Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 117

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018

(continued)

Hon. H. Bains

Reporting of Bills

Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018

A. Weaver

M. Polak

Hon. H. Bains

S. Furstenau

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

A. Olsen

T. Stone

S. Chandra Herbert

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued)

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

D. Barnett

B. Stewart

C. Oakes

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

J. Rustad

J. Sturdy

13:57:35, A. Weaver, “province. Sorry to firefighters” changed to “province — sorry,

to firefighters”

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 9, and in Committee A, I call

continued estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete

without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read for a third time?

Hon. H. Bains: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in third reading to address the bill

before the House at this particular juncture. I do rise with a great

deal of dismay, knowing that this bill went through committee stage in

but five minutes at a time….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’ll wait for the Clerk to pass the message on.

As it’s known, I had motions on the order paper. I had given

notice to the minister. I had given notice to the opposition. The

opposition informed me that they had numerous questions to raise on this

bill. I was in a meeting downstairs. I’m three minutes late for the

start. Now, I understand parliamentary rules. I understand parliamentary

rules are such that I missed approval of the title. But at third

reading, I’d like to provide more reasons why I have profound troubles

with this bill as put forward to us now.

Those troubles are the fact that this bill does not include 911

dispatchers. Hon. Speaker, I tell you, after the member from Vancouver,

the minister now, for Vancouver-Hastings, rose and spoke yesterday, I

received an email from one of the people he mentioned, who he had

consulted in developing his private member’s bill. That person had a

panic attack when he thanked her for input. The government ignored, in

this legislation, 911 dispatchers, despite the fact that they actually

included the 911 dispatchers in the private member’s bill that the

member for Vancouver-Hastings, now minister, brought to this in 2016 and

in 2017 as well.

Now, I get that the B.C. Liberals are playing games. I get the

fact that they don’t actually want to have this debated. I get the fact

that they say one thing and do an absolute other. I get the fact that

the member for Chilliwack, the critic for this file, who had told me

that he had a number of questions to ask, would but ask five minutes of

questions while I’m meeting with developers — who are profoundly

troubled about the direction this government is taking on the

speculation tax.

[1:40 p.m.]

If the opposition opposite did their job, we’d still be debating

this bill, and the B.C. Greens, who have spent many, many hours

consulting with stakeholders from north to south and east to west of

this province about what’s not in this bill…. We would actually have a

debate of substance on this bill on the issues contained. But members

opposite abdicated their responsibility as elected members to the B.C.

Legislature to raise issues and bring these issues forward for debate.

That is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable for members of that party opposite to not stand

in this House and take to task the minister for a bill that he has

introduced, which they had had time to explore when it was a private

member’s bill introduced earlier — and after being told that they were

going to do this. That’s shameful.

I get that they can play games. But the message I want people to

take home here today is: in this place, it’s not about doing what’s

right for the people of British Columbia; it’s about doing what’s right

for petty, political games for the B.C. Liberals. And frankly, I think

the B.C. NDP owes some responsibility here, too, because they knew I

that had these amendments on the order paper.

I struggle right now with whether or not I’m going to support this

bill, whether or not I’m going to support this bill and call division to

have a standing vote on this bill because of the fact of what’s not

included, because what just transpired in this House is reprehensible —

reprehensible to nurses in the province of British Columbia, nurses

struggling with PTSD, nurses struggling with systemic mental health

issues from their job.

What’s wrong with this legislation is we’re not talking about

teachers in this province of British Columbia — teachers who work in

environments of bullying and harassment with unsupportive

administrators, who struggle and take leave but are not covered by WCB,

because they have to prove that their mental illness or disorder

directly came from their workplace. They have to go to the WCB and

actually argue their case. What can be more profoundly troubling to an

individual than to have to stand and recount the stories and relive

their experiences because the presumptive clause doesn’t apply to

them?

Shame on the members of the B.C. Liberal Party. How you can go

back to your constituents — 911 responders, nurses, teachers, factory

workers, construction workers — and say that you played political games

in this House today so that we’re not debating amendments to actually

put their interests first? Hon. Speaker, this is a very sad day in

politics in British Columbia, when once again the B.C. Liberals put

their political interests, their desire not to have debate because of

their quest for power, ahead of the interests and their responsibility

to the rights of British Columbians.

There were a number of things that I had put on the order paper. I

put two orders. One is to have a presumptive clause for all workers.

Now, I fortunately am here to say to those listening that I’ve had very,

very good conversations and follow-up with the minister about the

importance of this issue, and I truly believe that the minister

understands this issue. I truly believe that we will see action in a

timely fashion, particularly with the 911 responders. That, to me, is

critical.

Again, what we need to recognize is what’s happening in other

jurisdictions. Let’s look at the case of Florida, for example. There is

not a person in this place who does not recall what happened tragically

in the Parkland high school in Florida — not a member in this place.

What do they have in Florida? They’ve introduced presumptive clauses for

PTSD for 911 responders, because they are the front-line responders.

They are the first people to take the call. They’re the person talking

to a child huddled under a desk while someone is going by and shooting

their friends to death in the hallway.

These are the people that have to deal with PTSD, and this

government — and opposition through their silly, petty games — have

actually put them, thrown them under the bus.

You can tell I’m passionate about this, Hon. Speaker, because this

is wrong. This is not right. This is not how this place should function.

Frankly, I think the member from Chilliwack should resign as the critic,

resign his chair, as he did not put the people of British Columbia front

and centre here.

Interjections.

[1:45 p.m.]

A. Weaver: They think this is funny, Hon. Speaker, and that’s what’s wrong

with that party. This isn’t a game. This is about good policy for

people. This is about when you say something to someone…. This place

only functions if you can trust your colleagues, when they say they’re

going to do something, that they will actually do something. But no, no.

That’s not the case for the B.C. Liberals.

Let’s go to the province of Nova Scotia, which in September of

2017, this last year, passed a bill to expand presumptive PTSD to 911

operators and continuing-care workers — two different groups. Why? I

come back to the story, the compelling story that I read yesterday,

about a first responder.

I get that some first responders, the 911 dispatchers, are already

paramedics or already police officers and so will be covered under the

presumptive clauses. So not only have we got a problem here; we have an

equity problem. If you happen to be an RCMP dispatcher, you’re likely

covered. But if you’re in a local government, you’re not.

If you’re the dispatcher who actually is dealing with the Parkland

shooter, in Florida you’d be covered — but not in the province of

British Columbia, for two reasons. This government forgot, frankly, in

my view, to put it in the legislation. But more important is the fact

that the members opposite, the B.C. Liberals, who should be hanging

their heads in shame today, saw fit to end debate on this because of the

fact that I’m about three minutes late, despite the fact I’m told that

there were many questions to come.

That’s clever. That’s clever politics. Got to give it to the B.C.

Liberals. That’s what they’re good at. It’s all about politics for them.

It was all about politics in the election, the Kinder Morgan pipeline,

the five conditions — all about politics. They have no

credibility.

Hon. Speaker, I must say that I use the word “honourable,” and I

mean that dearly and sincerely when I say hon. Speaker here, because I

see a man of honour in the Speaker’s chair, and I don’t know how he ever

could have sat on that side of the House with those members

opposite.

Coming back to the bill, we have a problem. We have a problem with

the fact that right now this bill is oiling the squeaky wheel. It’s

oiling the squeaky wheel of those who lobby the best. There’s no

question we need to have presumptive clauses for police, firefighters,

corrections officers, sheriffs. But there’s also no question in my mind

that we need to include emergency dispatchers. We need to include

teachers, include nurses and include workers on the construction

site.

You know what? If a worker on a construction site falls and breaks

his or her arm, they’re covered under WCB. They don’t have to go through

the presumptive clause when they show up in a cast and say: “This

happened at work.” But let’s suppose somebody falls from a high crane

and lands, sadly, and gets splattered across the ground directly in

front of a worker on a construction site, and that worker struggles with

some mental disorder after that. Right now, there’s no presumption

clause. That worker has to prove to WCB that the PTSD was a direct

consequence of that incident that they saw. That’s wrong.

Saskatchewan understands that that’s wrong. Alberta understands

that that’s wrong. In both of those provinces, as defined under the

acts, their respective workers compensation acts, all workers are

covered under the presumptive clause.

I understand that there was a possibility that one or two of my

amendments would have been ruled out of order, because there might have

been fiscal consequences associated with it. I understand that. The

minister has missed an opportunity, though, to be able to put onto the

record what his views are on this issue. It’s a very good opportunity

that he’s missed.

The members opposite have missed an opportunity to actually let

British Columbians know what they think. Their actions have told British

Columbians what they think about this bill. Their actions have said

they’re not willing to do their job as opposition.

For heaven’s sake. Why don’t half of you guys quit? Let’s have an

election. Let’s get some more B.C. Greens down here, and we’ll do their

job for them if they’re not willing to do it themselves — to actually

hold government to account, not to ask stupid questions about stuff to

try to score political gain but actually hold government to account for

their actions as seen in the bill — not act as apologists but actually

hold government to account.

[1:50 p.m.]

It’s shameful, what we just witnessed there from the B.C. Liberals

today.

I come back to the teachers in British Columbia, none of whom now

are afforded the opportunity to hear the minister’s response, the

debate, members opposite discuss what they thought about their

views.

Given that you’ve missed the opportunity to hear what the B.C.

Liberals and the B.C. NDP believe to be their views, I’ll tell you what

the B.C. Green views are. The B.C. Green views are this. No teacher

should have to stand in front of the Workers Compensation Board and

argue that the fact that they have depression and anxiety issues from

working in an intolerant workplace, where their school administrator

doesn’t support them and their school board, school administration and

district administration don’t support them.

No person should have to relive that experience in front of the

Workers Compensation Board. Instead, just like in Alberta and

Saskatchewan, the presumptive clause should be applied to

them.

I don’t know how many teachers I know who have had to deal with

this. In fact, if you look at statistics in British Columbia, something

is pushing…. Almost 50 percent of new teachers actually quit the

teaching profession in the first five years. Why do they do that?

Because of the situation they’ve been put in. In many cases, it’s

overwhelming, but they have no place to go now.

They can go on LTD and get a fraction of their wage, but if they

actually had a presumptive clause within their contracts, it would force

school districts’ administration to actually ensure that the working

environment that these teachers participate in is one that’s conducive,

friendly, safe, free of bullying, free of harassment. But that’s not

going to happen here in the province of British Columbia, because

members opposite saw so fit as to play silly political games to try to

avoid discussion on the amendments before us.

Again, let’s move beyond the teachers. Let’s talk about nurses.

I’m sure many of the members here…. I can’t be the only member…. Well,

I’m probably the only member in opposition who actually reads their

emails. I’m pretty sure none of them do. They probably have their staff

read them, and they don’t respond themselves. Frankly, I know that to be

the case, because I get so many people from their ridings email our

office pointing out that they get no response from the B.C. Liberals,

and will we please help them out. I will put the member for Prince

George–Valemount…. I’ll say that that is not the case with her, but I’ve

got it from so many others sitting there right now.

Let’s go to nurses. I can take a particular…. I don’t know how

half the nurses do their job, but let me tell you a story about my

daughter. Let me tell you a story that, to me, tells me the type of

environment nurses have to work in.

My daughter had a very, very serious heart issue, and she was

misdiagnosed by the pediatrician — a young pediatrician, straight out of

med school, who had diagnosed it as something different. The nurse was

there. The nurse says: “I know what this is. I’ve worked here for 30

years. This doctor is not listening to me. He won’t do anything, but

this is what it is.”

Fortunately, I have some experience in research. So I went down to

the medical library, and I started researching this disease. I went

down, and I phoned one of my colleagues who happened to be in the

Scripps Institute in California. They are one of the leading research

areas on this disease. I was able to find out about this disease. I was

able to find out about the cure for this disease.

With the help of that nurse, I was able to follow as I was told —

to advocate on behalf of my child and demand a second opinion in the

hospital, because the treatment that was being offered was not going to

help her and, actually, was going to make her worse.

That ended up in a happy place. My daughter got better. But I can

imagine that nurse having to go through that day in, day out with other

patients — watching children suffer because a doctor, who happens to

think that they know everything and the nurse knows nothing, won’t

listen to them.

This isn’t dissing doctors in general, but it’s symptomatic of

human behaviour. In all our society, there are people who are not

willing to listen. There are people who know better than everyone. There

are people who do not respect their staff’s opinions, and people

sometimes have to work in that.

The whole purpose of having these nurses included was to ensure

that when systemic issues like that are in play, which can lead clearly

to long-term mental disorders, clearly they should not have to relive

these experiences before the WCB to prove that this is a direct

consequence of this.

[1:55 p.m.]

I suspect that the member opposite….

Are you hoping to introduce? I don’t believe that that is allowed

under the rules, because one side….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Well, what I can ask, hon. Speaker, is to seek leave to pause

briefly to allow the member to introduce the guests, and then

continue.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if we may. Thank you.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: It’s just an opportunity to give the hon. member a moment to catch his

breath as I introduce one of three classes that are coming today from a

school in my district. They are from Surrey Christian School, grade 5

students with their parents and teacher. I ask that the House would please

make them welcome here as they enjoy the debate.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: We’ve got a full two hours to work with on this bill. I’m looking

forward to using as much of that as possible as I try to…. Yes, at third

reading, I believe I get, as the designated speaker, a full two hours to

address this. I would seek clarification from the Clerk, with reference

to standing orders, please, to actually ensure and let me know how much

time I actually have.

We’ve talked about nurses. Let me talk about some others. Can you

imagine the tragedy that happened at Burns Lake — the explosion of a

mill. I’m pretty sure that there are a number of workers at this mill

who, after the mill exploded — and they live in the community — actually

are suffering from issues with respect to PTSD, mental health issues,

depression and anxiety, as a direct consequence of that mill explosion.

But what they have to do….

Two — what does the two mean? Exactly. I have two hours. Take your

seat, Liberals opposite. You had the opportunity to have a short debate.

I’d love to inform you of this issue in much more detail, seeing as

you’re willing to abdicate your responsibility to serve as opposition

and quiz government on a critical bill that’s before us here in the

House today, one that actually adds a presumptive clause for mental

health issues to all workers in the province — sorry, to firefighters,

paramedics, police officers, correction officers and sheriffs, but not

all workers in the province. I’m laying the case as to why that has to

happen.

I will tell people listening on TV now or checking

Hansard later — again, I come back to this, and I’ll come

back to this periodically over the next two hours as we enjoy this

debate — that I have had good discussions with the minister about the

fact that this is only a beginning. I wish he’d had the opportunity to

say that, too, himself. This is only the beginning of moving this bill

forward.

Rest assured, people reading this, I’m not going to give this one

up. I’m going to be like a dog with a bone, more like a pit bull with a

bone, on this issue, because it is wrong. It is wrong not to have

emergency dispatchers included. It is wrong not to have other workers

included. It is wrong not to follow the leadership of Alberta and

Saskatchewan and actually have a presumptive clause for all

workers.

Let’s go back to the issue in Nova Scotia, or Florida. Again,

these issues are front and centre in their recent legislation. Most

provinces in the country have the same thing for 911 dispatchers. It

makes no sense to me, when you talk about emergency responders…. This is

what I find remarkable. I’m going to focus on the 911 dispatchers

exclusively right now.

What I find remarkable about their omission is that when you say

first responder, government and opposition, for years, have included 911

dispatchers in their understanding of what first responders are, so much

so that the member for Vancouver-Hastings had them included in his

private member’s bill, brought in, in 2016 as well as in February of

2017. Two times. But they’re missing. There’s no reason for

it.

Can you imagine, now, if you’re a local government first responder

and you’re sitting next to somebody from the RCMP who’s a dispatcher,

who happens to be covered because they’re a police officer, or an

ambulance dispatcher who happens to be a paramedic? They’re covered

under this. But that community, local person sitting right beside them,

in the same room, the call-receiver, for heaven’s sake, getting that

distress call….

[2:00 p.m.]

Remember the story. I do apologize to the children in the crowd

here for the story that I’m about to tell, the story I told yesterday

about a man who phoned in a 911 as he had tried to commit suicide, as

his entrails were hanging out. This woman had to keep him alive, yet she

wasn’t covered, but her colleague sitting next to her in the RCMP would

be covered. It’s just wrong. It’s just wrong at a very fundamental

level.

We talked about office workers. What about office workers? The

whole purpose of including office workers, bank tellers, employees in

universities, in colleges, in schools, custodians or whatever is that

there are many, many environments in the province of British Columbia

that are not safe places to work because of systemic workplace bullying,

workplace harassment, systemic issues with dysfunctional governance,

dysfunctional administration, power over conflicts.

I could go on and on, and the litany of examples I could give

would make most people’s faces drop over here. Unfortunately, half the

members opposite spent their entire time in politics, and they probably

don’t actually have any experience other than politics.

I could actually provide members from their own staff who came to

me because they’ve experienced this in their MLA offices. This is a

problem. But those staff, if they were covered under workers

compensation, would actually be able to go and make a claim without

having to prove it. They’d still have to go to a psychiatrist or a

qualified psychologist. They’d still have to get the medical evidence,

but they’d have benefits right from the get-go.

Now let’s suppose you’re working…. I come back to an example that

I alluded to at second reading. You’re a single mother. You could be a

single father, but let’s just suppose, for clarity, you’re a single

mother.

You’re a single mother living in, say, the Kamloops–South Thompson

riding. You’re a single mother living there, and you’re working in an

office. You’re a receptionist in an office. You’ve got two kids at home.

You had a deadbeat dad involved. Deadbeat dad got in a car and took off,

ran away somewhere. You’re stuck paying the bills. You’ve got two

children. You don’t want to go on welfare because you’re a worker.

You’re somebody who actually believes in the importance of actually

working hard, earning a living.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Then you go and you realize that your skills are limited. You’ve

got a job that gives you the right number of hours with the appropriate

wage. There are very few of these jobs. You might be working and have

developed expertise in terms of as a receptionist in, let’s say, an auto

mechanic shop, for lack of a better example. There are probably a lot of

those in Kamloops. Let’s think of something that’s not…. Maybe a college

department where you need specific skills. Thompson Rivers University —

I love the university. Let’s just find a department there where they

need your skills.

Now you get into an environment where you need this job, you’ve

got kids at home, and the environment is abusive. You’ve got a boss

who’s abusive. You’ve got a boss who’s demeaning. You’ve got a boss with

unrealistic expectations. You’ve got a boss who basically has an

insecurity complex because they know they shouldn’t actually be in their

position of authority, but they’re your boss. And they try to exert

their power because bad bosses lack self-confidence and feel the

appropriate way to overcome that is to belittle their employees or

harass their employees or put unnecessary expectations or demands on

their employees.

But you need this job. You need this job because there is no other

job that you can have. You are a single mom. You’ve got two children at

home. You’re working that job to provide food for your children, and you

don’t want to go on welfare and the stigma of that. If we had basic

income, it would be different, but you don’t want to go on

welfare.

What do you do? Well, right now what you do is you can go on

disability leave if you happen to be a unionized employee that has a

long-term disability plan negotiated with your employer. That’s fine.

You’ll get some reduced salary. Typically, there’s a short period of

time. Typically there’s an approach to getting you back to

work.

[2:05 p.m.]

If you wanted to go to workers compensation — suppose you’re not

even a union employee and you don’t have LTD — you have to take the

risk, when you expose yourself to make a claim, that they will agree,

even if you have professionals. You have to prove that that is happening

in the workforce. You have to relive everything, with all the risk of

you recounting that story, as to whether or not your boss will actually

be worse than he or she was before. You take on that risk with no

certainty as to what the outcome will be.

We had an opportunity here to actually have a presumptive clause

which would give certainty to allow that person to have coverage while

they went to make a claim. If WCB…. No one has taken away their rights

to challenge a claim. That’s what the amendment, which I didn’t get a

chance to put…. We’ve all had a chance to read it on the order papers

because it’s been there for two days. Members opposite knew full well

that I was going to raise it.

Members opposite actually told me — the member for Chilliwack —

that he had a couple more questions to go and he’ll be going for a

while. That’s good leadership from the B.C. Liberals.

We had an opportunity to help that person. I don’t know how many

examples I’ve heard from professions across British Columbia, not only

firefighters and police officers. There’s no question about them

requiring presumptive clauses. There’s just no question.

What about tow truck drivers? You know, prior to getting elected —

I had a couple hang over last term, but I’m done now — I had done a lot

of expert witnessing in forensic meteorology, which is an area where we

use meteorological conditions to reconstruct weather conditions, road

conditions, at the time of the accident.

Now, in that time — some of these go to court; some don’t — I get

to see a lot of pictures. Let me tell you, most people in this room

would not want to see those pictures. What you see in these pictures are

bits of people splayed across the street, entrails hanging here,

decapitation hanging there, a missing limb over there. These are not

pleasant pictures to see. But I just see pictures. They’re not real to

me.

Now, imagine you’re a tow truck driver and you’ve been called

because they’ve blocked the main highway on the Coquihalla. You’ve been

called to move some cars, but because they’re doing an investigation,

you’ve still got some body parts on the scene, and you show up there.

What is the difference between that tow truck driver going there and a

first responder who goes there? They see the same thing.

In the one case, we’re going to give presumptive clause. In the

other, we say, “No, no, we’re not going to consider you,” because you

didn’t have a lobby group come to the Legislature and actually push this

forward. You didn’t have a lobby group to do that.

This is a lack of courage in leadership. We could have followed

the lead of both Saskatchewan and Alberta and done what they have done

and introduced presumptive clauses for all workers covered under the

Workers Compensation Act, but no, we didn’t do that.

Games were played in the Legislature here today. Games were played

in a desperate attempt…. Even after I was asked by one member opposite —

a member opposite who I actually have a lot of respect for…. That member

was going to contemplate the merits of one of the amendments and get

back to me but never got back to me because the member for Chilliwack,

their critic, decided to shut down debate, despite the fact of saying he

had a number of questions.

I was five minutes late — not even five minutes. I was three

minutes late because I had developers in my office who are at wit’s end

because the B.C. Liberals, for years, ignored the crisis in

affordability and the B.C. NDP have brought in issues with respect to

taxation that have led to a crisis that they have to deal with. They see

us as the only opportunity.

Let’s get back to this bill, which we should have canvassed much

more extensively at committee stage, but the member for Chilliwack

abdicated his responsibility to do his due diligence. Frankly, British

Columbians should be quite upset about that.

Coming back to the bill, I’ve talked about Florida, PTSD

responders there. I’ve talked about Nova Scotia. I’ve talked about other

provinces like Ontario, Manitoba, the maritime provinces, which all have

presumptive clauses. But we somehow think that in B.C., we’re not going

to actually consider 911 responders as emergency responders, as first

responders, as those that this legislation should be brought

to.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’ve given examples of nurses. I’ve given examples of teachers.

I’ve given examples of office workers. I’ve given examples of

construction workers. Let’s find other examples. What about a

manufacturer?

I used to work — one of my first jobs that I had as a youngster —

in Edinburgh on the Leith docks. Now, any of you who know Edinburgh and

the Leith docks there will know that that is the roughest part of

Edinburgh. My first day to work, I showed up and a guy had his arm

covered in stitches because his wife had stabbed him with an umbrella.

The other guy I had to work with had scars around his face because he

recently had a beer glass put in his face.

I know that there was a student in that environment who was

working there. I was a big guy. I played rugby. I got on with these

guys. But there was a student there who they didn’t like. They didn’t

like this guy because he was nippy. Then two things could have happened.

I’ll tell you what did happen, and I’ll tell you what could have

happened.

What did happen for this guy is that he had his door slammed…. I

worked in this ice factory. We ground ice and put it on fishing boat

trawlers and trucks that came to get it. It was minimum wage, etc. So

what happened here is they slammed his arm in a door, and they broke it.

They broke his arm. That young man lived in terror when he came to work,

but he needed the money. He wasn’t from an uppity side of Edinburgh. He

was from the north side of Edinburgh. He needed that money, so he came

to work every day and lived in terror as he tried to make a small

living.

In B.C., we had the opportunity to protect someone like that, a

factory worker like that. Heaven forbid someone in that ice factory — we

had ice grinders there — slipped into an ice grinder. Can you imagine if

you’d seen someone fall in that ice grinder and come out into the ice

bags that we were holding — in bits and pieces, blocks of cubed ice? Can

you imagine the PTSD that would have arisen from that?

In B.C., now we had an opportunity — as Alberta and Saskatchewan

have done — to include a presumptive clause that would have said that

rather than you having to relive this and go and argue before the WCB

that your PTSD or your systemic issues of anxiety and depression have

arisen from that incident…. Despite the fact you have psychiatric and

psychological assessments saying it did, you have to argue your case to

the WCB, and you get no benefits until that case is approved.

Despite that we had an opportunity to do something different here,

to recognize that it’s pretty clear that that kid, who’s living in an

abusive environment…. There’s no way that guy would want to risk his

life and go and challenge a ruling about where he is. It literally would

have been risking his life. Or in the other case, to have to relive

going through that ice shredder — I can’t imagine it.

There’s another example from another one of my jobs in Edinburgh.

I worked flipping burgers, again on the north side of Edinburgh. That’s

a tough side of Edinburgh. There was a young guy there who was a cook.

Management didn’t like the cook, so they were very abusive to the cook.

The cook took a lot of grief there.

He was a short-order cook trying to make ends meet. If that

short-order cook leaned on the stove and burnt his hand, we don’t need

to worry about presumption there. He burnt his hand in work. But there’s

a stigma in our society that this government promised that they would

take steps to mitigate. It’s a stigma about mental disorders, anxiety,

depression.

For the first time in history, we have a ministry here dedicated

to this — dedicated to mental health and addictions. Yet why we are not

actually standing up and standing for what we believe in when we’ve put

in place the mechanism, the support, and campaigned in elections on

destigmatizing mental health illness and treating it as a disease like

any physical disease….

We come back to that cook, who would get presumption for a burn.

But presumption for an abusive, bullying workplace? No way. He’d have to

prove it. Good luck trying to prove it in the north side of Edinburgh.

If the word gets out that you’re trying to prove it, publicly, that’s

not going to be a good situation. I could go on with other examples, but

I did want to come back to the reason why this is critical to have it to

all clauses.

I come back to the last government and the Premier at the time,

who actually saw an opportunity to do something different here. That was

with respect to sexualized violence in post-secondary

institutions.

[2:15 p.m.]

What she recognized was that the right thing to do was to force

public institutions to develop policies to actually ensure that they had

sexualized violence policies to deal with it. The reason why — as I

introduced the bill when the last government was in, and what passed,

eventually, in a slightly different form — of course, is that public

institutions have a vested interest in trying to ensure that actually

they are deemed to be safe places for students to come.

What was happening, as I was getting told story after story from

institution after institution…. There was no one that was particularly

bad over another. They all had the problems, and it was systemic. The

issues were kept below the surface, and nothing was done. But by forcing

policy measures and a process to be in place, these issues now must be

dealt with.

That comes to the issue of WCB and the presumptive clause for

mental illness. If you are in an abusive work environment and you

actually now report it and go on LTD, nothing gets done because there’s

no incentive for the institution to do anything. There’s a fear that

there might be, “Oh, if we react here, they might get mad at us” or:

“Oh, we might do this.” But if we had a presumptive clause for mental

health disorders, their WCB rates would start to go up for that

institution if they started to see an awful lot of claims emerging from

it.

I would have thought these supposed free marketers on the other

side would have liked to see this financial measure to ensure that you

are creating a process that actually incentivizes safe workplaces. I

would have thought that members here, the so-called labour party, would

have seen the importance of doing this — the importance of creating a

stick and a carrot, the stick being in the workers compensation board

premiums that every employer has to pay for covered workers.

Those go up in an unhealthy work environment. If you start to have

a lot of accidents, a lot of people tripping and falling, breaking legs,

on a lumber mill site, you know your premiums are going to go up. So

there’s an incentive to make that workplace safe.

Again, there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding in

government — I don’t even have to talk about opposition, who’s abdicated

their responsibility on this bill — to recognize that mental disorders

are no different from physical disorders. You can say what you like in

an election campaign. “We’re going to create a ministry of mental health

and addictions.” That’s just lip service.

It’s kind of like saying to my friend from Saanich North and the

Islands beside me: “We’re going to do truth and reconciliation with

Indigenous people.” Indigenous communities are sick and

tired….

Hon. Speaker, there’s a direct parallel between this

analogy….

Deputy Speaker: Relevance to the bill, Member.

A. Weaver: There is. There’s a direct parallel between politicians saying

they want to do truth and reconciliation, and their actions — or not

thereof. In fact, Indigenous people are sick and tired of words. They

want to see action. And it’s exactly the same — and therein lies the

analogy — with mental health and addiction.

It’s really easy to say we’re destigmatizing mental health and

addictions. So where’s the beef? Where’s the Alberta beef? Why aren’t

you actually doing it? You have a ministry to do this. You have an

opportunity to do it. You issued a private member’s bill, for heaven’s

sake, in 2016 and 2017 that included 911 dispatchers. But we didn’t do

it. We didn’t do this opportunity because of petty games by the B.C.

Liberals, which actually didn’t follow through with what they

said.

You know, this place doesn’t work. This place doesn’t work if we

can’t trust that when we say we’re going to be up on something, that we

will be up on something.

I took the opportunity immediately before lunch to show the member

for Chilliwack, who actually had the amendments. He knew exactly what I

was going to do. I told him the three amendments, the three phases. I

was going to start with the “include all workers.” The second phase…. I

mean I could read it in, because this is what I had planned to do, and

this is relevant to the bill.

The second thing I was going to do, assuming that there was some

objection for including all workers…. I would have given the opportunity

for the minister to actually outline the direction he was going to take

this legislation in the months ahead. I would have then talked about:

“Okay, we’ll understand that. Let’s include nurses, social workers and

911 dispatchers right off the bat.” We know we’ve got so many examples.

You’ve all received emails. Let’s put them in with the other first

responders.

[2:20 p.m.]

Then I would have seen how that debate goes. If that didn’t work,

I would have come back with the 911 dispatchers, because there is no

reason why this bill does not include 911 dispatchers — or, more

formally, 911 emergency communications operators and dispatchers —

today. There’s no reason why it’s not there today. But they didn’t want

to have a vote, because they are just playing politics.

Unfortunately, they don’t realize — again, with greatest respect —

that I get two hours to outline my case at third reading. And I’m taking

every minute of the two hours to outline why we should have done this,

knowing that I probably wouldn’t have had members’ opposite support.

They’ve had my amendments for three days, and the member for Chilliwack

never got back to me about any views on anything about this. So clearly,

it was a game It was a game. B.C. Liberals once more playing games at

the expense of British Columbians.

I do see another school group here. I’d like to look to the

member, my friend here. I will understand that I will just pause

briefly, with leave, to allow him to introduce them.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to give the member a break in the midst of his

two-hour speech that he is giving. Again, it’s my pleasure to introduce to

you the second of three classes that are here today from Surrey Christian

School. They’re here with their teachers, their parents, who are chaperones,

and others. I would ask the House to please make these wonderful students

from Surrey Christian School very welcome to the House.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I will proceed. I believe there’s a third class coming. I look

forward to the value provided to the introduction, at the start of the

introduction, as well. Perhaps the member might want to tone that down;

otherwise, leave may not be granted him a third time.

I do continue. I was talking about the importance of having a

carrot and a stick, knowing full well that there are organizations where

nothing is done. Nothing is done because there’s no incentive to do

anything about abusive work environments with systemic harassment,

systemic bullying.

I see another few teachers in the audience. Let me talk to them

who are here and talk to the relevance of this case, so the children in

the audience and their parents know what we’re talking about. What we’re

talking about here — to the gallery — is the bill that’s called Bill 9,

Workers Compensation Amendment Act. We’re now at third reading of that

bill. We went from first reading, where it’s introduced, to second

reading, where we made our points known.

Then the controversy which has led me to try to explains what’s

been going on here was that at committee stage, where we go line by

line, we had had an agreement that there would be a number of questions

coming from the Liberals opposite. Then the member for Chilliwack, who

knew all the amendments I was going to bring forward, decided to play

some political games and stand down when I was three minutes late into

the chamber so we couldn’t bring forward the amendments to the bill and

have the discussion there.

The thing is, obviously, the member didn’t realize that at third

reading, I get a full two hours to explain these amendments and what I

was hoping to do and why this bill is on dodgy grounds for approval

without these other bills.

One of the things I’ve been putting forward here is that in this

bill is a presumptive clause. Right now if you suffer mental illness as

a direct consequence of your workplace and you are covered under workers

compensation, you must go to Workers Compensation and prove that your

mental disorder is a direct consequence of your work.

You can imagine a firefighter has to see some horrific things or a

police officer has to see some horrific things. This bill is actually

giving firefighters and police officers the right to not have to prove

to Workers Compensation that their mental disorder is a direct

consequence of their workplace. Rather, if they have the psychiatric or

psychological assessments, the medical assessments, that suggest it to

be so, they will start getting benefits immediately that are better than

long-term disability benefits. But Workers Compensation still has the

ability to challenge it. It’s called a presumptive clause. It’s really

important.

What is done in Alberta and Saskatchewan — to the gallery there —

is that they have presumptive clauses for all workers. The examples I’ve

been giving here…. I’ll give one that’s relevant to teachers. Teachers,

for example….

Hon. Speaker, I don’t think you heard my example. You weren’t in

the chair at the time.

My wife’s a teacher. Most of my family are teachers. Teachers have

an amazing job. They get to instil knowledge in youth, particularly at

that age when you guys are sponges for knowledge and it’s so exciting to

actually try to get you to talk about what inspires you and to ask

questions. You’re all scientists. Kids are born scientists. They always

ask why, why, why? They’re always asking questions.

[2:25 p.m.]

Not all teachers have the best working environment. I know some

who work in environments that one might argue are actually abusive. I

know some who feel that they don’t get the support they need. In fact, I

know some very specifically where duties to report under the act are

such that when they report inappropriate issues that they must report,

it falls upon the deaf ears of the administrators, the senior

administration and the school boards. In one particular case, they

started to get attacked for having the gall to raise this

issue.

Can you imagine being a teacher when you know something wrong is

happening to a child, or you know that a child is in a abusive family,

and you’ve reported it, and nobody’s listening? You have to go into that

classroom every day, every day, every day. You know as a teacher that

you’re the first responder, because you’re the only voice that that

child has — the only safe voice that that child has. But you feel

powerless as a teacher to do anything because nobody’s listening to you.

These are true stories. I know about that. I’m sure other teachers know

teachers like that too.

What happens? Systemic, time after time after time…. You develop

anxiety and depression issues. There’s no doubt. If you had broken your

hand in the workplace because there was something inappropriate or there

was some slippery soap on the floor, and you broke it on the job, you’d

be covered by workers compensation. But if you happen to suffer

depression and anxiety as a direct consequence of your workforce, you’d

have to stand before the workers compensation and prove it. You’d have

to prove it, even if you had psychological assessments and doctors notes

saying it was. You’d have to relive these stories. You’d have to argue.

You’d have to argue against a tribunal.

As the minister knows, that’s not the easiest thing to do, even

with a broken arm, if there’s a challenge, because there’s no

presumptive clause. Were there a presumptive clause, you’d be covered.

You’d be covered and presumed that your illness was from your work,

assuming you had the appropriate medical backup. And WCB could still

challenge it down the road.

We had the opportunity in this bill to have a debate at committee

stage about the amendments that these members opposite knew I was going

to bring forward because I gave it to them. I was told: “We’re going to

actually get back to you about them.” They never got back.

I was told that the member opposite had quite a number of

questions on

section 1 and that he knew I was going to come up. I was

three minutes late. What an opportunity for him to play games, to shut

down debate. That’s shameful. That’s shameful because it’s not doing

what this place is supposed to do.

We here in British Columbia are supposed to debate the issues

brought to us. We’re supposed to put our constituents front and centre.

We’re supposed to challenge government when we see a bill, such an

important bill, like this. When you’ve sat for three days with

amendments before you, and you know what they’re going to be, we have a

duty and responsibility to debate these, not to play games.

It’s a sad day. I don’t know what professions the parents are up

there, but I suspect…. Maybe there’s an office worker up there. Maybe

they know somebody in another job that works in an abusive environment,

where the boss has no accountability to upper management and creates an

environment purely out of insecurity that is abusive or harassing to an

employee. But that employee can’t leave because they need the job. Here

we had an opportunity in this bill to not only include police and fire

and correction officers and sheriffs, but also to include, as did the

provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, all workers covered under the

act.

Again, if the government truly believed in its commitment to

dealing with the issues of mental health and addiction through the

creation of a separate ministry, it would stop stigmatizing the

difference between physical illness and mental illness, which is exactly

what’s done here. It is only the physical response that we think is

creating the mental illness. It is only the case of first responders who

might have to respond to a car accident or police officers who might

have to go into a home and see some horrific scene.

Those senses are your eyes. This is only responding to those

people who are actually experiencing things through their eyes — not

through their ears, but only their eyes. Only horrific sights. But we

know that mental health disorders in the workplace come far beyond just

the traumatic events.

[2:30 p.m.]

In fact, our own workers compensation legislation recognizes that

there are two types of mental health disorders that can occur in the

workplace. Some are traumatic, leading off to PTSD, and others are

systemic, like harassment and bullying. It has recognized it right

there. We’re saying that, okay, we recognize that there are two types.

We recognize that. We recognize also that police officers and

firefighters and paramedics — I can’t imagine what they have to go

through — see a lot of the first type, the traumatic event. I’ll say it

again. They see a lot of the first type, but there are others who

experience the other first type daily.

The only reason I can think of why 911 dispatchers are not

included is because a 911 dispatcher can’t see what is there; they only

hear it. I would argue that if members in the government had recognized

or read the literature — the master’s thesis that I brought forward

yesterday, as an example — the statistics, they would see that in fact

it’s very clear that sometimes the most profound mental health disorders

and consequences come not so much from seeing something happen but by

your inability to actually prevent something from happening, even though

you wish you could.

I read the compassionate and compelling story by one emergency

call receiver who had on the phone a young man — I don’t know if he was

young — a man who had committed hara-kiri and whose entrails were

hanging out. He phoned her, and she developed a rapport with that

individual. Because he had a knife, she had to call in the emergency

response team — or the dispatcher did. They wouldn’t go in until a spud

gun was produced. The man was all distraught, and she was reprimanded

initially for actually not getting off the phone.

Her PTSD was so profound that when the minister, the member for

Vancouver-Hastings, in his speech yesterday thanked her…. He thanked her

for informing him over the years about this issue of presumptive clause

that she wasn’t covered by, a 911 dispatcher. She had a panic attack

last night, watching this, because she was pleased to hear that the

government was potentially going forward.

It’s good to see that we’re going to get some more debate from

other members here. We can get a rip-roaring third reading debate here.

I see some other members will be joining me, coming up in the debate. I

look forward to my friend from Peace River South. He might be able to do

the job that the member from Chilliwack never did, which is to actually

raise issues and challenge government on this particular…. The member

for Peace River South, a member who….

Deputy Speaker: Relevance to the bill, Member.

A. Weaver: Right. The member for Peace River South, as you know, hon.

Speaker, is from the city of Dawson Creek, a wonderful part of town

right in the centre of gas country. The question I hope he will address,

in raising this, is those gas field workers. You can get physical

accidents in the gas field. It happens all the time. You can get

physical…. We have, you know, accidents on the construction site. If you

break an arm, you’re covered. There are no presumptive issues, because

it’s a physical injury.

What about if you’re the person who’s standing by as your

co-worker gets run over by a truck? Your best friend’s daughter gets run

over by a truck on the field. Or your best friend or your partner falls

down and has a horrible accident on the other site. There’s no

presumptive clause. You have to prove…. Even though this could have

happened….

This physically debilitating, if not fatal, injury that happened

on the workplace would be covered if that person survived. You would be

covered if you broke your arm trying to help them. But you wouldn’t be

covered unless you could prove that your subsequent PTSD or mental

disorder was a direct consequence of your workplace. That’s wrong, hon.

Speaker. That’s completely wrong.

[2:35 p.m.]

The province of Alberta recognized it was wrong. The province of

Saskatchewan recognized it was wrong. In the case of 911 dispatchers,

other provinces, including very recently the province of Nova Scotia,

recognized it was wrong. It was wrong to actually only have a

presumptive clause for professions that are first responders that see,

as opposed to also hear or witness as bystanders or second

responders.

Again, I do have some confidence, with that said — and I come back

to it again. The Minister of Labour — it is Labour, I believe. I’ve had

many discussions with him about this issue. I do understand,

particularly from his union background, that he recognizes the issue is

far broader than just police, fire, paramedics, first responders. I

recognize that he realizes that emergency dispatchers are critical, and

I’m hoping he will rise at third reading and afford me the opportunity

of the words I was hoping to extract from him during committee stage to

outline a pathway that he sees forward in terms of this bill.

I would like to give him that opportunity, and I’d like to give

him that opportunity while I sit here and listen. With that, I hope that

the minister is able to stand next, and I will sit and take my place at

third reading and listen to the other debates.

M. Polak: We have come to a point in the discussion where the member has

outlined some deep concerns that he has with respect to the way in which

debate on this bill has unfolded. There is, however, in the process of

undertaking debate, an established way of doing things. Bills can be

moved. Amendments to the bills can be moved on the order paper, off the

order paper. The preference, of course, is for those to be moved on the

order paper. The member has made that clear a number of times in debate

on various bills.

In this case, the amendments were on the order paper. There is,

though, one requirement for those amendments to be moved, and that is

that the member needs to be present.

He could have, indeed, asked someone else from his party to move

his amendment, and it would have been discussed on the floor. Indeed, he

could have asked one of his members, if he was unavoidably detained, to

come into the House and move a recess, and he would have had an

opportunity to move the amendment that I believe he is very passionate

about.

It is, however, the practice of this House that when no other

members rise, the vote is called. In this case, no other speakers rose

after the questions from the critic, and since they did not take the

floor, then….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head, another member has the floor.

M. Polak: In this case, no other speakers rose. The member was not present

and, therefore, was unable to put forward his amendment, and the vote

was called.

Now, the member is clearly seeking to blame the critic for the

fact that he was late to the House. I won’t quibble about the amount of

time except to say that three minutes, in my experience in this House,

would have been an awfully quick amount of time for people to be seated,

for the orders of the day to be called, for the committee chair to then

take their seat and then also to proceed through the section, the title

and then subsequently the reporting up and the moving of the third

reading motion. I suspect that was probably longer than three minutes,

but be that as it may.

The critic certainly has indicated, I think, throughout not only

second reading but committee stage debate…. I think people would have

already become alive to the fact that opposition is inclined to support

this bill. Indeed, we are. It’s not the critic’s job to move the

amendment for the member. If the member was unavoidably detained, as I

said, there are all sorts of things that he could have done in that

regard.

The member speaks of the amount of time spent on debate. This is a

bill that I know many members are very passionate about in terms of the

topics contained therein. This is a topic that many, many members are

passionate about — the items that are contained therein. I know that one

of my colleagues who at one time had ministerial responsibility for the

file feels deeply, deeply passionate about these issues and certainly

takes this very, very seriously.

[2:40 p.m.]

It is also the case in this House…. In fact, whether in my time as

Opposition House Leader or in my time as a minister of government, it’s

quite common that a bill that is not generating controversy between the

two sides — a bill that opposition intends, actually, to support — finds

itself without a significant amount of debate because there is already a

significant amount of agreement. The measure of whether or not an

opposition takes a bill or a motion seriously is not the measure of how

much time was taken in debate; it’s what is said in debate.

I do certainly take issue with the member’s characterization of

the critic’s work. I know the critic to be a hard-working person who

delves deeply into his files.

Interjection.

M. Polak: I do believe that the member is sincere, but I am actually quite

troubled that the member is so willing to insult the work of other

members of this House at a time when the antidote to his problem was

there in front of him, and he didn’t take it by arriving in the House in

time to move his amendment.

I understand, from the member’s lengthy description, that he had a

thorough plan for how this whole range of his amendments would have

unfolded, and indeed, they could have been debated here on this floor.

That’s all well and good, except that the member should have planned,

also, to be here to move his amendment or planned to have one of his

members of his caucus move a recess or move the amendment on his

behalf.

In closing my comments with respect to this bill, I want to thank

all members for their participation and contribution to the debate. The

opposition is in support of the bill going forward, and we look forward

now to the closing of third reading debate.

Hon. H. Bains: I just want to take this opportunity to thank all members who

participated in the debate on Bill 9. The passion that you’ve seen in

the speeches clearly shows the importance of the issue that we are

debating — the importance of the bill and the people who will be

provided support and coverage through this. It clearly shows that it’s

timely, it’s needed, and it is long overdue.

I want to say to the member of the Third Party: I thank you for

your passion. Your passion is my passion. I’m sure, if you listen to

other members, their passion is also the same.

We all believe deeply that every worker who goes to work gets the

highest protection, health and safety, and that they come home in the

same shape that they went in. They deserve nothing less. Their families

deserve nothing less.

We, as a state, have a responsibility to make sure that we provide

them with the environment — at workplaces and outside — where they have

that protection. That’s our responsibility, and that’s why we’re making

improvements as we go forward.

I want to say that we all know…. Our relatives, our friends, our

neighbours — everyone goes to work. They all go to work. They all face

different challenges at workplaces, and many of them face traumatic

incidents as part of their job. That’s what we are trying to cover here.

For every member of our society who goes to work, even those who are

doing housework, there are challenges. They can physically and mentally

get hurt — even staying at home.

But what we are talking about are workplaces and what the workers

must go through — the stress of the work, dealing with health and

safety. Many of them get injured, and many of them never come home. Over

160 workers every year in British Columbia die due to workplace

injuries. That’s too many. One death is too many.

[2:45 p.m.]

Therefore, I think it’s our responsibility — it’s my

responsibility as the Minister of Labour — to make sure that our health

and safety regime is such that they get the highest level of protection

in workplaces and that we work with employers and workers and their

representatives to make sure that we are always looking for new ways to

provide that protection, the innovative way to provide that protection.

We are doing that.

I also want to add, the debate…. I love debate in this House.

Every time we are dealing with an issue, if we don’t have a thorough

debate, it means that we haven’t done our job. That’s what the Leader of

the Third Party is trying to do: engage in debate. I would have loved

those amendments and to have discussion around those. I fully understand

what the member is trying to do, because that passion is my passion as

well.

I want to assure the Leader of the Third Party and the opposition

members who are supporting this bill: this is not the end. This is the

beginning.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As soon as we finish this, I will be meeting with many members of

our workforce, many different organizations and individual workers, who

face traumatic experiences at their workplaces and come home with mental

health disorders — who are living with mental health disorders. Many of

them develop PTSD. That is too long for them to get help. We want to

make sure we provide them support right in the beginning.

I’m going to work with all workers out there, all of their

representatives, to make sure that they get the protection that they

need. And the help they get when they need that help — that they get the

support from the Workers Compensation Board when they need it, because

they deserve nothing less. Every worker deserves to have our support,

because they, along with their employer, create wealth for us. Many of

them take very, very dangerous jobs. We must support them. We must

provide them with the protection that they need.

This bill…. I couldn’t wait any longer. These are the first

responders. We must move on. That’s why I brought it here earlier. As

the Leader of the Third Party suggested, we will be working with…. I

encourage all members of this House: come to me. I’d like to work with

you. Give me your opinions. Give me your ideas on how we can improve the

health and safety, especially mental health, of our

workforce.

With that, I want to say that we have a lot of work to do. This is

just the beginning. I will be encouraging every one of you to give me

your ideas so that we can start to work with all workers in this

province to give them the enhanced protection they need, especially on

the mental health side. It is one of the most difficult injuries to deal

with. Physical injuries, we know. They’re a little easier to deal with.

We know. We can see it. The doctors can examine it and then start a

treatment.

Mental health — it’s totally different. It’s totally different

because there’s a stigma. People are suffering with that disease, alone.

We need to encourage them to come out. We have this program, working

with WorkSafe and my ministry: “Share it. Don’t wear it.” That campaign

is now countrywide. We need to continue to enhance that area so that we

encourage people to share their pain, to share what they are suffering

with, so that we can support them and provide them with help — and if

it’s work related, that they get support from workers

compensation.

I want to thank every member of this House for the support that

you have shown, and like I said, the work isn’t completed. We have a lot

more work to be done. With that, I would say to all of the first

responders: thank you very much for the

support that you are giving. Let’s continue to work so that no worker in

this province is left without the support that they need and in a timely

fashion.

S. Furstenau: I just wanted to add a few words to the conversation about how the

debate unfolded or, in fact, didn’t unfold this afternoon.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hansard has a record, but the committee met this

afternoon at 1:35. There were no questions, and at 1:36, the committee

rose. The members opposite were well aware of the Third Party Leader’s

intention to introduce amendments at committee stage, and he had had

conversations.

It’s very interesting to hear the minister speak about workers and

that this bill is designed to protect workers in our province. I think

that what happened this afternoon speaks, to some degree, to what can

happen when we forget who we’re serving — and that there can be these

opportunities that may seem like political opportunities, but they can

take away from our capacity in this House as representatives of the

people of this province to do the best work we possibly can on behalf of

them.

To have no debate at committee, to have no questions, and to have

not had these amendments entered and put up for debate means that we

didn’t do our best work today in this chamber. For that, I think we

should all feel some remorse, and I would hope that moving forward, we

can recognize that it’s not always about parties. It shouldn’t be about

parties. It should be about how we work most effectively, all of us, on

behalf of the citizens of B.C. Today we didn’t achieve that because of

this lost opportunity. I hope we learn a great lesson from this going

forward.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 9, Workers Compensation

Amendment Act, 2018.

Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. B. Ralston: I call committee debate on Bill 12.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; L. Reid

in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to introduce some staff that I have here with me. I’ve

got Brad Sparrow, Wendy Harrison and Greg Steves here joining me today.

I want to thank them for their hard work in putting this

together.

S. Sullivan:

Section 1 removes the requirement that a notice to end tenancy

under a fixed term tenancy agreement must end the tenancy effective on a

date that is not earlier than 12 months after the date the notice is

received. I would like to ask the minister: what is the purpose of this

section? What problem was she trying to solve?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We wanted to make sure that, whether it’s fixed-term or any other

kind of tenancy, it had the same 12-month period, that everyone in the

mobile home and the manufactured home community would have the same

amount of time in order to organize their life for the next chapter,

organize their homes for their move.

S. Sullivan: Yes, so this

section requires longer notice for eviction under the

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. This is increasing the notice for

evictions. Is that not correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is to ensure that everyone gets the same 12 months notice

regardless of their tenancy agreements.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Sullivan: Yes, so this changes the compensation amount for a manufactured

home park tenancy eviction from 12 months to a number set by

regulation.

This does seem to be a trend for this government — to remove a

specific number and give the power to the minister in regulation. The

question would be: why remove the transparency that comes with listing

the figures in the act?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member will appreciate that we need to have the

flexibility to ensure that we’re keeping up with changing costs over

time.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What we’re doing here is making sure that there’s some fair

compensation, and we want to make sure that we have the ability to

adjust that as costs for these homes change over time.

S. Sullivan: The news release that was issued says that the compensation will

increase. However, this

section gives the power to the minister, with no

guarantee the value will increase. Can the minister confirm that she

believes that the compensation will increase?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it will.

S. Sullivan: Does she have an estimate of what the new value for compensation

and failure to undertake the prescribed use will be?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, we’ve done some preliminary analysis, and we’re looking at

$20,000 as a flat rate.

S. Sullivan: Now, the director will have the power to excuse the compensation

from

section 3(2). I wanted to get a sense of what the minister is

thinking about in terms these extenuating circumstances. I was wondering

if she could give any examples of what she would consider “extenuating

circumstances.”

Hon. S. Robinson: Let’s say a landlord was proceeding to make the changes. They had

all the permits and were ready to move ahead, and something catastrophic

happened in their family. They had to delay activity on their plans, so

that sidetracked them for a period of time, or the landlord themselves

passed away, and now the family has to sort out what the next steps

were.

Those are some of the kinds of extenuating circumstances that I

think we can all appreciate happen, and we need to have the room and the

flexibility to accommodate that.

[3:00 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Just back to the $20,000 figure that was just floated. I’m just

wondering. What is the rationale for choosing this amount? The minister

suggested that there was some work that had been done on it, but what is

the rationale behind $20,000?

Hon. S. Robinson: We took a look at what the actual costs are. We wanted it to be

grounded in something real. It had to be based on something. I

appreciate the question. When you take a look at what it actually costs

to move a manufactured home to another location, it’s about

$20,000.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering. In the backgrounder here from the government,

they’re saying that it was a 12-month pad rental, that the rentals vary.

The way it’s currently now, the rentals vary. Do we have an average of

how much…? I’m trying to figure out what the difference is between what

it is now — generally, because the pad rentals vary; I recognize that —

to this $20,000 number.

Hon. S. Robinson: Right now, the way it exists, it’s a 12-month pad rental, which is

about $400 or $500, but it ranges from $200 to $700. That’s what the

compensation is now.

The reality is that people, when they get an eviction, want to be

able to hang on to their home, and they need to move it, if they can

find a place to move it to. The moving costs are quite significant. The

current structure doesn’t even cover the actual moving costs. We wanted

to make sure that it was grounded in something that was meaningful to

people.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Sullivan: Yes,

section 4 requires landlords to pay additional compensation

if a manufactured home is unable to be moved. This requires the

landlords to pay the costs. It sounds very good on the face of it. But

I’m just wondering about tenants that allow their assets to be…. Well,

they don’t keep up their assets, and they allow it to deteriorate. I’m

just wondering about the rationale of requiring the landlord to pay for

the tenant not looking after their own property.

Hon. S. Robinson: The assessed values are updated annually. If people are unable or

unwilling to invest in their asset, of course, it deteriorates. The

value deteriorates. The landlord is only responsible for paying the

difference between the assessed value and the flat rate of

$20,000.

A. Olsen: Just within the regulations that the minister is considering, are

there going to be criteria to determine whether a place can or cannot be

moved — can or cannot be relocated?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, there will be criteria set in regulation for determining

that.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Is it possible for you to clarify what some

of those conditions might be? I recognize it’s not going to be in

detail, but perhaps some of the high-level conditions that you might be

using to determine if a unit cannot be moved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m not a house mover. I have staff here to help me sort that out.

It’s really the transportation permits that are the key. It has to be

road-worthy in order for it to actually be transported, and if they

can’t get a transportation permit, then it can’t be moved. That’s the

key factor. There might be some local government permits as well, which

they might not be able to get. That would also be an indication that

they couldn’t move their home.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

[3:05 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Okay, so this is about ensuring that tenants are not responsible

for the manufactured home disposal costs. I guess it’s just a question

about the purpose of this section. This requires that a landlord is

responsible, financially, for incurring the cost for the disposal of a

derelict unit that they do not own. I’m just wanting to know what the

purpose of this

section is.

Hon. S. Robinson: The purpose here is to ensure that there is no

clawback.

We need to remember here what the context is. It’s where people

are told that their home is no longer available, that the pad rental is

no longer available. They have to move their home; they have to vacate

their home. Their home isn’t movable if they can’t get transportation

permits, or if their municipal bylaws don’t allow it to be moved, or if

there is no space, if there’s no place, if there’s no other manufactured

home community in which to move.

They can get their $20,000. The difference…. Let’s say it’s valued

at $40,000. So they could get a total of $40,000. It’s the $20,000 flat,

and then the difference, up to $40,000. Then they have to be

responsible, now, for the disposal. That’s a clawback. The idea here is

to make sure that people have the resources to actually move and find

another place to live.

We were seeing this happening across communities in British

Columbia, where manufactured home park owners are turning these

manufactured homes into places where there are highrises being built and

significant opportunities for density. But the people who had made their

home here are displaced, and that’s certainly a challenge. We want to

make sure that they have the opportunity to find a home that suits their

needs.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering if there was any consideration about how this

is going to impact potential mobile home park owners — future mobile

home park owners.

Looking at this now…. I recognize what the bill is intending on

doing but also want to consider what the unintended consequences of it

might be, in that this is fairly punitive. I’m just wanting to know

where the balance is, from the minister’s perspective.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to be clear. This isn’t about being punitive. This is about

making sure that people get some fair value for their home. We think

it’s not about punishing anybody.

We know, when the opportunity comes to sell a piece of land, that

that gets built into what the actual costs are. There are two costs to

dispose of these units. It just depends on who’s going to take

responsibility for it. Right now this bill proposes that it’s the

landlord.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Sullivan: This is the one that extends the notice period for the renovation

and demolition evictions. It extends this period from two months to four

months.

I wanted to ask the minister: could she explain why a subsection

(6) eviction is materially different from other evictions and needs a

longer notice period?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. We know that in the case the member

refers to, this is happening quite frequently, particularly where

there’s opportunity to invest in apartments and in terms of renovating

them. We want to make sure that they have….

They know well in advance what their plans are. We want to make

sure, if they know well in advance what their plans are — and it takes a

long time to put all these plans in place — that the benefit actually

goes to the tenant in these instances, that they have the benefit of

having the time they need to find a new home.

S. Sullivan: Now, also in this is the 30-day time frame for filing a dispute,

which is doubling from the other time frame. As I think about what a

landlord has to do in order to get all of these working parts together,

it’s often quite complicated to organize all of the many pieces that

have to go into this. They would have to have every last piece in place

before they can then give notice, which is then another four months. I’m

just wondering: is that making it harder, then, for the people that want

to renovate, want to improve their rental units?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, in light of the member’s comments about the lack of supply,

and given the challenges around a very tight rental market, I certainly

can appreciate his comments. We also need to remember that renters in a

tight rental market need as much notice as possible in order to continue

to do the things that they need to do, which is continue to go to work,

continue to take care of their children, continue to manage their family

and make sure that there’s a roof over everyone’s heads.

That’s what this is intended to do. It’s intended to give people

the kind of time they need to not only find accommodation that meets

their needs, but also, should a landlord not be, actually, well

intentioned, there’s enough time for them to calm down, read through

what their rights are, make sure they understand that there is an

opportunity for them to dispute, learn the system — because if they’ve

never had to do that before, it’s not always that easy — and file for an

arbitration so that they can be heard by a third party.

We think that people need the time in order to do that so that

they understand what their rights are and that the system is

fair.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

S. Sullivan: Yes. This increases the amount a landlord must pay to 12 months’

rent if the purpose for an eviction was not completed in a reasonable

time frame. I guess the natural question was: what’s the rationale for

this 12 months’ rent?

[3:15 p.m.]

Was this just simply a round number, or was there any modelling or

any estimates that the minister went through to get to that

number?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member knows that currently the system is two

months, and it’s not much of a deterrent. We’re looking for a

significant amount that would be a deterrent. This is about preventing

landlords from misusing the Residential Tenancy Act. We want them to

be….

I believe that most landlords are good landlords and want to be

good landlords. We want to make sure that those who are choosing to

circumvent that can feel the pain of doing that, of being disingenuous.

We want to make sure that there’s enough of a deterrent for that bad

behaviour.

S. Sullivan: This

section and the following

section refer to a reasonable time

period. Is it the minister’s intention that issues around reasonableness

will have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis? I want to know more

about this reasonable time period. And will that have to be case by

case?

Hon. S. Robinson: The reasonable period is actually already in the act, and

arbitrators have been interpreting “reasonable period” since 2004. What

it means is that a landlord has to take action to accomplish the purpose

as soon as reasonably possible, given the circumstances. I’m sure the

member can well appreciate that there can be a number of circumstances.

So we have arbitrators make that determination based on the facts before

them.

A. Olsen: Similar to

section 3, just wondering how the bad-faith exemptions

will be defined in this section.

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re not making any changes about the bad-faith component. The

only thing we’re changing is the amount of compensation.

A. Olsen: So then just to be clear on that. You have somebody who intends to

act in good faith, vacating somebody for a family member to move into….

I’m just thinking of a situation in which a landlord may be acting in

good faith, but then that situation comes to an end. The person that’s

moving in is passing away. How does that get handled in this

situation?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand the very first question. I

appreciate that the member took the time to explain it.

Again, we recognize that there can be some extenuating

circumstances, and that’s really up to the arbitrator. We do imagine the

case where someone does do all the right things, and something goes

sideways. For example, they were intending to have a parent move in, and

they did everything right. Then the parent, for example, can no longer

live independently, and they have to go into care. As a result, one

could, I guess, make an argument that it was bad faith when, in fact,

that was never the intention. Something happened that didn’t allow them

to follow through.

The arbitrator has the discretion to recognize and address that

should that need to happen.

M. Hunt: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: Just to give the minister a little break in the midst of her defending

her bill, it is my absolute pleasure to introduce the third group of

students from Surrey Christian, who are here with their teacher and with

their parents to come and enjoy the processes.

I think it’s really informative for them, at this time, to be able to

come and actually watch the process by which the real bills happen and the

real process happens, as the minister is required to defend her work from

the critics in the opposition.

I would ask that the House would make these wonderful students welcome

here today.

[3:20 p.m.]

Debate Continued

T. Stone: I just wanted to weigh in with a question or two in this

particular section. I do appreciate that the minister was asked about

how “reasonable” time period will be defined. I guess my question is at

a bit of a higher level here. When we look at the change here, going

from two months to 12 months, when we have an undefined phrase —

reasonable period of time — when we look at some of the other changes

that have been layered on to landlords through other amendments provided

for in this bill…. The same goes for the next couple of sections that

we’ll be talking about in a few moments, particularly

section 9 as

well.

I’m just wondering if the minister can advise the House whether

her ministry has done some analysis or some modelling, recognizing that

it’s very difficult to strike that balance. I think we all agree that we

want to make sure that those unscrupulous landlords out there — that

there are much better teeth in the legislation to protect the rights of

tenants from unscrupulous practices.

We also don’t want to go so far as to layer on so many additional

measures that serve to have the unintended consequence of resulting in

some landlords saying: “You know what? We’re done. We’re not going to be

in this business anymore. That project that we were going to proceed

with we’re not going to do anymore.” Or it won’t be rental stock, in

which case we’ve actually made the existing challenge of available stock

for people who want to rent much more difficult.

In the context of this particular section, I’m just wondering if

the minister could again advise this House as to what analysis, what

modelling the ministry has done to try to assess what the impacts are,

if any, that these changes will have on overall rental stock in

communities that really need more.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the balance that the member was referring to, but

this

section right here is really about making sure that vexatious

landlords are deterred from evicting people when they don’t need to be

evicted. We’ve certainly been hearing stories, and we’ve

certainly….

I think all of us, all of our MLA offices, have received phone

calls from people who are evicted because the landlord is doing a

renovation that really isn’t an investment in their property; it’s a

renovation of paint or carpet where people don’t actually need to be

evicted. They’re using that as an opportunity to actually increase the

rents, because they get a new tenant in. They increase the rents, and

with a two-month penalty, it’s the cost of doing business, so they’ll

pay the penalty. We want to stop that practice.

We’ve certainly had conversations with LandlordBC, and they want

to stop that practice. They recognize that. It’s not the intent of the

legislation, then. If you don’t have something that’s significant, that

keeps people from doing it, there are those landlords that will misuse

it, misuse the opportunity to make valid investments.

We want to make sure that we get the right balance, so making sure

that we have a deterrent there that will not only keep people from those

vexatious evictions but also recognize those who are doing it in good

faith, who are actually doing a significant investment in their rental

stock — making sure that the electrical is up to code, the plumbing is

up to code. Putting in those investments that protect that stock that

requires an eviction in order to get that work done…. That they also

have all the permits and all of the…. That they’ve done all of the work

that needs to go into doing that so that they can invest in that stock.

We recognize that that’s important too.

This is about trying to find that balance, and we believe we’ve

struck it right here.

[3:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: Thank you to the minister. I do not doubt for a second that the

minister’s intentions here are sound in wanting to address the

unscrupulous practices of some landlords. I’m certain that she would

agree with me that we’re talking about a very small subsection of all

the landlords out there.

I guess I just really want to convey the concerns that I have

heard. I’ve heard from lots of tenants. I have also heard from lots of

landlords.

When looking at it again, this provision, in and of itself,

doesn’t seem so bad. But there is concern about a layering-on of new

requirements. This is a sixfold increase in the costs. Perhaps the two

months didn’t do it. Maybe six months would have. Twelve months seems

like a bit of a big leap from the two months.

But I come back to my question from a moment ago, and that is: can

the minister speak to any analysis or any modelling that her ministry

has done that would address the concern that some have, myself included,

as to any unintended consequences that may flow from a layering-on of

these new provisions insofar as the availability of rental stock in

communities that really need it?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, when it comes to, certainly, the

section around the

vexatious behaviours of some landlords, it is about deterring their

behaviour and their choices. When they are choosing to use a piece of

legislation to evict someone but they’re not actually doing the

investments that are expected, then we need to find a place where

they’re going to be deterred from doing that. It’s so that if somebody

says, “You don’t have the permits,” it’s going to be painful to them.

It’s not just the cost of doing business.

Trying to find that sweet spot isn’t always easy. The member

suggests maybe six months would have done it. I would just argue that

the way through…. If a landlord doesn’t want this burden, then they will

be forthright. If they are choosing to invest in their rental stock and

that requires eviction, they need to make sure that they get it all

right, that they do it appropriately, that they follow the rules. That’s

what this is about. It’s making sure that people follow the

rules.

T. Stone: Thank you, Minister. Again, I think we agree on the general

premise here of what we’re trying to do. I guess it’s just really the

concern of striking that balance. There are previous sections of this

bill that we’ve talked about where the government felt it was okay to

move certain requirements into regulation. Perhaps this could have been

one area where the government could have moved this into regulation, as

well, and gone with a slightly lower number to see if it works and

ratcheted it up as required.

My last question relates to the adjudication of any disputes here

around a reasonable time period. Obviously, it will be the director of

the residential tenancy branch that will oversee that adjudication

process.

I’m just wondering if the minister is anticipating a significant

spike in disputes. Or has there been any analysis done to determine

that? And then, related to that: if there is an anticipated increase in

the disputes relating to this provision, does the minister anticipate

requiring more funding for the residential tenancy branch in order to be

able to handle this increased workload in a timely fashion on behalf of

both tenants and landlords?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re expecting everyone to follow the rules. If everyone plays by

the rules and follows the rules, then we’re not expecting a significant

increase in disputes. If people follow the rules, then there tend to be

less disputes. But we also have just increased the budget for the

residential tenancy branch by $7 million over three years, so they are

well resourced to continue building their capacity.

T. Stone: Sorry, I just can’t help myself — with one last question here. I

come back to “reasonable time period.” I mean, that’s very subjective.

It will be the director who will determine what is reasonable and what

is not reasonable on a case-by-case basis, which means the director will

take into account the circumstances that pertain to each

case.

[3:30 p.m.]

I would like to give the minister an opportunity to perhaps just

outline what some of those extenuating circumstances could be — issues

in one’s personal life, inability to find secure contractors to do the

renovations in a timely…. Whatever they might be.

I think we agree that this is not…. I’m not disputing the fact

here that if everyone plays by the rules, then there’s no additional

work for the director. That is not likely to be the case.

The issue in contention here will be the reasonable time period,

and the application of that fairly vague phrase on a case-by-case basis,

which I hope doesn’t lead to a spike in disputes, but it very well

could.

Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think maybe I have more faith in humanity than the member does

around people playing by the rules. But there is certainly appreciation

that there could be things like labour shortages that would impact the

ability to start a significant renovation. That could be a challenge —

or something in someone’s personal life.

Like I said before, we infused a significant amount of money into

the residential tenancy branch that has been starved for some time —

making sure that there are the resources necessary to address these

kinds of challenges.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

S. Sullivan: This gives tenants the right of first refusal in the case of an

eviction due to renovation. The clause that got my attention is clause

(2): “If a tenant has given a notice under subsection (1), the landlord,

at least 45 days before the completion of the renovations or repairs,

must give the tenant” notice and agreement.

This brings to mind the question about renovations. Whenever I do

something like this or I hear about something like renovation being

done, you always multiply by 2.5 whatever you think it’s going to

be.

So how would the landlord truly know when the renovations will be

complete? They have to give this offer 45 days from when they’re

complete. What about when renovations take a lot longer than is

expected? A tenant may be part of a tenancy they’re signed on to but are

unable to occupy the unit.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his question.

The reason for 45 days is we want to make sure that tenants have

adequate time to give notice to end their current tenancy, so they are

not in the position of having to pay rent on two units. I think that the

member would agree that that would be fair.

But also, we need to remember that we’re talking about major

renovations that are a significant undertaking and that require a lot of

planning and oversight.

I appreciate that for many who do their own renovation or a

renovation that’s not on a commercial scale, there’s often lots of bleed

time or empty time or waiting time. But we need to remember that

landlords where there are five or more units are professional landlords,

typically. They are very experienced, and they understand their business

undertaking.

So I think that, in this case, 45 days is sufficient notice for

them to know when the units are going to be essentially complete. There

might be…. If there are a couple of doorknobs that need to get put on,

I’m sure that they can find a way to make that work. These are

sophisticated operations that understand what their timelines are and

how to deliver a product.

S. Sullivan: I’m not sure whether we should consider a building with five units

rental maybe…. Are they considered sophisticated? Are all of them

sophisticated? Or even if one is very sophisticated, I don’t think

anybody can really truly make these kinds of predictions that the

renovations will go according to plan.

So I do worry that there may be an issue where 45-day notice is

given, and the tenant then gives notice that they’re going to leave.

Then we get to the situation where something has happened, and the

renovation didn’t go as quickly as they thought, and there’s no place

for them to move into. Yet they’ve now given their notice.

[3:35 p.m.]

I worry about some of the logistics around that, and if that’s

been properly thought through in this legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: Based on our consultation with the stakeholder group, it was

certainly felt that 45 days was sufficient. It becomes part of the

planning of the renovation — that 45 days.

A. Olsen: I think the minister just provided some insight into the question

I’m about to ask. I myself and the member for Vancouver–West End are

part of a rental housing task force.

Some of the specifics in this bill…. I’m just wondering if maybe

you could comment about the specifics that have come up in this bill and

then the work that’s going to be done in seeking it further. I’m

assuming this has come from some consultations which have

happened.

I’m certain that we’ll get some more clarity, but I’m just looking

at this bill. There are some very specific numbers, yet there’s going to

be some work ahead. Maybe you can provide a little bit of insight into

that.

Hon. S. Robinson: There’s certainly a lot of work to do to modernize the Residential

Tenancy Act. Like I said earlier in my comments, many of the MLAs here

in this House have received lots of concern from renters over the

years.

This is another round of work that we’ve undertaken to address

some of the challenges in a very tight rental market, recognizing that

we need to strike a balance between renters and landlords. This is about

a relationship, making sure that the relationship between the two

parties works well.

What we’ve done in this case…. Earlier in the fall, we closed the

fixed-term-lease loophole. We eliminated the geographic rent increase.

We thought that was really important. We had certainly enough

information about making that happen.

Here’s another piece of work that we’ve done. We’ve made a

specific choice to bring it forward now, because renters are tired of

waiting, and I think landlords are as well. I think they’re looking for

more clarity and more modernization. The task force is to go out and

take a look at the work we’ve done here. If there’s more that we need to

be doing in order to make sure that the renter-landlord relationship

works better, then we’re certainly prepared to do that and make the

refinements necessary.

People couldn’t wait anymore. We needed to make sure that there

was fairness in the system, that there were sufficient deterrents, that

landlords wouldn’t misuse the opportunity — to have an opportunity to

invest in their asset and use it just as a way to get more rent. So

we’ve put in some deterrent and are also giving people more time, of

course, to file their disputes, as well as to get more time to find

alternate accommodation.

In this particular piece, we’ve put in this right of first

refusal, recognizing that was an important component. There certainly

are some questions out there. We’ve heard from some tenants and from

some landlords around what the rents should be. We need to do more work

on that to find out what would be appropriate.

I’m really hoping that people share that with the task force so

that if we do need to come back to this, we can, and we’ll have good

information to do that work with.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for bringing forward this

legislation.

I just wanted to clarify, under

section 9, right of first refusal.

I’ve worked with a number of folks who have taken this question through

to the Supreme Courts before. One thing I just wanted to make sure — and

I know the minister referenced it in second reading debate — is the

question of the Barrie decision.

[3:40 p.m.]

The Supreme Court found that reasonable accommodation by a tenant

of the need for renovations was found to be completely within keeping of

the act, that security of tenure was a goal of the legislation. Simply

new cupboards — or even, potentially, moving a wall socket from one wall

to the other — did not make it necessary to have vacant possession of a

unit, and the tenancy could continue. Even, I believe, in some cases, if

the tenant had to be out of the unit for a number of days, possession of

the unit would continue. The tenancy agreement continues, and thus,

right of first refusal wouldn’t be required because they would continue

in the same tenancy.

The reason I ask is that certainly bringing this in will give some

tenants the ability to go and see whether or not what was said would

have to be done would be done, which I can see is a benefit in a few

cases. Sometimes people will say they’re going to do renovations then

don’t actually do them.

I guess the concern here is making sure that we’re not dissipating

or diminishing the precedent set, which suggested that if a tenant could

be accommodated, they should be, in the sense of up to a certain number

of months or up to a certain amount of cost. I know that’s still to be

defined through legislation or the committee’s work or other processes.

I just wanted to make sure that in bringing this in, we are not in any

way endangering or diminishing the decisions that came through the

Barrie decision.

Hon. S. Robinson: This absolutely respects previous decisions. In fact, this

actually tightens and strengthens the protections for renters. Again, we

want to point out that eviction for renovation should always be a last

resort.

For the example that the member used around moving a socket, that

is not a condition under which someone would need to vacate the unit.

Maybe I’m a little bit Pollyanna around this stuff, but I would imagine

that landlords understand that. The expectation is that they understand

that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I like the minister’s positivity and positive behaviour. I think

most landlords would agree that that would seem unreasonable. However,

as we know, sometimes we deal with those who would not. Certainly there

have been a number of cases, thus the Supreme Court decisions, which

have resulted from landlords not following the rules as they are and

attempting to abuse them to force people out.

I appreciate the minister’s action to try and tighten these

things, make them clearer, and I certainly hope that it will be really

clear in the education around these changes that this does not diminish

the need to accommodate tenants. I know the minister understands that as

we’ve had these conversations.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear, on the record,

so that if these were ever interpreted in courts of law, the intent was

clear. What stands, stands, and certainly, this is not meant, in any

way, to diminish the existing rights of tenants as have been developed

through the courts. I appreciate the minister being clear on that. Much

appreciated.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 12, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I call next the estimates for the Minister of Labour.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LABOUR

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:47 p.m.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $12,638,000

(continued) .

M. Bernier: If it entertains the Chair, if we can just call for a three-minute

recess, please.

The Chair: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:48 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Martin: Thank you to the minister and staff as we continue the

estimates.

There were a couple more questions, still, with the report that we

left off with the other day. One of the things that I was curious about

was…. The FWC website outlines the details for the second report on

minimum-wage increase for farmworkers, liquor servers, live-in camp

leaders, live-in home support workers, resident caretakers.

I understand that these were basically excluded from the initial

report, and a subsequent report is going to be addressing these, but I

have a little bit of a concern with this being pushed on to the second

phase and being deferred. Statistics Canada found that women are

concentrated in these gendered industries such as caregiving,

accommodation and food services at more than double the rate of

men.

It would seem, if there is some urgency about addressing the

minimum wage as just not being acceptable, given the cost of living,

that that is even more so for women. I would like the minister, if

possible at this time, to rationalize why this was put off and not one

of the forefront articles in the first report.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member knows that in the terms of reference for the

Fair Wages Commission, I asked them to come back with their report

within 90 days. The first report came. When they delivered the first

report, they dealt with the general minimum-wage increase. Also in the

report, they suggested that the alternate wage rates, those five groups

that the member mentioned…. They said that they needed more time to

delve into the complexities dealing with those five areas.

They advised me through their report that the report would come in

March. I’ve got that report now, I’m reviewing it, and within days, we

will be making a decision. Now, I fully agree and acknowledge that yes,

the vast majority of workers working in, especially, the liquor service

and farms are women, yes. The disparity between wages of men and women

is even wider in this area.

That’s what the Fair Wages Commission’s role was, to look into

that area. How do we help these workers who are employed in these five

different areas? Within days, I will be making a decision so that we can

deal with the report that was delivered to me just a while

ago.

J. Martin: Thank you once again. Can the minister comment on the extent to

which there is going to be a follow-up briefing with representatives

from these particular sectors, given that they occupy a kind of unique

area in terms of the workforce and the way they’re

compensated?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is important. I think one of the basic fundamentals of having

the Fair Wages Commission establishment was to have a wide range of

consultations so that they’d speak to business groups, unions, workers,

academics, economists and individuals. And they did that. As you know,

the details of their consultations and where they went were widely

publicized.

I did have a concern that I share with the member. It is that

during the period that they were doing consultations in the agricultural

sector, that is not a time when most of the workers are working. So I’m

delving to see how much consultation took place there, because the

workers would not be working at that time.

It’s also a reality in the agricultural industry, especially in

the Lower Mainland, that most of the workers are South Asians and

elders. This is the time that they take to go and visit their families

in India. Even if it wasn’t a farming season, a harvest season, they

weren’t here — even if they wanted to go and attend.

I think there is a little concern there, but I want to delve into

the report thoroughly and see what they have done. I’m hoping that

they’ve done everything that we asked them to do. So we’ll see what the

report says. I’ll be making decisions on that report in the coming

days.

J. Martin: The major criticism that I, as critic, and others have raised with

the first report is that there was a very short time span between the

announcement of the first hike to the minimum wage and when it was

actually going to be implemented. It was a grand total of 12 weeks. That

was an area of concern from a number of employers who…. The way they

plan their budget and their labour expenses generally requires an awful

lot more than 12 weeks to make the books work.

In terms of this unique group of these five occupations —

particularly, again, agreeing with the minister that agriculture is the

major one here — is there an expectation that this will come about in

similar fashion with a very short and, in some cases, unmanageable

timeline? Or will we be able to give the sectors a little more heads-up

for what planning they may have to do to accommodate whatever increases

are announced by the ministry?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member knows that when we made the first announcement,

there was an expectation that the minimum wage would be increased. Also,

the signal to those five alternate wage rates was that the report is

coming, that there’s a chance that the minimum wage in those areas will

also increase. So I fully understand, and I think we’ll keep that in

mind when we make that decision.

J. Martin: Thank you very much, Minister. Probably the final task of this

commission is going to be a report on their own fate — on whether the

commission should exist past their mandate or whether they should

dissolve after the third report comes in. It’s kind of an interesting

thing to task a panel with, but I can appreciate why it was

done.

What does the minister believe is the best course of action with

whatever takes place coming out of that report? Will the minister have a

preference one way or the other? Or is that going to be a completely

autonomous decision by the panel?

Hon. H. Bains: I think we engaged in this discussion last time we were doing

estimates. The Fair Wages Commission had a recommendation in their first

report about their future, and their recommendation was for their work

to continue. We haven’t adopted that recommendation yet, but we are

going to allow them to continue on with the third report that they will

be producing, which is to find ways to deal with the discrepancies

between the living wage and the minimum wage.

They perhaps will come back with more recommendations about their

future. And ongoing, in the future, how do we deal with the minimum wage

increases? They may have some ideas. They may suggest that they are the

body that should be established. We’ll make that decision when we see

that report, but right now I’m waiting for them to go and get engaged

and start working on the third report. Once that report comes, we’ll

make that decision at that time.

J. Martin: Is there any particular data set that the panel has accessed or

will be using as they start to dial in and mine down into the livable

wage, which is going to be a very awkward and complex formula as we move

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? It’s further complicated because it’s

a very fluid data set, given the transitory nature of some industries to

come and go in different jurisdictions of the province, with boom times,

bust times, etc. It doesn’t accelerate or decelerate at the same rate in

every region of the province. I’m wondering what data sources the

commission is going to be able to avail itself of to undertake this very

complex task.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Good question, but I dare not delve into that area, because this

is the area of expertise that the Fair Wages Commission will be dealing

with. If they don’t have their own…. If you read the first report, they

have considered a wide range of different areas where they did collect

that data. They engaged some experts — economists and Stats Canada and

other places.

I agree with the member. This is going to be probably the most

complex area of their report, because it is not that easy to deal with.

How do we deal with the living wage, on one hand, and minimum wage on

the other? Different areas, different regions of the province have

different issues along that. As I think I said the last time, minimum

wage in 100 Mile House or the living wage in 100 Mile House may be

different than in Chilliwack, versus Surrey and Victoria.

They all will be considering…. I don’t know what they will do.

Will they consider region? Will they consider city by city. I don’t

know. I’ll leave that up to them. That’s the role that they are given,

and I think that, so far, they haven’t failed me. I have full confidence

that they will be able to deal with this area. They have the skills and

knowledge and expertise among three of them — then any additional

information they need, any additional data, initial research they need

to have for their perusal to get whatever they wish to get in order to

do the work that they want to do to deliver that report.

D. Barnett: I appreciate the work you’re doing, but I would like to know how

you are in consultation with rural and remote British Columbia cattle

ranchers and those that live off of any grids.

Hon. H. Bains: If I understand the member correctly, if you’re still talking

about the Fair Wages Commission and how they are consulting with the

ranchers and farmers in that area…. I see the nod.

They develop their own criteria. They develop their own way of

consulting. There’s a website. My understanding is that they also

advertised in the area that they were visiting, and they encouraged

people to come in person, on line or in writing. Anybody who wished to

have any suggestion was encouraged to come any which way they

could.

I will tell you that there were some farmers who felt that they

may not have been able to give enough information in the time that they

were given, so I encouraged them to write to the Fair Wages Commission.

Then we made sure that the Fair Wages Commission received that

information, and it was confirmed they did.

The idea is to get as much as information as possible, not to deny

anybody, and then advertise widely to ensure that we hear from British

Columbians in all different sectors and in all different

regions.

In my view, they’ve done that. I haven’t heard any complaints that

they were not able to consult with or their wishes were ignored — unless

the member has something. I think that’s what they did, and that’s what

I’m satisfied with. They did reach out and asked as many people as

possible to come and give their input.

At the end of the day, it’s about those people and those small

businesses — large businesses not that much, but small businesses,

especially, which are non-union. We are talking about a minimum wage

which is setting the standard for non-union sectors. I think that’s what

they did — my understanding.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, but you must realize that in rural and remote

places in British Columbia, there is no Internet. There are no cell

phones. There is no newspaper.

[4:10 p.m.]

Some of these people come to town very seldom. So at the end of

the day, when there were new regulations made — I’ve heard it over and

over again in my time — they were not made aware that there was a place

to consult, or these changes have been made without them having any

input and that somebody in the city decided this is how it

is.

Will this be an ongoing consultation process where I can find out

how to get them the information when I go knocking on their door? Then

can I get back to you and give you a full report? I know how much rural

and remote British Columbia gets forgotten when new regulations are

made.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, Member. I understand. Different people in this province

live differently. That’s what British Columbia is all about. They all

have their role to play in developing and building our economy, and they

all do a pretty good job. It is our responsibility to make sure we reach

out to them.

I understand there are some challenges about Internet, and I think

the Minister of Citizens’ Services is expanding that service. I heard

many times how many different areas she has actually gone to, to

announce a new service in different areas. But still, I agree. Cell

phones…. Fax machines are no longer there anymore, so they can do it on

line.

The consultation for the first two reports is done, because the

two reports are delivered. They are going to start to work on the third

report. I commit to you that if you believe there are ways to reach out

to them, just let us know. We will help you reach out to them. Just

contact my office, and we’ll find a way to reach out to those British

Columbians who don’t have those facilities. Just come to my office or

give us a phone call.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate it, and I will take you up on

your offer.

I have one more question, not related to this, if I may. How is my

physiotherapist issue? I had another letter yesterday from a client out

in the Chilcotin who cannot receive any services under the Workers

Compensation Act.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you for bringing this issue up earlier on — I think it was

almost six months ago — and now again. It just so happened that last

week I asked my staff to give me an update on this, because I wasn’t

sure what was happening.

I was advised, and I think the information still is that about 420

clinics, representing about 95 percent, have signed on to that

agreement. But there are about seven physiotherapy clinics in rural B.C.

towns — and I think the member is talking about one of them — that

refused to sign so far.

What is happening is WorkSafe B.C. is continuing to work with

them. Also, I’m given the assurance that those workers who need

physiotherapy and that treatment will get their treatment. Yes, there

are maybe some different ways of doing it. Sometimes it may involve some

travel, in the meantime, until this issue is resolved.

My expectation is that WorkSafe B.C. — well, they’ve assured me

also — is working hard to make sure that we cover every area and all

physiotherapy in all clinics as soon as possible. They are working at

it, and hopefully, this issue will be resolved sooner than

later.

D. Barnett: It has not been resolved. I will get you a copy of the letter that

I received yesterday from a person out in remote British Columbia who

cannot get the services he needs. The reason he cannot get the services

he needs, as you know, is because of what WorkSafe B.C. is willing to

pay the physiotherapist.

The physiotherapist will not do the job unless they can do it

properly. You know that what has happened is a cutback on the time frame

for them to do a job. That is why they’re refusing to do a job. There’s

no sense doing a job half. It needs to be done completely, and that is

the big issue.

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah, I agree that those workers who need physio treatment should

get physio treatment. WorkSafe B.C, I am assured, has put proposals

together, and they are working hard to have this issue

resolved.

To me, it is a little frustrating that we don’t have this thing

finalized yet, but it takes two sides, as you know. My understanding is

that these clinics that have not signed on believe that their area of

treatment is much more complex, so the injuries are much more complex. I

think I’ll let those parties work at it, and hopefully, this issue will

be resolved soon.

B. Stewart: First of all, I just want to thank the minister and his staff for

improving what I think is an already good labour code. They’ve recently

made some amendments to the labour code that we supported the other

day.

I had the opportunity to participate and listen to some discussion

about the labour code review t