British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 6, 2015

20150506pm-Hansard-v25n7

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 25, Number 7

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8097 June Burritt Hon. C.

Clark Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 8097 Statements ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8097 Alberta election J.

Horgan Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 8098 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 8099 Oral cancer awareness D. Bing Paramedic deaths and Fallen Paramedics Memorial N. Macdonald Cystic fi brosis awareness Moira Stilwell Ethiopian community J. Shin Intelligence and wisdom in decision-making G. Hogg ALS awareness A.

Weaver Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8101 B.C. Hydro management and information technology plan J. Horgan Hon. C. Clark A. Dix Interior Health Authority and seniors care case M. Karagianis Hon. T. Lake M. Farnworth J.

Darcy Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 8105 Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015 S. Simpson Hon. S. Bond H. Bains Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................................................... 8124 Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015

Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 8124 Bill 23 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 (continued) G. Heyman Hon. Michelle Stilwell D. Routley Hon. C. Oakes C. Trevena Hon. A.

Virk Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................................................... 8130 Bill 23 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 8130 Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (continued) R. Fleming Hon. C.

Oakes Estimates: Other appropriations Estimates: Ministry of Justice Hon. S. Anton D. Eby D. Donaldson L. Krog

WEDNESDAY , MAY 6, 2015 Th e House met at 1:41 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Madame Speaker: Good aft ernoon, hon. Members. Th ere was a medical emergency in the west gallery, but I’m pleased to tell you that the gentleman is in very good hands. Routine Business Prayers. Tributes JUNE BURRITT Hon. C. Clark: Today I want to note, with sadness and with tremendous respect, the passing of one of British Columbia’s great citizens, June Burritt. She was the matri- arch of a British Columbia family that spans fi ve genera- tions — truly founders and builders in our province.

Her infl uence over everyone that she met over the years was subtle, and it was profound. She was a bright light, and we will all miss June Burritt, who lived her life well. Introductions by Members Hon. T. Lake: Earlier today, along with you, hon. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition and members of this Legislature, we had the privilege to be part of the dedication of the Fallen Paramedics Memorial on the grounds of the Legislature.

We gathered today, which the province has proclaimed as British Columbia Fallen Paramedics Day, to remember and honour the paramedics whose lives have been lost in the line of duty. And we all saw the wonderful work that our paramedics do for us each and every day, right here in the House. In the gallery are friends and family of the paramed- ics whose lives were lost in the line of duty and who are memorialized outside today. Th ey are Tony Sunderland, Theresa Hunt, Carolyn Schlamp, Andreas Goedicke, Kim Weitzel, Ivan Polivka, Jo-Ann Fuller, Michael Gray, Shawn Currier and Wendy Th ompson.

I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them and ex- pressing our sincere gratitude for the work of their loved ones. [1345] Also in attendance at the dedication and with us to- day are Bronwyn Barter, who is the president of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C.; Carl Roy and Linda Lupini, who are respectively the president and execu- tive vice-president of the Provincial Health Services Authority and the B.C. emergency health services; Jodi Jensen, the chief operating offi cer of B.C. emergency ser- vices; the Rev. John Lowe, the B.C. Ambulance chaplain, who is representing the B.C.

Ambulance Service retired members association and the fallen paramedics commit- tee; Ken Kramer, chair of the emergency medical assist- ants licensing board. I want to note Lynn Klein, a retired paramedic and fre- quent guest of the Legislature, who played such a key role in the Fallen Paramedics Memorial. And I want to thank you again, hon. Speaker, for the role that you played. Please join me in welcoming our guests today. N. Macdonald: Joining us here in the precinct is George Weitzel, as well as Bob and Lori Currier. Th ey attended the paramedics memorial unveiling held earli- er.

Would MLAs join me in welcoming them to Victoria. R. Sultan: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, otherwise known as ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease, will capture about one in 1,000 of us. It’s terminal, and there’s no cure. Th e best we can do is provide research and family support. In the galleries today are representatives of the organiza- tion which does that: the ALS Society of B.C., coordin- ated by a former member of this Legislature, Susan Brice, who was MLA for Oak Bay and is now a vice-chair of the Victoria

chapter of ALSBC. She’s accompanied by Wendy Toyer, executive director of the ALS Society of B.C.; by Richard Polquin, who’s one of the directors; by researcher Dr. Neil Cashman; by Ann McArthur, who’s also a director; and by Edward Wang, of Borden Ladner Gervais and a member of the ALSBC advocacy committee. Would the House please make them welcome. Statements ALBERTA ELECTION J. Horgan: We on this side of the House, those who have been in government, understand how hard minis- terial assistants work, and I know that the members of executive council know that as well.

So it will be no sur- prise to anyone who knows the hard work of ministerial assistants to learn the news that last night in Alberta a former ministerial assistant to the Minister of Justice in British Columbia was elected to be the Premier of that great province — Rachel Notley. It was a great campaign. I know there are those who think that anything can happen on a campaign — some people sitting, maybe, right across from me. Sometimes things happen on the trail that lead to good outcomes, sometimes not so much.

But with Rachel Notley, I think we can all agree that Alberta, for the fi rst time in 45 years, is going to experience genuine change. I think that’s healthy for democracy in Canada; it’s 8097

British Columbia Debates8098 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 healthy for the people here. And for all of those min- isterial assistants watching question period today: you never know. Introductions by Members Hon. A. Virk: It’s my honour to stand here today in the House and introduce not only two amazing Surrey residents, business icons and philanthropists but great British Columbians. We have Sherrold and Marina Haddad with us here today. Th ey built from the ground up Flag Chev Olds, and it has a history behind it. Th ey moved the fl ag from Expo 86, at considerable cost, all the way.

Th ey wanted to preserve it and moved it. It became an icon in Surrey — Flag Chev Olds. Th ey’ve been philanthropists, they’ve been business leaders, and they’ve been community volunteers. Th eir philanthropy has gone to Simon Fraser University and Surrey Memorial Hospital. In fact, they even rescued two children — two abducted children — from the trunk of a car once. In 2013 they were awarded the Angel Award for out- standing charity for their work on Variety, the children’s network. Th is is one of several rewards they’ve received for their volunteer works for Canuck Place, for B.C.

Special Olympics, Surrey Memorial Hospital and many, many others. I am truly honoured to call them my mentors, my adopted godparents. Would the House please make them welcome. [1350] S. Fraser: Joining us today in the Legislature are Brian Fuller and Fred Webber. Th ey were here to attend the wonderful ceremony. Th ank you, hon. Speaker, for that and everyone else involved dealing with recognizing the fallen paramedics. Brian and Fred are here representing the families of fallen Tofi no paramedics Jo-Ann Fuller and Ivan Polivka. Would this House please join me in making them feel very welcome. J.

Shin: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce to the House my constituents Hiruth Mekit Mwandemere and Woinshet Ladessew, and also dear friends from the Ethiopian-Canadian community and their leaders and representatives from the Ethiopian Community Association of B.C. Th e visit by the delegation today is not to just share with the members of the Legislative Assembly their proud 3,000-year-old heritage and culture but also to highlight the importance of and to gain support for their new project, the Ethiopian house.

Burnaby is home to the largest population of Ethiopian Canadians, and I’m privileged to be able to support this initiative that will serve our diverse communities. To mark this important occasion, the delegation brought to this House a very special gift . For over 3,000 years the Ethiopians have maintained their independence from several invaders. One signifi cant event in their his- tory is the Battle of Adwa in 1896, where they defeated the foreign power equipped with modern weaponry at- tempting to colonize Ethiopia. Th e gift is what their forefathers had used to keep their freedom for centuries.

It symbolizes the same as for the mandate of this House as the defender of freedom, dem- ocracy and liberty for British Columbians, they say. I would like to thank everyone from the Ethiopian Community Association for making their way to Victoria to join us in the House today, and I would ask the House to make them please feel very welcome. B. Ralston: I wanted to also introduce some Canadians of Ethiopian origin who are here today for their fi rst time in the Legislature: Tisgeroman Dejene, Melaku Mekonnen, Bereke Kebede, Debebe Gulu, Abaynesh Tafesse, Nigussie Abera, Buzunesh Alexander and Kokobe Getahun.

Please will the House welcome them all. H. Bains: I also have two sets of introductions today. My constituents, three of them, are from an Ethiopian background. Th ey are in the gallery: Hassen Abdella, Leyila Hassen Yusuf, Bisrat Hailemeskel. Please help me give them a warm welcome to this House. Also, I have two very good friends. I think I could call them lifelong friends. Bruce Ferguson has been an activ- ist, a trade unionist all of his life, for 40 years. In the past he spent 16 years as president of Laborers International Union Local 1611.

Currently he’s a president of the Labour International Union’s retirees club. Along with him is Merrick Walsh, who is a recording secretary of the retiree council. Please help me give them a warm welcome. K. Corrigan: I also would like to welcome an Ethiopian Canadian, my constituent, Afework Woldetsadik, and I hope that the House will please make Afework welcome. R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome my constituent Lulu Kebebe, who’s a mem- ber of the Ethiopian delegation today. Please join me to welcome him. S.

Simpson: I’m pleased to join with my colleagues and welcome three members of the Ethiopian commun- ity from Vancouver-Hastings who are here today: Genet Kebebe, Elsa Birru and Ejigayehu Woldegiorgis. Please make them welcome. J. Kwan: I’ d like to ask the House to please welcome Elsa Abebe, who’s also part of the Ethiopian Association

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8099 of B.C. delegation visiting us today. I ask the House to please make her welcome. [1355] G. Heyman: I hope the members will join me in wel- coming another member of the Ethiopian-Canadian delegation, who’s a resident of Vancouver-Fairview, Worku Ayalew. M. Mungall: I’ d like to introduce the House to a group of people who are with Raise the Rates. Th is fall they joined Bif Naked, a Canadian rock star, in doing the welfare food challenge, living on $23 of food for a week.

Please will the House welcome Bill Hopwood, Jean Swanson, Fraser Doke, Terry MacDonald, Harold Lavender, Thelma Jack, James Pau, Phoenix Winter, Fraser Stuart, Rene Flamand, Victoria Bull, Wilson Liang, Dana Burgess, Samantha Truong and Brittany Goud. Please will everybody give them a very warm welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25B) ORAL CANCER AW ARENESS D. Bing: Each year over 500 people in British Columbia and over 4,000 people across Canada are diagnosed with oral cancer. Th e key to improving outcomes is early de- tection. Th at is why the B.C.

Cancer Foundation is dedi- cated to raising public awareness about oral cancer and leading the way in terms of supporting cutting-edge re- search in British Columbia. In the past three years an event organized by Brenda Currie, An Evening to Conquer Oral Cancer, has raised over $215,000 in support of the B.C. oral cancer preven- tion program. It is also the fi rst and only fundraiser of this type dedicated to raising funds for oral cancer re- search. Dr. Miriam Rosin at the B.C.

Cancer Agency leads a multidisciplinary group of scientists and clinicians com- mitted to improving the prevention and treatment of oral cancer in British Columbia through a combination of research, clinical and community outreach activities. In fact, this program is the fi rst in the world to have suc- cessfully identifi ed specifi c genetic changes in the DNA of individuals with low-grade lesions that are highly pre- dictive of oral cancer development. We know that dental professionals who screen dur- ing dental visits tend to diagnose oral cancers at an early stage.

Th is is why on April 8 the government announced a new, one-time, $120,000 grant to support dental pro- grams for low-income adults and children throughout B.C. Twenty not-for-profit dental clinics will receive funding to deliver services at a reduced rate so that more British Columbians can access dental care. Together we can continue to reduce the number of new diagnoses and improve the lives of those living with the disease. PARAMEDIC DEATHS AND FALLEN PARAMEDICS MEMORIAL N. Macdonald: Today on the grounds of the B.C.

Legislature we attended the unveiling of a monument to honour paramedics who have died while on the job. On the monument are the names Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier, who died nine years ago. Th ey succumbed while attempting to save the lives of Bob Newcombe and Doug Erickson, who also lost their lives. All four entered a shed on the decommissioned Sullivan minesite in Kimberley that covered a water-testing pit. Th e air in the shed was almost entirely devoid of oxygen, and one breath put the victims in an unconscious state. Paramedics do a very diffi cult job.

Th ey rush to scenes of trauma to give comfort and ease pain, and they’re oft en asked to go into dangerous situations. Kim and Shawn thought they would be attending a drowning. Th ey be- lieved they were going to a pond, not a shed. Th ey had no way of knowing that the conditions in the shed would cause their deaths. The funeral, held nine years ago, for Kim Weitzel, Shawn Currier, Bob Newcombe and Doug Erickson was held at the Kimberley Civic Centre.

Along with much of Kimberley, more than 700 paramedics, fi refi ghters, police, military personnel and search and rescue members led a two-kilometre procession to the funeral. Across East Kootenay and, I think, across the province we mourned their loss. I just wanted to acknowledge the work of B.C. para- medics, the B.C. Ambulance Service and the Speaker’s offi ce to create a fi tting memorial to fallen paramedics. Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier are honoured here on the grounds of the B.C. Legislature in perpetuity, as it should be. Our thoughts are with their families, who are with us today.

Th ey have lived their lives these past nine years and will live with this tragic loss forever. We all hope there is some comfort in knowing the deep appreciation felt by all members of the Legislature and, in fact, all British Columbians for those like Kim and Shawn, who choose to serve. [1400] CYSTIC FIBROSIS AW ARENESS Moira Stilwell: May is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month, a time for all Canadians to come together to in- crease awareness and raise funds to fi ght this fatal disease. Nearly 4,000 Canadians are living with cystic fi brosis. Each week the disease takes one life and presents itself in two more.

It’s multisystem, oft en aff ecting the digestive system and the lungs, creating long-term issues that in- clude diffi culty breathing, persistent coughing, frequent

British Columbia Debates8100 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 lung infections and poor growth in the young. It is the most common genetic disease aff ecting Canadian chil- dren and young adults, and there is no cure. Since most deaths from cystic fi brosis are due to lung disease, organ donation is an essential lifeline for many suff ering from the condition. Great strides have also been made in life-saving research, and management of the dis- ease has improved signifi cantly over the last few decades. Cystic Fibrosis Canada has been at the forefront of ad- vocacy and clinical care for the past fi ve decades.

It has invested more than $140 million towards vital research that has improved the quality of life for Canadians liv- ing with the disease and helped our country achieve one of the highest cystic fi brosis survival rates in the world. Th is May, Cystic Fibrosis Canada is asking Canadians to support further research and care, help raise aware- ness in their community and use social media to spread the word. Together, we can continue to improve the treat- ment for Canadians living with this devastating disease and work toward a future where we can all breathe a lit- tle easier. ETHIOPIAN COMMUNITY J.

Shin: Whenever I crave my share of wat and injera, I don’t have to travel far because one of my favourite Ethiopian restaurants is just fi ve minutes away. Th at is just one of the many wonderful luxuries we enjoy in a province as diverse as ours. Ethiopian-Canadians in B.C. have a rich history. Th ey started to arrive in the 1940s to study at the University of British Columbia, to return home with a Canadian education. But many remained to serve in government and in other industries here. Today we have over 10,000 Ethiopians in British Columbia in a wide range of pro- fessions and businesses.

A local fundraising event in 1985, in response to the famine in Ethiopia, led to the inception of the Ethiopian Community Association of B.C. Th is non-profi t organ- ization was established to preserve, share and promote the 3,000 years of Ethiopian cultural heritage. Th ey also worked to support the settlement of new Ethiopian- Canadians, to contribute and enrich the cultural mosaic of Canada. As well, ECA is engaged in community and youth empowerment programs that foster integrated communities.

As the Ethiopian Community Association prepares to celebrate its 30th anniversary this summer, the asso- ciation has embarked on an ambitious project to build a community centre that will help promote understanding and appreciation of their Ethiopian culture and heritage by all Canadians. I ask the support of this House for this initiative. So on behalf of ECA, I would like to also invite all mem- bers to join me on August 29 at the Ethiopian Summer Festival. And in where else but, of course, Burnaby, as the hub of multiculturalism and interculturalism, is this going to take place.

Th is festival is one of our enduring summer favourites for the communities, featuring live music, dance on-stage, exotic food fair and displays of arts and craft s that draws an audience, more than 3,000 attendees, from our com- munities each year. I hope to see you there. INTELLIGENCE AND WISDOM IN DECISION-MAKING G. Hogg: It seems that it isn’t what we don’t know that causes us problems; it’s what we do know that just isn’t so. It seems that many more things are plausible than are right. President Kennedy was fond of saying you can’t beat brains, and he appointed his cabinet knowing that that was true.

But he was wrong. Brains can be, and oft en are, beaten. Author David Halberstam called Kennedy’s cabinet the best and the brightest ever assembled. Following the fi rst meeting of that cabinet, then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson said to Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House and Lyndon’s mentor, that the cabinet was incredible. Each one who spoke was brilliant, and the last to speak was the brightest of them all, a former professor at Oxford and CEO of the Ford Motor corporation, Robert McNamara. But Rayburn wasn’t impressed. He said: “Uh-huh.

I wish one of them, maybe one of them, had run for dogcatch- er once. ” He went onto explain the diff erence between intelli- gence and wisdom.

He said that wisdom grows out of common sense, intelligence and experience, and that he feared that Kennedy’s cabinet lacked wisdom, lacked the advantage of the diff erent perspectives that experi- ence can teach. [1405] Halberstam argued that the cabinet, despite its brains and its thoughtful, rational decision-making, could not fi nd a way out of the Vietnam War because it lacked the context, perspective and experience — in fact, the wis- dom — necessary to solve that diffi cult problem.

Fortunately for those of us who are not the best and the brightest, listening is more important than talking, and wisdom is more important than brains. As actor Jim Carrey said in the movie Dumb and Dumber: “So you’re saying there’s a chance?” Well, yes, there is — lots of them, for all of us. ALS AW ARENESS A. Weaver: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is a debilitating, progressive, neurological disease that leads to the death of neurons that control voluntary muscles. Each of us in this chamber probably knows of at least one person who has struggled with this disease. In my case, it’s three.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8101 Hon. Speaker, 2014 was a very busy year for the ALS Society of B.C. Prior to last year’s ice bucket challenge, which I had the distinct honour of participating in, the society found it challenging to raise awareness about ALS. Th ey found it challenging to attract the type of funding required to advance ALS research. Th ese challenges were literally washed away, temporarily, last August, and a new era of hope has begun. Three years ago the society established a five-year goal to raise an additional $2 million for ALS research.

Remarkably, by itself, the 2014 ice bucket challenge raised nearly that amount through the generosity of British Columbians. Th e ALS Society of B.C. directed 100 per- cent of this windfall to ALS research. As a result, fi ve new research grants have already been awarded in Canada, including one to Dr. Charles Krieger at Simon Fraser University for his studies concerning the use of bone marrow cells to deliver single-chain antibodies in ALS. In British Columbia we are extremely fortunate to have some of the best ALS specialists in the world caring for our patients at the G. F . Strong Rehabilitation Centre.

Th e province’s continued partnership with the centre is cru- cial to providing the best quality-of-care service. On August 6 members of the International Alliance of ALS/Motor Neuron Disease Associations will be sta- ging events around the world to report back on how the funds from the ice bucket challenge have been invested. However, it’s important to note that despite the recent fundraising success, ALS is still not a treatable disease. More patients are diagnosed daily, and the cost of equip- ment and critical services increases every year. Until there’s a cure, we cannot aff ord to let up.

June is ALS Awareness Month. Th ere will be many events taking place across British Columbia during this month, and if you’re looking for information, it can be found at the ALSBC website — www.alsbc.ca. Oral Questions B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN J. Horgan: Before the last election the Premier con- ducted an audit of B.C. Hydro. In doing that audit, the Premier said the following: “We worked really hard on that audit to try and wrestle down these rates. I’m going to keep that promise, because people are struggling. ” Th at was the Premier before the election.

We all now know aft er the election that rates were increased by 28 percent, and it was: “Well, I guess we didn’t struggle that hard be- fore the election, as we had been told. ” In fact, since then we’ve learned that transmission pro- jects in British Columbia are $500 million over budget. We’ve learned that B.C. Hydro is not meeting its conserv- ation targets. We learned that the number of employees making over $150,000 a year has tripled.

And now we learn that the fi ve-year information technology program, the fi ve-year telecommunications and technology plan, is in its seventh year and is $100 million over budget. My question is to the Premier. What happened to the enthusiasm for working people before the election, and why is it that we now see B.C. Hydro completely and utterly out of control, costs continue to escalate, and overpricing on just about everything seems to be com- monplace? [1410] Hon. C.

Clark: Well, let me just take a moment here to be clear about who it is in this Legislature that stands up, stands for, fi ghts on behalf of working people in British Columbia. It’s this side of the House. It’s people who be- lieve in creating jobs — high-paying resource sector jobs, technology sector jobs, where people can make not just a living wage but a family-supporting wage. Th ere is a reason members of so many private sector and public sector unions voted for the plan that I pre- sented in the last election.

It’s because they understand that bigger government, bigger taxes, do not mean more benefi ts for citizens. What they understood in the last election is that small- er government, responsible spending, tackling your debt and your deficit, maintaining your credit rating and making sure that British Columbians are number one in your mind in creating jobs is how you look aft er working people. We stand for that every day, and we do it proudly. Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Offi cial Opposition on a supplemental. J.

Horgan: I don’t know how the Premier can take 28 percent rate increases for hydro bills as looking aft er people who are struggling. I don’t know how the Premier can say that doubling MSP premiums since the Liberals came to power is keeping costs under control for work- ing families. I don’t know how the Premier can say that jacking up camping fees so that families can’t even take a break in the summertime is helping working families. What I do understand is that the government decid- ed to give a tax break to the top 2 percent.

Th at I under- stand, and that’s what the people of British Columbia understand as well. But I think I digress. Let’s focus on the meal of the day, which is mismanagement at B.C. Hydro. Before the election the Premier looked into the camera and she said, “I’m going to wrestle these rates to the ground, ” and they went through the roof. Why? Well, $500 million over budget on transmission; $150,000-a-year employees tripled; and just today we’re revealing to the Premier — and maybe she’ll pay some attention to this, because her current chief of staff was re- sponsible for this when he was at B.C.

Hydro as the chair of the board — that your IT plan, your fi ve-year plan, is in year 7, and it’s $100 million over budget. Instead of

British Columbia Debates8102 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 driving costs down, it’s driving costs up. So again, my question to the Premier is…. Let’s try and focus on the facts, and the facts of the matter are that B.C. Hydro is a disaster. What plan is there to fi x that? Hon. C. Clark: I know that the Minister of Energy has spoken quite a bit in response to these questions and has off ered all the answers that the member is seeking. B.C. Hydro is undertaking one of the largest expansions that they have undertaken in 30 years so that we can look aft er our kids.

I mean, the other part of this equation, when the member talks about working people…. Empty prom- ises, empty talk, at a time…. From a man who was a part of so seriously damaging our economy throughout the 1990s…. Last in employment growth, 50,000 people who fl ed our province to try and fi nd jobs, eight consecutive unbalanced budgets and credit downgrades — that’s what that member stands for. On this side of the House we stand for working people, including the working people over at B.C. Hydro that he complains about.

Many of the people that are earning over $150,000 a year, which he complains about, are the men and women who go out at night, on weekends and in overtime and put their lives at risk to make sure that British Columbians continue to have power. Y es, those are costs that we incur, but I think most British Columbians would say it’s worth the investment in those working men and people who do that on our be- half and who do it so incredibly well. Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Offi cial Opposition on a supplemental. J.

Horgan: I do have a supplemental, and I’ll try again to bring the Premier back to the reality that families are feeling today. Th ey’re struggling. Th e 28 percent rate in- crease is not my rate increase. It’s not the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake’s rate increase. It’s the Premier of British Columbia’s rate increase. [1415] Now, I appreciate that the Premier likes to take his- torical walks down memory lane, but I think we learned something very valuable last night about fearmongering, and that is that it doesn’t work.

So rather than getting an undergraduate course from the Premier on what hap- pened in British Columbia a thousand years ago, why don’t we get from the Premier an answer to what she’s doing to working people in British Columbia today? And what is that? Hydro rate increases. I live on Vancouver Island. I’ve got to pay a little bit more to get off it now, and some of the people that come here by boat might be doing that on the other side as well. Camping fees, ICBC rates, MSP premiums. Everything that the government touches comes out of the pockets of work- ing people. Will the Premier stand today and say that B.C.

Hydro is out of control, that we need to fi x it and that that should be the highest priority, not pretending it isn’t broken? Hon. C. Clark: If the government that we complain about, the last NDP government, was a thousand years ago, I’ve got to give this guy credit. He doesn’t look like 1,054 years old, because he worked for them back then. When we talk about 1990, it’s not that long ago. What we should be talking about when we talk about how British Columbians are doing…. Were British Columbians doing well in the 1990s during all those years of deficit?

Were they doing well when British Columbia had the worst unemployment rate in western Canada every single year in a row? Was that good for working people? Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. C. Clark: Was it good for working people when the NDP opposed the B.C. early childhood tax credit? Ask the 180,000 families that will benefi t from that. Ask the tens of thousands of children who will get the $1,200 in the education savings grant — again, something that he campaigned against. Ask the tens of thousands of people who will soon be riding the Evergreen line to work and to home every single day.

Ask the thousands of trade students who will be eligible… Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. C. Clark: …for up to $16,000 through the B.C. access grant. Ask the 1,300 British Columbians who are working in the fi ve new mines that have opened since 2011. Ask them if they are better off . Ask them if they are better off with the policies of a B.C. Liberal govern- ment that stands for jobs and opportunity. I think they will give you a resounding yes. A. Dix: Let’s just review what the Premier is actually bragging about today.

A fi ve-year information and tech- nology plan that’s half fi nished and that’s in its seventh year. It’s in its seventh year. Th eir $400 million plan… Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. A. Dix: …has cost $492.5 million. Th ey’re failing to meet targets. B.C. Hydro justifi ed doubling their IT spend and in- creasing rates to double their IT spend on capital by

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8103 arguing that the $400 million expenditure would reduce operating costs by 30 percent — $400 million to save $30 million a year. It sounds a little like Social Credit, but that’s what they promised. What happened? We’re now in year 7. Th e plan is in- complete. Interjection. A. Dix: I know the Minister of Health is an expert on bungled IT schemes. We’re now in year 7 of the plan. Th e plan is incomplete. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. A. Dix: And the operating savings? Did they save 30 percent? No. Did they save 25 percent? No. Did they save 10 percent?

No. Operating costs went up. How can the minister justify this irresponsible and un- successful spending? [1420] Hon. C. Clark: Just so that there’s no doubt, I do want to be clear about what I was bragging about. Near record employment in British Columbia — 2.3 million British Columbians working. An exclusive club with a third balanced budget, a third consecutive bal- anced budget. An unemployment rate at 5.8 percent, which is the largest decrease in Canada since we intro- duced our jobs plan in 2011. Lowest personal income taxes in Canada up to $121,000, which puts a lot of money in people’s pockets.

And so, in addition to the 21,000 units of social hous- ing that have been created, in addition to the 74,000 British Columbians who are now working who weren’t before, in addition to the B.C. education savings plan, the middle-income families who are paying less — more than $2,000 a year less than they were under the NDP …. Th ose are achievements, and if the member wants to know, that’s what I’m bragging about. Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supple- mental. A. Dix: Th is is how, I guess, you get 28 percent hydro rate increases.

Th is is how you get transmission line costs out of control and the public misled before an election. Th is is how you get an information technology plan that doesn’t meet any of its targets, that’s over budget, that’s in its seventh year with no end in sight. Th is is how you get it. All the Premier seems to do is sit in her own offi ce and read her own campaign literature. A few weeks ago the Minister of Energy and B.C. Hydro weren’t able to provide coherent answers to any questions on this overrun, any questions on these late programs, any questions on this unsuccessful program. How can he explain?

Oh, but someone at B.C. Hydro no- ticed in February that the person responsible for the plan was dismissed by B.C. Hydro. So my question to the minister is simple. It’s simple. How can he justify…? Interjections. A. Dix: Oh, again. Y ou know, there are so many ex- perts on failed IT schemes on that side of the House, and they’re all speaking now. How can the minister possibly justify a scheme that is in its seventh year, that is over budget, that is failing to miss its targets and where the author of the scheme has been fi red?

How can the minister justify this scheme which has cost hydro ratepayers so much money? Hon. C. Clark: Well, fi rst of all, I reject this notion that I am reading campaign literature. What I am reading are the accomplishments of the government that are based on the promises that we made during the election, prom- ises that we have kept and accomplishments that we have delivered for the people of British Columbia. Why are people moving from across the country and around the world to British Columbia? It’s because in British Columbia we have the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada.

When you look at income taxes, property taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes, British Columbians get to keep more of their money than just about anybody else in Canada. Th at is in direct contrast to when that party was in power in 1990 and people had the biggest hit from government of anyone in Canada. Th eir wallets got smaller faster in British Columbia than any other province. Th e most beautiful place in the world to live and people had to leave. [1425] Well, not under this government. We’re looking out for working people. We want to keep British Columbia aff ordable.

And we want to create jobs in every corner of the province. INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY AND SENIORS CARE CASE M. Karagianis: Let’s look at another record under 14 years of B.C. Liberal government. Under this government seniors care has deteriorated, and despite a major inves- tigation by the Ombudsperson, delivered in 2012, prob- lems persist, causing seniors and their loved ones, like Nancy and David Varcoe, unbelievable hardship. According to a subsequent report from the Ombudsperson issued in April of 2015, Interior Health detained Ms. Varcoe for more than two years with- out her consent.

She was torn away from her husband,

British Columbia Debates8104 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 David, who wanted to take care of her at home. To quote the Ombudsperson: “Th e health authority detained her in residential care and charged the corresponding resi- dential care fees without having the proper legal author- ity to do so. ” My question is through to the Justice Minister. Can she tell this House why her government detained Ms. Nancy Varcoe against her will for more than two years? Hon. T. Lake: It is this government that instituted the fi rst seniors advocate offi ce in all of Canada. We care about our seniors.

Th ey have dedicated their lives to British Columbia, and we need to make sure that they are looked aft er as they age. We have a seniors advocate. We have a seniors action plan. We are working hard. We have created thousands of spaces for residential care and as- sisted living throughout the province of British Columbia.

What we recognize in our priorities document, which has been out for a year now and had widespread consul- tation around the province, is that we need to make sure that seniors can live in their homes as long as possible, to be assisted to stay in community and to stay, as much as possible, out of the acute care system. Th at’s what we’re working hard on, and we’ll continue to do that to make sure our seniors are well cared for. Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a sup- plemental. M. Karagianis: Well, it’s very clear that the govern- ment does not want to give us a direct answer on this issue.

A review panel released Nancy in May of 2013, but it took the Ombudsperson’s investigation to document how systematically the government violated Ms. Varcoe’s basic human rights. According to the Ombudsperson: “It was evident that health authority staff had facilitated the revocation of Ms. Varcoe’s power of attorney without pro- viding her with access to legal counsel. ” Th e report goes on to say: “Th e health authority did not have adequate reason to detain her, and aft er spending over two years in care against her express wishes, a decision by the re- view panel ordered that Ms.

Varcoe be immediately dis- charged home. ” I would like to ask the Minister of Justice again to tell this House: how many other seniors are being detained in care without adequate reason and against their ex- pressed wishes — detained without their express wishes or permission? Hon. T. Lake: I have had the opportunity to visit resi- dential care homes throughout the province of British Columbia, and I can tell all members of the House that the staff who look aft er our seniors in those residential care homes are exceptional. Th ey care deeply about their residents.

In this situation, the health authority has apologized to the family. We take this very seriously. Th e health au- thority has committed to additional training and under- standing of applicable legislation for their staff to assure that appropriate assessments and decisions are made, to make sure this doesn’t happen again. But we also have strong legislation in place, which guides when someone is held under the Mental Health Act, to make sure that there is a Mental Health Review Board, an avenue for families to seek recourse. Th e health authority, in this case, has apologized to the family.

We will make sure that this does not happen again. Th at is why we have a seniors advocate, an independent seniors advocate, who ensures that we continue to im- prove everything we do in seniors care in British Columbia. [1430] M. Farnworth: Mrs. Varcoe was not fi ghting alone. In fact, had it not been for her husband’s determined eff orts, she would not have been released. Th e Ombudsperson’s report is very clear. It said to the Varcoes that the steps taken by the health authority re- sulted in “signifi cant loss of liberty and fi nancial hard- ship” to them both. Th ey lost their car.

Th ey were told to sell their house and divide the profi ts between the two people. Th ey had their bank accounts accessed, their tax returns accessed, their pensions accessed — all without the appropriate authority. To say it’s undue fi nancial hardship is an understate- ment, if there ever was one. It’s disturbing that you would force a vulnerable citizen to be detained against her will. But it’s truly disturbing when the government would do so, when the review panel concluded that her husband was more than able, and perfectly willing, to care for her at home.

Even aft er that, when they knew it wasn’t right, they went and doubled down. Th ey detained her as an in- voluntary patient under the Mental Health Act. Can the Premier explain to the Varcoes why this gov- ernment took more than two years of their lives? Hon. T. Lake: It is extremely unfortunate that some decisions were made. I have no doubt that people were making decisions out of the interests of the client. When you have vulnerable people, good intentions don’t always translate into the best decisions. We take the Ombudsperson’s report very seriously. Interior Health has apologized.

No one would want that to happen to their family member. Interior Health has apologized. Th ey are discussing how to work this out with the family in terms of the fi nancial impact on the family. We have strong legislation, in terms of the Mental Health Review Board, for recourse for families. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8105 M. Farnworth: Th is requires more than a simple apol- ogy or that “we’re going to have some additional training. ” Th is is about a family who…. For two years their lives were torn apart because of the actions of this government. Th e Ombudsperson’s report is clear and damning in its fi ndings. I’ve outlined how they lost those two years, the fi nancial pain and the family pain that the actions caused. But there was more.

When the apology was off ered and a “settlement” was put toward the Varcoes, they were told: “If you don’t agree to waive any civil suit, the $25,000 that we took from you wrongly, we will not give back. ” Again, to the Premier: does the Premier think that is fair treatment for citizens of British Columbia? Does she think that is justice for people hurt by the actions of her government? Hon. T. Lake: Th e member is correct. Th ese aren’t simple matters. To suggest that a situation is black and white, as the member is doing in this House for polit- ical purposes, is not correct either. It is not correct.

It is not right. People act with the best intentions. In spite of that, mistakes were made. Th ey have been acknowledged. Apologies have been issued. Th e IHA is working with the family to ensure a resolution for them. [1435] No one can give them their time back. We know that. But to suggest that people looking aft er vulnerable adults in this province would willfully impose something to…. Th at is ridiculous. Th e member does a disservice to every- one looking aft er seniors, to suggest that people would act that way knowingly. We will ensure that Interior Health looks aft er the situation.

We are committed to looking aft er vulnerable adults in the province of B.C. J. Darcy: It must be said. Th e Minister of Health does an injustice to the Varcoes, and to people who care for seniors right across this province, with his response. Aft er threatening to withhold the Varcoes’ care fees, the government fi nally relented and reimbursed them with no strings attached. But that doesn’t even begin to address the more signifi cant harm that was caused to this couple.

In addition to the indignity of being de- tained against her will, the Varcoes went deep into debt — $65,000 by their estimate — and they lost 30 months of their lives that they will never, ever get back. Does the minister really believe that an apology, reim- bursement of fees and vague statements about an edu- cation program off set the immeasurable pain that was infl icted on this couple? Hon. T. Lake: No, I don’t. I don’t. Nothing can give them that time back. But again, to suggest…. I can’t talk about details of individual cases in the House. Th e mem- ber knows that.

Th e members opposite make it sound like it’s black and white, that it’s not complex, that people didn’t have good intentions or had the very best interests of people in mind when decisions were made. Th at is why we have an Ombudsperson’s offi ce. Th at is why we have the Mental Health Review Board. We have processes in place, because situations — as the mem- ber well knows, from her career in health care — are not black and white. Th ey’re not simple; they are com- plex. When family members are facing challenges, when people have real needs and caregivers have their best in- terests in mind, it is never simple.

We are committed on this side of the House to con- tinue to improve the service that we give to vulnerable seniors throughout the province of British Columbia. I am determined to do that. I know every one of my col- leagues is determined to do that as well. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly I call committee stage on Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

In the Douglas Fir Room, following the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, will be the estimates of the Ministry of Justice. [1440] Committee of the Whole House BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:44 p.m. On

section 1. [1445] S. Simpson: Th is

section deals with the matter of in- junctions and the ability to restrain industry if an em- ployer defaults. I believe this replaces

section 46. Could the minister tell us, and explain generally, what the change is and how the government believes that this will, in fact, eff ect the kind of changed behaviour that we’re looking for from employers who might not pay their bills? Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the brief recess. Th ank you very much for that, to the member opposite. I do want to introduce the team that I have with me today, because they’re always critical to the work that we

British Columbia Debates8106 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 do. I very much appreciate them, and I know the member opposite does as well and has expressed that. I have my deputy minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos. I have Trevor Hughes, who is assistant deputy minister on the labour side, and I have Michael Tanner, who’s the director of labour policy and legislation. I think the member opposite’s question is to ask: what is the point of the

section and the changes? He is correct. It would replace

section 46. One of the problems that I was very concerned about was the fact that there may well be egregious employers who are assessed administrative penalties and in order to avoid actually being held accountable for their behaviour will reconstitute themselves under another corporate en- tity.

Th e purpose of these particular changes means that if there is an employer who defaults in paying an assess- ment or a penalty, which includes administrative penal- ties, the Supreme Court of B.C. will now be able to grant an injunction which restrains that particular employer from carrying on in that industry until the assessments are paid. I think the decision we made, from a policy perspec- tive, was it’s not just about the corporate entity. We need to be able to move that down.

Th e changes in 46(2) ac- tually will not only aff ect the corporate employer but also directors, senior offi cers and other persons who are a directing mind of the employer from carrying on in an industry or an activity in an industry until all of the as- sessments, including penalties, have been paid. S. Simpson: In the legislation, 46(1)(a), it says: “an employer defaults in the payment of an assessment. ” Assessments generally under the act have been the rates or the premiums paid by employers into the accident fund — essentially, the dollars paid by employers into those funds. Is that still the

interpretation here? Would that mean that for an employer who was delinquent on paying those regular assessments, this could be used to aff ect them, as well as an administrative penalty, for some kind of particular conduct? Hon. S. Bond: Th e member is correct. [1450] S. Simpson: Th en just to be very clear, can this be used to….? Th is policy — is it seen as a way to be used to deal with what we might call premium avoidance? Y ou have circumstances where, for example under the rating systems, employers who work safely can get discounts.

Th ey’ll receive discounts on their premiums based on their conduct, and those discounts can be signifi cant if they work safely for signifi cant periods of time. We know that there have been instances where em- ployers have not been able to achieve that and may make a determination for a variety of reasons to wrap that busi- ness up, put a new shingle out and come back and try again to get at those reduced premiums in another way. Would this also potentially be used to cover that conduct if an employer was trying to get around having to pay the level or the rates of premiums? Hon. S.

Bond: I appreciate the question. I think it is important to point out that the bill and the policy intent here, in the work that we’ve done, is really designed to drive compliance around worker safety. But the member opposite is correct. It would certainly cover if they have not paid their assessment or penalties. Y es, this would apply. It would mean that you simply couldn’t…. To use the member opposite’s own language, you can’t hang out a shingle and avoid payment of either an assessment or administrative penalties. Th is allows that practice to stop.

In fact, the court would simply say: “Y ou cannot continue to work in this industry until you either pay up your pre- miums or pay up your administrative penalties. ” S. Simpson: One follow-up there. We know the situa- tion around WorkSafe B.C. is the experience rating sys- tem. Employers who have a record of working safely can get a discount on their base rate of up to 50 percent, if they have a record of working safely.

We know, on the other hand, that firms that don’t work safely could face a surcharge of up to 100 percent on their premiums if they’re deemed by WorkSafe to not be working safely or they’re acting negligently. We know there have been circumstances…. Th e stories are out there about companies that fi nd that prohibitive in terms of their costs or they just see the example of essen- tially reincorporating their activity, much like others have done. We all know the stories.

People have called this the Arthur Moore clause in some cases, and we know how he conducted himself, fl ipping his businesses at times to do what he did. [1455] Th is is slightly diff erent. Companies could essentially reincorporate and look to get a fresh start on their pre- mium payments by getting around it if they faced a sig- nifi cant surcharge. Does this do anything to deal with that? It doesn’t mean they are not paying, but they’re using a reincorporation strategy to reduce their assess- ments. Hon. S. Bond: I certainly understand the question, and I just want to be careful to answer it correctly.

Th e point of these changes is to preclude a company — and its directors now; we go further down the chain of command — from starting up a new corporate entity. Whether they don’t pay their premiums or their admin- istrative penalties, the court will now be able to say, “Oh, no, if you were a mill, you can’t operate in that particular sector again until you pay up. ” To clarify the question about premium avoidance, if that corporate entity starts another corporate entity,

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8107 their history travels with them. It doesn’t mean that you can shut down one, start a new one and, by the way, the premium history that you had disappears. It doesn’t do that. Th e history would follow them. And that’s a separ- ate issue. Th is is about saying: “If you have not paid your assess- ments, if you have not dealt with your administrative penalties, the court can say you’re not going to operate at all until you do that. ” Th at is a new power. Premium avoidance is not directly refl ected in this.

Th e only way you could avoid premium adjustments is if you started in a new sector. Y ou can’t continue in a mill and avoid the premium history that you have. S. Simpson: Could the minister talk a little bit about how this might apply diff erently to a smaller company with fewer employees, with a single owner or a small group of officers, a small company that might be af- fected by this?

If you took the principal of the company out of play, or threatened to do that under this legisla- tion, that becomes a signifi cant consequence, versus a larger company where individuals are not that critical to the operation of the company and how it might func- tion diff erently. [1500] Can the minister talk a little bit about the thinking in this, about how you get around maybe this not being such a consequence for a larger company? I would note, for example, this deals with small play- ers that might be a problem. In the case of, for example, Lakeland or Babine, those are both signifi cant companies.

Th ey’re not small, fl y-by-night operations. Th ey’re signifi - cant mills. Th ey have signifi cant infrastructure, and they have major questions about them. Y ou’re not going to take one or two people out of either one of those companies and stop them from operating. How does this aff ect them diff erently? Hon. S.

Bond: I think the size of the mill really doesn’t matter because the new power will allow the court to say: “Whether you are a two-person mill or whether you are a Lakeland or Babine, your mill does not operate again until the assessment or the penalties are paid. ” I think the scope is quite broad when it comes to talk- ing about the senior offi cers and others, because what it means is the court will have discretion. Th is is an en- abling

section for the courts that will allow the court to say: “ As a senior director or a senior offi cer in this organ- ization, you will not be able to operate in the sector either. ” What it does is, for those larger companies, bring a greater degree of accountability further down the or- ganization. I do want to point out, because this is a very…. It was a recommendation made in Gord Macatee’s recommen- dations, obviously aft er the circumstances that occurred with WorkSafe. Th is is for the most egregious.

Y ou can imagine that with building in, now, the author- ity for the courts to say, “Y ou can’t operate in this sector or even conduct” — it goes as far as to say — “an activity in an industry until you take care of these assessments or fees, ” there is fairly broad scope. To the member’s question, whether you’re big or you are small, it means that the court can simply say to you: “Because of your egregious behaviour and because you have not taken care of your responsibility in terms of the consequences, you will not operate in this industry. ”

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. S. Simpson:

Section 2 is the

section that essentially adds two more directors to the board, increasing the board from seven to nine directors. Th ose are to be direc- tors one of whom has a background in legal and law en- forcement, the other one occupational health and safety. Could the minister talk a little about the rationale be- hind the decision to do this? [1505] Hon. S. Bond: Mr.

Macatee in the work that he did recognized that the current framework for the board of WorkSafe certainly provides that the directors must have expertise in terms of their obligation around disabled workers and to deal with the matters in a fi nancially re- sponsible way. Mr. Macatee believed that there was a gap, and I agreed with him, that would allow WorkSafe to better meet its obligations, frankly, and requirements to deal with work- place safety. He highlighted two specifi c areas that we needed to pay more attention to.

One was occupational health and safety expertise and making sure that that in- formation is available for those who give direction and provide decisions. Th ere needed to be a focus on occu- pational health and safety to make sure that we recog- nize the full range of responsibilities that WorkSafe has. Frankly, it was, I think, demonstrated in what occurred leading up to the decisions around Lakeland and Babine. I think these are important gaps to close. S. Simpson: The

section in the legislation is fairly specifi c. It lays out a fairly specifi c defi nition of what “law enforcement” means for the purposes of this direc- tor. It doesn’t do the same thing with health and safety. Could the minister tell us why one of them is specifi cally defi ned and not the other? Th e subsequent question will be: what’s the expectation around the health and safety position? Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons that the defi nition of law enforcement is included is because it actually is de- fi ned in other statutes. So when you’re talking about law

British Columbia Debates8108 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 enforcement, there is a defi nition in other B.C. statutes — for example, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We wanted to be consistent, and obviously, when we write new law, we want to ensure that it is con- sistent across others. I t also very specifi cally captured the type of individ- uals that Mr. Macatee recommended specifi cally.

In rec- ommendation 14 of his plan he specifi cally talked about those who had investigation or prosecution experience. [1510] I think the reason that the occupational health and safety position is less defi ned is that there is a process under which those particular nominations are made. They actually come from a body of expertise where people will recommend occupational health and safety individuals. Th at’s noted, obviously, in sub 2(

e) and (f). The primary reason was reflecting Gord Macatee’s recommendations and also making sure that we were consistent with the defi nition of law enforcement across other B.C. statutes. S. Simpson: Th e selection process for these directors, as with other directors…. As the minister says, they will choose from a list of at least three nominated by repre- sentative organizations — “nominated by one or more or- ganizations for professionals in law or law enforcement. ” Has the minister made a determination of which or- ganizations those are that she will be accepting those nominations from? Hon. S.

Bond: I have not been prescriptive in terms of where the nominations should come from. What is clear, though, is that WorkSafe needs to consult broadly within those particular sectors. What we will be doing is having a discussion about the types of organizations that would be able to provide names for the nomination of directors. I can give the member opposite some examples. In the case of law enforcement, organizations that could be asked to nominate would include the bar association, the Law Society, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C.

Logically, those would be groups that could probably provide some ex- cellent candidates. On the occupational health and safety organization, the same would be true. I have not said it needs to be four or fi ve organizations. I would expect there to be a broad discussion about this. Some examples of organizations that we’ve talked about that are potential would be the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, the B.C.-Yukon local

section of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering. Th is is absolutely not an exclusive list. We want to have the best people for the role and with the appropri- ate expertise. Th at process would take place. Th ree names would then be presented as recommendations. So a num- ber of organizations, and I have not been prescriptive. [1515] S. Simpson: Just so I understand, it says three names. How this process works…. Th is is the question.

Th ere are three or four or fi ve organizations, the minister is saying, and law enforcement was mentioned — I think three or four or fi ve, the potential. Is the expectation that those organizations have a conversation, then arrive at three names that they can all agree on and submit those? Or does each of those organizations submit the three names of their choice? Hon. S. Bond: No, it’s WorkSafe’s responsibility to go out and canvass organizations and then come back and bring a list of three. Th e groups themselves don’t have to agree or disagree. It basically is WorksSafe that would go out.

We would task them with that responsibility. Th at is their responsibility to go and do that. In fact, all three names could come from one association, should they be deemed to be the most appropriate and have the highest degree of expertise for the particular nomination. Th at would be the case in either law enforcement or occupa- tional health and safety. WorkSafe will go out, will canvass, will have a discus- sion with a number of organizations. And again, not at all prescriptive. I have not said it has to come from here, there or anywhere, for that matter.

We will have a discus- sion that it be broad and inclusive. Th eir job is to come back with three names that they believe would be best able to serve in those two positions. S. Simpson: So that I understand this…. Is it the min- ister’s expectation that WorkSafe will generate maybe a list of names in one of these sections, as presumably they do elsewhere, and come back and say to the minis- ter — or to the deputy, whoever: “Well, here are the fi ve or six organizations in this area that we have been talk- ing to, and here are the names that we’ve got from them”?

Th ey’ll tell you, “Here’s who we’re talking to, ” so you know who’s not on the list as well. Is that the expectation? Or will it just be up to them to do this, and the minister is a bit hands-off in terms of the organizations? Or you want to know and be able to say: “Okay. Th at list isn’t broad enough for me, and I’ d like you to talk to a couple other people”? Hon. S. Bond: Th ere is some back-and-forth, less dir- ectly with the minister than with the staff at work. I think that’s appropriate. Having said that, my expectation is that this be a broad….

When I say “consultation, ” we’re not talking about a royal commission here. We’re talking about in their discussions with people in the sectors that they refl ect the number of organizations that would have people with expertise.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8109 I think it’s fair to say that if the list came back to me and I believed that there was a gap, I would certainly make that point to ensure that it is a broad consultation. I would welcome the member opposite…. If he has sugges- tions of particular organizations that he thinks it would be important to canvass, I’m happy to have that informa- tion passed on to WorkSafe. Th e process is that they go out, they consult, they talk to a number of organizations, and the list that fi nally comes back to me is three.

It would be within their de- cision-making authority to come back and say: “Here are the three choices. How do you feel about that?” Th en we would work through the process. But if I felt that the scope had been too narrow — certainly, if that was the advice from my staff — I wouldn’t hesitate to ensure that there was some broader discussion. [1520] S. Simpson: I appreciate that. Th e observation I would make around that….

Maybe the minister would com- ment, particularly on the occupational health and safety position, whether some factor of the labour movement — whether it’s the Federation of Labour — would be one of the bodies that gets consulted here since health and safety is obviously one of the areas that the labour movement is quite focused on. Th ey have a fair amount of people who have a breadth of expertise in that area. Does the minister think that would be an appropriate choice for one of those organizations on that side? Hon. S. Bond: It certainly does not preclude them.

I think the only delineation that would be important for me to make is that there is already a worker rep on the board. So the person who came from the labour move- ment, for example, would need to demonstrate that they have the expertise to fi ll the position. It wouldn’t be that they were there as worker reps. Th ey could be workers, but we have a worker rep. Th e most important thing, from Gordon Macatee’s perspective — and I agreed with him, as I said earlier — is that we need people with expertise on that board in these two areas. So it absolutely does not preclude them.

I am sure there will be a discussion that will take place. It does need to be based on their expertise, not on being a worker rep. S. Simpson: I certainly would agree that any names that get put forward have to have appropriate credentials, whether they’re experiential or academic or whatever credentials they are in the fi eld. Th e observation I would make is that…. I’m sure there are people who would tell me there’s an employer’s rep on there. Th ere are a num- ber of other employers who fi ll other roles, whether it’s the actuarial role or other roles.

Th ey are essentially em- ployers as well, for all intents and purposes, but they’re there because of another expertise. I’m sure that the labour movement — I know for a fact — has many people who are very experienced on the health and safety fi le itself. So I would hope that there would be some discussion with those folks there around that. I think at that point that will end my comments on

section

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. S. Simpson:

Section 3 talks about an expedited pro- cess, potentially shortening the review time frame down. Could the minister talk a little bit about what this

section accomplishes, why the decision was made to do this and what the benefi ts are? [1525] Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things that Mr. Macatee certainly shared with me and that I have experi- enced — and I’m sure the member hears it all the time too — is that when we’re working through these pro- cesses aft er there has been an event, by the time you ac- cumulate days and months and weeks, by the time you’re at a place where you are dealing with this, it can be years aft er an event. I asked Gord to look at the processes that are in place and sort of the cumulative impacts on the timing.

How long is it taking to do things, and what can we do to, in essence, not shortchange the process but streamline it? Y ou know, from my perspective, it’s not reasonable to be three years aft er an event and still sorting things out. Th e point of this provision is that currently the act says that if a person wants a review of a WorkSafe decision or order, it must be done within 90 days. Mr. Macatee and I, again, agreed — or it wouldn’t be here — that that’s too long. What this does is allow for there to be, by regulation…. I’ll explain to the member why…. I’m sure he knows that Mr. Macatee recommended ten days.

Th at’s not charac- terized here. It’s not captured in this legislation because we actually wanted to have some discussion about wheth- er that was reasonable or not. I agree with the principle of shortening it. We have not determined that it is ten days. Th at work is underway as we speak, and I under- stand that some ideas and feedback will come to me not that long from now. Th e point here, though, is that we have to have shorter time frames. We want things to be more timely, more ef- fective, making sure that we’re dealing with penalty and occupational health and safety orders more effi ciently.

He recommended moving from 90 days to ten days. Th e changes that we have put in place allow, by regula- tion, for us to shorten that time. Th at’s certainly my in-

British Columbia Debates8110 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 tention. But we also need to make sure that there has been some discussion about whether the right number of days is ten or not, so the ten is not refl ected in the legislation. S. Simpson: Mr. Macatee, in his report, recommended the review process be shortened for citations, for employ- er citations. He talked about both with the government — and I agree with the government — and deemed that it would be for citations against employers. He recom- mended that process be shortened.

Does this also apply or will it apply to reviews around benefi ts for workers as another aspect of review? I ask the question because, the minister will know, the review pro- cess is complex, not easy to navigate. In particular, that’s true if you have individual workers who are trying to get through this in terms of their situation and a potential review around their benefi ts, versus an employer and a citation, where presumably they have counsel and other folks helping them sort through that. It’s not clear to me here that this also wouldn’t eff ect a shortening of the process, say.

Th at might aff ect an in- jured worker’s benefi ts. [1530] Hon. S. Bond: To the member’s specifi c question, this provision is not intended to deal with the time frames at- tached to benefi ts for workers. Th at does not mean that that is not an important issue. Th is particular provision talks about, and directly relates to, the review of a deci- sion or order that WorkSafe has made. I would share the member’s observations and concerns that this is about one part of the process. I have made it clear, on many occasions, that workers need to be our pri- ority in the processes that take place at WorkSafe.

Th is particular provision does not consider shorter time frames for reviews on other types of decisions. But we have made it clear that that type of process also needs to be looked at in terms of putting workers’ needs at the front and making sure that there is effi ciency in those processes. One of the challenges we have, and I know that the member opposite would be aware of this…. A worker has up to a year to make a claim, so we have to keep in mind that there’s also an important principle in recog- nizing that some issues may not even evolve or develop until further away from the event.

I don’t want it to be so constricted that it removes the right for workers further down the path to actually come and make those claims. It is a balance, but I recognize the member’s concern. I would agree that we always have to be looking for ways to ensure that workers and their needs are being considered as well. S. Simpson: Th e concern I have — and I’m happy to be corrected here if I’ve misinterpreted this — is that this change would potentially aff ect the review for almost any type of decision that’s made. It could be covered by this review period.

If I understand correctly, ultimately the regulation will be written by WorkSafe here, as to what that is, in con- sultation with whoever they consult. Th ey’ll write the regulation, and this would allow WorkSafe to write the regulation to aff ect a whole variety of decisions with a shortened time period, not just citations. I also don’t want to necessarily shorten that time per- iod, I think, for review of benefi ts for individual workers. But am I correct that this would, in fact, allow them to write that regulation for those benefi ts? [1535] Hon. S.

Bond: Th e member is correct that this is en- abling legislation. So there is room for…. And it wouldn’t be WorkSafe. It would actually be us, because it’s an or- der-in-council. It’s the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that sets the regulation. Th e focus of the changes is actually to deal with Gord Macatee’s specifi c recommendation. But the member is correct. Th is is an enabling piece of legislation. So yes, it would at some point not preclude there being an adjust- ment to time frames related to other issues. S.

Simpson: Well, I certainly would hope that, as the minister has stated, she’s sensitive to the issues of injured workers’ benefi ts, how they may be calculated and some- times the ongoing process to come to a fi nal resolution of what they should be. I would hope that there would be no notion of shortening that time frame, because it’s complicated enough as it is. I think we’ll leave it at that on that section.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. S. Simpson: One question on

section 4. Just so I understand this change, the minister could maybe ex- plain it briefl y. I’m interpreting this as being much like

section 3 — just, again, tightening and saying that deci- sions have to be made in what is essentially less than 150 days, from within 150 days. Maybe the minister could explain what that diff erence is — other than a day, pot- entially. I’m assuming that it’s, again, just part of the pro- cess of some tightening and expediting. [1540] Hon. S. Bond: Y es, the member is correct. Th is is in the same thematic grouping as the changes previous to this. Mr. Macatee wanted there to be shorter time frames to ensure that we are dealing with things and that WorkSafe is dealing with timeliness and the eff ectiveness of penalty and occupational health and safety orders. I

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8111 think that all of us agree that we need to do a better job of tightening those things up. What this provision allows is for this decision to be made. It is a WorkSafe policy. It is not regulation, so it won’t be determined by Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council. WorkSafe has done, I can advise the member oppos- ite, a review and consultation on reducing the time per- iod for conducting these reviews.

While I don’t get to direct WorkSafe, I know that they clearly understand that the intent of this change and the recommendation provided in the action plan was for it to be shorter than 150 days and that 149 probably wouldn’t cut it from my perspective. I think there has clearly been a message sent by the ac- tion plan and by our team that this is about making sure that we are, in a far more timely and eff ective way, dealing with these events. It’s very diffi cult. Th e member knows. He’s met with families, as I have, and with communities and others. When you add up all of these timelines, it takes too long.

Now, we want to be thoughtful, because it also has to be judicious, and we have to ensure that there is proper due diligence done. So yes, same vein as the previous changes. Have not determined what that date will be. WorkSafe has done their consultation and are contemplating what the policy change might look like.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. S. Simpson: I just have one question here. It’s in regard to…. We know the federal government here changed “controlled product” to “hazardous product. ” Th is change, as I understand it, just makes the change in defi nition to do that. But could the minister tell us whether…? In that assessment, when that change was made, did the ministry or WorkSafe do any assessment about whether there’s any material eff ect or impact that this has on the designation of hazardous substances? Has it changed anything, with the federal change, in terms what it means now? Hon. S.

Bond: No, we don’t believe that it has any ma- terial impact. In fact, this is a requirement. Th e amend- ments have been made to the federal Hazardous Products Act. So it doesn’t matter what jurisdiction. People will need to move…. Th e term will need to change in their jurisdictions from “controlled product” to “hazardous product. ” We wanted to make sure that we are staying in sync with the decisions that Canada has made, and provinces need to look at adopting the globally harmonized system.

As you can imagine, when you’re dealing with a hazard- ous substance, you want to be sure that it is viewed the same way and consistently across jurisdictions. Sections 5 and 6 approved. On

Section 7. S. Simpson:

Section 7 is one of the more signifi cant sections, I believe, of this piece of legislation. It requires employers to conduct two investigations, one within 24 hours of an accident or an incident and then a full inves- tigation within 30 days. [1545] Could the minister tell us what the thinking was with this, to have the employer do this, and how this diff ers from the current situation? Hon. S. Bond: Th e reason for clarity here is that in the previous section, which will be existing

section 173(1), the language was: “ An employer must immedi- ately undertake an investigation…. ” I think the concern, and rightly so, was: what does “immediate” really mean? Some of us might have diff erent viewpoints about what that looks like. From the recommendations from Mr. Macatee, there needed to be specifi c timelines. Again, it’s trying to re- duce the cumulative overall time frame that the investi- gation takes, from the beginning of the event to getting to some resolution. Th e recommendation was that the employer should be required to complete a preliminary investigation within 48 hours.

Th at’s that very beginning reaction to what happened — getting that preliminary investigation done. Th en the full investigation must be completed, with a report submitted to WorkSafe, with- in 30 days. Th e concern that I had in looking at this was that…. To my earlier comments, it is about balance. We don’t want a process in place that is about rushed, inadequate work. Certainly, the bill is trying to address at least the inadequate part of some of the work that has been done previously.

Th is says clearly that there is also, if it is very compli- cated — we want to ensure that the work is of high qual- ity — a possibility to have an extension granted in certain circumstances. But this is about timelines. It’s about say- ing that these investigations are a priority, that the pre- liminary one must be done quickly and immediately, within 48 hours, and then you have to have the full one done within 30 days. S. Simpson: Could the minister talk a little bit about how this complements what WorkSafe has to do them- selves in terms of WorkSafe investigations?

How does that process work, where WorkSafe does its own inves- tigation? I’m hopeful, and I don’t expect that…. The minister is not suggesting that the employers will inves- tigate themselves and then that would just be accepted.

British Columbia Debates8112 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 I’m sure there’s a process for WorkSafe investigation too. Maybe the minister could talk about how those comple- ment each other. [1550] Hon. S. Bond: Th is does not change the obligations that WorkSafe has about conducting investigations. So in the event of — we certainly pray they never happen again, but as an example — a signifi cant event, WorkSafe would still be on site, likely, long before the 48 hours that the employer is required to provide a preliminary report.

Th ere will continue to be an obligation for WorkSafe to investigate those events that are signifi cant in nature. Oft en these things are being done in a parallel way, so in the event of a major circumstance, WorkSafe will be on site within hours. Th ey would begin to conduct their investigation, and the employer would simultaneously be doing the work for their investigation — their preliminary one, at least — within 48 hours.

It is very important that we ensure that there are time- lines so that health and safety risks are addressed in a very timely way, that the employer has enough time to con- duct an investigation and evaluate all of the issues and also to ensure they are well aware of the parameters with- in which they must make those determinations. WorkSafe continues to have obligations. Th e employer will continue to have obligations, only they will have to do it within, now, a prescribed timeline. S. Simpson: In the changes in

section 7, the amend- ments to 173, it defi nes what accidents need to be inves- tigated and what requires a full investigation, etc. What changes, if any, are there in relation to the existing rules about what has to be investigated, and how? Hon. S. Bond: Th ere are no changes to the type of ac- cident. It refl ects the need to provide timelines for em- ployers. Sections 7 and 8 approved. On

section 9. S. Simpson: We’ll keep this discussion going through 7 and 8; 7, 8 and 9 are a bit of a package here. But

section 9 is the

section that really gets into the depth of these investigations and what needs to happen with these in- vestigations. My sense of it is the preliminary report, which has to be completed within 48 hours…. Th ere is no obligation here, if I’m correct, for that report to be fi led with the board, with WorkSafe, unless WorkSafe specifi cally re- quests it. Th ere’s not an investigating offi cer who’s going to get to see that fi rst report that happens quickly, unless they ask for it. Is that correct?

If so, why is the decision made not to have that kind of fi rst preliminary report arrive? [1555] It’s my thinking that depending on what the scope of that accident or that incident might be, that report quick- ly may trigger interest from WorkSafe that they may want to pay more attention. Depending on the nature of the incident, they may be looking to pay more attention to it, and I’m not sure that they’ll always ask for them. So why the decision to have that discretion and not have them fi led? Hon. S.

Bond: To the member opposite’s question, there are a number of tools available to WorkSafe, and this is another one. Th e thinking behind the 48 hours is directly, obviously, from Mr. Macatee’s report. In discuss- ing it with him, the intent was that an employer needed to be compelled and required to do the work for the fi rst 48-hour preliminary report. [1600] He does go on to balance his comments in the report by saying that there also needs to be thorough and com- plete investigation. Th e piece that’s required to hand auto- matically to WorkSafe is the fi nal report within 30 days.

Having said that, the employer must be ready to present to WorkSafe a 48-hour preliminary report. And it is by request. Th e member opposite is correct in that. It is also supported by another

section of the act which requires serious incidents, and it’s defi ned, to be reported to the board. It doesn’t mean that WorkSafe will not be aware of circumstances, because if it’s determined to be serious, they need to notify the board. Th e requirement here is that an employer must do a written report and be prepared to present it to WorkSafe. Th at is, again, as I said, supported by the need for employers to report ser- ious incidents to the board of WorkSafe. [D. Horne in the chair.] In discussions with Mr.

Macatee about this, he did not believe that it was necessary for every 48-hour report to be given to WorkSafe automatically. Part of the reason for that is pragmatic. Th ere can be 100,000 reports or more every year. It is a tool that WorkSafe has that if an inci- dent occurs, they can request: “ Aft er 48 hours we want to see your preliminary report. ” For me, the key piece was that within 30 days there needed to be a full investiga tion and that needed to be presented to WorkSafe. S. Simpson: So I understand.

Th e current practice is a preliminary report done by an employer into an inci- dent today does get supplied to the board, as a matter of course. And this would change that practice? Hon. S. Bond: At the moment there is no preliminary

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8113 report required. So this is now a two-step, where there would be an immediate…. Th e employer is now, with a timeline, required to immediately pay attention and make sure they have a written report available. Th e lan- guage before did not require a preliminary investigation report in this form. S. Simpson: One of the things that does change some- what here is the preliminary report or the preliminary in- vestigation….

Th ere’s no longer a requirement here for that to be provided to the plant health and safety com- mittee or to the workers’ representatives unless correct- ive action has been taken, and then there’s something to follow up there. Could the minister explain why that preliminary re- port is not made available, as a matter of course, to the health and safety committee or the workers’ representa- tive so they can see whether they accept the premise of the preliminary report, which will be preliminary? But do they accept the premise? [1605] Hon. S. Bond: Th e member has read the legislation correctly.

It is specifi cally articulated that if there is cor- rective action, it must explicitly be shared. In terms of where there is no corrective action, whenever an inves- tigation is done, there is a worker rep engaged in that process. Th e view was that if they’re involved in the actual pro- cess of doing the investigation — and there are sections that lay out where that is required — the process would assume that that worker rep has the ability to be aware of that information and to share it where necessary. Th e reason that it is more explicit….

If there is corrective ac- tion necessary, then it was viewed that that is very sig- nifi cant and needed to be explicitly shared. I think that in looking at Mr. Macatee’s recommenda- tions, the key point was that a worker rep is involved in that investigation, would be aware of any of the work that is done. So the only requirement that’s captured here ex- plicitly is if there is corrective action taken. S. Simpson: Could the minister direct me to the place where it specifi cally says that workers have to be involved in that process? Hon. S. Bond: It’s not in the sections that are repre- sented here.

It’s in another

section of the Workers Compensation Act. In

section 174, the investigation process, sub (1): “ An investigation required under this Division must be carried out by persons knowledgeable about the type of work involved and, if they are reason- ably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker repre- sentative. ” S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: what hap- pens in the case where…? Is there a particular criteria, a guide? Something that says to employers: “When we want that 48-hour investigation, here’s what our expecta- tion is about what you’re going to tell us.

Obviously, the 48 hours is going to be less complete, and here’s our ex- pectation about what that 30-day review is going to tell us about an incident. ” Does that exist so that we know what to measure against? [1610] Hon. S. Bond: Th ere are specifi c existing investigation requirements, and they are outlined in the statute in vari- ous places. For example, one of the existing investigation processes, and we certainly don’t intend to change that, is that employers must determine the cause; identify un- safe contributing conditions, acts and procedures; and recommend corrective action.

Th ere are a number of others. Employers must rec- ommend corrective action to prevent a similar incident. Employers must undertake any corrective action re- quired to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. So the statute lays out the broad expectations. Th e member opposite is correct. Employers have con- ducted these investigations previously. That will not change. What we’re adding is the time frame. Th e stat- ute lays out specifi c expectations, and then additional- ly, WorkSafe would have policies and procedures which would assist and provide the framework for the particu- lar reports.

What’s key is that there was an expectation to investi- gate previously. Th at continues. What the signifi cant dif- ference is, is adding the timelines. S. Simpson: I’m just bouncing back, because I was just reading ahead in some of my notes here, to the ques- tion about…. I see in 174, the investigation, potentially it says where “reasonably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative. ”

Section 175 deals with the incident investigation re- port. I’m assuming this is the bigger report. It requires there that a copy of the report, not just the corrective ac- tion, go to the joint committee or worker’s representa- tive, as applicable, as well as to the board. Th e board gets that report, even if they don’t get the 48-hour one. Th ey get that report. I’m going to go back and try again. I understand the worker’s representative in

section 174 that the minister read. Could the minister tell us why the decision is that a health and safety committee, a joint committee, would get the full report and would not get the 48-hour report? [1615] Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, when Mr. Macatee considered this, he did consider other pro-

British Columbia Debates8114 Wednesday, May 6, 2015 visions. Certainly, the part that I read to the member op- posite is somewhat outside of the scope of this discussion. It’s another section. It was, fi rst of all, sheer volume. When you look at the number of investigations that take place, we wanted to have a certain set of parameters around that prelimin- ary report. One of them was that we didn’t believe it needed to be directly transmitted to WorkSafe, but upon request, the employer must do that.

I think the same thing was true in terms of the practice with the report, in terms of workers that are involved in that process. Th ere is not an explicit inclusion in this legislation about sharing that report, un- less corrective action is required. Again, I think there is a process that is underway, and workers do participate. Worker reps, where reasonably appropriate or available, as the member points out, do participate in that process. It wasn’t that information shouldn’t or couldn’t be shared, but there was a view that that venue was available.

Th ere was a worker rep there, and that information could be made known. But we chose not to make that explicit. S. Simpson: I understand that somewhat — the 48- hour report, in regards of the board, what goes to the board and the volume of incidents. I have some sense of that. I don’t think the same rules apply in terms of the actual company or the facility or the workplace, because you hope they don’t get that many reports at the work- place about these incidents. Th e minister will know…. I’m sure the minister has been apprised of things like….

I’ll go back to Lakeland, and I’ll go back to having sat in on a couple days of the inquest. Some of the testimony there was around minor incidents that happened. Th ey talked about how there were always fi res. Th ey were usually minor ones, but it was a fairly regular occurrence that there were min- or fi res there, and some of them more signifi cant than others. Th ere were exchanges. Th e workers expressed concern about that. Th ere were some reports, but they were done without everybody being involved. Th ese reports didn’t necessar- ily get back to these workers about what was occurring.

We’re starting to see…. At least, what we saw in the fi rst phase of the inquest is some pretty signifi cant diff erence of opinion with some of the workers and with the com- pany and management about what was and wasn’t an in- cident of signifi cance. My concern is, of course, the information that the workers don’t get, are not apprised of, necessarily, as a requirement. Th ere’s a workers representative. Y ou hope that they would do that, but there’s not a requirement that they be apprised of that.

And there’s not a requirement presumably, if these reports come to a joint committee that meets, that they at least in some way, a cursory way, would review any of these reports that came forward. Again, I don’t quite understand. I appreciate Mr. Macatee’s work, but it’s not entirely clear to me what the downside is of having a joint committee at least look at those 48-hour reports. Th ey may provide good advice to the proper and the bigger investigation that the company does, through that process. [1620] Hon. S. Bond: I think the key point for the member opposite is that there is a worker representative.

Th is does not preclude the information from being shared. I think the other thing that we want to be thoughtful about…. I certainly respect the concerns that the mem- ber has expressed. He has been there and heard the stor- ies. One of the things we’re trying to do is sort out this process so that workers feel safe when they go to work. Our view is that the preliminary report is just that: it’s preliminary. What matters is the fi nal and complete version.

Th e employer must, without undue delay, look at corrective action, and if that corrective action is ne- cessary, the employer must and is required to provide the report. I think there’s a view that, with the worker represent- ative as a part of that process, it does not preclude that information from being shared. It is just not expressed explicitly. S. Simpson: In terms of the reports, the bill is silent at this point on any specifi c consequences for an employer’s failure to do a proper investigation or to fi x situations — to take corrective action and actually deal with it. What is the enforcement?

What is the consequence if you have an employer who either doesn’t fi le a proper report or doesn’t deal with corrective actions in an appropriate way? [1625] Hon. S. Bond: Th ere are consequences. If an employer does not complete the investigations within the required time frame, WorkSafe has the ability to apply the enforce- ment actions that are included in the act. Th at could in- clude an order or a penalty. So if they do not comply, there are consequences. All of the suite of enforcement tools that are available within the act could be applied by WorkSafe. S.

Simpson: I understand that the board has the dis- cretion to extend the time period, if they deem it appro- priate, to submit a fi nal report. Could the minister maybe tell us a little bit just about whether there are any limits on that extension from the 30 days? Is it 60 days, 90 days? Is it another week? Are there any limits on those exten- sions? What would be deemed to be a reasonable reason for having a delay? Hon. S. Bond: I would suggest that the answer to this question is part of the balance that I’ve been trying to de-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, May 6, 2015 8115 scribe. Th ere are no specifi c extension times. It’s not 30 or 60 or 90 days. WorkSafe has the discretion to look at the complexity of the event and the expectations around investigation and make that determination. I really think this is part of the balance. We want to be expeditious, but we also want to be thorough. So it does leave the discretion with WorkSafe, and there are no pre- scribed or restricted extension periods. S. Simpson: Just so I can understand, is there…?

In terms of the investigations and the engagement of WorkSafe directly, there’s the 48 hours. In the case…. I’m sure this is probably in that act that’s this big. If there’s an injury — somebody is taken to the hospital; somebody has a signifi cant injury — what is the diff erence between this and what happens then? I’m thinking particularly of…. Does that compel a WorkSafe investigator to come to the site? We’ve had a lot of discussion around evidence and that and needing to look at those things. I’

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150506pm-Hansard-v25n7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150506pm Hansard v25n7
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2cf08cedd76e6a524bc343c9f71b4f4833a25fdb

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).