British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, October 21, 2015

20151021pm-Hansard-v29n10

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 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Volume 29, Number 10

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 and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier 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 Thomson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism ...........................................................................................Hon.

T eresa W at Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Small Business and Red T ape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................Hon.

Coralee Oakes 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 Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness ....................................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T.

Lee 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 ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, 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, Hon. 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 (BC Liberal) ............................................. 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–Pacific 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 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 Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson 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 Thompson 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 Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, 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 Vacant .....................................................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Vacant ...................................................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr.

Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific 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 Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ....................................................................Vacant 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 Thompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Thompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Thomson 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 Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. 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 ......................................................................Vacant 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 33; Independent 2; Vacant 2

CONTENTS Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 9621 Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9622 Jann Bailey Hon. T. Stone Clarence Jules Hon. T.

Lake Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 9622 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 9623 55-plus B.C. Games R. Sultan Martin Mars waterbomber S. Fraser Stories and imagination G. Hogg Hunting in northwest B.C. D. Donaldson Clean energy industry J. Sturdy Volunteerism in Burnaby R.

Chouhan Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9625 Government response to deaths of youth in care and aging out of care J. Horgan Hon. C. Clark Child protection system funding and staffing D. Donaldson Hon. C. Clark C. James Hon. S. Cadieux Call for inquiry into death of Alex Gervais S. Fraser Hon. S. Cadieux Mountain View facility closing and mental health beds in Fraser Valley S. Hammell Hon. T. Lake By-elections for vacant seats in Legislature S. Simpson Hon. C.

Clark Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................. 9630 Islands Trust, annual report, 2014-15 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 9630 Bill 34 — Red Tape Reduction Day Act (continued) A. Dix Hon. C. Oakes A. Weaver G. Heyman

Report and Third Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................................................... 9632 Bill 34 — Red Tape Reduction Day Act Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 9632 Bill 35 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015 Hon. S. Bond S. Simpson G. Kyllo B. Routley D. Barnett G. Heyman J. Thornthwaite H. Bains J. Martin N. Macdonald Hon. P . Fassbender

WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 21, 2015 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. P . Fassbender: I have the great honour today to introduce to the House Mr. Arjan Singh Bhullar, who is also joined by his fiancée, Neenu Dhalliwal. Mr. Bhullar is an accomplished Olympic freestyle wrestler from Vancouver. Wrestling has a strong history in the Bhullar family. His father, Avtar, was the first in the family to master both traditional Indian-style Kushti wrestling as well as Olympic-style wrestling.

All ten of the Bhullar brothers went through rigorous training regimens at the akhara gym that was built by the family farm. [1335] Arjan went on to win numerous provincial, national and high school championships. From there, he went to Simon Fraser University on a wrestling scholarship, while studying political science, where he went on to win mul- tiple national titles for SFU. As the first wrestler of Indian heritage to represent Canada at the Olympic Games in freestyle wrestling, Mr.

Bhullar has enjoyed many athletic highlights, including a gold-medal win at the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the only gold medallist on Team Canada; the 2011 Sport B.C. University Athlete of the Y ear; and the 2009 Canadian wrestler of the year. Also of note, Mr. Bhullar is also a re- cipient of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal. Will the House please join me in welcoming Arjan and his fiancée to the House. Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the House today is Ms. Kleo Landucci, vice-president, projects and development, at Ashcroft Terminal. Kleo is one of those rare leaders in our province.

She’s visionary, she’s capable, and she’s taken the Ashcroft Terminal to new heights. Ashcroft Terminal is a 320-acre, privately owned, in - land transload and storage terminal with 350 acres of sur- rounding buffer land. It provides direct access to major highways and both the CPR and CNR rail lines, while providing competitive pricing to customers while they can streamline their logistics operations. Would the House please make this leader very welcome. Hon. M. Bernier: I’m fortunate enough today to make a couple of introductions.

First of all, I’ d like to let the House know that my administrative coordinator, Lara O’Connor-Dixon, is in the House today, as well as my constituency assistant, Cindy Fisher, if the House could please make them welcome. Also in the House today, I’m pleased to welcome 18 teachers from across British Columbia and one from Washington state who have been selected to participate in the B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. Joining them are also two observers from our neighbour- ing jurisdiction, Joan Fitzpatrick and Brooke Stuckey from the Alberta Legislative Assembly.

They will be with us for the remainder of this week expanding their know- ledge of our parliamentary system. They are also joined by three of their peers who are re- turning alumni acting in the role of facilitators: Ms. Sarah van Neus, Mr. Jonathan Boone and Mrs. Yvonne DeWith. I hope that all members of the House will take the oppor- tunity tomorrow to meet with all of them up in the Ned DeBeck Lounge for lunch. Would the House please make all of them welcome here today. Hon. A. Virk: It’s my great honour to introduce to - day in the House individuals from the B.C. Bioenergy Network.

With us today in the House, we have Dr. Bryan Imber, president and CEO of the ICC Group; Michael Weedon, executive director of the Bioenergy Network. We have Brent Sauder, chair of the B.C. Bioenergy Network board, and Marnie Plant, strategic adviser to the Bioenergy Network. Bioenergy does not often receive the recognition it de- serves in keeping forests healthy and in generating renew- able energy. A recent Canadian clean energy technology report forecasts that the global market for clean technol- ogy and services is to grow to $3 trillion by year 2020.

These individuals are positioning B.C. to be on the cutting edge of clean tech. May I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming the B.C. Bioenergy Network to the House. Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us today are two repre - sentatives from the from the Nature Trust of B.C. — their CEO, Dr. Jasper Lament, and their leadership-giving manager, Steve Housser. As members know, the Nature Trust is a leading land conservation organization. It acquires ecologically signifi- cant land through purchase, donation, covenant and lease.

They care for that land and protect the natural diversity of wildlife, plants and critical habitats. Government has been able to partner with them in managing a number of wildlife management areas in the province. I’ d ask all members of the House to make them wel - come today. [1340] D. Donaldson: I have a couple of introductions to - day. Irene Ronalds, Miller Kriese and Kevin Kriese will 9621

British Columbia Debates9622 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 be in the precinct today. They’re from Smithers. Miller is a grade 8 student. He’s very interested in politics and has come to question period today. His father, Kevin, is down with his family because he’s being honoured with his 25 years of public service tomorrow. He’s an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, based in Smithers. We like that decentralized model up north. I would also like to introduce Jonathan Boone, who’s a teacher at Bulkley Valley Christian School.

He’s here for the B.C. teachers institute. I’ve been to his class, discuss- ing civics and how the provincial Legislature works. He organizes debates at the school, as well, for the provincial and federal campaigns. I’ d like to ask the members to join me in welcoming Jonathan and Irene, Miller and Kevin to the precinct. Tributes JANN BAILEY Hon. T. Stone: On behalf of the Minister of Health, I would like to inform the House of the sad news of the passing of a renowned community leader in Kamloops.

Jann Bailey’s passing on October 9 is a blow not just for the Kamloops Art Gallery but for the entire arts com - munity in Kamloops. As its executive director, Jann was, in so many ways, not just the face of the gallery but, in - deed, the entire arts community. Bailey earned her share of honours in recognition for her work, including the Governor General’s Canada 125 award in 1993, the Y’s Women Of Distinction Award in 1995, the Queen’s Jubilee Medals in 2002 and 2012, and also an honorary doctorate from Thompson Rivers University in 2008.

She was instrumental in creating and organizing the annual Mayor’s Gala for the Arts and was an outspoken advocate for arts funding. Her passion for the arts was truly inspiring. When you think of builders and com - munity leaders who have left a hugely positive legacy for their community, you think of people like Jann. She in - deed will be greatly missed. Hon. Speaker, I would ask that the House please join the Minister of Health and me in sending our heartfelt condolences to her family and friends, who are in our thoughts and prayers today. CLARENCE JULES Hon. T.

Lake: It is for another sad reason that I stand — to report the passing of another notable member of our community of Kamloops, who passed away this September. Clarence Jules was a husband, a father, a lead- er and member of the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame. During his decade as chief of the Tk’ emlúps Indian Band and as a councillor, Chief Jules oversaw the trans - formation of his community, improving infrastructure, creating opportunities for skill development and help - ing oversee the historic purchase of the Harper Ranch. He played a vital role in forming the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs, and he was a firm believer in, in his words, “moving at the speed of business ” to achieve prosperity and opportunity on reserve. His son, Chief Manny Jules, has followed in his foot - steps as chief of one of British Columbia’s most forward- looking and innovative First Nations communities. He continues his father’s important work of ensuring that First Nations share in the benefits of economic develop- ment. Chief Clarence Jules left his mark on the Tk’ emlúps community, on the wider Kamloops community and on our province.

The Minister of Transportation, the Premier and I have all expressed our condolences to the Jules family and hope, hon. Speaker, you would do so on behalf of all members. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Anton: This past Saturday, government pro- claimed Conflict Resolution Week in British Columbia. The week is raising awareness about the benefits of medi- ation as both an affordable and an effective alternative to going to court. Joining us today are representatives from the Ministry of Justice, who play a vital role in our public mediation service and in improving access to justice for British Columbians.

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

part in realizing Conflict Resolution Week. I’ d like to recognize the hard work of these individ - uals, both for the ministry and for the people of British Columbia. Would the House please make them very welcome. R. Fleming: I would like to just follow on the Minister of Education’s introduction of the number of teachers who’ve joined us here for the B.C. parliamentary institute for teachers. I look forward to speaking to them in more depth this afternoon, participating with three other col - leagues from this House in an MLA panel. [1345] I’m very pleased to see that there are observers from Washington and Alberta to come and learn here about

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9623 what has really become a very valuable institution in our province. It’s wonderful to see teachers from the Okanagan, the Interior, the Lower Mainland and, particularly — not particularly, but self-interestedly — from the Victoria school district in Saanich right here closer to home. Thank you very much and welcome to the Legislative Assembly. D. Bing: I have four visitors to the House today, two of them from Vancouver. Joining us are my cousin Shirley Marr and her son Clifford Marr.

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

Members, as a former teacher, I’m always delighted to welcome young people to this as- sembly, and today, visiting from my riding, are 76 grade 11 students from Richmond Christian School with their teachers, Sigfried Ong, Angela Wilson, Deanna Smith, Brad Martens, Leanna Leong and Anthony Beutel. I’ d ask the House to please joining me in welcoming, perhaps, the best school. Statements (Standing Order 25B) 55-PLUS B.C. GAMES R. Sultan: In late August, I attended the opening cere- monies of the 55-Plus B.C. Games, previously known as the Seniors Games, in North Vancouver.

They turned out over 2,000 volunteers and about 3,000 competitors in 24 different sports, ranging alphabetically from archery to whist. Under the “s” alone, we have slo- pitch, swimming and soccer. While I did not feel quite up to pole vaulting that day, I did consider competing in darts. B.C. Seniors Games Society is organized into zones, and they hand out lots of medals. This year, Peace River– Liard zone went home with nine gold, five silver and four bronze, and Fraser Valley zone won 199 golds, 145 silver and 131 bronze.

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

They also have a good time, and their higher level of fitness warms the Health Minister’s heart. Next year, it’s Coquitlam’s turn. Seniors, polish your horseshoes. MARTIN MARS W ATERBOMBER S. Fraser: So 2015 was a bad fire year in B.C., with wildfires consuming more than 300,000 hectares of for - ests, and more than 50 structures burned down, the high- est number since 2003. There are many tools in the provincial tool chest to deal with this reality, and we may need all of them as cli- mate change increases the odds that this year was more the norm than the exception.

Small, nimble aircraft are certainly part of that tool chest, but they are not the only tool in the chest. The Martin Mars water bomber station at Sproat Lake, near Port Alberni, is in a class by itself. Built in 1945, at the time, it was the largest aircraft in the world, and it re- mains the second-largest air tanker that there is. Let’s put that into perspective. The Mars can fill up within 32 seconds by skimming across a lake’s surface, not even landing, and boy, does it pack a punch. Four acres of water or Thermo-Gel mix in one drop, and that drop amounts to 2,000 gallons per second.

The beauty of this massive capacity is that it can knock out a fire in its inception. A wildfire typically grows very fast — three acres per hour — and the Martin Mars’ claim to fame is that it can be airborne, loaded and hitting a fire in less than one hour, before it can get out of control. [1350] Arguably, if it had been on contract and on standby this year at its home base in Sproat Lake, the Mars would have knocked down the fires near Port Hardy and Sechelt and, ironically, Sproat Lake before they became big, cost- ly, dangerous problems.

Let’s learn from our mistakes and ensure that we don’t overlook this incredible firefighting tool ever again. STORIES AND IMAGINATION G. Hogg: By age nine, my dog Rusty and I had saved our family and our community from many untold and unknown threats. We protected everyone as we travelled to our secret forts and plotted ways to keep the world safe. Sadly, very few such forts exist today.

Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor told us about the constructive role of imagination in shaping our sense of how things are — our grasp of the world as an integrated, imaginative act involving our practices as much as our theories, our feelings as much as our ideas and our com- mon fund of stories as much as our learned discourses. Our understanding of our family’s tradition and our society’s culture is passed on through stories, stories aug- mented by our imagination. They are how we make sense

British Columbia Debates9624 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 of our lives. Without stories, we have no way to discern patterns in time, no way to find meaning or direction or joy. Stories help us to understand. They help to connect us, to make us human. All cultures tend to teach their values, their mores and their beliefs through their stories and their processes of play, and at their very best, they ignite the spontaneous sense of joy. But much play has now become more struc- tured, sanitized and adult-monitored. We have lost many of the ways that allowed us to explore and to learn and to experiment.

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

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

Donaldson: In the northwest, the leaves are off the trees, the steelhead season is coming to a close, and if you go out into the woods, you might hear a long, strange bel- lowing noise. That’s because hunting season is upon us, and that strange sound you hear could be a hunter try - ing to get a bull moose’s attention by imitating the call of another bull in the first guy’s backyard. People hunt for many reasons in the northwest. Most of the people I know, First Nations and non–First Nations, hunt in order to put good-quality meat in the freezer or in canning jars.

This is especially important in many re- mote rural communities where the cost of food is high. Imported food tends to be less nutritious, and having moose and other wild meat in the freezer or jars in the pantry is essential for healthy living and is truly a defin - ition of what it means to be wealthy. Hunters that I know recognize it’s a means of being out on the land and in the mountains, of reconnecting with the natural environment and keeping track of changes in prey, predators and habitat — truly boots on the ground, with an eye to conservation.

I also know father-son and father-daughter combina- tions hunting in the forests and on the mountains this fall, so it’s also about creating stronger family bonds and connecting with friends. The land provides sustenance for the body and the soul, and also economically. Hunters pay over $7 million in fees and permits each year in B.C., but what they spend at the retail level in small towns in the north is even more significant when it comes to the local economy.

The guid- ing business in B.C. brings in $120 million annually, most of which goes to support people in rural areas wanting to stay local, to work on the land and in close connec - tion with nature. If we take care of the animal populations based on sci- ence, put the right amount of government resources into conservation, and ensure the land and water is properly taken care of, then hunting will be a sustainable activity for generations to come. CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY J. Sturdy: Today in Vancouver, the provincial gov - ernment and B.C.

Hydro have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Clean Energy Association of British Columbia that supports continued collabora - tion to deliver clean, reliable and affordable electricity to British Columbians. [1355] The private renewable power industry has grown into an essential part of B.C. ’s reliable electricity network. Since 2001, the industry has expanded from supplying 4 percent to nearly 25 percent of B.C. Hydro’s total supplied energy. Investments in independent power projects are spread throughout the province. They create jobs, often in re - mote areas and in many First Nations communities.

It’s our goal to maintain and grow the IPP industry in British Columbia and to maintain affordable electricity rates and good management of our highly regarded system. The MOU sets out goals and understandings that will strengthen our competitive advantage of reliable and af- fordable clean electricity and will support continued in - vestment and growth in the independent power sector. I want to commend B.C. Hydro and CEBC for working together with the government on this MOU, and I want to acknowledge their contribution to making the clean energy sector a vital part of our electrical system.

Clean Energy B.C. has represented the independent power sector for 25 years and has 160 members across a wide range of clean energy technologies. It is a strong and visionary advocate for clean energy in British Columbia and for engineering, financial, environmental and legal firms that support this sector. Given the scope of B.C. ’s energy needs, B.C. Hydro needs a partner to develop the electricity generation pro- jects. The independent power industry has delivered, and we’re going to work together to build upon our partner- ship in this important sector. VOLUNTEERISM IN BURNABY R.

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

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9625 their community in a wide variety of ways. Examples of activities include volunteering for a local agency or a community school, coaching a local sports team or help- ing recent immigrants settle into the community. Their contribution to the community is over five years through a minimum of two activities. This year, the award recipients were George Doering, Janice Froese, Aliya Jiwa, Maureen Kirk, Lindy McQueen, Heather Podrow, Claire Stegen and Tony Wong. I am pleased to say that I had the honour to nominate two of these recipients, George and Lindy.

George Doering is an 84-year-old young man. He teaches workshops through the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., was a member of the New Vista Society executive for 18 years and has volun - teered at my office for a decade. George has been a tireless advocate and volunteer all his life. He has been an instru- mental member of the Burnaby-Edmonds community. Lindy McQueen was nominated for her work in the community at Gordon Presbyterian Church. She recent- ly founded an organization called Edmonds People in Community. In short, it’s known as EPIC.

She has organ- ized events like the Music in the Park and has been help- ing seniors to get community services when they need it. I want to say thank you to all of them for their dedica- tion, commitment and passion for keeping our commun- ity vibrant, safe and enjoyable for all. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO DEATHS OF YOUTH IN CARE AND AGING OUT OF CARE J. Horgan: Y esterday we asked the Minister of Children and Family Development about the death of yet another child in care. Last spring, Peter Lang and his spouse put their son Nick into the care of the ministry to address his serious addiction issues.

They did so with some comfort that the ministry and the government would be there for Nick, as they were not able to do so. Regrettably, there were tragic consequences. Six days after going into care, Nick took his life. We asked the minister yesterday if she would be ac - countable for her decisions — her decisions with respect to policy, her decisions with respect to funding. She re - fused to do so. My question today is to the Premier.

Will she take responsibility for funding decisions in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and will she take responsibility for the tragic death of Nick Lang and the consequences for his family? [1400] Hon. C. Clark: This is just a tragic loss for Nick’s family, for everybody who loved him, for his foster parents, for the community and for all of us in British Columbia who are concerned about the safety of children in gov - ernment care. The ministry works very hard. Social workers put their hearts and souls into this work every single day. It’s the most difficult work that government does.

Everybody tries to do their best, but I certainly acknowledge that we have to do better. We have to continue to strive to make sure that the Ministry of Children and Families is meet- ing current, present-day challenges as the demographics that we serve change, as the needs change. We need to recognize that the work of social workers also changes. We are ensuring that we do that. There are a number of reviews underway in the min - istry. We’re very much looking forward to those reports. We were also happy to receive the representative’s report and have been able to respond to that.

We are learning every day from the things that go well and the things that don’t go well in the ministry. Our challenge, which we are taking up, is to make sure that we take that learning and turn it into action. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Oppos- ition on a supplemental. J. Horgan: It seems to be a continued refrain from the government, talking about yet another review, upon an- other review, upon another review. But within that rhet- oric, there is never accountability — never accountability. With the case of Nick Lang, it gets worse.

Nick Lang’s father, Peter, spoke out because he learned that Carly Fraser, after she lost her life, would not get a review be - cause she had aged out 20 hours and 35 minutes after her 19th birthday. Pete Lang spoke out because of Alex Gervais being left alone in a hotel room without any supports. What was the response from the government? What was the response of the Ministry of Children and Family Development? They didn’t advise the Lang family of the passing of their child, but they were quick to write a let - ter. A lawyer wrote to the family and said they were vio- lating the privacy of their dead son.

If that’s not the most heartless thing you’ve ever heard…. I would be quite challenged to hear something worse. My question, again, to the Premier. If we have enough resources to send lawyers’ letters to stifle families look - ing for answers, why in goodness’ name can we not get resources so that social workers, overburdened, can re - spond when children die? Hon. C. Clark: I understand that lawyers at the Ministry of Attorney General have their jobs to do. They follow policy, and they’re working hard as well.

But I think it is the obligation of everyone to make sure that when we’re working with the citizens who elect us and who we work for, we respond to them as sensitively as we can.

British Columbia Debates9626 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Frankly, that letter that came from the Attorney General’s ministry didn’t represent that kind of kindness, that kind of compassion and the kind of thoughtfulness that was required. I cannot imagine how much pain that family was in, learning of the death of their son. Exactly the wrong time to receive a scolding from government about responding, about the way you respond. That family wanted to talk about their loss. They need- ed to talk about it.

I think what government should have done — and would have done better — would have been to, rather than send a letter on policy asking them not to speak about it, instead, reach out, welcome the family’s comments and criticisms, and figure out how we could best support them in doing that. I regret that that letter ever went out. It shouldn’t have. I think we have a greater duty to our citizens than that.

As part of the work that the Minister of Children and Families is undertaking now, we intend to make sure that we continue to strive to ensure that the ministry is doing the best that it can, to do better in supporting children who are in our care. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental. J. Horgan: The Premier’s regret at the actions of her government seems to be a weekly occurrence. In this in- stance, the most heartless of activities took place.

A gov- ernment employee, under the watch of the Ministry of Attorney General or the Ministry of Children and Family Development, tried to stifle a family that was grieving. [1405] Why did they speak out? Because they had seen death after death after death under the care of the Ministry of Children and Families go without accountability.

It’s all well and good for the Premier to stand today and say: “That’s a shame. ” Why not, instead, stand today and say, “We will review the loss of Carly Fraser’s life, ” which we are apparently not going to do because she aged out 20 hours and 35 minutes after her 19th birthday, before she leapt to her death off the Lions Gate bridge? Rather than saying, “I’m sorry for the actions of the Ministry of Attorney General or the Ministry of Children and Families, ” why not stand and say: “We have 200 few- er social workers now in the Ministry of Children and Family Development than we did in 2002”?

Address the issues. Be accountable. The decisions made by the Premier are directly affecting the lives of children in B.C. Wake up, Premier. Do something about it. Hon. C. Clark: The number of children who are in the care of the government has dropped to the lowest rate it has been since 1995, and the minister herself, on her watch, has added to the number of front-line work - ers working in the ministry.

She has been working hard, as has the government and as have all of the people who represent the ministry, to make sure that we are doing the best that we can to support the number of children who remain in government care.

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

We believe that there is a lot to be learned from that. As I said, we are working hard to make sure that we learn all of the lessons that we need to in order to make sure that we are doing the best job we can to protect chil- dren in care. This is a very difficult job. It’s one that the people who deliver these services deliver with passion and compassion. But it’s always something that we must strive to do better, and it is something that we are striv - ing to do better. CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM FUNDING AND STAFFING D. Donaldson: Well, Premier, your government has been in power for 14 years.

I would think the list of things you just addressed there would have been addressed by now with a government who cared about children in this province. Madame Speaker: All remarks through the Chair. D. Donaldson: The representative’s latest report makes it clear that resources are needed to save the lives of chil- dren in this ministry. I’ll quote from that report: “Many social workers are unable to assess children and their families in a timely manner.

These children may be left in risky situations. ” Another quote: “Workers’ inabilities to address incom- ing reports in a timely manner can leave children at risk of future abuse, neglect and maltreatment” — abuse, neg- lect and maltreatment. B.C. Liberal cuts to this ministry have resulted in tragic consequences. Why does the Premier continue to starve this ministry? Hon. C. Clark: As I said in my previous answers, there are 7,200 children in care today, which is the lowest num- ber of children in care that we’ve served in the last 15 years. That’s a significant change and an important one.

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

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9627 ful effort on the part of the ministry and social workers over the last decade — to reduce the number of children who are taken from their roots, who are taken from their families, which happened in record numbers throughout the 1990s, and supported by their families instead. [1410] For those children who are in care, though, we recog- nize that we continue to have a fundamental duty, and that’s to make sure that they are looked after — increasing front-line staff by 21 percent; another 110 child care work- ers added this year, which is an increase of 11 percent; 273 youth placed for adoption this year, an increase of 21 per- cent; permanent homes for young people, who, in some cases, have never known where they were going to be cele- brating their next birthday.

Those are significant changes. We have much more to do, though. We are striving to make sure…. We’ve set that roadmap to ensure that we are doing those things and making those changes in the right way. We want to make sure that we are protecting the children who are remaining in our care, because we have a fundamental duty to do that. Madame Speaker: I would caution all members to dir- ect their remarks through the Chair. D. Donaldson: Well, perhaps the Premier doesn’t keep track of the budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

One hundred million dollars, in real dollars, was lost between 2008 and 2013. I don’t understand how she can stand and say — the Premier, that is — that they support families when that’s the kind of action this government has taken to support families. That’s a cut of $100 million — real dollars. Every single office the representative visited said that short-staffing has left them unable to protect children. This began when the Premier was Deputy Premier in 2002, when massive cuts were made to this ministry.

It continued in 2013, when the Premier and her govern - ment slashed the number of child protection workers. The Premier knows that children are in danger be - cause of these cuts, so why does she continue to starve this ministry? Hon. C. Clark: Well, I think it’s important to correct the record in this chamber, where I know it’s possible for members to say anything that they want. But I’ d like to correct the record based on the budget. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members will come to order. Hon. C.

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

Can we make sure that we are do- ing more to protect young people? I am sure we can. But the member should not leave anyone with the impres - sion that this is a result of the fact that the government has cut money to the Ministry of Children and Families. The opposite is true. The budget has grown. The budget has grown in previous years, and the budget has grown this year — proof of our commitment to make sure that we continue to do everything we can, and strive to do better, in protecting the children who depend on us to look after them. C.

James: I’ d remind the Premier to go back and look at what happened to the Ministry of Children and Families in 2002 and 2003 and 2004, when the budget was cut, when this government reduced it, and when they got rid of the independent voice so that they wouldn’t have anybody speaking out about the awful things that they were doing against children and families. I heard this Premier speaking about fewer children in care. Well, when the Premier is speaking about few - er children in care, she’s completely ignoring how Carly Fraser was actually pushed out of care when she was 16.

The Premier is ignoring offices so overwhelmed that they don’t even have time to pick up the phones. The Premier is ignoring the fact that during the review of front-line workers, the children’s representative found six cases where children were in danger. Those children weren’t in care before the representative reported them in danger, and that’s nothing to be proud of. As the Premier said when she was on this side of the House: “It’s not the number of children coming into care.

Whether ministry funding is keeping up with the needs that are out there is the fundamental question. ” [1415] My question is to the Premier. Does she really believe that the children’s ministry has kept up with the needs of children like Paige, like Alex, like Nick? Hon. S. Cadieux: I think it’s important for the mem- bers opposite to remember that the safety and the pro - tection of vulnerable children in this province is and will always remain the top priority of this ministry.

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

British Columbia Debates9628 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 line workers have the tools and resources they need to do that work. Madame Speaker: Member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental. C. James: The Premier knows that care standards aren’t being met. The Premier knows that they can’t be met without additional resources, and it’s not simply just a lack of social workers. It’s also a lack of appropriate care facilities. It’s a lack of mental health resources, and it’s a lack of leadership in this ministry and from this Premier.

What will it take for this Premier to admit that her choices have left children in this province in danger? Hon. S. Cadieux: The improvements in the Ministry of Children and Families continue, with the addition of front-line workers; with changes in how we do business to reflect the changing times, taking administrative dut- ies away from the front line so they can spend more time working directly with families; with changes to how we do social work to ensure that we put in place family de - velopment response, providing supports to families so children aren’t taken into care.

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

These are improvements that are examples of the hard work of the front line of the Ministry of Children and Families on an ongoing basis — the continual improve - ments and the continual hard work and efforts that are put into protecting children in this province. CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO DEATH OF ALEX GERV AIS S. Fraser: The Premier appointed Grand Chief Ed John as her adviser on aboriginal children in care. He is a man well known to British Columbians and respected by all in this House.

On October 6, Grand Chief Ed John and the First Nations Leadership Council called on the Premier to launch an independent investigation and inquiry into the death of Alex Gervais. It’s pretty clear that the Premier has stopped listening, certainly, to the families of children like Nick and Carly who are asking for investigations. Will the Premier…? How is she going to respond to that same request from her own respected adviser? Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member knows, this min - istry has a number of processes and policies and external mechanisms in place to provide scrutiny and oversight.

That is essential in a ministry that is doing the work with vulnerable children in the province. We welcome that oversight, and it is vast. [1420] The appointment of Grand Chief Ed John as a spe - cial adviser to me is an example of our commitment to working with First Nations peoples to improve the out - comes for children and youth in this province. Chief Ed John and I share a commitment to that work.

We share an understanding that that work can only be successful when we work directly with First Nations communities and hear from them about how best to achieve that work, and that is what we’re going to do together. Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supple - mental. S. Fraser: I’m not questioning Grand Chief Ed John’s commitment.

I’ d like to quote from his letter, as a matter of fact. “We are extremely concerned that the Premier’s inflammatory comments to the media blaming a delegated agency have negatively impacted the whole bureaucracy’s ability to assess Alex Gervais’ death. ” Further, he says: “When the ministry fails to protect children from harm, the Premier defends social workers in superior courts. When a dele - gated agency fails to protect children from harm, she vows consequences. ” Given these comments from her own adviser, will the Premier call for an independent inquiry? Hon. S.

Cadieux: As we’ve spoken about numerous times in this House, there are policies in place when there is a death of a child in care. In the case of a tragedy like this, the provincial direc - tor of child welfare has the authority and responsibility to conduct a review. A review is underway into the case specified. When that review is complete, it is forwarded to the independent Representative for Children and Y outh, at which point, if the representative feels it is re- quired, she can launch an investigation of her own. MOUNTAIN VIEW FACILITY CLOSING AND MENTAL HEALTH BEDS IN FRASER V ALLEY S.

Hammell: My question is to the Minister of Health. J.K. was referred to Mountain View Home from a psychiatric ward in Abbotsford Regional Hospital for care and treatment. He was doing well and was safely housed there for four years. Then Fraser Health Authority moved him to a more in- dependent setting in the city of Abbotsford. Shortly after, he ended up back in the Abbotsford Regional psychiatric ward for months, then to Cypress Lodge at Riverview in

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9629 tertiary care. He wanted to go back to Mountain View, but he did not have a referral. Now there’s a Canada-wide warrant out for his arrest. A Corrections bed costs $74,000 a year. An acute care bed costs over $1,000 a day. My question to the minister is: why close a cost- effective facility like Mountain View that can support people like J.K. to live a satisfied and meaningful life? Hon. T.

Lake: We canvassed the issue of Mountain View yesterday extensively, but I’m happy to repeat the fact that Fraser Health is designing a model of care that increases the number of spaces available for mental health patients and, also, the flexibility to continue 24-7 residential care at a new Marshall Road facility one year from now. In addition, there will be assisted living and more in - dependent living for those patients and families that feel that they would like a different approach and a continu- um of care that takes them back to community on their journey with their mental health issues.

That, I believe, is the right thing to do. What also is the right thing to do is ensure that Fraser Health works with each and every family to help them understand the transition and to make sure they are com- fortable with that transition. That is what Fraser Health is going to do. [1425] Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a sup - plemental. S.

Hammell: On October 8, the Health Minister re - leased a discussion paper on mental health to 180 stake- holders that stated our province’s mental health system is founded on the principle of recovery, and recovery “re- fers to living a satisfied, hopeful and meaningful life as defined by the individual. ” The minister proudly releases a discussion paper stating the mental health system will be based on the principle of recovery and, on the other hand, closes a fa- cility with an excellent record of supporting recovery for people with severe and persistent mental illnesses like J.K.

My question to the minister is: why are you closing 25 desperately needed licensed care beds when the evidence is clear that the region needs the beds at Mountain View as well as the new beds promised in 2016? Hon. T. Lake: As I said to the member yesterday, the closure in one year of Mountain View, of 25 beds, will be replaced with 50 beds at the Marshall Road facility — 50 beds. The member mentioned that every patient, and their families, should be treated individually for the kind of recovery that they are seeking to have and have comfort with their pathway to recovery.

That is why Fraser Health is working with each and every one of these families to ensure that they get the kind of treatment that their fam- ilies and the patients involved require at the new facil - ity that will open one year from now. This is an increase of services to the people of the Fraser Valley, and that is something that we’re very proud of. BY-ELECTIONS FOR V ACANT SEATS IN LEGISLATURE S. Simpson: It’s been over 100 days since Jenny Kwan resigned her seat as the MLA for Mount Pleasant on July 8. It’s been two months since Doug Horne resigned as the MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on August 14.

Y et no by-elections have been called to ensure that the con - stituents in those two areas have the elected represen - tation they deserve. Contrast this with West Kelowna, where it took the Premier seven days to call a by-election for herself after Ben Stewart announced his resignation. Will the Premier allow the citizens of Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain the same rights to rep- resentation as the people of West Kelowna and finally call these by-elections? Hon. C.

Clark: I mean, what the member doesn’t point out is that, you know, there’s been the longest federal elec- tion in Canadian history underway since the member for Disneyland headed off to Ottawa to get on the rides out there. But the…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members will come to order. Members. Hon. C. Clark: Let me say this.

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

While on that that side of the House, those folks spend all of their time thinking about just simply how they can make living in poverty easier, on this side of the House, we are thinking about how we can lift thousands of people out of poverty. They want to make the services that we provide more expensive. We want to make the services we provide better and higher quality. They be - lieve that shutting our doors to the world is the way to create jobs. We believe that opening them up and wel - coming the world in is the way to create jobs. [1430] I’ll finish with this.

The difference between us and them is ultimately this. They are afraid of change. We

British Columbia Debates9630 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 welcome it. They look at the future, and they fear it. We look at the future, and we feel hope. [End of question period.] Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton seeks leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members H. Bains: In the gallery, I just noticed the pride of B.C. — pride of Canada, I could say — who, with his wrestling skills, made us nationally and internationally proud. I can’t forget the moment when, one evening, I turned the TV on.

Here he was, Arjan Bhullar, winning a gold medal for Canada at the Commonwealth Games. He has decided to settle down. I think the biggest medal that he won is when Nina Dhaliwal, one of my fa- vourites, said yes to him — to get married. Please help me welcome both to this House. Tabling Documents Hon. P . Fassbender: I have the honour to present the 2014-2015 annual report of the Islands Trust. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Order. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: The business of the day. I call com- mittee stage on Bill 34.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 2:35 p.m. On

section 1 (continued). A. Dix: We’re going to bring the debate on this legis- lation to an end. I just wanted to briefly summarize the debate from our perspective. The Red Tape Reduction Act was brought into this Legislature without due consultation, without anything like the consultation on any of the other days we’ve legis- lated in the House. It was, unlike all those days, a reflec- tion of the government’s attempt to create wedge issues rather than to take seriously the issues facing British Columbia. It diminished, I would argue, other days that have, I think, a more solemn and collective purpose.

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

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

The minister repeatedly claimed there were things in the legislation that aren’t in the legislation, including re- quirements for government action. All this bill does is proclaim a day, and, given the fact that all it does is legis- late a day, and given that the government had already proclaimed a day, it failed to deliver in that sense. If you look at what every jurisdiction in Canada does, this kind of behaviour is really an insult. It’s not serious. It’s not a serious reflection of support for small business, which I think has the support of everybody in this House.

Instead, it’s an effort by the government to take some - thing real and important, something that we’ve used to memorialize the Holocaust and recognize our collective success as a province, and turn it into a cheap trick by the Liberal Party. In short, is this an irrelevant measure? Y es. Is this the government wasting our time? Y es. Is it harmless? I sup- pose so, since it doesn’t do anything, as we’ve established in this committee stage debate. In short, what we have is an effort by the government that has consequences.

Those consequences have been to show that this government, unlike all the previous gov - ernments of all the different partisan stripes, and this minister, unlike all the other ministers, think that any - thing goes and that if you can play tricks and divide, par- liamentary tricks are what we do. Well, that’s not what any party has done in the past. That’s not what Premier Bennett did. That’s not what Premier Barrett did. That’s not what Premier Harcourt did or Premier Clark did. That’s not what Premier Campbell did. None of them used these measures. Until now, that’s not what this Premier has done either. After

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9631 all, we came together to establish Terry Fox Day in this session of this parliament. I think, to summarize the debate, there has been no defence by the government to the questions we’ve asked. No answers to those questions. An attempt to claim things that are in the bill that aren’t in the bill. How do we know this? Because we can read the bill in about three seconds. We have, I suppose, a reflection of tactics at work in politics. I think all of us oppose unnecessary regulation.

Sometimes, in society, we have a debate about what is necessary and what isn’t. [1440] That is a good debate and a hopeful debate. Government and oppositions in this Legislature should be working on that every day. What we have here, instead, is a new law, an increase in the legislative and regulatory burden, designed sim - ply for the Liberal Party to acquire what belongs to the people of British Columbia — namely, the right to cele - brate and to recognize special moments in our future, in our life today and in our past. Hon. C.

Oakes: This is an ongoing strategy that we have, to support small businesses in British Columbia. The test we have is that small businesses across British Columbia have continued to tell us that reducing red tape and ensuring that we have that top of mind is im - portant, to ensure that we are creating jobs in British Columbia and that we retain our commitment to grow - ing our economy. The member opposite mentioned that no other juris - diction in Canada has similar legislation. Well, we believe, in this House, that we should be looking at best practices that exist around the globe.

We know firsthand that juris- dictions such as what we had recognized in Australia do in fact have legislation that has a regulatory-reduction day. It’s twice a year in Australia. When you are able to measure performance, it ensures that we are able to see significant things happen. That is why the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has graded British Columbia with a grade A — because of the continued effort, the continued leadership, the continued vision that this government has towards ensuring that we have successful small businesses in British Columbia.

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

section 1. But before I start, I would like to address that comment, be - cause it is relevant. Frankly, this government does not have a vision. The vision they sold British Columbians on was one of wealth and prosperity for one and all from a vibrant LNG indus- try, this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that they are continually chasing. The reality is that this misled British Columbians because it was never in the cards, because the economic reality was that LNG was not coming to British Columbia soon or anytime soon.

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

It is a bill that will do nothing for the betterment of British Columbia. My question to the minister is this. It’s a question that is also in the mind of the member for Delta South. How much of the B.C. tax- payers’ money is the government going to waste to pro- mote this bill, to create staff to administer it, to actually promote this day across schools? How much money? And how much red tape is being introduced in B.C. through the passage of this bill? The Chair: Can I call the question on

section 1? [1445] A. Dix: A point of order. The member for Oak Bay– Gordon Head asked how much the minister expected the bill to cost B.C. taxpayers, in terms of all the things she claims are happening with respect to it. We’ d be very interested in the answer. Interjections. A. Dix: No, no. I get to stand up in my place and speak. I say to the Minister of Jobs — which I’m doing right now. Under the rules of the House…. Interjections. A. Dix: I’m just saying that the member asked the most basic question you can ask: how much does it cost?

The minister, I was about to say — before I started get - ting heckled by the Minister of Health, who must be embarrassed about this — has every right not to answer, of course — stay in her seat and not answer how much it costs. But the record will show that she was unable to answer that question.

British Columbia Debates9632 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Hon. C. Oakes: We are using existing government staff in my ministry and the government’s citizen engagement team to support this initiative. G. Heyman: To the minister: if you’re using existing government staff, what other functions that they would normally do will they not be doing? Hon. C. Oakes: As this is a new ministry and the min- istry is Small Business and Red Tape Reduction, this is an initiative that is part of our ministry. G. Heyman: If that’s the case, perhaps the minister could answer the question as to how much this is go - ing to cost. Hon.

C. Oakes: It will be the third Wednesday in March. We’ll be using existing resources that we have within our ministry to achieve that. Sections 1 and 2 approved. Title approved. Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. [1450] Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT Bill 34, Red Tape Reduction Day Act, reported com - plete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division: [1455] YEAS — 70 Lee Sturdy Hogg Y amamoto Michelle Stilwell Stone Fassbender Oakes Thomson Virk Rustad Wilkinson Pimm Sultan Hamilton Reimer Ashton Morris Hunt Sullivan Cadieux Lake Polak de Jong Coleman Anton Bond Letnick Bernier Barnett Y ap Thornthwaite McRae Plecas Kyllo Tegart Throness Hammell Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Dix Ralston Corrigan Fleming Austin Fraser Martin Larson Foster Macdonald Karagianis Eby Mungall Bains Elmore Heyman Darcy Donaldson Krog D.

Routley Dalton Gibson Moira Stilwell Chouhan Rice Holman B. Routley NAYS — 2 Huntington Weaver Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading on Bill 35. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 35 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2015 Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 35 be read a second time now. Throughout the spring and summer of 2015, two very significant coroners’ inquests were undertaken in the province.

The first of the two considered the cir - cumstances surrounding the incredibly tragic deaths of Glenn Roche and Alan Little, who were working at the Lakeland sawmill in Prince George when an explosion occurred. On May 14, 2015, the coroner’s jury issued the formal verdicts respecting the tragedy and provided 33 recommendations aimed at both government and non- government organizations. The second inquest examined the deaths of Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie, who also tragically died in a sep- arate mill explosion which occurred in Burns Lake at the Babine sawmill.

The Babine inquest issued its verdict on July 31, 2015, along with 41 recommendations also aimed at both government and non-government organizations. [1500] Of the 74 recommendations flowing from the two in- quests, 40 were directed to the provincial government or provincial government agencies such as WorkSafe B.C. As the Minister Responsible for Labour, I have taken the lead role in coordinating the response to the coroner’s of- fice and following up with my colleagues across govern- ment to ensure that the recommendations are considered carefully and that the appropriate action is undertaken on them.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9633 I want to say that the coroner jury recommendations were very thoughtful, and in fact, they provide us with numerous opportunities to act in ways that will further the safety of workers in this province and help prevent accidents like those that occurred at the Lakeland and Babine mills from happening again. In addition, action on the recommendations creates, as we have said previ - ously, a legacy for families who so tragically lost their loved ones in these two tragedies.

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

With that brief background, I want to speak more spe- cifically to the bill that is before us today. This bill addresses recommendations to my ministry from both inquests. Among the two sets of coroner jury recommendations, five of those recommendations specific- ally called for amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. Bill 35 responds with legislative amendments to dir- ectly respond to all five of the recommendations.

In response to recommendation 11 issued by the cor - oner’s jury into the Lakeland tragedy, Bill 35 requires employers to immediately report to WorkSafe B.C. all workplace fires or explosions that have the potential to cause serious injury to a worker. This will be an important contribution to ensuring worker safety through proactive awareness and appropriate follow-up at WorkSafe B.C. The Lakeland jury heard evidence at the inquest that there were two significant explosions, fires, at the Lakeland mill in January 2012, which were not reported to WorkSafe B.C. or fire officials.

The jury rightly deter- mined that near misses should be treated as important opportunities to consider and alleviate risks, and we agree. In response to recommendation 30 issued by the cor - oner’s jury into the Babine tragedy, Bill 35 requires disclo- sure of employer investigation reports to the workplace health and safety committee or worker health and safety representative. This amendment will help ensure that les- sons learned in the face of a workplace accident are com- municated to health and safety committees.

In response to recommendation 9 from the Lakeland inquest, Bill 35 specifies meaningful participation for worker and employer representatives in employer ac - cident investigations. The amendments lay out specif - ically that worker and employer representatives may be involved in viewing the accident site, providing advice during the employer investigation. In response to recommendation 7 from the Lakeland inquest, Bill 35 specifies that workplace health and safe - ty committees should provide advice to the employer on significant proposed equipment and machinery changes that may affect worker health and safety.

Here, the intent is that in the term “significant, ” that term will be read in conjunction with the existing re - quirement that the proposed changes in question are ones which may affect the health and safety of workers.

In this context, significant proposed changes to workplace equipment or machinery are changes that would affect health and safety risk factors associated with the work as opposed to changes that are more cosmetic in nature or relate to financial, productivity or technological changes that are not directly connected to the safety of workers. [1505] Finally, in response to recommendation 29 from the Babine inquest, Bill 35 will allow WorkSafe B.C. to pro - actively assist health and safety committees in resolving disagreements over health and safety matters.

These proposed amendments are not revolution - ary in the sense of drastic changes to the Workers Compensation Act. But they are evolutionary in the sense that they offer meaningful and practical changes that will contribute to worker safety in all workplaces in British Columbia — and not just in sawmills, where these events occurred. It should be stressed that Bill 35 and the work done by the coroner jury inquests more broadly build on the amendments we made to the Workers Compensation Act through Bill 9 earlier this year.

Those amendments imple- mented recommendations contained in Gord Macatee’s action plan for WorkSafe B.C. to improve worker safety in the province, particularly in B.C. sawmills; to estab - lish a world-class inspection and enforcement regime at WorkSafe B.C.; and to help make workplaces safer, to help prevent accidents like the 2012 sawmill explosions from happening again. The amendments proposed here in Bill 35 are one more step in ensuring worker safety. They reflect gov - ernment’s commitment to fully address the coroner jury recommendations made to my ministry.

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

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

British Columbia Debates9634 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 WorkSafe B.C. has an extremely complex investment portfolio. I have been asked by the critic opposite about this several times: why isn’t WorkSafe actually meeting their target? What I’ d rather do is make sure they have a target they can actually meet. Because of the complex - ity in the returns of the portfolio, we need to adjust the date. This will allow WorkSafe to be in compliance and do the work that they need to do. It also standardizes the approach across other agencies.

The legislation also updates the annual report and ser- vice plan provisions to be consistent with other prov - incial legislation. It requires WorkSafe to deliver the annual report to the minister rather than the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council. The legislation also requires that the report be tabled with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislature is not in session when the minister receives the report so that it can be made public in a more time - ly way.

There was a requirement that often precluded us from being able to table the report in a timely way, since it has to be tabled in the Legislature. We’re going to make the adjustment so that it can be tabled with the Clerk. Bill 35 also repeals the requirement that cabinet must approve changes to the superannuation or pension plan. This amendment, again, streamlines a process that con - sumes considerable government resources without really adding meaningful value to the process.

Once again, it brings WorkSafe into line with public agencies, such as ICBC, who manage changes to their pensions without formal cabinet approval. It’s done by many other agen - cies. In fact, WorkSafe was an outlier, and there’s no need for us to continue that practice. But the primary purpose of this bill…. There has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of days about the need for us to be here, about running out of agenda items and that there’s no work to be done. I consider this bill and these amendments essential.

One of the things that allowed us to do the work that we did as quickly as we could, based on the inquest and the recommendations that were provided, was the ability for us to bring these changes forward quickly. Families deserve that. Communities deserve that. Most importantly, workers across this province deserve that.

This bill is completely intended to implement the recom- mendations that were made by the jury inquests that re- quested that legislative changes be made. [1510] I am sure that there are ways that we could have looked at making these changes, other ways that did not require legislative amendments. But when I reviewed all of the recommendations and the reasons behind them, it was important that these changes be made and be made permanently and reflect the weight of the law in British Columbia.

So I made the decision to bring these amendments based on the fact that I think it is the least we can do to show families that the inquest had meaning, that govern- ment took all of the recommendations seriously, and we continue to work aggressively on the ones that are directed to government directly but also to agencies like WorkSafe. I urge members to go and look at the letter that I have sent to the chief coroner, which details in very specific detail how each recommendation is being managed. We will continue to update that letter and others as we move forward.

It’s also my hope that there are others who have received recommendations from the inquests. There are the steel- workers, there are employers, and there are others. I am hopeful that those recommendations will be taken as ser- iously and dealt with as expeditiously as we are attempting to do here today and in other work that’s been done. Again, I’m going to end my comments by simply saying that while this may seem like very little to offer families who have lost their loved ones, it is also an important step in, I hope, creating a legacy to those families and those workers who lost their lives or were injured.

I hope that, today, it will bring some small measure of comfort knowing that the recommendations of the in - quest are not going to gather dust. They are not going to sit on a shelf somewhere. We have taken them seriously, and these amendments, I hope, will speak to the families about the seriousness with which we take the recommendations that were provided by the jury in both circumstances. Thank you for allowing me to make those opening comments, Mr. Speaker. S.

Simpson: I look forward to being able to partici - pate in the debate on Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, and I would note for you, hon. Speaker, that I am the designated speaker for the purposes of this piece of legislation. As the minister said, the reason that we’re debating, that Bill 35 is before us now, goes back to the results of the juries of two coroners’ inquests and the recommen- dations of those juries. These are juries that made recommendations based on two of the most tragic industrial accidents in the his- tory of this province.

They are the coroner’s jury for the Babine explosion in Burns Lake on January 20, 2012 — an explosion that killed Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie and injured many others and devastated that community. This legislation is a response to the coroner’s jury recommendations from the Lakeland disaster on April 23, 2012, just a couple of short months after Babine, where Glenn Roche and Alan Little were killed.

Again, many others were seriously injured and had their lives affected, as the families of those who passed away had their lives affected in ways that they may never truly recover from. [1515] When those accidents, those things, occurred, there was shock — a lot of shock when the Babine explosion happened. And we know from that that there were a lot

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9635 of questions that were raised by Babine in how WorkSafe B.C. did their job, how the company did their job, how the union did their job, how everybody did their job and in where the shortfalls and the holes had been that had allowed this to happen — an explosion that we now know was caused primarily by dust buildup — a fine dust called a flour by some — which largely came from the nature of beetle-kill wood. That explosion, I think, shook everybody. But in some ways, the Lakeland explosion was even more shocking because it came months later, after Babine.

There had not been, it appears…. We’ll talk about this. Arguably, the inquests’ findings themselves suggest that there was not the kind of action that you would expect to be taken by the regulators between Babine and Lakeland and what occurred, not the kind of action that might have helped to ensure that Lakeland didn’t occur. We don’t know that, and we’ll never know that, but there are serious questions to be asked there.

This legislation, Bill 35, deals, as the minister said, pri- marily with issues that relate to the joint health and safety committee, their powers of investigation, how those in - vestigations will move forward and how they will pro - ceed. They talk to a situation that we now know…. I had the opportunity to sit through a few days of the Lakeland inquest in Prince George and to listen to testimony from some of the workers who survived the Lakeland explosion.

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

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

We’ve spoken about that before — critique from our side around whether the families, in particular, had the kind of representation they should have at those inquests. They didn’t have legal counsel of their own. They were represented…. The government and the minister and the coroner said they were represented by coroner’s counsel and that that was the appropriate venue. It was our view that they should have had counsel of their own to allow them to make determinations about appropriate questions that needed to be asked. We’ve debated that here. We’ve debated it in estimates. We debated it in Bill 9.

We have a different view from the government on what should have occurred, but what happened did happen. The inquest happened. There’s a series of recommendations. I’ve spoken to a number of the parties who have fol - lowed this closely, and those parties would all tell you that the juries worked hard and worked with integrity and that the recommendations that they put forward, if they’re implemented and managed properly and enforced properly, will make for a better situation in these kinds of workplaces. [1520] The juries deserve credit for that, and they deserve our thanks for that.

I heard enough of the testimony, and I didn’t hear but a bit of what they listened to every day. It was not an easy job. It was a challenging and difficult job and pretty heart-wrenching, at times, to sit through those events. What is the situation that we face, then, with this bill? We had the two explosions. We had the explosions that created this incident. We know from what we’ve read, from what we see in the coroners’ inquests, that there’s a rec- ognition that there were levels of negligence here. There were things that should have been done by parties to this.

I believe there was negligence on the part of the com - panies in terms of how they managed their responsibil - ities around cleanup and around ensuring that those workplaces were appropriately taken care of. There was negligence, clearly, as it relates to WorkSafe B.C. I know that everybody in this House is aware of that. I know the minister is aware of that. I know the minister and the government…. The action that they took essen - tially led to the removal of Mr. Anderson, leaving as the president and the CEO, the appointment of Mr.

Macatee as an administrator to come in and do quite extensive work, the criticism that came when WorkSafe B.C. was looking to recommend the potential for charges under the act, which the RCMP and the criminal justice branch declined to take forward. They felt that critical evidence, among other things, may have been compromised by the nature of the investigations of WorkSafe, which would not allow them to take that forward as a potential prosecu - tion. That, I think, was really devastating for everybody.

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

British Columbia Debates9636 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 We all know, and it is the nature of a coroner’s inquest, that that’s not what inquests do. They look to see if they can provide some insight and some recommendation as to how to correct the problems that are identified in any given circumstance. In this case, there were significant problems, and the coroners and the juries made those recommendations to try to correct those problems. But it left the families….

I know after speaking to the families at Lakeland after that inquest that they continued to feel the frustration about not having the answers to the questions that, for them, were the most fundamental questions. They may be questions that they will never get a defin- itive answer to. Certainly, those families have their view of what occurred. They believe that they have a pretty good idea of where the responsibility lies, but that will never be conclusive because of the nature of the inquest process. With WorkSafe, as I said…. Many of these recommen- dations, as the minister says….

The legislation, I should say, is focused very much on dealing with four or five key clauses in the Workers Compensation Act. We’ll get to the specifics of those in a minute. We know that there are fundamental challenges. We saw Bill 9, which the minister referenced in her opening comments to Bill 35.

Bill 9 was essentially about trying to address some of the issues related to how investigations work and creating the necessary firewalls to allow in - vestigations to work — some other changes around that. [1525] It’s my belief that there are other steps that should have been taken there, including the notion — we know this has been done in the past — of seconding a prosecutor to work closely with WorkSafe. But the decision was made not to go that route, and fair enough. That’s a decision that the government made. We will see over the coming period of time….

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

To be fair there, the issue, of course, is that the inves - tigation and evidence related to a criminal activity set a higher bar, quite frankly, than an investigation related to a workplace accident. We know that you need to ap - proach these in different ways if you believe that, ultim- ately, you’re looking at the potential of a criminal charge, a criminal prosecution. WorkSafe hasn’t done that. They did not do that well. Some of that, I think, is a cultural problem with WorkSafe, a problem that I hope will be corrected. I hope there’s some change in the thinking.

WorkSafe has come a long way from, I think, 1917 or whenever it was that the Workers Compensation Board was put in place. It has evolved. We know that the Workers Compensation Board…. This was a bargain, and it was a deal. It was a deal that said: “We’re going to create this institution that will pro- tect workers by trying to have proper oversight and pre- vention procedures that make workplaces as safe as they can reasonably be made. We will take care of workers and provide income and rehabilitation and support for workers who are injured on the job. ” In return for that, litigation is off the table.

There will be no litigation. There will be no suits. And employers will essentially pay for that structure. The model is a good model. The model is a model that has worked for a long time. The challenge that we’ve seen over the last number of years, I believe, is that WorkSafe has become much more of an insurer. I’ve had people who pay close attention — whether they be legal counsel that take WorkSafe cases and legislation, whether they be others who are active around this — talk about WorkSafe as becoming much like an insurance company that pro- vides that protection and has a concern about premium costs.

We should all worry about costs. But their con - cern is whether those premium costs and how those are handled have swung too far. Is that a detriment to the interests of workers? This is a bigger discussion than Bill 35. It’s a discussion that needs to be had, and it’s a discussion that we need to proceed as we move forward. Bill 35 — much like Bill 9, much like the work of Mr. Macatee, much like the public debate that happened because of the tragedies of Babine and Lakeland — has stimulated and motivated a great amount of that discussion in a whole lot of places. That is a good thing.

It’s very sad that it took tragedies and deaths to generate that discussion, but it clearly has done that. It has generated that discussion. We’re going to pursue that discussion, and we will see, as we move forward, how we engage that. [1530] When you look at what happened and at some of the challenges with what happened…. I think about maybe one of the biggest ones. Again, I spoke to the issue of Lakeland in particular, because Babine was a tragic, tra - gic situation.

What is most difficult is that we saw little, if anything, that suggested that we had learned much from Babine that might have helped to have not had Lakeland occur. When I read the verdict of the coroner’s inquest for Glenn Roche, on page 3…. These are the presiding coroner’s comments, the comments of Ms. Lapointe, the chief cor- oner, who presided over the Lakeland situation. She talks about the concerns that were raised there that are reflected, I believe, in the need to have commit - tees that are much more proactive and much more en - gaged. I’ll look forward to talking more about 174, 175

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 21, 2015 9637 and 176, about whether, in fact, the engagement and the level of investigation that is intended in this legislation actually gets there. We’ll go through those quite specif - ically in a minute. As the coroner said in her observations: “Several workers testified that they had been concerned about increased dust accumulations at the mill in the months prior to the explosion.

A number of reasons were offered for this, includ- ing the addition of a third shift, the lack of time for regular clean- ing, disagreements about cleaning responsibilities and ongoing problems with the baghouse, a device designed to filter sawdust and other particulates from the air. Most significantly, the wood processed at the mill had become significantly drier over the years, as much of it was beetle-kill wood. “The inquest was told that when the baghouse went down, workers couldn’t breathe or see.

The company had built boxes for the paper dust masks that workers would don when the dust became extreme. ” There was a problem here. This was not functioning in a way that a reasonable person should expect one of those mills to function. Y et there was little or no action. The coroner goes on to say: “During the week of January 16, 2012, there were two explo - sions and resulting fires at Lakeland Mill — the first on January 17 and the second on January 19. The first was caused by a motor and was quickly extinguished by workers.

The second occurred as a result of sparks when a saw contacted metal at the large head-rig. The resulting explosion sent a fireball approximately 30 feet into the air. “Workers using extinguishers from above and beside the fire eventually put it out, but many testified that they were increasing- ly afraid of a catastrophic event.

Though numerous millworkers testified that they had significant concerns about the cleanliness of the mill and had raised the concerns with managers, these concerns were not reflected in the minutes of the safety commit- tee meetings, nor were they reported to the union. “Nobody refused work on the grounds that it was unsafe, though Mr. Little” — who died in the explosion — “reacting to concerns by workers, shut the mill down twice for cleaning.

While there were concerns about dust accumulation and dust as fuel, the combustibility of wood dust wasn’t well understood amongst workers. ” I would go back and reference that when the cor - oner talks about those two fires, and the second one on January 19, the fireball 30 feet in the air, that was one day before Babine. The next day, on January 20, the explosion at Babine occurred. Workers were killed; the mill was levelled; people suffered serious, serious injuries; and a community was devastated.

Somehow, neither of these incidents, January 17 or January 19, were deemed important enough for a report and an investigation. WorkSafe says they were never told about them. They were never deemed important enough, and it does come back to the question, certainly, of a functioning committee. But it also comes to the question of what was occurring with WorkSafe B.C. [1535] I go on further.

About two weeks after that incident, the January 19 incident, that the jury, and I’m again quot- ing from the coroner’s observations: “The jury heard that on February 6, 2012, a WorkSafe B.C. occupational safety officer and an occupational hygiene officer had visited Lakeland mill in response to an anonymous call to WorkSafe B.C., expressing concern about large amounts of sawdust at the mill.

The call had been received a few days after January 20, 2012, when an explosion and fire had decimated the Babine Forest Products mill in Burns Lake, resulting in the deaths of two workers. “The occupational safety officer testified that he wasn’t aware of the hazards of combustible dust. He determined that conditions at Lakeland mill on February 6 didn’t warrant a housekeeping order but that the mill was the dirtiest he had ever seen. He testified that Lakeland had previously been a clean mill. He also stated that at the time, he had no reference point with which to assess dust levels.

The occupational hygiene officer testified that she did know about combustible dust, but reported that she didn’t observe a violation on the February 6 visit. ” This raises serious questions about what was going on here. I accept what WorkSafe B.C. told me, as the president told me, that WorkSafe was never told about the January 19 explosion — fireball — at Lakeland and that the company should be culpable for that. As we know, even though WorkSafe recommended charges related to other matters on the mill, they were never going to proceed.

But WorkSafe had their people there a little over two weeks later, on the sixth of February, in a situation in which one of them, the occupational safety officer, said that the mill was the dirtiest he had ever seen it. They did not order anything. They did not order cleanup. They did not order housekeeping. They did not say to the company: “Y ou need to act now, and this mill is not operating until you clean it up. ” WorkSafe has to be responsible for that. They have to be respon - sible for that.

We know that there has been no shortage of work done, primarily in the United States over the last number of years, on the issue of combustible dust. There’s been significant work done, and research and science, in the United States over the last number of years on combust- ible dust. We know that WorkSafe is a sophisticated, large organization, an organization that works closely with their counterparts internationally. How is it that you get safety officers going out to in - vestigate a situation like that and saying: “I didn’t have knowledge about the potential of combustible dust.

I didn’t understand this issue. I’m going out to look at a mill, and I’m going out to look at a mill that I say is the dirtiest I have ever seen it. Somehow, I walk out of that mill, and I don’t do a further review”? The question I have is for the administration of WorkSafe — the leadership of WorkSafe, which passes policy all the time — which has a regulatory regime that they are responsible for. WorkSafe is a quasi-legislative body in many ways. They get to adopt policy and adopt regulation that never goes for order-in-council, that never comes to this place. They have that authority at WorkSafe.

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

British Columbia Debates9638 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 I’m going to learn about it, and I’m going to correct it, if I learn that it creates a risk’?” That didn’t happen in this situation. It didn’t happen. [1540] What’s the consequence of that? Y ou have a situation where the families continue to be frustrated by this pro - cess. We know what’s happened to them. We know that they’re not feeling like they’ve had their questions an - swered.

We know just from the interaction that they don’t feel confident that WorkSafe B.C. did everything that they needed to do to provide the safest possible en - vironment for their loved ones to go to work. Clearly, the consequence is one we all know, and we all know today. My sense from those families is they still are not con - fident that the actions that have followed subsequent to these two tragedies have created the situation where WorkSafe will, in fact, in the future take the preventative actions that they need to take in order to do their best to ensure that this never occurs again.

We know that you can never say never with these situations, but there was more to do, and that’s very clear. There was a negligence. There were challenges. We know the government understands that, because the gov- ernment made changes in the leadership of WorkSafe and they made changes in the operation of WorkSafe. It’s all clear from Mr. Anderson’s leaving, Mr. Macatee’s arrival, a new president and CEO, and pieces of legislation that the minister has said she hopes will be incremental steps in the right direction. Today we’re talking about one of those: Bill 35.

WorkSafe has a lack of investigatory powers, it ap - pears, or they’re not conducting them in the way that they should. There are supposed to be committees in place at the worksites — joint health and safety committees — that are critical. They’re in legislation. The government clearly knows how important these committees are. They legislate the committees. They’re not a whim. They’re not somebody’s idea. They’re not just a good idea. The government legislates these com - mittees as compulsory, as an obligation of doing business.

We all know that you can have all the committees in the world, but if the committees don’t function properly, if the committees don’t have proper authority and if the committees don’t have the ability to whistle-blow when they need to whistle-blow, they’re not going to get the job done. We’ve seen how tragic that can be in the accidents that we’re talking about. What happened here is a situation where you have legislation that clearly needed to be revamped. Let’s take a look here at what Bill 35 does on its substantive areas. The bill really changes….

In my reading of Bill 35, it affects, in large part, five sections of the act: sections 130, 132, 174, 175 and 176. Those are the sections of the Workers Compensation Act that get directly impacted by this piece of legislation. Now, when we look at what we’re talking about here…. I want to take some time to just walk through these and make sure that we’re pretty clear about them. Let’s just go through them in the order that they arrive.

Section 130. This is a

section that deals with the duties and the functions of the joint committee. Again, this is a committee that is comprised, if we go back to that div- ision…. There’s a whole division of the act that deals spe- cifically with joint committees and worker representatives. It says: “ An employer must establish and maintain a joint health and safety committee (

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

b) in any other workplace for which a joint committee is required by order. ” [1545] The membership of the committee. A joint committee of a workplace must be established in accordance with the following: “

a) it must have at least 4 members or, if a greater number of members is required by r

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20151021pm-Hansard-v29n10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20151021pm Hansard v29n10
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2ded305bce5c47018a0076fb11c50e073a90c054

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