that help. These are our first

responders.

I say this on behalf of our government. We couldn’t wait any

longer. We must act. That’s why we’re acting now, while more work needs

to be done to talk about and get engaged in consultations with other

groups so that our final goal is to make sure our workplaces in British

Columbia are the safest workplaces in the country. We are thinking about

those workers.

I want to say that I commend all of these folks, these

organizations, for their effort and for their continued advocacy in this

area. I look forward to the debate on this from other members. But I

just want to say that it makes me so proud that I am in a position to

bring in legislation like this, because these are members who protect

our lives by putting their lives on the line. These are the people that

needed support a long time ago. It’s a long time due, and I think it’s

time that we act on it.

I would ask all members of this House to support us in this

initiative. We’re not finished yet. A lot more work needs to be done.

There are other members that we must work with. We must engage in

consultation with those because many workers are exposed to many

traumatic incidents similar to what I just talked about here. We

couldn’t wait any longer on these ones. A lot of work has been done, and

we were ready to go on these ones. That’s why we’re doing it.

I say thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this. I

look forward to the debate from the members of the opposition and other

members of this House so that we can move on this very, very

quickly.

J. Martin: I think in the strict sense of the word, we’re not actually having

a debate here. We’re having a discussion around a very serious and

topical subject matter that, despite being around for an awful long

time, has really only become part of contemporary public discourse in

the last little while. It is very unfortunate that it’s taken so long to

have widespread recognition of something so serious.

I think it’s important to place Bill 9 in the proper context. It’s

part of an ongoing sequence of legislation that has been recognizing

that there are some unique characteristics and consequences of certain

careers and certain professions that don’t really exist outside of those

specified professions. Bill 9 is sort of a natural next step in a number

of pieces of legislation that have come and gone in the last little

while.

[2:45 p.m.]

In 2012, there was legislation recognizing that mental health

impacts can be work-related — and consequently expanded workers

compensation to include mental disorders, including PTSD.

The Emergency Intervention Act was passed in 2012, May 31. It

recognized that emergency personnel are at a higher risk of coming into

contact with other people’s bodily substances. Specifically with PTSD,

there has been ongoing, heightened recognition that we all want workers

to have safe and healthy workplaces and that we need legislation that

recognizes the work-related impacts on people’s mental health in

specific professions.

Specifically with firefighters, the previous government expanded

presumptive health coverage for this profession in the province to

include types of cancers that present a greater threat due to the

occupation. The government appreciated the vitally important,

potentially hazardous work that firefighters do. There was an

announcement, spread over time, of three new cancer presumptions. These

presumptions for firefighters were already recognized for brain,

bladder, kidney, testicular, lung, leukemia and a number of others, and

the list was added to in recent years as well. In 2014, the province

fulfilled its commitment to restore heart disease and heart injury as a

workers compensation presumptive for firefighters.

There’s always been a distinction between physical ailments and

emotional and mental disorder. PTSD has been a very, very difficult

subject matter to isolate and identify. It still defies specific

definition in a psychological and a medical sense, in terminology. It’s

an evolving subject matter that we are slowly learning more about and

are able to make a little more concrete assumptions out of the data that

is emerging. That data is slow coming, and we’ve had a number of

incidents in past times that have sort of put this in the public

consciousness,

whereas previously it never existed there.

I had the fortune in my previous career to work very closely for a

number of decades with police and correctional officers — less so with

firefighters and other first responders, including military. One thing

that we all know about some of these unique occupations is that there’s

a particular subculture there. In many cases, it is easier for members

of these occupations to socialize and identify with like-minded

individuals who have similar experiences.

It’s very, very normal for correctional officers to talk about a

horrific incident that they encountered in one of the cell blocks.

That’s a discussion that really doesn’t sit well at the dinner table

with one’s family or with one’s social setting, hanging out with friends

and such. It’s a unique subject matter. It’s a unique kind of

experience, a shared experience, that really only people in those

occupations can understand and relate to.

After a while, people in those professions — law enforcement,

corrections and the military — may develop what we call a macabre sense

of humour. It’s a defence mechanism to deal with things that literally

turn most people’s stomachs and make them sick. For many, this is a part

of what happens when they go to work. This is what they deal with in

terms of injury, suffering, death, seeing over and over some of the most

horrific images that the rest of us could only imagine or that we see on

the six o’clock news in censored video clips.

Living that day-to-day, there’s a price to pay. The individuals

that work in these occupations can have experiences that they may be in

denial about or that they may be able to rectify as part of the job. Or

they may understand that they are in a very unique occupation where

there’s a very different norm than for most of us.

[2:50 p.m.]

In some cases, it may become that the best way to deal with this

is to numb oneself through self-medication, substance abuse and other

kinds of mechanisms that we all have when we’re hurting, we don’t really

have a way to address that hurt, and we don’t have a way to get

assistance.

Things have changed — mercifully, they’ve changed — but until very

recently, it was very taboo for people employed in these occupations —

particularly, but not exclusively, for males…. It was really not

appropriate to show one’s emotions, to show one’s pain and one’s

anguish. There was sort of a brotherly expectation that this would be

covered up or that this would be somehow kept among the boys. It’s not

something that would be dealt with publicly.

To be seen checking in with human resources and requesting a

meeting with the workplace psychologist services was a sign of weakness.

It was a sign of embarrassment, and it was a stigma. For tough guys that

went into the military, went into the police and went into work in the

federal prisons with the toughest cons in the country, it wasn’t

something they were supposed to show. It wasn’t something that was

appropriate, that they publicly dealt with. The expectation was that

they could suck it up, because they signed on to a unique career, and

they’re tough people. There’s a culture of machismo, where you don’t

need help because you’re a guy, you’re a tough guy, and you can roll

with this.

Well, there’s a price to pay over the years — and, in some cases,

over the decades — of dealing with such trauma, tucking it away and

hiding it away. In many cases, the result is very self-destructive

behaviour, whether purposely, deliberately, or whether it comes about as

a consequence of going through other measures. You know, in all those

professions that I mentioned, the divorce rates were absolutely

horrific. The incidents of self-medication and substance abuse far

exceeded that of the general population. The lifespan for people working

in those occupations was well below the normal.

It has taken us an awful long time to accept that there should be

more of an opportunity and a culture of assistance for people who have

undergone such trauma and have paid a horrific price for it in some

cases — often, in cases, even with their own lives. We know that the

number of suicides in these professions is also over the top and

incredibly disturbing. It’s something that is unacceptable.

I think we’re slowly moving into an area where it is okay for men,

even tough guys, to be able to make a statement that they’re hurting and

they need assistance. If the legislation before us can, in some way, be

a small part that helps to address what an awful lot of families in

those types of professions have gone through over the years and

decades…. If this can make some small impact on offering support and

recognizing and normalizing that people need help and assistance — even

when there’s been, historically, a social resistance and a subcultural

resistance to seeking that help — then we’re on the right track. I, for

one, will be happy to support the legislation.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for bringing this bill

forward, Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 — a bill

which I clearly stand in strong support of, with my colleagues in this

House.

[2:55 p.m.]

As was mentioned by my colleague from Chilliwack, this bill

updates the Workers Compensation Act so that those working in eligible

occupations — we’ll come to that in a minute — who are exposed to one or

more traumatic events over the course of their employment and are

subsequently diagnosed with a mental disorder…. I’ll come to that, as

well, in a second. That will be presumed to have been caused by the

nature of their work rather than having to prove that it was work

related.

Now, this particular bill is targeting the eligible occupations —

namely, a corrections officer, an emergency medical assistant, a

firefighter, a police officer, a sheriff or other as prescribed by

regulation. Now, that’s important, that other as “prescribed by

regulation,” and we’ll come to that as well.

The term, as I also mentioned in that introduction, “mental

disorder” is actually a term that is defined by the American Psychiatric

Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders . Right now, that’s in its fifth edition. It’s termed

DSM-V. That fifth edition was published in 2013 and is presently in the

process of being updated.

I’ll start here, because it’s a very important interjection that

I’d like to do right off the bat to highlight one particular difference

between the present legislation and that legislation which was brought

in by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the now minister…. I’m having

slight trouble with the title of the ministry. I do apologize. He

brought in, in 2016, Bill M203, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

2016. It was a private member’s bill.

I sat in the Legislature as the member then read it in. We passed

first reading, of course. It wasn’t brought for discussion. Why that’s

important is….

I’ve mentioned the eligible occupations already. If we refer to

this previous bill, and we look at the eligible occupations in that

case, we see a number of differences. We see here that when we look at

first responder, it means the following: an individual who is a

emergency medical assistant, licensed by the emergency medical

assistants licensing board; a full-time firefighter or part-time

volunteer firefighter; an individual appointed as a peace officer,

police officer, sheriff or corrections officer. All of those are

covered.

Most importantly,

section 5.2(

e) of the private member’s bill

brought in by the member for Vancouver-Hastings says this: “(

e) a 9-1-1

communications officer employed by any of the above organizations or by

Emergency Communications for British Columbia Inc.” That’s important,

because that one distinction is a difference between the private

member’s bill that clearly, his party was supporting back in 2016…. It

does not appear here in Bill 9. It’s specifically excluded.

I suspect that the minister, through the Lieutenant-Governor,

orders-in-council, will prescribe this profession coming into the

future. But I will be, as we move forward, proposing a number of

amendments to this bill, and one of those will be specifically to deal

with 911 dispatchers for reasons and rationale that I’ll describe

shortly.

Only Quebec, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and

Labrador, British Columbia and the federal government, Canada, do not

already have some form of presumptive language or legislation for mental

health concerns.

In particular, at the federal level, recognizing some of the

concern with respect to our military coming home — the preponderance of

PTSD and the unacceptable and sad rise in suicide amongst our military

personnel, people who put their lives on the line for all of us…. The

federal government last year…. It was done, actually, by a British

Columbian. The MP for Cariboo–Prince George, Todd Doherty, introduced a

private member’s bill called Bill C-211,

An Act Respecting a Federal

Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He was looking to create

this federal framework to address PTSD in general.

Right now — it’s actually good news; I’m hoping it follows through

— it’s passed through the House of Commons. It was passed through third

reading on June 16, 2017. It’s presently sitting before the Senate at

second reading and is being debated this year, in fact. If we come to

some of the language from the government’s backgrounder in the press

release…. I think it’s important to read this into the record, because

it highlights some of the background for why I will be bringing forth

some amendments for discussion at committee stage.

[3:00 p.m.]

The backgrounder for the Workers Compensation Amendment Act states

as follows: “Currently the Workers Compensation Act provides any worker

with workers compensation” — the term “worker” is actually defined under

the act, and I encourage people to see how it’s defined — “for a mental

disorder” — again, that’s described in terms of the American Psychiatric

Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — “caused by

their work, including PTSD.”

“There are two recognized situations of work-related mental

disorders.” This is critical. “There are two recognized situations of

work-related mental disorders: (1) a reaction to one or more traumatic

events at work or (2) one primarily caused by significant work-related

stressors, such as bullying and harassment.” In both of these

situations, I’ll cite some examples of why I think that we need to be a

little more inclusive in this legislation.

It’s quite clear to me that this legislation is targeting

professions where you might get a lot of No. 1 — that is, “a reaction to

one or more,” singular or multiple, “traumatic events” — but less so to

No. 2, even though it still would apply to No. 2, which is “primarily

caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying and

harassment.” It would apply to those same professions.

It continues in the backgrounder and says: “In order for the claim

to be accepted, medical and/or scientific evidence must be provided to

establish that the condition arose out of their employment, in addition

to a diagnosis by a psychiatrist or psychologist.”

That’s in the current one. That puts the onus of proof on the

sufferer of the mental disorder. That, in and of itself, can be

profoundly troubling and creates great mental anguish for the person who

has actually been exposed to the issue causing them a mental disorder.

In some cases, they might choose not to pursue it because of having to

relive the experience. In other cases, they might try to pursue it, to

their frustration, and add to the compounding of their mental disorder

because of the fact they feel the system is not listening to them.

Indeed, I have examples of that too.

A presumptive clause…. “A presumption under the act,” as here,

“provides that if a worker has been employed in certain occupations” —

again, coming back, those are a correctional officer, emergency medical

assistant, firefighter, police officer, sheriff or others as prescribed

by regulation — “and develops a disease or disorder that is recognized

as being associated with that occupation, then the condition is presumed

to have been due to the nature of their work, unless the contrary is

proved.”

It switches the onus of burden. You still have to go through the

process of meeting with doctors, qualified psychologists and

psychiatrists, and having this condition professionally assessed and

determined to be a result of a certain cause or causes or systemic

problems in the work environment. Now, though, with a presumptive

condition, there is no longer a need to prove that a claimant’s disease

or disorder is work-related.

“The proposed legislative amendments,” it further says, “will

establish a new mental disorder presumption when the condition is a

reaction to traumatic events at work.”

A secondary thing. I’ll very briefly touch upon another…. It’s a

very welcome addition. Frankly, I think it’s an oversight to previous

additions to this act. It’s not going to be the dominant discussion

within this House, but it’s profoundly important, particularly for some

of my friends who actually work as Esquimalt DND firefighters. The

amendments in this act will expand existing cancer presumptions to

federal firefighters.

In our area, it’s very specific to DND. The DND firefighters come

in to help out, in Esquimalt, Victoria and elsewhere, when there are

large calls. They are very active and, in fact, exposed to the same

chemicals, particularly if they’re working side by side with Victoria or

Esquimalt or View Royal or Colwood firefighters.

This new legislation is going to bring existing cancer

presumptions to these federal firefighters employed on military bases so

that federal firefighters who currently qualify for the heart disease

and injury presumptions…. While they do already qualify for that,

they’re not qualified for the cancer presumption. So this is a very good

addition. At present, it’s limited to local government firefighters

under the provision.

[3:05 p.m.]

This act, again, is a direct response, in my view, as was the

previous private member’s bill, to a Union of B.C. Municipalities call

for an amendment to the Workers Compensation Act to include a

presumptive clause for first responders. In 2015, the UBCM, the Union of

B.C. Municipalities, which represents the local governments across

British Columbia, specifically passed a resolution. I thank the good

municipality of Central Saanich, embedded within the provincial riding

of Saanich North and the Islands, where my friend who’s not here right

now is from, my friend to my right here.

This is the motion that they put that was passed at UBCM. It says

this: “Whereas first responders will include 911 operators….” Again, the

motion specifically refers to 911 operators. They’re talking there about

call receivers as well as call dispatchers. It says here: “…paramedics,

firefighters, peace officers, police officers, sheriffs, corrections

officers and many first responders have been affected by mental health

injury/disorder, thus replacing ‘PTSD’ with ‘mental health

injury.’”

It says:

“Whereas there is a need to change the Workers Compensation Act,

under

section 5.1, to add a presumptive clause, as it is possible that

within first responders’ duties, they will encounter horrific acts and

develop a mental health injury:

“Therefore,

be it resolved that a two-month maximum deadline be

implemented when making a decision, at any decision point of the claim,

regarding a mental health injury claim, based on one psychologist and/or

psychiatrist report;

“And be it further resolved that upon receipt of a mental health

injury claim, the worker should receive immediate financial benefits and

treatment, with the understanding and agreement of the worker, their

specialist and WorkSafe B.C. that if it is proven that the injury was

not as a result of their duties of employment, there will be a repayment

plan for costs;

“And be it further resolved that when the worker is ‘fit to return

to work or retraining,’ there will be a follow-up plan, to be agreed

upon by WorkSafe B.C., the specialist and the worker.

“And

be it resolved that under policy 97.34…”

Those of you who’ve been to UBCMs will realize that there

are many, many policies. I challenge people to find this. They will, but

there are a lot of them to go through.

“…conflict of medical opinion, the probable difference of opinion

shall be discussed with the physicians — refer to the treating physician

or specialists — involved, and if it is concluded that there is doubt on

any issues, the board must follow the mandate of

section 99 of the

Workers Compensation Act and resolve that issue in a manner that favours

the worker;

“And

be it resolved that the province of British Columbia add new

legislative language to

section 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act,

adding a presumptive clause for mental health injuries, as set forth in

this resolution, to ensure the well-being of all first responders who

have sustained a mental health injury.”

Coming back, again, to that specific motion passed at UBCM in

2015, the first one that was included was for 911 operators.

Continuing back to the motion, it says: “A motion, duly moved and

seconded, to amend the resolution by replacing the five enactment

clauses with one enactment clause reading, ‘Therefore

be it resolved

that the provincial government work with WorkSafe B.C., first responders

and other stakeholders to review and amend the Workers Compensation Act

with the goal of supporting the well-being of first responders who have

sustained a mental health injury.’”

This is getting complicated. It says it was not endorsed there.

But that was a bunch of sub-motions within it. Nevertheless, we have

that coming out of UBCM. It’s good to see that the government has

responded to that.

What’s more important, as well, here, of course, is that…. We have

to ask the question: why is it that B.C. took so long to actually deal

with this issue? We are really, other than Quebec, one of the large,

major provinces to move forward with it.

We have two shining examples in Canada, those being the provinces

of Alberta and Saskatchewan — we’ll come back to that in a second — who

actually recognized, coming earlier to the government’s backgrounder,

that there are two situations of work-related mental disorders: “a

reaction to one or more traumatic events at work” and “one primarily

caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying or

harassment.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Recognizing that, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan now

cover all psychological injuries defined by the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual , and they do so for all professions. Why is

that important? Most other provinces — Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick,

Nova Scotia, Yukon, Prince Edward Island, for example — largely cover

PTSD, although in Ontario, there’s some new legislation coming forward

adding nurses as well. But why is it that we have more progressive

provinces actually going further?

Let’s go directly to the Workers Compensation Board fact sheets

from both Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta has two such fact sheets

that are relevant here — the traumatic psychological injury fact sheet

and the post-traumatic stress disorder fact sheet. That’s the PTSD fact

sheet. Let’s focus on what it says is the difference.

Effective December 2012, Alberta actually covered firefighters

with PTSD presumptive clauses, as well as emergency medical technicians

and police officers appointed under provincial regulation. Also,

effective April 1, they’ve added correctional officers and emergency

dispatchers too.

If we look at the traumatic, psychological injury within Alberta,

we see that that extends…. Effective 2018, it says: “All workers covered

under the Workers’ Compensation Act who have been:

a) exposed to a

traumatic event during the course of employment that could lead to PTSD,

and

b) diagnosed with a psychological injury by a physician or

psychologist are eligible for presumptive coverage through WCB Alberta,

unless the contrary is proven.”

This, in Alberta, applies to every worker in Alberta — whether you

be a teacher, a nurse, an emergency dispatcher, or whether you happen to

be a social worker. Let’s imagine some cases. We see this legislation

here as a direct response to very effective lobbying by police, by

firefighters, and we thank them for their lobbying. But as legislators,

we must not stop there and say that those who have lobbied are the only

ones who have the issue.

I would argue that they are very efficient and effective lobbyers,

and they are lobbying not only on behalf of their profession but for the

broader society as a whole. I have a cousin who’s a firefighter. I

understand what it’s like to…. I don’t understand to be there, but I

want to understand what it’s like to witness someone come home after

they’ve scraped someone off the road following a significant car

injury.

Over the years, I have done some expert witnessing myself in

forensic meteorology, and I’ve seen horrific pictures. But I’ve only

seen them as pictures. I cannot imagine what people — firefighters,

paramedics or first responders — would actually see when they go there,

and having to scrape this off. Or in Oak Bay, those police who had to

show up at the home of the two young children who were murdered by their

father — can you imagine what they went through? I understand

this.

But let’s also think about that social worker, that social worker

who has to go into a home, and goes into a home and sees systemic child

abuse happening. Suppose that social worker who’s seeing systemic child

abuse tries to get their superior to take steps to deal with it, and

they’re not. That can be a problem. That can lead to profound problems

down the road.

What about teachers? What about a teacher who’s standing up and

teaching the class for years, and then all of a sudden, they have a

child in the class that’s clearly coming from a troubled home? That

teacher has a duty to respond and report, and teachers are

professionals. They will and do all the time. But there are times, and

I’m dealing with some in my own constituency, when nobody listens. The

administration is not supportive. The system starts to protect itself.

Yet the teacher is the one who has to deal with this on the front line.

This can lead to down-the-road and ongoing systemic issues with respect

to depression and anxiety.

Again, I come to a case that’s going on in my constituency right

now, a very serious case that falls right in that definition. Where’s

WCB for them? Where’s WCB for the person who now has to prove that their

illness comes from the work environment?

[3:15 p.m.]

When the system is trying to protect itself, that can be very

hard, because your superiors are not going to be writers of letters

saying: “Yes, we understand this person.” This is why it’s critical to

include the….

What about nurses, who are front-line responders in many cases?

Why are they not included in this? They would be in Alberta. I’ll come

to Saskatchewan in a second. They would be in Alberta.

What about heavy truck drivers working on site where a major

accident, a construction accident, occurs? It can have devastating

effects on the workers on that construction site. It could have

devastating psychological effects, which can be, through proper medical

intervention, assessed and attributed to that accident. But they’re not

covered under workmen’s compensation. Yet in Alberta, they would

be.

What about somebody working in an office in downtown Kelowna, in

an abusive work environment? But that person happens to be a single

mother or a single father, and they’re earning just enough to make ends

meet, because at home, they have an autistic child, and they have no

family in town. They’ve got this one job, and they can’t quit this job,

because if they quit this job, they’ll be on welfare.

Yet they’re in a systemically abusive environment that leads to

depression and anxiety disorders or other such mental illness. They go

to their psychiatrist, to their psychologist, and it’s very clear that

it comes from the recommendations there. But again, they have to prove

this. And as somebody going forward to workmen’s compensation has to

prove it, they have to relive everything. They have to relive all of

those experiences as they try to prove that their illness is a direct

consequence of their work.

Progressive jurisdictions like Alberta — and let’s go to

Saskatchewan — recognize this. They recognize that it doesn’t stop the

due medical process from still occurring. It doesn’t stop workmen’s

compensation from challenging an assessment, but it does provide a

presumptive clause that would ensure that workers actually don’t have to

relive every incident in order to prove it before workmen’s

compensation.

Let’s go to Saskatchewan, another progressive jurisdiction. Now,

Saskatchewan has a two-page fact sheet. If you go to page 2 on this fact

sheet entitled Psychological Injuries , it says this: “Does the

psychological injury presumptive clause guarantee that my WCB claim will

be accepted?” It says this: “The WCB” — that’s Workmen’s Compensation

Board — “will gather information to determine if you’ve been exposed to

a traumatic event or series of traumatic events that occurred during

work and if it is acceptable under the presumption.”

So they’re still able to gather evidence. They’re still able to

make an assessment and a potential challenge if they don’t believe this

was a result, but the presumptive language is there. The presumptive

language is in the legislation that would protect the worker from

actually having to relive that experience.

This doesn’t cost a lot at all. I suspect

that government will step forward and suggest that in the case of some

of them…. WorkSafe B.C. undertook these projections, and they suggested

that the total cost for the presumption of the group of workers

considered here would be $6.3 million a year across all of

B.C.

It’s not clear if that’s going to have any effect on actual

premiums, because WorkSafe B.C. doesn’t actually spend all the money

they’re bringing in at this stage. So that could just be zero cost. And

of course, any increases in WCB would actually go down to the local

government and the municipal level, and the impacts depend on the size

or the payroll.

[3:20 p.m.]

For example, Terrace. Terrace is a small municipality, and it’s

estimated that the presumptive clause for all included classes would

have cost about $4,000 a year. That’s $4,000 for the entire city of

Terrace. I think it’s worth it.

Kelowna is a medium-sized city. In Kelowna, it’s $32,000 a year to

cover all of these presumptive clauses — $32,000 a year alone. It’s not

a lot. And Surrey would be $86,000 a year — a large metropolis city

there. So we’re not talking about a lot of money in these.

However, it’s critical to also think about not only the upfront

costs but also the costs avoided — again, not only with the specific

case of the people who are eligible workers but also with the broader

society. If you can avoid long-term costs of health care — long-term

costs associated with frustration compounding mental disorders because

of a lack of ability, a feeling out of control from an inability to

actually advocate for yourself, and no one’s listening to the job

environment — you can save money in the long term.

Not only that, but a presumptive clause gives WCB a little bit of

power — a little bit of power that’s absolutely critical, particularly

in larger institutions. Why that is critical is that if we come back

earlier, to the two classes that are covered now in the present Workers

Compensation Act, the two classes of coverage…. The two classes — I want

to get them exactly right for Hansard so that I’m not

misquoting. I seem to be filibustering my own time here. I don’t mean to

do that. Here it is.

The first one is, of course, a reaction to one or more traumatic

events at work. That’s the first class. The second is one primarily

caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying or

harassment.

Coming back to No. 2, No. 2 is critical — one primarily caused by

significant work-related stressors, such as bullying or harassment. Now,

why is that important? We all know about people who work in larger

institutions. Whether they be government, hospitals or hospital boards,

universities, school districts or colleges, or whether they be large

places of work — we all know, and have many a story to tell, about

workplace bullying and harassment that goes on. In these institutions,

very often, people feel that nobody is listening. The reason why they

feel that nobody is listening is because you have to prove that a mental

health issue would be a direct consequence of your work.

With the presumptive clause, the onus then comes on the employer:

rather than to cover something up, to actually deal with the systemic

problem. Otherwise, their Workers Compensation Board fees are going to

go up. There’s an incentive to actually deal with workplace bullying, if

you actually include a presumptive clause for all types of workers

covered under the act.

I find it odd that I am the leader of the B.C. Green Party and I’m

arguing better labour policy to the NDP. This is a very odd situation. I

can only hope that they see the light and recognize what Alberta and

Saskatchewan did — that this is about incentivizing safe work

environments.

Two years ago now I stood in this House and introduced a bill that

would require university campuses to add sexualized violence policies,

to insist that they have them. The culture on campuses, from small to

big, was one of: “It’s not our problem.” It’s one of not dealing with

the problem.

[3:25 p.m.]

These universities and colleges and smaller institutions want to

be perceived as safe places for students. So if there’s an issue of

sexualized violence, it’s kept under the table. It’s quiet, and policies

aren’t really implemented. The Premier at the time stood up and agreed

that this was an important issue, and we saw that legislation pass. It

has led to good policy being put in at many, but not all, institutions.

All institutions have it, but not all have as good a policy as we’ll

hear about in the weeks and months coming, ahead.

Nevertheless, it required institutions to recognize that a problem

exists. The ultimate penalty that they would have would be the stick of

advanced education funding, which could ensure that they actually dealt

with it.

In the case of workers compensation, they too have a stick. If you

are in an unhealthy work environment, one that’s conducive to bullying

and harassment…. We all know examples of this going on. If your

management does not step in to deal with it and workers start to go on

leave and, following the presumptive clause, that reason for leave is

actually pinned on the work environment — without having to relive it

and prove it — then there’s an incentive to actually stop, to intervene,

because your premiums will go up. You can bet that when it starts to

affect your bottom line, it will make a difference.

I will not accept arguments from government that somehow this is

going to cost everyone oh so much. In fact, it should not cost anything.

If institutions step up to deal with the problem, they should actually

not cause it to rise. It’s there to protect workers. It’s there to save

the health care system. And it’s there to ensure that institutions step

in to deal with systemic bullying and harassment that too often are

ignored in larger institutions across our province.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan, again…. One government is an NDP

government. And another government — the Saskatchewan Party — let’s call

it a conservative government. Across the spectrum. This isn’t a partisan

issue. It’s a recognition of good public policy — that employers need to

be responsible and that not everybody has the ability to quit a job and

go somewhere else.

I want to come back…. I’ve talked about nurses. I’ve talked about

teachers. I’ve talked about construction workers. I’ve talked about 911

dispatchers. And I’ve talked about office workers, but there are many

other professions. I want to focus right now, a little bit, on 911

operators. I’m going to focus on a story because I think a story says it

all.

I cannot accept that government has any rationale not to have 911

operators named in this act. I cannot accept that. We know, according to

the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , that public safety

personnel — including paramedics, police, firefighters, dispatchers and

correction officers — are four times more likely than the general

population to screen positive for clinically significant symptoms

consistent with one or more of the mental disorders that we’ve been

talking about.

If we need the research on that for 911 dispatchers, I have some

right here. It’s not a prop. It’s just white paper. I have in my hands a

document that I won’t read in its entirety into the record, but it’s a

thesis that was from the University of the Fraser Valley, a fine

institution from down in the valley.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. He recognizes it is a

very fine institution.

It’s a master of arts in criminal justice. Actually, I suspect our

Speaker might be aware of this particular article, because it was from

his former department, there at the University of the Fraser Valley. Its

title is “Prevalence of PTSD Symptoms in Canadian 911 Operators.” We

have an entire study here — and it’s B.C.-focused — that points out the

obvious issues with respect to mental illness, particularly PTSD and

others, that are associated with emergency dispatchers and call

receivers.

[3:30 p.m.]

Let me finish with a story that I’d like to read into the record.

This is a story that I’ll read, and I’ve been given permission by the

person who got it to read it. She or he has given me that permission.

What I’ve done here is — I don’t want to give out any names — I’ve

removed any identifying markers in this. It’s a story that I can vouch

to be true, from a very real person in a very real part of British

Columbia, and that had very profound consequences. This person, now, has

told me about how she or he has consulted at least six dispatchers from

not committing suicide.

The stories I’ve heard, not only from nurses and teachers but from

emergency dispatchers. One of these stories was a caller, a caller who

received a 911 call from a passenger who was in a car in motor vehicle

accident, reporting that. That passenger sees a head rolling by, a

dismembered head. Can you imagine that? The caller is on the phone,

dealing with this passenger, as this passenger is in hysterics. That had

a profound effect, because that person is the first

responder.

I hope government listens to this story and reflects upon it,

prior to us debating this in committee stage. The story goes like

this:

“Mr. X was his name. He lived on the second floor of a four-storey

apartment building, about a block or so away from ‘YYY.’ I don’t

remember the street name anymore, although I do remember that it has

exterior stairs that go up to each floor, because ERT used them” —

that’s emergency response team — “and I remember hearing them stomp up

them, clanging on the metal stairs outside his open window.

“I received a 911 call, where all I heard was a muffled sound of

pain and then a hangup. When I called back, a male with a thick accent

answered, and he didn’t want to talk to me, but clearly he was crying

and/or in pain. I worked hard to establish a conversation with him to

find out what was going on.

“Eventually he trusted me and told me that he had already committed

hara-kiri by stabbing himself in the stomach with a large knife and was

currently sitting on his bed, with his entrails hanging out. He tried to

kill himself and now was really scared and didn’t want to die alone —

not that he didn’t want to die. He just didn’t want to die

alone.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

“I created the priority-one call and advised the chief dispatcher,

who then continued to listen for a bit, off and on through the

call.

“His apartment door was locked, so this became a ‘barricaded man

with a weapon’ call, and ERT was called out. He refused to talk to the

officer at the window, but when talking to me, he would go back and

forth between wanting to live and wanting to die. I convinced him that I

cared and that if he wanted to live, then he needed to come outside so

the officers and the waiting ambulance could get him to hospital for

help.

“He believed me and was going to come out. Then he heard the ERT

officer ask for a member at the parking lot to bring him the spud gun.

This set Mr. X off on a tangent of terror. He didn’t want to be shot. He

wanted to live, but he refused to talk to the ERT member at the

window.

“At this time, he was still bleeding, and the knife was still in his

stomach. He kept telling me he was going to just pull out the knife and

let himself bleed to death if the cop at the window wouldn’t

leave.

“On my end, I had my team manager telling me to hang up, the chief

dispatcher telling me to hang up. Common sense told me to hang up, but I

couldn’t. I couldn’t be the person who caused this man’s death.

“I told Mr. X that he needed to talk to the cop at the window, that

they were there to help him. He went really quiet and then wouldn’t

answer me when I asked him if he was still there. So I clicked on my

mute button so that he would believe that I had hung up — and then just

listened.

“All this time, I was typing as well, letting the officers know what

was happening, and the dispatcher was doing the same with their stuff. I

saw, in the call, the request for the spud gun and that there wasn’t one

on scene, but it was on the way. They were waiting and still trying to

establish contact with Mr. X, trying to strike up a rapport with him. He

kept crying and denying them, accusing them of trying to kill him and

asking them to let him talk to me.”

Remember, at this juncture, she’s on the phone with the mute

button, unable to speak.

“He blamed them for making me hang up and told them that he was

going to die because of it. Car X” — I won’t say what number it was —

“was there as well, and he asked the chief dispatcher where the

call-taker was. He was advised that I was still on the line but was

being silent on mute. They were also still waiting for a negotiator to

arrive. He was at least another 30 minutes away at this point.”

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Speaker, you’ve got the picture now. A man,— knife in his

stomach, entrails hanging out. We now, because he has a knife, have an

ERT team. We now have to wait 30 minutes for the ERT team to come

because he’s an armed person in there. And who’s on the phone? This one

emergency dispatcher.

I continue with the story.

“I knew that Mr. X wasn’t going to live that long. If he was

bleeding badly from his belly, then we didn’t have much time. I don’t

know who it was, but I heard through my headset an officer yell at the

dispatcher to tell me to hang the f… up.”

I’ll let Hansard fill that in if they choose to. I don’t think

it’s parliamentary to do so, but I’m reading directly here from this

thing:

“I do know, though, that it wasn’t car X because it wasn’t his

voice. I know his voice. I felt the horror, the terror of impending

death, the helplessness of having my hands tied, incapable of doing

anything for this man, and I could not hang up. I was frozen. I was

convinced that if I hung up, he was going to die. I also believed at

that point that if I said anything more, I would be in big trouble. So I

sat there for about ten minutes, listening, vibrating physically, and

tears running down my face. I saw in the call that the spud gun had

arrived, and I could hear the dispatcher’s comments that an ERT member

was trying to get a clear shot from the window. They were going to shoot

him.

“Now, common sense tells me that this won’t kill the average man” —

it’s a spud gun, hon. Speaker — “but this man already had his guts

hanging out of his belly, had already lost a lot of blood and was

already traumatized by all this.” I’m quoting again: “F…!”

No need to fill it in. It’s in the text here. This is a direct

quote that was given to a psychiatrist in terms of what

happened.

“I looked over at the dispatcher, who was looking at me. She very

slowly nodded her head at me in my tears. She knew that I could change

this around if I was allowed to try. I think she was telling me to go

ahead and do it anyways. At this point, I had created the call almost 40

minutes ago.”

That’s 40 minutes this woman, this call receiver, sat through this

traumatic event. And there wasn’t much time left, if any, at

all.

“I made the decision and typed into the call that I had established

a trust with the man and that I was going to re-establish contact with

him now. At this point, Mr. X was yelling at the cops to all go away and

leave him alone to die, that he was going to die and it was all their

fault. I started saying his name over and over until he stopped yelling

and he heard me. I started talking with him again, got him to listen to

what I was saying and trust me again. I talked him into coming outside

with his hands up and letting the officers get him the help he needed,

and he did. I typed this into the call, and the chief dispatcher came

back on the line. She coordinated it with the ERT at the door while I

talked to Mr. X. He was scared, but he did it. He unlocked the door.

Then we counted to three, and he opened it and stepped outside.

“I heard the officers take him down and him screaming all the way

through it. They got him into the ambulance and off to hospital. I then

hung up and just about collapsed. I had to leave the room. But on my way

out, I heard the chief dispatcher talking on the phone with someone that

I could assume was car X. She was defending me, telling that person,

‘Well, she did, so it doesn’t matter…. Well, she did….’ as I walked past

her out of the room.

“When I came back into the room about 20 minutes later, car X was

there talking to my team manager. He was visibly angry and told me in a

very stern voice: ‘I don’t ever want to hear of you doing that again.’

But then he stuck his hand out to shake mine and said: ‘Good job. You

should take negotiator training.’ What? I was left with the feeling of

not knowing whether I was in trouble or being congratulated, whether I

was coming or going.

“I never found out whether or not Mr. X lived. I tried to find out a

few months later. The officers didn’t know, and victim services was

unable to confirm he survived, which equals he did not.

“I feel the guilt and responsibility for this young man’s death. It

is a moral injury that I will likely never recover from. The kicker

here: my employer and X inspectors wrote me an ‘attaboy’ for a job well

done. They congratulated me for successfully causing a human being’s

death. I didn’t sign up for that. I’m not a police officer. I was never

prepared for this possibility.”

Now, that is just one of many, many such stories that I have

received over the last few weeks. I’ve got stories like this from

nurses, and I’ve got stories like this from teachers, and I’ve got

stories like this from a diverse array of professions.

[3:40 p.m.]

One thing I cannot accept is that when in opposition, this

government delivered a private member’s bill that included,

specifically, 911 dispatchers and callers. Now, when in government, they

leave out 911 dispatchers and call receivers.

They are first responders. In many cases, they are the first

responder and the last person to hear someone alive, the last person to

be the first responder while someone’s alive. They listen to cases like

this. There are many, many other examples.

I understand that some emergency dispatchers are paramedics and so

would be covered and that some are police officers and so would be

covered, but not all. Many are just civilians and need to be covered

under this legislation.

So over the course of the estimates, I have a series of amendments

to bring forward — one of which I hope is passed, which I’m putting in;

it’s on the order paper — to extend this legislation across other

jurisdictions, all other workers, as defined in the act, just like

they’ve done in Alberta, just like they’ve done in Saskatchewan, to

actually protect workers from abusive work environments as well as to

provide presumptive clauses not only for systemic harassment and

bullying but also for traumatic events.

That’s the first, and I hope government sees the wisdom in that.

As people look at the order paper amendment that I’ll bring in at

committee stage, you’ll note that I recognize that government may have

done some backwork. So royal assent with the amendment would remain the

same now, as proposed here, but would be extended a year so that we

would give government a time to have royal assent for all other workers

not already defined in the amendment here.

That’s the first one. I have some subsequent ones, hoping it won’t

be necessary to raise, under the assumption that government recognizes

that we can do better. We can do better, and at least, we’ve got to do

as well as Alberta and Saskatchewan. We’re a western

province.

We value our workplace. For the first time in a very long time, we

have a progressive, democratic government here, a government that

actually brought in private members’ bills to do this and, in my view,

are timidly responding in a populist fashion only to those who’ve

directly lobbied, without thinking about the broader consequences and

the broader opportunity that is sitting before us now. I thank you for

your attention, and I look forward to debating this further at committee

stage.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m very happy to join the debate on Bill 9 related to the Workers

Compensation Amendment Act, related to the issue of presumptive clause

for first responders. I’m really pleased to have the opportunity to

spend a few minutes to add my voice to this debate.

What Bill 9 does is establishes a presumptive clause for a group

of workers, including first responders, paramedics, firefighters,

police, as well as Corrections and sheriffs. It says that under WorkSafe

coverage, those workers, should they face a mental health injury or

PTSD, will now be deemed to have incurred that illness, that injury, in

the workplace.

They will be able to move immediately to receive services related

to that injury. That’s important, because we know that around mental

health injuries, around PTSD, the ability to intervene quickly and to

support people early in that process will lead to getting healthy again

and to people getting back their lives.

[3:45 p.m.]

We certainly know — from the tragic stories that we’ve heard

across the country about first responders in terms of the inordinately

high numbers of suicides, the numbers of the incidence of mental health

injuries — that first responders are impacted in ways that are

dramatically different than other workers in the workplace. That’s the

reality of what the research tells us.

I’m very pleased that our government has brought this legislation

forward. It’s something that has been important to me for a number of

years. I had the opportunities while sitting on the opposition benches

to bring a private member’s legislation — in a couple of instances, to

in fact call on the government to introduce legislation that would have

put a presumptive clause for first responders in place.

To be fair to the government, the government never opposed the

legislation; they simply never brought it forward. They never allowed

the private member’s bill to come to the floor of the House. As a

consequence, we didn’t have a presumptive structure for first

responders.

The argument at the time was that WorkSafe B.C. in fact provided

services to people struggling with mental health injuries, and that’s

true. But it still required those workers to go through a long —

sometimes far too long — and inordinate amount of hoops to get to the

point where they in fact were accepted for service, moving

forward.

One of the things that happened around that…. Of course, one of

the big issues as to why the current system that this legislation will

change didn’t work is because what we know about mental health injuries

and about PTSD — and what we know about it particularly for first

responders — is that it’s hardly ever the cause of a single incident —

unlike if you have a roofer who’s up on the roof and falls, who falls

off the roof and breaks their leg. We know what happened, and we know

when it happened. They can go to WorkSafe, and they can receive

appropriate supports then.

What we know about mental health injuries is that it is often a

question of cumulative impact. It’s a question of spending ten or 15 or

more years on the job delivering very essential and critical services to

British Columbians — in the case of our first responders, delivering

those critical services and always facing the pressure of what is a

very, very stressful job and often a job where you are going to scenes

where there are trauma, fatality, horrific injuries. It’s your job to

go, to step up, whether you be a firefighter or a police officer or a

paramedic, and take action to protect people, to save people’s lives, to

support people who are facing these often-catastrophic

situations.

As a paramedic said to me at one time, and it resonated very well

with me: “It’s kind of like the backpack theory. Every time you go to

one of these situations, you put another rock in the backpack, and you

keep doing that. At some point, there’s a consequence to that if you

don’t figure out how to take some rocks out of the backpack.” I’ll talk

a little bit about that in a minute.

The challenge here is that it is so often a cumulative situation

of years of critical service to the people of British Columbia. What we

know is that because of the nature of the departments, whether it be

police departments or fire departments or the Ambulance Service, they

are challenged in the ability to document those situations, so we don’t

have the records to be able to make the argument, often, about that

cumulative impact. And sometimes those impacts may not be evident when

the situation is happening.

This legislation says that the evidence that we have…. And the

evidence is supplied; it’s supplied in many, many ways by different

folks. What it does show, as the national survey that was published in

the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in 2017…. What that survey

did….

[3:50 p.m.]

It was a survey of 5,800 participants, and it showed — these are

first responders — the evidence, in that Journal of Psychiatry ,

that 44½ percent of those people who were screened, screened positive

for clinically significant symptom clusters with one or more mental

disorders. In contrast, Statistics Canada will tell us that, in the

general population, the rate is about 10 percent of the

population.

We also know, because the statistics are there and they’re tragic,

of the inordinate numbers of suicides among first responders — just

enormously higher than the general population.

This comes back to the issue that I believe we’re discussing

today, which is traumatic mental health injuries that are faced by

people who do this work, who are involved in these professions that are

so very important to us, as British Columbians, every day and are

particularly important when you need to call 911 because there is

something happening in your life that you desperately need

help.

When you make that call, you are looking for that person or that

team to show up at your door, whether they are police, fire or

ambulances, to give you the help that you need. There are consequences

to that all too often for people who are in that profession.

There has been a great amount of momentum building over the last

number of years for this presumptive clause. We have seen it with the

unions that represent first responders. We have seen it with the

departments themselves that those professionals and first responders

work for, as they’ve stepped up. We’ve seen it with individuals who are

struggling with the challenge of PTSD or other mental health injuries

who have stood up and been articulate and persistent advocates for the

kind of change that this legislation will bring today for people in

these areas.

It’s important for a whole range of reasons. We know, as we deal

with mental health issues, stigma is always a consideration and always a

concern. It’s my hope that this legislation will add another piece to

the plan to reduce the stigma around mental health injuries and around

mental health disorders, that we will understand it and be better at

it.

Also, I’m very hopeful that this legislation, when it passes and

becomes law, and with other supports, will add to the supports that we

need to bring to the table to support preventative services for first

responders.

This legislation will go a long way to supporting an individual —

a paramedic or a firefighter or a police officer — who’s struggling. It

will go a long way to support them. But what we need to do is to put in

place the tools and the programs. I know there’s a lot of work going on

in these fields today, but we need to put in place the tools and the

programs to support our first responders as they do their

work.

We need better tools to support the debriefing that has to happen

after traumatic situations. We need to have better tools to support the

documentation of the incidents that the first responders go out and

respond to. We need to be able to support first responders and their

colleagues to recognize those situations when they begin to see it in

their co-workers. And we need to support spouses and families of first

responders.

We need to have a place for the wife or the husband of a first

responder to go when they see that their loved one comes home and maybe

has a couple of more drinks than they used to have, or they come home

and they seem to always be angry with the kids or angry with their loved

one. They’ve got to have a place that they can go, and they know it’s a

safe place, to say: “There’s something going on here, and we need some

help.”

[3:55 p.m.]

It has to be able to happen in a way that’s safe for everybody,

because what we know is that for a number of first responders, they

buried these issues, and they buried them for a couple of reasons, I

believe.

First of all, people who decide to go into these professions will

tend to be alpha personalities to start with. They tend to kind of suck

it up because that’s what they do. They also, though, have fear that

should they come forward, they might put their careers in jeopardy. We

need to be able to assure them that that’s not going to happen, that

we’re going to reach out and support them to get better and to be able

to go back to work, continue their careers and continue to have healthy

lives because they were able to step up and say “I need help” and to do

that with the security that they’re not going to put their careers at

risk. That’s an important part of the learning process that bringing

this legislation in, I believe, supports.

There’s been talk about the question of who’s included in this

list of first responders and who’s not. I respect very much the comments

of the Leader of the Third Party. I have heard from professions that

believe they should be included, too, and I respect that. I very much

appreciate that the Minister of Labour, when he prepared this

legislation, was very thoughtful about that and included the ability in

the legislation, by regulation, to include more classifications and

groups of workers. I think that’s really important.

I think, though, that what we have today is a foundational piece

of legislation. I’ll remind the House…. I can go back to when we first

adopted a presumptive clause for cancers for firefighters. That was

after many, many years of professional firefighters coming and making

their case to governments and to legislators that this Legislature

unanimously passed legislation that brought a presumptive clause for

firefighters as it related to cancers and heart conditions.

Now, what we know, though, is that when that was first passed, I

think there were two or maybe three cancers on that list. Then every

year after that, more work was done, more evidence was provided, and

cancers and conditions were added to that list. I believe there are now

eight or nine cancers on that list. The foundation was put in place.

There was no longer the need to kick the door open on this. That was

done. It was now a question of providing the evidence.

I’m confident that those same conversations can go on in terms of

any future consideration about adding other professions that provide

critical services, whether they be public services, non-profit service

providers or private sector service providers, where it makes sense. I

think we can do that. And I know that the minister who is responsible

for this legislation is keenly aware that those conversations will go

on, heading into the future, as they should.

This legislation today puts the fundamentals in place. It creates

the opportunity for us to be able to have that con