Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 3, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 164

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Darwin Timothy Benson

R. Russell

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

P. Milobar

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

J. Brar

M. Elmore

R. Glumac

N. Sharma

B. Anderson

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2022

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

DARWIN TIMOTHY BENSON

R. Russell: I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to a tremendous Canadian

contributor, Darwin Timothy Benson. Darwin took an early tragedy in his

life and turned it into a force for good, dedicating his entire life to

helping as many people as he could, right to the end of his days. He

fulfilled that goal.

Darwin was an early activist, helping people, helping build and

support many organizations dedicated to making people’s lives better. It

didn’t matter what the job of the moment was. He stepped up.

He represented union members. He sat on the B.C. Labour Relations

Board. He knocked on doors, fundraised, recruited, delivered whatever

needed delivering to whomever had the need.

He was part of a supply line between agriculture producers and

their markets or their friends or the food bank. He contributed to no

less, maybe more, than 27 different campaigns.

Darwin was a volunteer hospice driver. In our part of the world,

this inevitably involves travelling over mountain passes, even through

blizzards. When others expressed fear at that prospect, he drove

patients from Grand Forks to Nelson, Rossland, Penticton and Kelowna

hospitals. He often paid for the trips himself, waited many hours, all

in order to comfortably return those patients safely to their

homes.

Darwin’s friends ranged from these isolated seniors to our Premier

and many points between. He will be missed by many.

His dear friend Margaret helped me write this tribute, and as she

said: “He was a force to be reckoned with, and heaven just got

lucky.”

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, Workers Compensation

Act.

[1:05 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; R. Leonard in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:07 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. H. Bains: We will be doing the committee. So I would welcome any questions

on any sections.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister.

I see our friend from Shuswap is on the link as well. So he may be

popping in with the questions, if some come to mind for him as well.

We’ll toggle back and forth, hopefully, through the day.

I don’t intend to spend…. I jokingly said to the minister: “I

believe we’re supposed to go till Tuesday.” Obviously, this is a bill

and a concept that started many years ago, and it’s around workers’

protections around asbestos. So we’re really just trying to get to

figure out, through this committee stage, exactly what steps got us here

today and what some of the ramifications on the regulation side will be

moving forward.

I just have a couple of broad questions to start, with the

minister’s indulgence, on no specific

section but just the overarching

piece of the bill based on some second reading comments. Then I’ll have

questions as we get into each clause.

Just broadly, my understanding is that an all-party working

committee…. In 2016, the federal government comes out with new rules. In

2017, the provincial government of the day starts a cross-ministry

working group. In 2018, recommendations come forward. It’s been four, 4½

years since those recommendations would have come forward.

[1:10 p.m.]

I’m just curious. What was the complicating factor in the drafting

of this legislation that would have taken that long on something so

critical to workers’ safety in British Columbia?

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Labour. Earlier — I apologize — I

didn’t give you an opportunity to introduce your staff.

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah, I’m just going to. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much for the question.

I neglected to introduce the staff who are here with me. Trevor

Hughes is my deputy minister. John Blakely and Michael Tanner are both

from our policy branch. They are here to help us.

I also want to extend to the member for Shuswap my deepest

condolences for the loss of his family member.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you, Member. We wish you well

during these tough times. So good to see you there, even during these

tough times. It just shows your commitment and dedication to the job

that you are elected to. Please stay strong. That’s what we would like

to say.

I do want to acknowledge that the previous minister, the member

from Prince George who was the Minister of Labour for a number of

years…. It was during the latter part of their government that they

established the all-party working group to deal with this very, very

serious issue. I believe that in 2017, the all-party group was

confirmed, and they went to work.

Their report was released in December 2018, and the period for

public comment — it was made public then — closed in February 2019. In

the meantime, between 2019, a number of areas that were talked about in

that report and the areas that were identified, that needed to be

fixed…. Quite a bit of progress has been made on many of those report’s

recommendations — those that do not require legislation.

Then COVID hit us, as we know, and WorkSafeBC was involved in a

number of health and safety workplace initiatives to work with the

provincial health officers. But that doesn’t mean that this area was

neglected. I can give you some more timelines, if the members wish,

too.

[1:15 p.m.]

In 2021, January, the all-party working group was re-established

with a mandate to complete the development of the action plan, including

options for licensing and training requirements. In spring 2021, the

working group confirmed that they considered recent findings that

non-legislative measures alone are not sufficient to improve safety in

the sector. There continued to be need for legislation.

In summer and fall of 2021, the ministry worked on those proposed

legislations, including stakeholder consultations and public engagement.

And on February 16, Bill 5 was introduced.

I could give a bit more to the member. I think this issue isn’t

new. This particular substance continues to be the number one killer,

going back decades. I can assure the member that this issue was raised

in this House for a long time. I remember standing up in this House,

raising this issue with the previous Minister of Labour, and I can quote

you some of the discussion that took place.

This was July 2013. As critic, I said:

“I want to move into a different area now. It is asbestos exposure

and workers’ death resulting from this exposure.

“As we know, diseases from exposure to asbestos remain the single

largest occupational killer in British Columbia. According to WorkSafeBC

figures, asbestos-related disease was responsible for the death of 512

workers between 2002 and 2011.

“My question to the minister is: what extra measures are being put

in place by WorkSafeBC to ensure that exposure to asbestos of workers

and, actually, of neighbours is minimized or eliminated?”

There was a discussion going back and forth, and I was assured

that WorkSafeBC was doing everything they could do. I again raised the

issue that they needed some extra tools. These tools were not working —

what they had. Then I cited some examples in there about a contractor.

How many orders were issued? So 250 orders were issued. Because the

tools were not available to WorkSafeBC, they continued to go away today

and come back tomorrow under different names.

The issue is not new, Member. I appreciate the urgency that you

are saying that we could have moved with. I can tell you the urgency was

always there, and we’re doing the best we can.

One thing is clear. With the proposals that we have in this

legislation, once they’re enacted, they will give tools to WorkSafeBC to

enforce and to get rid of those bad actors in the industry.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for the dates there.

I guess, really, what I’m trying to scope out is the complexity

that is in this amendment. It’s amending legislation, essentially — the

Workers Compensation Act. It’s not a brand-new piece of legislation from

scratch. It’s identifying a workplace safety issue. It’s meant to bring

in protections for workers, but it’s also bringing in a registry for the

employers as well.

I recognize, based on the briefing that I had with ministry staff,

that the registry piece for the employers is something new. It doesn’t

really exist in Canada. I can appreciate that that would take some time.

But it seems like many provinces were moving, post the change federally

in 2016. We’ve heard February 2019. Both the working group had done

their job as well as public consultation had been done. That’s still

three years.

What part of the worker protection piece was so problematic that

it would take three years to bring forward the amendments instead of

bringing those forward immediately and still working on that employer

registration piece for a future amendment to the Workers Compensation

Act?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I think one thing is for sure, and I want to acknowledge

the previous Minister of Labour at least taking this on, finally, and

putting this group together, talking to the different stakeholders, did

their own research. Where are the loopholes? What are the answers to

deal with this very, very serious issue that has lingered on for years

if not decades?

I think that group…. I think they took it so seriously. They want

to make sure that they look at every area where there are some gaps and

what possible solutions there are. Then they went back and forth and

back and forth. “This may work. But what about the implications of

that?” And: “This may not work.” Finally, they put a report together,

and then, again, the consultation started with the

stakeholders.

Their feedback was very, very important, both the employers and

the workers — WorkSafeBC and others. I can tell you that there are very,

very good operators out there. But there are really bad operators in

this industry. They wanted to know: “How can we fix this?”

The other two jurisdictions have some training, but I think we

will be leading all jurisdictions when this bill, with everyone’s

support in the House, is enacted. Not only will there be mandatory

training for anyone who handles asbestos but also licensing to deal with

and curb those bad actors that I cited in 2013. Like those — 250

ordered. They still couldn’t do anything.

The only time I think that person only…. I think the sense of

satisfaction came when that person was thrown in jail because of

contempt of court. So the board had to go to the court in order to stop

this bad actor. I think we can talk about all that during this time. In

the meantime, the workers were dying with this exposure — 2007, 2008.

These issues were raised in this House. I could go over the numbers: in

2007, three times; 2008, three times; 2009, one time; 2010, four times.

Numerous times every year this issue was raised in this

House.

I don’t want to go back and fault anybody, because I think

everyone tried to do the best they could. I like to say that the

previous Minister of Labour was sincere in her efforts to make sure that

the workers’ health and safety was protected. That’s why she put

together this all-party group. They came back with these

recommendations, and we want to make sure that we do it right. We took

our time.

[1:25 p.m.]

COVID also is a factor in the delaying a bit. But here we are, and

I think these are the right things to do. WCB will be fully engaged in

order to put together a training regime and details of the training. I

think the sooner we do it, the better.

P. Milobar: My understanding is that a lot of this is based on, or similar to,

both Ontario and Alberta in regard to what they have in place for

similar asbestos, especially as…. Again, I recognize it’s only on the

employee protection side, because they do not have the registry

side.

In clause 1, there is a definition for “asbestos abatement

contractor,” and I’m just trying to ascertain the similarities of this

amendment with what is going on in Ontario and Alberta. Is the

definition of “asbestos abatement contractor” in B.C. in line with what

is in Ontario and Alberta, or is it something completely

different?

Hon. H. Bains: I think it’s difficult to compare with Ontario and Alberta,

because they don’t have a licensing regime in place. The only thing that

they have is the training for the workers who handle

asbestos.

I think this is a broad enough definition to cover every employer,

contractor who would be doing the asbestos abatement work in British

Columbia.

Once we are through and this bill is enacted, royal assent is

received, then they are required to be licensed. They cannot be engaged

in abatement work in B.C. without having to have that licence and go

through a licensing application process.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: Similar to the last question, around

definitions again. Just

trying to get a better sense of if this is significantly different

legislation than Alberta and Ontario or if it’s more or less modelled

after it.

Is the minister aware if “asbestos abatement work” is defined the

same within Ontario and Alberta, or if that’s, indeed, different as

well?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: This definition was put together based on the scope of work that

exists here in this jurisdiction, in British Columbia.

This, if the member would look at it, is not only dealing with

training alone. It talks about, again, the licensing part of this as

well, if a contractor is engaged individually. So I think there is a

definition of work which would cover, I think, broadly, the asbestos

work. Anyone engaged in that work would now be required to have a

licence if they are an employer, and those workers who are working to

handle asbestos must be licensed.

I think — further down — the member will know that the training is

mandatory and also requires that the contractors cannot employ anyone

who has not gone through the training and has that certification. So I

think the definition is broad. It wasn’t mirrored with other

jurisdictions — or the same — but the definition we believe is what

needs to be covered to deal with the issue that we had

beforehand.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

P. Milobar: Just on a couple of these housekeeping amendments, I’ll just have

one quick question. That’s really that this clause seems to be just

repealing a definition of “officer” and substituting with a new

definition. Could the minister just provide what the purpose of the

change of the definition is?

Hon. H. Bains: What had happened here was that the existing definition of

“officer” was inadequate, it was felt, for the purposes of both the

existing occupation health and safety provisions and the new asbestos

abatement provisions. With the additional phrase, “unless a contrary

intention appears,” it is made clear now that the definition of officer

does not apply when the act refers to a director or officer of the

corporation.

There was a bit of a mix-up there, which occurs in the asbestos

abatement contractors’ licensing provisions of this bill. I hope that

that’s clear.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

P. Milobar: Very similarly, I recognize that these are housekeeping

amendments, but again, there’s repealing some language and substituting

back in around issuing “certificates to occupational first aid

attendants and instructors, and renew and amend those certificates;

and….” Then it continues on.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide what the purpose of

this particular housekeeping amendment is, in clause 5.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah, the member is correct. It is a housekeeping amendment to

paragraph 55(

c) to reword the provisions to clarify the intent of the

existing provisions. It makes no substantive changes to the

provision.

Secondly, the amendment in paragraph 55(

d) also makes it clearer

that WorkSafeBC may enter into an arrangement with other persons to

renew and amend first aid attendant certificates in addition to issuing

certificates. Provisions already exist. It’s just to clarify

further.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

P. Milobar: I’ll sound like a broken record, but this is the third clause in a

row I’ll ask the same question. Again, housekeeping amendments, but I

think it’s always valuable for people to understand what exactly the

depth of the amendment really means to them, especially as they

interpret this, moving forward.

If the minister could just provide, again, what the purpose of

this housekeeping amendment is.

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah, it’s similar to the last one we talked about. That was to

deal with the first aid attendant training.

This one is the certification and training of the blasters, and

it’s the same type of approach here. The housekeeping amendment, again,

in this particular case, paragraph 59(c) — to reword the provision to

clarify the intent of the existing provisions. It makes, again, no

substantive changes to the provision.

The second

part is the amendment to paragraph 59(d). It makes

clearer that WorkSafeBC may enter into an arrangement with other persons

to renew and amend certificates for blasters and instructors in addition

to issuing certificates. Same as the previous one, Member.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

P. Milobar: A few more questions on this section. As I read it, this

section

relates to the certification and training for people, for businesses,

and the fees that will go with that. I guess I’m interested in (

e) of

clause 7, which would actually be 59.01in the act. In (e), it says:

“establish fees for the purposes of this section.”

Has the minister already established fees for this particular

clause?

Hon. H. Bains: This

section actually enables WorkSafeBC to establish fees for the

purpose of training and certification. WorkSafeBC will address any fees

as part of its program design and implementation with input from

stakeholders.

P. Milobar: Just checking, then, the process by which they will establish

those fees. Will it be in consultation with the minister, or will it be

in consultation with businesses and industry?

Hon. H. Bains: Not with me. It will be in consultation with

stakeholders.

P. Milobar: Again, I know the minister may feel this next question may be one

of a flippant nature, but it’s not. We have great concerns over here

around previous legislation around fees, and I just want to get a very

clear understanding, because it seemed if we didn’t ask the right, exact

questions around fees, the background seemed to be much different than

maybe what we imagined it would be.

We saw that play out with the FOI bill last fall. I guess, just to

be perfectly clear, I’m expecting there hasn’t been one. But has there

been any decision note presented to the minister, or has the minister

signed off on any decision note as it relates to fees and any

recommendations going to workers compensation?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: No.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that.

In terms of the overall fee structure, then, has there been any

analysis done in terms of not just the fee in particular but the broad

concept of this legislation, in terms of cost analysis to contractors,

to employees trying to get certified? To what extent may that actually

impact the industry as a whole, in terms of cost pressures or the…? Has

there been a cost analysis done that shows that it will be minimal, at

best, to make these changes?

Hon. H. Bains: Thanks to the member.

As I said earlier, this

section enables WorkSafeBC to establish

the details of the training and the fee structure, if there is going to

be any, in consultation with their stakeholders. They do this all the

time in all kinds of different training that they already have in place.

First aid training is one — blasters, as we just talked about, another.

Perhaps there are a number of others that I don’t, right now, have off

the top of my head what they are.

There are systems in place that the WCB handles today, and this

will be another one, giving them the ability to design the details of

the training and also how it is delivered, who delivers and the fee

structure. That’s what this language does — enables them to do

that.

P. Milobar: In this section, where it deals with the fees around these

particular areas, around the certification and training, I don’t see

where there’s a specification that it would be a three-year fee or a

one-year fee. Yet later on, it very clearly indicates that most

certifications will likely be three years in nature and then expire, and

you’d have to get recertified again.

Why is there not that certainty or clarity around the expectation

of WCB, as they establish fees, to make sure they match up with

certification periods?

Hon. H. Bains: The three-year period that the member mentioned is to deal with

the licensing side. The training side…. WCB will decide how often they

must come back for recertification. Is it one year, like a first-aid

attendant? They have designed different levels, and they have different

expiry dates for that. In this particular case, we’re leaving it up to

them and giving them the enabling language to design the certification

and training, working with the stakeholders.

[1:45 p.m.]

I think that’s important. They will be coming up with those

details.

P. Milobar: We’ll get into timelines in a few other clauses here. It sounds

like WCB, in spite of this taking three years post–February 2019 public

input, still has a lot of work to do. It’s, I guess, a little

disappointing that it wasn’t done simultaneously, with the expectation

that this would pass.

Whether I like to admit it or not, the simple reality is that our

side is outvoted 2-to-1 in this chamber, so one would think that WCB

would have had a bit of confidence that this legislation would pass and

the amendments would pass, and some of this work would be well underway

and actually be ready to implement at the same time as this bill moves

through this chamber.

This clause also defines that a “‘relevant person’ means an

employer, worker, instructor.” Then it goes on.

To continue on, I guess I’ll just jump forward to clause 8,

because it is intertwined with clause 7. So this is

section 59.01 of the

act. Then clause 8 in this bill says: “Section 59.01 (1) is repealed and

the following substituted.” We literally are adding, in this section, a

definition around a relevant person, and then in the very next clause,

when we get to it after this, we’re going to be repealing.

Why the need to insert what a relevant person means and then

immediately remove what a relevant person means within this?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is a bit confusing, but let me try to explain.

Section 7 — 59.01, the “relevant person” definition — will be in

place after the royal assent. This definition is needed to start

training for the WorkSafeBC. Then later, once that is in place, the

second part that the member talked about, in clause 8, provides

WorkSafeBC the authority to include independent asbestos abatement

operators in the certified training program it will be developing for

asbestos abatement work. This will ensure that such independent

operators also receive appropriate training in carrying out asbestos

abatement work safely.

Regarding asbestos abatement training and certification,

independent asbestos abatement operators — which are part of the

“relevant person” definition — will be added to the act at a future date

by regulation, coinciding with when the licensing provisions for such

independent operators are brought into force by regulations.

The first one is just to start training. Once that is in place,

then in order to include the independent asbestos abatement operators,

the regulations will include them.

P. Milobar: That was going to be part of my follow-up question, depending on

the answer, because I noticed that in clause 17, it has that sections 4,

5, 6 and 7 are all royal assent, and everything else is: “By regulation

of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

I guess, again, then I will go back to the fee question in this

particular clause, which will come into effect on royal assent. But it

sounds like we don’t know what the fees are. This is, again, starting to

sound like a little bit of a rehash of what happened with

FOI.

Is the minister saying that essentially, the bill will pass at

royal assent? There will be no actual fee structure in place, so in the

short term, while WCB is trying to figure out what fee would be

appropriate, no fee will be charged at all as this clause is initiated?

And then at some point, while training is starting to be planned out and

getting started, the fee will then be known, if there’s a fee at all

charged by WCB? Or is there an actual fee?

Frankly, again, I feel compelled to ask the question. I don’t

think this minister operates this way, but is there a fee already

established in the back with WCB that when royal assent happens, we’ll

magically see it 15 minutes later? Or is this truly a 90-day…? Or 120

days from now, we’ll finally find out what the fee is because there will

be true and meaningful input provided by industry?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I would repeat. This will give…. Again, this enables

WorkSafeBC to design training, all the details of training.

[1:55 p.m.]

Again, Member, they will be in a position to decide the length of

training, for example, the depth of training. What does it include? And

then if there is going to be a fee, and how much, that will happen after

this bill is passed.

What the WCB is doing today…. I can’t imagine what they’re doing

today, because the bill isn’t passed yet. They know that the bill is

here, and I expect that they’ll start working very quickly, moving very

quickly, because this bill needs to be implemented. The intent of the

bill is implemented. Training starts as soon as they can. And if they

come up with a fee structure, this will give them the ability to do

that. The length of training, the depth of training — all of that will

be decided by WorkSafeBC.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

On clause 9.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if the minister has any estimates on the scope

of how many people are currently working in this field of asbestos

removal — either independently or with larger companies — or if there is

a good handle at all on just how far-reaching this may be in terms of

how many people will be impacted by these changes.

Hon. H. Bains: Member, you would appreciate that as there are no asbestos

abatement contractors who are licensed, it’s very, very difficult to

know precisely how many potential licensees are out there.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Also, it’s our understanding that there may be up to a few hundred

contractors in B.C. who specialize in asbestos abatement work, but

estimating the number of demolition and renovation contractors who also

carry out asbestos abatement work is even harder. It could potentially

be up to a few thousand. It’s just an estimate right now, because there

is no way of knowing who is doing this work, because there’s no

licensing requirement. But the numbers could be hundreds, could be

thousands.

The Chair: Member.

P. Milobar: Thank you. Madam Chair, welcome to your first, I believe,

committee. I’m looking forward to your member-minister tennis match to

come.

I’m just wondering if the minister, under this clause 9, 59.03 in

the act…. It’s about when the licence will be required. “An asbestos

abatement contractor must not carry out or offer to carry out asbestos

abatement work unless the asbestos abatement contractor (

a) holds a

valid licence, or” — that all seems pretty straightforward — “(

b) is in

a class of asbestos abatement contractors that is exempted by regulation

of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from the requirement to hold a

licence.”

Can the minister explain the difference of what will be a

contractor that needs to have a valid licence versus one that would be

given an exemption?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Welcome, hon. Chair.

The expectation here is that every contractor who is in the

business of asbestos abatement is to be required to be licensed. But

there may be circumstances — may be — which we don’t know right now —

for example, to avoid duplicate licensing if a class of contractors

requires a licence related to asbestos work under another

statute.

It’s just to protect ourselves in case there is a situation where

you may consider this person is covered somewhere else and to avoid

duplication if they meet the requirement to do the work that we are

trying to cover here. There may be a situation, but I can’t think of

any. I think my expectation will be that every asbestos abatement

contractor is covered under these regulations.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister can have the expectation, but as we heard

earlier, Labour ministers come and go. It’s just a fact of how

governments work. It’s not a personal insult; it’s just the way things

happen. Cabinet shuffles happen. Elections happen. I’ve said this, when

I was the Environment critic, to the Environment Minister on other

legislation as well.

What one minister’s best intentions or expectations are is not

necessarily what’s written in law and what will be interpreted moving

forward by either new ministers coming in, new deputy ministers, new

staff, everything. That’s the one constant with government: there’s

always change.

Is the minister aware…? It sounded like there are not any or there

would already be protections for workers around asbestos abatement. But

is the minister, in that last answer, saying that in case there’s

something within British Columbia law that would require somebody to

already have licensing to do asbestos abatement work that literally no

one in the government is aware of exists? Or is this for

out-of-province, out-of-jurisdiction contractors that may be coming to

B.C. to do asbestos abatement work and might have licensing in a

different area of the country — or North America, even?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: First of all, let me make this clear. In order to operate here in

British Columbia to do the asbestos abatement work, they must be

licensed here in B.C. So somebody licensed in other jurisdictions, other

provinces or other countries is not allowed to operate here in British

Columbia to do this work.

The second

part is that this is enabling language. A situation may

exist or may come forward at some time, whether I, the minister, am or

the deputy minister is different.

Right now everyone is in. All contractors who wish to do the

asbestos abatement work in British Columbia must be licensed.

Circumstances may arise which no one anticipated today. It could be a

different minister, a different government, and someone may have a

justified reason. As long as they comply with the intent of this bill

and there’s a reason for someone to be exempted, that will happen

sometime, and then it will be judged on its own merit at that particular

time.

P. Milobar: Well, I get what the minister is driving at and would like it to

be, but when I read (b), it says it’s “in a class of asbestos abatement

contractors that is exempted by regulation.” So what class is being

considered by either the minister or WCB that would require an

exemption? Is it under ten employees? Is it if you’re really, really

large? Is it exempted if you’re part of a CBA but not if you

aren’t?

The language would indicate that the intent is to create different

classes of asbestos abatement contractors, and one or two or more of

those classes may be exempt from needing to actually do what this act is

trying to do. So why, on the front end, are we anticipating exemptions,

let alone defining them as a particular class with no actual detail

anywhere in this of what those classes may be, yet are just waiting to

find out after WCB does what they would like to do with this?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, again, I want to repeat that under this bill, every asbestos

abatement contractor must be licensed in British Columbia in order to

perform that work. We have left this thing. Again, it will not be the

WCB doing this work. It will be through government actions, through

regulations, OIC.

If someone comes up year to year, three years down the road, or it

could be six months down the road…. Certain contractors are already

covered under a different statute — they’re doing the same work — which

we are not aware of right now. Otherwise, we would have put something in

here.

That’s the intent here, and it’s not just going to be because

somebody feels that we should give them an exemption because they happen

to be a good contractor. No. They all are required to be licensed in

order to do the asbestos abatement work in B.C. under this bill. There

may be someone who is covered by, or a group of contractors covered by,

a different statute that we’re not aware of right now. So we’re just

leaving that part open in order to, if they come to government later on

and say: “Look, we are already covered. Why do we have to go through

duplication here…?” So that’s the whole intent.

P. Milobar: I’m sorry. That just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

We’ve had public engagement sessions with industry. We’ve been

working on this with working groups since 2017, for five years, with a

minister who is directly responsible for WCB, as he has direct oversight

of them, with a bill with a

section like this that will be left to

order-in-council, not to WCB, and the answer is that there may be a

statute somewhere in government’s arsenal of various laws and workplace

requirements that the Minister of Labour, after five years of working on

a bill, is unaware of, that would already be accomplishing what this

bill is doing.

I find it hard to believe that we would have that type of a

statute out there that we’ve all been oblivious to, on something that is

causing one-third of workplace deaths every year. So I think it’s safe

to say it doesn’t exist.

This bill is contemplating a class of asbestos abatement

contractors for exemption — an actual class, not a one-off but a class —

and that will be defined by order-in-council. We just heard the minister

say it could be six months, could be six years, could be two years. If

it’s the Minister of Citizens’ Services, it could be ten minutes,

because that’s what we’ve seen happen. That’s how fast orders-in-council

can actually move.

Again, what is the real reason that we would need, on enabling

legislation, to bring in protections for workers, to regulate the

contractors on a public workplace safety issue that is causing one-third

of the deaths in British Columbia every year, to, out of the gate, put

in an ability for an order-in-council to create a subclass of contractor

undefined anywhere in this to get an exemption? What possible

reason…?

Is the planning that the registration and the training will be so

onerous that even if they did fall under a different statute right now,

it would be deemed too punitive to make them just go and fill out the

paperwork to get the other registration under this act?

[2:15 p.m.]

What is the possible reason, with a new piece of amending

legislation, that the government needs the ability to create an

exemption by order-in-council on something that is claiming one-third of

workplace deaths every single year?

Hon. H. Bains: I draw the member’s attention…. I appreciate the line of

questioning. When we were going through this, I had a number of those

questions of the staff as well.

If you go back to

section 2, I believe, where…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, if you’re having a conversation, I’d ask you to step

outside.

Hon. H. Bains: …you look at the definition of asbestos abatement work, in there,

there are a number of areas from (

a) to (h). Then there is one in here

that says: “…any activity prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council.” Again, it was to cover everything that you can

today, and in case you miss out some activity which relates to asbestos

abatement work, then you could add that, also, to the definition — by

regulation, rather than coming to the House again.

I think it’s the same thing here. There is no one that will

qualify for exemption today that we could look at. But again, there may

be a situation we have missed. That situation may come our way, and if

it’s legitimate, you take a look at it, and that’s when you take action.

Otherwise, everyone in here is included in the licensing, and I don’t

anticipate any exemptions under that that I could anticipate

today.

P. Milobar: Well, again, the minister can’t think of any today — could think

of it by the time we get to royal assent, could think of it a week

after. Again, this will not be WCB — WorkSafe — that’s coming up with

the exemption. Whether they like it or not, it will be a cabinet

directive as an order-in-council that creates an exemption.

Is there anything preventing the minister from bringing back, if

the situation arose that exemptions were needed because there was —

after five years of consultation with ministry, with professionals, with

people within the industry, with WorkSafe — some glaring, egregious

exception that should have been thought of that didn’t actually happen

and wasn’t contemplated…?

[2:20 p.m.]

Is there anything, if this was removed — if 59.03(b), just (b),

was removed — that would prevent the minister from bringing that back to

the Legislature to say: “We need to amend the act once more to create a

class for exemption”? Then this House would be able to fully scrutinize

why those exemptions of that class of contractor are needed.

That’s what this is for. This is for a class of asbestos abatement

contractors. This is not for a one-off situation. Frankly, we have seen,

with CBAs, that there is one class of contractor that’s allowed to bid

on contracts and there’s one class that’s not allowed. If you’re one of

the 19 favoured donators to the governing party, you’re allowed to bid

on work that’s government work. If you’re not one of the 19, you don’t

get to. If you’re one of the 85 percent of trades, you’re not allowed

to.

Again, this is for a class of abatement contractor. We don’t know,

based on the track record of this government — both on how they come up

with a class of contractors but also how quickly they move with

order-in-council after royal assent on some bills — what this really

means.

If there is no current situation the minister can think of at all

and he’s not expecting one over the next few years, there should be no

harm in the minister agreeing to amend his bill to remove 59.03(b). It’s

referenced a little bit later in the bill. I recognize we’d have to

remove it there, as well, for consistency. But if the minister truly has

no idea where this would ever actually have to be used any time over the

next several years, there should be no harm, on a bill that we’ve

already waited five years to get to this House, of removing it and

having the minister agree to remove it and amend his bill.

Will the minister agree to amend his bill and remove 59.03(

b) in

clause 9 from this bill and in the subsequent clauses where it comes

into play?

Hon. H. Bains: I will repeat what we said earlier on, the intention of this

clause. Today any asbestos abatement contractor, if they wish to work

after this bill is passed, must be licensed. There is no

exemption.

There may be circumstances, may be, in the future that will be

brought to the government’s attention. This will give them the ability

to fix that. For that situation, for us to come back into the House, or

whoever the minister is, the time it takes…. You know the process it

takes. It is not, in my view, the right thing to do.

[2:25 p.m.]

I think this clause…. The way it is designed is to deal with a

situation that we haven’t anticipated today. It could be before us, but

through regulations, it can be fixed. I think that’s why this clause was

put in place.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s not just a situation that can’t be thought of today.

It’s a situation that hasn’t been thought of for the five years of the

development of this bill.

Here we are with a clause that very clearly says, at best: “Well,

we’re not totally confident we got it right, and it might actually be

too impactful to a certain class of asbestos abatement contractors, even

though it’s an industry that’s responsible for one-third of the

workplace deaths in British Columbia. So we better build in a fail-safe

in case we’ve stubbed our toe, in case we need to figure out that,

actually, this is too onerous for a contractor to follow.”

It’s only a certain class of contractor, I’ll point out, though,

and we don’t know what that class is, because it’s not

defined.

That’s what this clause is saying. “After five years of

consultation, we might not have gotten it right. We might have actually

made it too onerous, but we don’t want to exempt everyone. It’s just,

potentially, one particular class of contractor that we might decide

sometime in the future gets to have an easier road to bid on work and an

easier path to have their employees potentially exposed. They don’t have

to be registered, and they can be exempted.”

Again, what harm is there, other than, potentially, that class of

contractor would have to wait until the next sitting of the Legislature?

Since we have fall and spring sittings, one would think this could even

almost make it into a miscellaneous stats bill, which we have at every

sitting as well. So what possible harm is there to remove it today if

the minister can’t see any reason in the foreseeable future that this

clause would actually have to be actioned?

Again, will the minister agree to amend his bill and remove

59.03(

b) that’s listed in clause 9 in this act?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no. I think members should know that if I was to

exempt anybody, they would have been listed today. That’s not the

intent. Every asbestos abatement contractor that needs to or wants to or

wishes to work in British Columbia to do the asbestos work must be

licensed. End of the story. Period. Full stop.

This only leaves an opening in case there’s maybe a situation in

the future that we haven’t anticipated today. Even then, if somebody

comes to me six months later, or to another minister from this

government….

Our intent is to have everyone licensed who wants to do the

asbestos abatement work in British Columbia — and fully trained. We

would have a bunch of exemptions here if that was the intent here. The

intent is to cover everyone, to protect the workers who have been dying

for decades in British Columbia. It’s not that only this government

realized this. Previous governments realized that people were dying. But

now the work is getting done.

We can nitpick here. We can sit here and spend time. The members

talk about what took us so long. What is taking us so long today? This

bill needs to be passed. This bill needs to be passed because the intent

here is to cover everyone, Member. I’m not trying to be argumentative

here. I’m just trying to say that everyone is covered. There’s nothing

in here that will show that our intent is to exempt somebody. If we

wanted to exempt somebody, we would have done that now, because there’s

no exemption needed.

[2:30 p.m.]

Asbestos is a dangerous substance. The member knows that. Other

members know this. People are dying, not only just the workers but

others who have exposure to it. Very dangerous. That’s why it was banned

in Canada and elsewhere, going back to 1979, when it was banned in

Canada, except in non-friable situations. That, again, was banned in

I think everyone understands there is no exemption. If you want to

do business to handle asbestos in British Columbia, you must be

licensed, and you must be fully trained and certified.

P. Milobar: Well, the intent of this bill may be to have no exemptions, but

the intent of 59.03(

b) is exactly that — to create

exemptions.

As for what’s taking so long today…. I apologize to the minister

that we’ve been all of an hour and a half on this bill this afternoon. I

was unaware that we missed the window for royal assent 15 minutes ago,

that we could have passed this bill and made it law. Is there royal

assent at three o’clock today that I’m unaware of or four o’clock

today?

That’s the only thing that would hold this bill up — if we missed

the window of when the Lieutenant-Governor was coming here to give it

royal assent. And what would happen as soon as royal assent happens?

Orders-in-council could start being signed, and classes of exemptions

could suddenly be created out of nowhere.

Have there been any decision notes? Has there been any

conversation, any discussion whatsoever with the minister and his staff

or the contractors that do asbestos abatement work on what would

actually potentially be a class of asbestos abatement contractor that

would fall under this clause within this bill?

Hon. H. Bains: No. No decision note and no advice were given to me about any

exemption that may be required today, because we don’t believe there’s

any exemption needed today. This is just, as I explained, many times

over, an ability to deal with an issue that we may have missed

somewhere. This provision will allow us to do it.

P. Milobar: I recognize that clause 9 is actually fairly lengthy, and it’s got

a wide range of topics in it around the licensing and to asbestos

abatement.

I’ll move to a different part of clause 9 for the time being and

likely loop back again and see if, over the next little while, the

minister realizes there’s absolutely no need to have 59.03(

b) in a bill

that’s supposed to be to protect workers’ safety on a worksite. Perhaps

by the end of clause 9 he’ll be more agreeable to actually remove it and

actually give proper relief to workers and their employers.

I’m wondering. What type of discussion and decision-making came

into the concept around the three-year term for a licence being the

maximum? If it’s meant to be the maximum, why was it not just spelled

out to be three-year terms? Why does it still have the potential to be a

one-, two- or three-year term?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I think there are a number of areas of training or

licensing that WorkSafeBC is engaged in. Three years is…. Again, it is

left up to WorkSafeBC to decide whether they would use one year, two

years, three years. Or it could be that they may say the first time a

one-year licence is issued, and if you are showing a good record, that

next time it could be two or three years. I think it is giving them the

ability to give licences up to three years.

It’s the same thing that…. When we brought in the Temporary

Foreign Worker Protection Act, it’s the recruiters of those workers….

This is the same language that was given — that they also are licensed

up to three years. That’s the reasoning.

P. Milobar: It also says in 59.04 that “an asbestos abatement contractor or an

independent asbestos abatement operator may apply for a licence by

submitting to the board an application that (

a) is in the form and

manner, and contains the information, required by the board, and (

b) is

accompanied by any other information and records required by the

Board.”

Now, I don’t believe the board has done this work, but could the

minister confirm if they have indeed done it or not? And if they have

not done it, why were they not instructed to get working on this bill

before royal assent instead of waiting for what could be several months,

by the sounds of what the minister had said in second reading comments,

to actually take care of their regulatory side that they need to do once

this bill is passed?

Hon. H. Bains: The authority for WorkSafeBC to work on these areas comes from the

bill. I couldn’t instruct them before the bill was introduced, number

one. Number two, my understanding is that once the bill was introduced,

WorkSafeBC, in anticipation of the bill to be passed…. It’s my

understanding that they are working on this already. My expectation is

that once the bill is enacted, they will be in a very good position to

start the work right away.

P. Milobar: Just looping back to the class of asbestos abatement contractor

that is exempted by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

from the requirement to hold a licence.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, I fully appreciate that there’s a difference in this between

an independent asbestos abatement operator and a contractor. But why is

there no potential exemption, then, for an independent asbestos

abatement operator? It seems that they might be the ones that would fall

under some mysterious governmental statutes that no one is aware of,

more so than an actual contractor.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the difference between the independent operator and the

independent asbestos abatement contractor is that the contractor is an

employer. The operator is not. It’s an independent contractor. They

don’t have employees. But they are also, under this bill, required to go

through mandatory training.

P. Milobar: I guess the question, though, is: why would it be deemed

appropriate to potentially give an exemption to a contractor, who has

many employees working under them, and not to an independent contractor

that is just solo — that works within a different organization, by the

way I read it?

I’m just wondering. If an exemption possibly might be needed, for

something that we’re not aware of in the future, for a contractor, I

don’t understand how, for an independent asbestos abatement operator,

that same situation may not arise where that independent operator says:

“Actually, I need an exemption. I need an exemption for the very same

reasons that the big contractor needs it, but I don’t get to apply for

one.” Because under this act, under this change, it’s only the asbestos

abatement contractor, a certain class of them, that would be allowed to

be exempted.

[2:45 p.m.]

Why, again, was an independent asbestos abatement operator not

afforded the same opportunity in this bill — for something that may or

may not happen in the future — to seek an exemption?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, there’s a difference between the two. As I said, the

independent operator is not required to be licensed, and therefore,

there’s no need for any exemptions. The independent asbestos abatement

contractor is an employer, and they employ workers. That’s why the two

are treated differently.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s disappointing that the minister seems to have dug in

his heels on this exemption. Again, no one, certainly, on our side is

suggesting that workers should not be protected, that contractors should

not be held to a standard. People should be certified, properly trained

and go through the proper process with WorkSafe so that all of those

processes are in play.

With the years of development that this bill has taken and the

amount of consultation with industry and all the other stakeholders that

the minister talked about, I still have not heard a valid reason, from

this minister, why an exemption needs to be in this bill. You’re either

saying that this bill is flawed and that it’s anticipating needing to

exempt people…. That doesn’t help the worker who will have asbestos

exposure. It doesn’t help the fact that one-third of our deaths are from

this asbestos exposure. I think that we all agree that we need to take

steps to crack down on that.

I fail to see how removing this would weaken the bill. It would in

fact strengthen the bill. I guess the question to the minister is: does

the minister feel that having a clause in this bill that would allow

exemptions to happen on WorkSafe issues around a workplace toxin that

actually is responsible for a third of workplace deaths…? Does the

minister feel that having an exemption in the bill strengthens the bill

or weakens the bill?

Hon. H. Bains: There are no exemptions, and I have made that perfectly clear.

Every contractor employer who wishes to do asbestos abatement work in

British Columbia must be licensed — clear. That is just the enabling

language. I have gone over it. You know, we have gone over it, back and

forth, probably a dozen times now.

In case circumstances arise — which haven’t been anticipated,

which may make sense — number one, continue to protect workers. That

would be the number one criterion. When you look at those types of

applications, are they complying with the intent of this bill? Is there

something that is of a duplication nature, maybe? Does this make sense,

leaving workers protected and at the same time meeting the intent of

this bill: to make sure that there is no exposure to the workers as a

result of any consideration in the future?

Those will be, in my view, some of the criteria you would use. I

can’t think of any right now, because for everyone in British Columbia

who would be doing asbestos work — whether they’re an employer, an

independent operator or workers — the employer must be licensed. The

operator and the workers must be fully trained and certified by the

WCB.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think those are the areas that will strengthen the health and

the safety of those workers that have been neglected for decades. I’m

not faulting anybody, but that’s the way it was. At one time, asbestos

was promoted — you know, if you go back to the ’60s and ’70s. Then we

realized the consequences, the serious consequences.

It pains me to say that when we were banning asbestos use here in

Canada, we were still exporting to other countries. That’s the evolution

we go through. Again, even in 1979, when it was banned, we continued to

allow some form of asbestos to be used in our buildings — up until 1990.

Workers continue to die as a result of that.

I want to appreciate the support that I’m getting from the other

side. There’s no intent here to lessen the protection of health and

safety for workers, regardless of where that application comes from. It

is only some unanticipated area.

Again, it will be guided by our…. The decision will be in line

with what the intent of this bill is. Are the workers protected from

exposure? Is the public protected from exposure to asbestos? Those will

be the only things that you would be considering. That’s why I’m saying

that it is a strong bill. It provides the protection, and it will

continue to provide the protection as long as we’re around

here.

P. Milobar: Well, it certainly seems to potentially provide protection to a

certain class of asbestos abatement contractor that may get an exemption

in the future.

I guess the question around that, then, is: is that exemption in

this clause, in 59.03(b), the

section in the act, strictly for the

contractor? In other words, all of the workers who work for the

contractor would still have to go through all their training and be

licensed and everything else? Is it just the company that gets the

exemption, or is it everyone working for the company that gets the

exemption from this?

Hon. H. Bains: It is only the contractors who are required to be licensed in

here. But again, like I said earlier on, when it is to be considered, if

there’s something that has been missed here, is that application, or

whatever the request is, complying with the intent of this bill? How are

the workers going to be protected from exposure? How is the public going

to be protected from exposure?

With all of those considered, there may be a circumstance that we

haven’t looked at today that, yes, makes sense. It provides workers

protection, as is the intent of this bill. And it protects the public,

and our environment is safe. I think those are the criteria. They will

remain the criteria.

P. Milobar: Well, based on that answer, there’s obviously been thought given

to this clause being put in. There was a very quick answer as to whether

it would apply to the contractor as the company or whether it would

apply to all of their employees for an exemption. So there was,

obviously, already some thought given by the people that drafted this

piece of legislation as to how an exemption would actually functionally

work and who would actually functionally apply for it, based on the

wording.

[2:55 p.m.]

Again, forgive us for being a little cynical on this side about

process, about how far along discussions are for certain overrides. But

this is a bill that’s supposed to be inserting in protections — and

actually highlighted, in second reading debate, by government speakers

about how, for the first time in Canada, contractors will be required to

be registered. That was a big selling point — partly why, it was

explained, this took so long.

With this exemption, that completely removes that whole selling

point. So we’ve either sat around waiting for a bill to have workers go

through training, which would just be replicating what’s happening

across the country in other provinces, under the guise of making sure we

have a proper system to get contractors and their companies properly

registered, properly tracked….

That’s what a whole bunch of this

section is about — making sure

that those companies are acting appropriately, are part of a registry, a

publicly searchable registry so you could tell whether they were

operating properly or not, whether they’d had a permit revoked or not, a

licence revoked or not. That’s what the rest of this whole

section deals

with. But at the very front end, we have a sentence that undoes all of

that, and the minister refuses to remove it. The two simply don’t add

up.

I guess I’ll ask the minister: is the intention of the exemptions

that an exempted will not have to be part of the registry that’s further

on in these sections, that the public won’t be able to easily find out

if they’re a bad actor or not because they have an exemption? What is

the point of the exemption? What exactly are they being exempted from?

Any accountability whatsoever as a corporate entity?

That’s the whole purpose of this. It was for contractors to

actually to be held accountable in a very open and transparent, public

way. The minister has already confirmed that the employees will have to

still go through the training, whether or not the contractor is

exempted.

I don’t know how the minister can say that this is actually a

strong bill, when there’s a clause in it that gives the power to the

executive council, cabinet, to pass an order-in-council to create a

class of contractor, at their discretion, that as far as I can tell, the

only thing they will be exempted from is having anyone know how they

like to operate, whether or not they’re operating in good faith, whether

or not they’re following what they’re supposed to be following, whether

or not they’ll actually be part of that registry.

Again, to the minister, what is the point of the exemption if all

of the staff have to still go through all the training, all have to be

certified, but the contractor doesn’t have to be held accountable for

anything in the same fashion that every other contractor will? How does

that provide any safety to the public, any peace of mind for people

hiring contractors?

Why will the minister not remove this from this bill? It does not

weaken the bill at all to remove it. In fact, it strengthens the bill to

remove it, and it can always be inserted if this mythical situation the

minister keeps referring to pops up. The wording is already right there.

It would be very easy to bring forward an amendment in the future. You

already know how to word it.

Why will the minister not remove something that very clearly

weakens this legislation and just agree to remove it to make it a

stronger piece of legislation so that the public hiring contractors know

they are hiring a contractor of the highest standards when it comes to

asbestos abatement, versus one that’s been given a special override by

the minister and the cabinet?

Hon. H. Bains: First of all, it doesn’t weaken this bill at all. It doesn’t

weaken the health and safety of workers, because every asbestos

abatement contractor must be licensed.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m sure we will talk about a registry. There will be a registry

so that the public, or whoever is hiring someone to deal with the

asbestos, knows who the licensed people and the contractors in good

standing are. That’s what will determine who is in good standing. I’ve

answered this question more than a dozen times already.

P. Milobar: Then can the minister clarify: to be a part of the registry, you

do have to have a licence?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: Clause 59.09(1) says: “The board must establish and maintain a

registry that includes the following information about each person who

is or was a licensee….” It means that those whose licence has been

cancelled…. They will determine for how long they could keep that name

on. So whoever is looking at that registry to hire a contractor will

know who is licensed and who is not.

P. Milobar: Just for absolute certainty, the only way to be on the registry is

if you’re licensed as a contractor.

Hon. H. Bains: Those who have been licensed, or in the event of anybody’s licence

that has been cancelled.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s interesting, then, because the minister said, when I

was asking about the removal of the clause that would provide an

exemption, that people would know. But if you’re exempted from having a

licence, how do you wind up on the registry, then?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think that’s the power of the registry. The names will be of

those who are licensed and who were licensed sometime, but then they

will determine how long that name remains on the list. It will give the

public a reason to look at the registry and who is licensed. Is the

person that they will choose to hire…?

P. Milobar: It won’t list who’s exempted, and that’s the whole point of this.

In an industry where people sometimes stretch the truth a little to get

a job, if you’re a bad actor in the industry…. “Oh, I don’t need it. I’m

exempted. There are exemptions available. My company is exempt. Don’t

worry about it.”

Again, it’s ridiculous to me that we need to be going back and

forth about something that weakens a piece of legislation on worker

safety with this minister, of all people. I don’t challenge his life’s

work of championing safe workplaces and workers’ rights. I fully

acknowledge it and recognize it. That’s why I find it so hard to

understand.

I think if the minister thinks back…. He referenced himself when

he was a critic for Labour, as well, earlier today. If the minister

really thinks, if he was still the critic, that he would be happy about

a clause that is undefined and left to cabinet, with no circumstance

that can be referenced right now as to why it’s even needed and that

refers to an actual class of asbestos abatement contractor…. That

indicates there’s been thought to the fact that you’re going to have to

figure out, either based on size or union affiliation or not, how

exactly you get a class of one contractor that does the exact same work

as a different contractor.

I would challenge the minister to put all those years of

experience he has to listen to the answers he’s been giving to try to

justify a clause that weakens the bill. When or if there truly becomes a

problem for contractors, moving forward, a class of contractors, there’s

a relatively quick way to get that addressed.

[3:10 p.m.]

You, literally, would take the wording in 59.03(

b) and bring

forward an amendment — either in the fall sitting or in the spring, like

we are right now — likely as part of a miscellaneous stats bill, like we

have in front of us now. It would say something to the effect of workers

compensation amendment act.

All you would need to do is literally write in: “We are amending

and adding something consequential to the bill.” That would be the

description. It would be 59.03, with “adding (b),” with the same wording

you have here today. Then you’d flip forward to clause 13, which is

section 109(2)(h.1), and you would do the same thing. The amendment is

done, in the space of about a week of legislative time.

Instead, we’re getting spin and, frankly, strange justifications

to cling to something in a bill. I would think it would actually show

more strength of the minister — the Minister of Labour, the minister who

says his life’s work has been for the protection of workers — to say:

“You know what? The opposition is right. It’s not fatal to the bill to

remove it. It doesn’t weaken the bill. It strengthens the bill. It

strengthens protections for workers. It strengthens protections for the

public, who need to hire contractors. The more I think about how I’m

trying to spin a reason to keep this in the bill, the more I realize, as

this debate has gone on, that I should agree to remove it.”

To reinsert it is literally as simple as I just said. It would

just be inserting it back into the existing bill. Nothing else is being

removed out of this bill. The wording wouldn’t have to change. The

subsections wouldn’t have to change.

We deal with housekeeping amendments in this place every sitting.

The housekeeping amendment bill always has several different ministries’

worth of minor amendments that need to be done — some consequential but

still only one or two clauses. So you don’t need the full bill. They get

lumped together. That’s how easy it would be to reinsert this back

in.

I guess I’ll ask one more time. To the minister, in light of

everything we’ve discussed, in light of his own experience — admittedly,

much more than mine on this realm — this stubborn refusal to agree to

remove something that would actually strengthen a piece of legislation

for workers’ protection and the public protection defies logic. We’re in

agreement with the bill in general. We’re not in agreement with

weakening the bill to allow exemptions for some unknown class of

contractor.

By the minister’s own words, it’s not needed. He’s not planning on

using it anytime soon. He doesn’t think that he’ll ever have to use it.

So let’s just take out the guess. Let’s just get rid of it. That can be

done very simply. The minister simply needs to stand up, say he’s

willing to amend his bill and remove it in here and in clause 13 as it

relates to 109. Done. Then we could get to that royal assent, get this

bill passed and actually have a good, strong piece of legislation that

protects workers and protects the public.

The clause we’re talking about removing directly relates to the

contractor registry and the contractor’s need to actually be licensed.

That’s the part of this bill that doesn’t exist in Canada. That’s the

part of the bill that actually does make this ahead of other

jurisdictions in Canada. So let’s not dilute it. Let’s not water it

down. Let’s just agree to make a very simple amendment and move forward

with the bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

Will the minister agree, in light of all of the questions that

have been asked; in light of the fact that if you’re exempted, you

wouldn’t be on the registry; in light of the fact that if you’re

exempted, your workers still are not; in light of the fact that he can’t

even think of a situation where, he says, we need to have an exemption,

will the minister agree to remove 59.03(

b) from this bill and the

corresponding language in clause 13, 109 — whatever it was?

Hon. H. Bains: One thing I must acknowledge: that the opposition is right. The

critic is right in supporting this bill. I acknowledge that, and I want

to thank each and every one of the people that are in this House. And I

want to assure the critic, the member, that there should never be a spin

when it comes to workers’ health and safety.

It should not be politicized either, because these are our

brothers, our sisters, our sons, our daughters, our parents,

grandparents, grandkids, in many cases. So there shouldn’t be any

politics played or spin. There’s no spin here today. I don’t accuse

anyone on the other side whether they are spinning or politicizing it,

because I know they’re not.

I know that you’re just trying to do your job. If this clause was

to weaken this bill, I would not agree to put that in. It doesn’t. As

the member mentioned — that if you’re exempted, you could be a bad

actor…. First of all, bad actors will not be exempted. They will not be

licensed, even. Their licence could be gone if they’re bad actors. And

then even good actors: if they’re licensed and there’s no reason for

exemption, they will not be exempted — the reason that we haven’t

anticipated today or up until today.

I think I know what the member is trying to do here. But, Member,

this bill in its entirety is the right thing to do. This is only

enabling language. I don’t anticipate ever using it. I would say that

this bill deals with the issue that has been here for decades. And I

want to thank every member, including the member asking questions, for

the sincerity behind the questioning to protect the workers, going

forward.

Again, Members, the workers are exposed today, as they were five

years ago, ten years ago. It’ll take some time to put these provisions

in place so that the contractors, going forward, are not allowed to do

any asbestos work without being licensed and not allowed to hire anyone

who is not fully trained and certified.

That is one area…. We know that this is a changing society. We

have new immigrants. We have students who are desperate to get work, who

get exploited. I think the sooner we put this provision in place, we

will be protecting them. That’s the reason we are doing it. Anything

that weakened this bill, I would not agree to. And the clause the member

continued to come back to — I thank him for identifying it, but it

doesn’t, Member.

A. Olsen: This is a prolonged and interesting discussion that’s been going

on. I have just maybe one or two questions for the minister.

With respect to 59.03, “(

b) is in a class of asbestos abatement

contractors,” what classes of asbestos abatement contractors currently

exist? Like, what classes are already defined? Are there multiple

classes of…? Is there a variety of classes of asbestos abatement

contractors working in British Columbia today?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member for the question.

I would draw the member’s attention to

section 1, where the

“asbestos abatement contractor” definition is. There are no classes of

contractors, as we know today. So it’s just the normal language that is

being used in 59.03 — that if there is an unanticipated area of

contractors that are maybe licensed somewhere else, they could come to

us at that particular time. We don’t anticipate that there are any, but

it’s just enabling language in case that happens.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response, the answer.

Where would a class of asbestos abatement contractor be created,

then? If we’re working off a definition in

section 1, and there are

currently no classes of contractors that exist other than in the

definition of 1, and we’re creating enabling legislation and providing

the minister….

I should note that the current minister may not consider this, but

this legislation needs to exist with the reality that perhaps one day

there will be a future Minister of Labour that’s not this Minister of

Labour, who will be given and granted the same powers as this minister

has. So I think it’s important that…. In this line of questioning, what

I’m finding interesting is the longevity of it.

If there are currently no classes of asbestos contractors that

exist — we’re using

section 1 — how does a “class” of contractor come

into being?

Hon. H. Bains: I think that will be in the future, in case a number of

contractors came to us to say: “We are already registered here. We’re

already doing the work.” I can’t think of any right now. Again, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who will be deciding that.

As I’ve said earlier on, I don’t anticipate that there are going

to be any, but you always want to be open to the future in case you miss

something — just in case.

Then again, the criteria used would be what’s in the bill. The

bill requires that those who wish to do any asbestos abatement work

follow those two or three, basically, key areas. One is the licensing.

Another one is training. The other one is the registry.

So I think it’ll be through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

who at that time may create a class, may give an exemption based on

something that hasn’t been anticipated today.

[3:25 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Does this, 59.03, or somewhere else in this bill give the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability, through regulation, to

create classes of asbestos contractors?

Hon. H. Bains: I draw the member’s attention to

section 13. I think, going

forward, each one…. It does, (h.1), talk about “exempting a class of

asbestos abatement contractors from the requirement under

section 59.03

(a) [licence required] to be licensed and prescribing any conditions of

exemption.”

Clause 9 approved on division.

Clauses 10 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I just want to thank the members who participated and asked really

good questions.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:30 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 5, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

J. Brar: It is indeed an honour to rise in this House today and to talk about

the throne speech 2022, delivered in this House on Tuesday, February 8. I

will come back to the throne speech in a couple of minutes.

First of all, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to the people

of Surrey for electing me five times as their representative. That is

certainly a rare honour for me and for my family. My heartfelt thanks to the

people of Surrey-Fleetwood for giving me the opportunity to serve them and

for putting their faith in me. I exist in this House because of

them.

My special thanks to my two staff members, Navneet Kahlon and Prab

Sandhu at my Surrey-Fleetwood office, and Paige Falkins in my Victoria

office. They are exceptional people doing an excellent job serving the

people of British Columbia and helping me on a day-to-day basis.

Last, but not the least, thanks from the bottom of my heart to the

love of my life, my friend, my adviser and my beautiful wife, Rajwant Brar,

and to my daughter, Noor, my son, Fateh, for their love and unconditional

support to me during my political journey in the service of the people of

British Columbia.

Coming back to the throne speech, this throne speech highlights our

government’s plan to support people, whether they’re rebuilding after the

fires and floods, or simply getting through this difficult wave of COVID-19.

Keeping people healthy and safe through the rest of the pandemic and

building a people-centred recovery will continue to be top priorities for

the government.

Thanks to the people of British Columbia, B.C. has one of the highest

vaccination rates in North America and the strongest economic recovery in

Canada, with more people working today than when the pandemic hit our

province. That’s why our focus has been and will continue to be on investing

to help make life better for people. In the year ahead, government will

continue to improve health care, fight climate change and help communities

prepare for extreme weather, make everyday life more affordable and train

people for the jobs of the future.

More B.C. families will have access to affordable housing, child care

— as we are doubling the number of $10-a-day spaces, cutting child care fees

for many families in half and increasing the supply of homes for

middle-class families.

[3:35 p.m.]

Regular and reliable increases to the minimum wage will build on

actions to bring down the cost of living, like eliminating MSP premiums and

bridge tolls and reducing the ICBC rates by an average of almost $500 a

year. Our government knows we can’t cut our way to a better

future.

Building a strong B.C. is not about pulling back; it’s about moving us

forward together. We have been through a lot together, and no doubt, there

will be more challenges ahead. But if we look out for each other, we have

shown we can overcome anything that gets thrown our way, thanks to

hard-working people for standing together to fight unprecedented challenges

of our time, COVID-19, wildfire and floods. My special thanks to the people

of Surrey-Fleetwood for their cooperation and hard work to make this

province a better place for everyone.

Housing. Making housing more affordable remains a key priority in this

throne speech. People who live and work in B.C. should be able to afford a

safe and secure place to call home. The lack of affordable housing is

hurting people in B.C. and holding our province back. Housing affordability

is a serious and deep-rooted problem.

For 16 years, B.C. Liberals refused to build affordable housing,

allowed massive rent increases and let dirty money and speculation drive up

real estate costs. B.C. Liberals would double down on the bad choices that

created these problems, if given the chance again.

The newly elected leader of the B.C. Liberals, Kevin Falcon, has

frequently criticized our government policies designed to tackle speculation

to cool the market. During the leadership race on September 20, 2021, he

opposed the speculation and vacancy tax that has brought 18,000 rental units

into the market in Metro Vancouver — 18,000 rental units into the Metro

Vancouver market. Clearly, they haven’t learned any lesson from their past

mistakes.

Our government is working hard to tackle the housing crisis by

addressing speculation, closing loopholes and cracking down on fraud, making

renting more secure and building more affordable homes for people across

British Columbia. We put our Homes for B.C. plan in place in 2018 to work

with partners to build 114,000 affordable homes for British Columbians, with

investment of $7 billion over ten years. This is the largest investment in

affordable housing in B.C.’s history, with 32,000 homes built or on the way

already.

Similarly, our government is supporting seniors, families and low- and

middle-income earners by funding new affordable rental units through the

Building B.C. community housing fund, the first phase of 14,000 homes over

ten years. We’re funding supportive housing units for people at risk of

homelessness, helping women and children leaving violence by funding

transition housing, the first major investment in transitional housing in

more than two decades.

We also are making an historic investment in housing for Indigenous

people by funding homes both on and off reserve.

The fact is: people are still struggling to buy or rent. Here in B.C,

the biggest challenge is housing supply. With thousands of new people moving

to our province every month, that challenge is only growing. Last year

alone, 37,000 people moved from other provinces — not from other countries,

from other provinces — to B.C.

[3:40 p.m.]

I know there were times under B.C. Liberals when people from B.C. were

leaving the province and going to other provinces. But now it’s the other

way around. People are moving to B.C. That is a good problem, but it is a

problem, particularly when we talk about housing.

Madam Speaker, your government is committed to tackling it head-on. In

the year ahead, the province will work with local governments to speed up

approvals and seek new tools to curb speculation, moving more underutilized

units into the market. I’m proud to say, on housing, that we have more

housing completed or underway in three years than the B.C. Liberals built in

16 years.

On child care, providing affordable, accessible and quality child care

to families across the province is a key priority of our government, and the

throne speech speaks about it. We will continue to create thousands of child

care spaces, reduce costs for parents and support the workforce our children

rely on.

We are bringing more certainty and reliability to child care by moving

responsibility to the Ministry of Education. We’re building a future where

child care is a core service, available to every family that wants it at a

price that they can afford.

Child care is part of a child’s learning journey. It delivers

important early learning opportunities and supports future educational

successes. This move will help better prepare children to transition to the

K-to-12 system and support our work with school district partners to build a

space creation strategy, based on regional and community needs, to help make

life easier for parents. The transition will be happening this spring, and

we will have more to say as we get closer.

When our government was elected, the shortage of child care was a

crisis because of the choices that were made while Kevin Falcon was at the

cabinet table. Families are already feeling the benefits of more affordable

child care, with many parents saving more than $19,000 a year per child. By

the end of this year, we will have reduced the average cost by 50 percent

for parents of kids under six, in partnership with the federal government.

We are making great progress, and of course, there is more to do, because

nothing was done for 16 years.

Minimum wage. This throne speech also talks about tying minimum wage

to ensure B.C. workers are not left behind. Now, as much as ever, B.C.’s

lowest-paid workers need support. Many of these workers are the ones on the

front lines right now — food service staff, grocery store workers, retail

workers — and they deserve to make a fair wage in this province.

Four years ago we made a commitment to employers and working people

that the minimum wage would follow a predictable path of regular increases.

Now we are firm in that commitment. We must support both workers and

employers during this difficult time. So beginning in June 2022, all future

increases will be based on the rate of inflation. The exact amount will be

announced in the coming weeks, to give employers some time to prepare for

the increase.

We absolutely understand, recognize, the challenges businesses are

facing right now, and we continue to support them in many ways as they keep

their doors open and serve their community during the pandemic.

[3:45 p.m.]

Many businesses, including small businesses, are already paying above

minimum wage, because we have a very strong economic recovery and the best

economy in the country, so employers are willing to pay more.

This is a great throne speech. It highlights our government’s plan to

support people, whether they are rebuilding after the fires and floods or

simply getting through this difficult wave of COVID-19. Keeping people

healthy and safe through the rest of the pandemic and building a

people-centred recovery will continue to be top priorities for this

government.

I fully support this throne speech, Madam Speaker. Thanks for the

opportunity.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to stand and speak in favour of our throne speech

from the government.

This year I’m honoured to be speaking from the traditional territories

of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the

Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

Of course, it’s a big honour to be the MLA representing the folks of

Vancouver-Kensington. It’s also a great honour to be appointed as the

Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors Services and Long-Term Care.

I want to start my remarks today and recognize just the unprecedented

events that are going on across the world in Europe, in the Ukraine. You

know, the last two years have been incredible in terms of our province and

the world tackling the challenges of the once-in-a-century disease of

COVID-19. Additionally, B.C. has really faced incredible challenges on the

climate front.

Certainly, with the events unfolding in the Ukraine, I think it’s

difficult. It’s difficult to watch; it’s difficult to hear. Not only is

there a lot of suffering — the result of the illegal war that Russia has

unleashed on the people of Ukraine — but it’s suffering for the people in

Ukraine and also for communities, the diaspora around the world, and just

global citizens.

I add my sympathy, my support, my solidarity to the Ukrainian people,

who are just really demonstrating incredible courage in the face of

overwhelming military odds and, really now, an increasing onslaught against

civilian targets. It’s clearly a violation of the Geneva conventions and,

clearly, war crimes committed against the people of Ukraine by Putin and the

Russian army.

People in Ukraine continue to stand strong. In our province, I’m proud

to say, our Legislature, from all sides, really stands in unity and in

solidarity, denouncing this atrocious, violent act against the people of the

Ukraine. Our province — and everyone in government, on all sides, as well —

stands in solidarity and has taken measures to support the people of the

Ukraine. We also are continuing to work with the Canadian government, which

has recently, today, announced that they will facilitate the support of

Ukrainians coming into Canada, through various measures we have.

Canada and British Columbia have one of the largest Ukrainian

diasporas in the world. We’ll continue that support, just recognizing the

difficulty of the Ukrainian community and also of the armed forces who are

being stationed in Europe. That’s the backdrop in terms of where we are

today in discussing our throne speech, and the context. Certainly, we’re

seeing that we don’t know where it will take us on the global stage — really

changing and reordering the order that we’ve known since World War

II.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’m very pleased to speak in support of our Budget 2022. It continues

to lay down a foundation consistent with the values and commitments of our

government to support people, to invest in services that people and

communities rely on and also to ensure that, looking forward, we have an

economy that addresses issues of sustainability, that is forward-looking and

also ensures that British Columbians have opportunities to fulfil their

potential and build a sustainable economy.

Certainly, in terms of COVID-19, we’re coming on two years. With the

omicron wave, we’re still in the midst of that. We’re not sure what’s coming

next, but I want to appreciate the leadership of Dr. Bonnie Henry, all the

staff in our provincial health authorities, our Health Minister, Adrian Dix

and all health care workers across British Columbia who’ve really been

answering the call on the front lines and supporting British Columbians.

It’s much appreciated. We have that continuing challenge.

In addition, we have the dual health care crises of the poisoned drug

supply really bringing just terrible sorrow and death. You know, we’re

seeing that across the province, and I know it impacted so many, so many

families and friends that I know.

Those are challenges that our budget looks to address and to support

British Columbians coming through.

We know, as well, in terms of the context of this throne speech, the

priorities of our government laid out in our throne speech and really

meeting the challenges of what British Columbians have seen firsthand in

terms of the impact of climate and climate change and also climate

disasters, with our unprecedented wildfire season. That really ravaged many

communities across British Columbia, and the heat dome as well — a

record-setting heat dome — and the flooding, most recently. So really making

a case in terms of that it’s reflected in our throne speech, in terms of the

need to ensure that we invest and support recovery for British Columbians

who have been impacted.

We have significant commitments to support communities recovering from

wildfire, recovering from the floods, building back better, more resilient.

We’ve heard that from our Ministry of Transportation and the great work

that’s going on to build, not just to replace, our infrastructure, and to

ensure that it’s resilient and able to withstand challenges in the future.

Certainly, going forward, that’s a prime commitment of our government. It’s

going to be important, as well, right across the board, when we look at how

we prioritize investments to address adaptation and to build in

resilience.

This is the view. And it’s been my perspective…. Often we’re

criticized that elected officials are caught in the electoral cycles, every

four years, so there’s a tendency to take a short-term view. I think what’s

laid out and what has really…. I think British Columbians clearly understand

the challenge that climate change and environmental sustainability…. These

are issues that require a long-term commitment.

They run parallel to and they’re interconnected with issues around

reconciliation of our First Nations. Recently we’ve heard about the

terrible, heartbreaking stories of the discovery of the unmarked graves at

sites of former residential schools in British Columbia, in Kamloops, across

our country. I know British Columbians and Canadians were just so sorrowful

to hear about that, but it’s also a time of reckoning for us as Canadians in

terms of — to understand the impact and, really, the meaning of colonization

and to understand, I think in a deeper way, the impact of residential

schools.

It is worse, I think, maybe that most Canadians hadn’t known. When I

heard about that, when those stories came to light, I reached out and

connected with my friends who are First Nations, Indigenous, with nations,

just to connect with them.

[3:55 p.m.]

I grew up in northern Manitoba — The Pas, Manitoba. We have a Cree

Nation there, and my best friend was also from the nation. She,

coincidently, was also elected as the vice-Chief, first time, of her nation

there. They’re quite sizeable.

I talked to her, and she said: “So were you surprised to hear these

stories?” I said: “No, I’m not surprised.” I knew it would come out. I’d

been working on these issues in the early 2000s to raise awareness about

these unmarked graves. I had heard the stories from the Elders in

communities across our province, and I believed them. So I knew that it was

coming.

She informed me, as well, that in terms of…. I didn’t know in The Pas,

Manitoba, as well, that there was a residential school. It’s a central area

in terms of northern Manitoba. In addition to a residential school, there

was also what’s called a sanitorium, where Indigenous and folks from the

north, Inuit, would come to convalesce if they suffered from pneumonia, and

there was a day school there. It was like a triple whammy.

She said, to this day, there are relatives from the north who come to

The Pas looking for their lost relatives. This sanitorium had closed many

years ago, but there are still families who are searching for their lost

relatives who went, supposedly, to the hospital to recover and never

returned.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Madam Speaker, nice to see you in the chair.

Just in terms of the themes around what we’re facing: the

unprecedented reality of climate change and needing to invest in not only

rebuilding but ensuring that our communities are resilient — that we adapt

to these changes, that we’re proactive and that we’re planning for the

future — a future economy, a low-carbon economy and investing in a

value-added economy and ensuring that British Columbians have

skills.

It’s integrated with…. It’s a long-term view. That’s what I’m proud of

in terms of this budget. It looks beyond, I would say, our four-year

electoral cycle. It’s integrated with our commitment around fairness and

equality; reconciliation, which runs deep and which is required; a

commitment to equality; a commitment to opportunity for all; and a

commitment to the majority of British Columbians. So I’m proud of

that.

I want to talk about, in particular, my area of responsibility as

Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors Services and Long-Term Care. I want to

just share and reflect on my experiences over the last….

We know that seniors have been especially hard hit, particularly in

the long-term-care, assisted-living sector, really bearing the brunt in

terms of not only our elders around the world being impacted by COVID-19 —

being so vulnerable, suffering many deaths — but also the impact of measures

that we had to take. The lockdowns, the restrictions of visits had a

terrible impact on the residents, on the families and, really, incredible

pressure on the staff.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend an event, the first event in

person, pre-COVID, here at this place. Often we’re accustomed to a lot of

events and activities with different groups and organizations. So it was

really an opportunity, earlier this week, to meet at an event put on by the

B.C. Care Providers Association and to recognize the eighth annual care

providers awards and to really appreciate the work of these unheralded

workers on the front lines of our long-term-care, assisted-living sector —

nearly 50,000 in British Columbia.

I met these very impressive individuals. Clearly, their dedication,

their commitment, their passion, their love for their job, their career and

their care for seniors really came through.

[4:00 p.m.]

They’re just terrific representatives in terms of really showcasing

the dedication in that sector around supporting seniors. It’s so key. I so

appreciate them, and they really brought out the best.

One of them, in their speech, characterized it and said that their

perspective — shared by many, as well, at the event — was that they think

that it’s important, too, for them, in their care homes, for owners and for

everyone to centre seniors and to ensure that seniors have the highest

quality of life. The priority should not be a profit and should not be any

other reason. But the focus should be providing quality care for quality of

life for seniors.

I think that that really sums up, certainly, the commitment. I know

that all sides of the House won’t disagree with that — certainly in terms of

the commitment of our government, reflected in the throne speech with

respect to our investments towards seniors in the sector.

When we look at the front lines…. I also want to share what was very

striking. We asked the staff: “What was your experience during COVID?” They

said: “It was so difficult.” I have heard from families. We know it was so

difficult to be separated. It was difficult for residents.

Often it was the staff that were the only point of contact for

seniors, so really appreciating that and, in addition, really recognizing

that they went above and beyond. You know, we have a lot of seniors that

don’t have family. It is the staff who are their family — nearly 50 percent.

That’s sobering.

When we look at recognizing the role and the importance of these

workers — the staff in long-term care and assisted living — it’s recognizing

that valuing and respecting these workers is so key and critical in terms of

the provision of quality care. Our government took steps and continued to

support and reflected in the throne speech the principle of respecting and

valuing workers.

One of the examples, when we heard from the workers, was that the wage

levelling was so deeply appreciated, and workers felt that they were

respected, that they were valued and that they were supported. This was to

address the challenges in this sector. I want to talk a little bit in terms

of where this sector has been, where we are now and how the throne speech

continues to build towards these critical principles of valuing

seniors.

Twenty years ago, we know…. I do want to reference — I think it’s

timely — 2001. This was before my time. But when the previous government was

elected…. Coincidentally, it’s back to the future and back to the past. At

the time, it was the now new leader of the B.C. Liberals, Kevin Falcon, when

there was a record tax cut in 2001-2002 — a record cut tax touted. A huge

tax cut to the top 1 percent, $4.4 billion. But needing to cut services and

to cut costs in the public sector….

The seniors sector took a big brunt of those cuts to finance that top

1 percent. How did these workers in the long-term-care sector that today are

providing that important work…? So nearly 20 years ago, they lost their

jobs. They were contracted out. This work was privatized, and their wages

were cut in half. They lost pensions. Needless to say, it was the largest

layoff of women in Canadian history — really undermining that whole sector.

So that’s what we came out of.

Recognizing the need for wage levelling…. We had very disproportionate

wages across the sector. It had been deregulated because of the underfunding

previously. Our government recognized the need to address that and needed to

raise the hours per day offered per resident day for seniors.

[4:05 p.m.]

In addition, the wage levelling through the pandemic — to bring that

in to really ensure…. There were problems. There were workers who would have

a higher wage at one facility, if they were under the health authority. It

was difficult to maintain staffing. The wage levelling, combined with the

single-site order — and now it’s pairing, for paired sites — to support

workers to have a livable wage, to have pensions, to not have to go

between…. Some are going between three sites just to get enough hours,

without benefits.

These measures were taken and continue to be supported. That’s what we

heard clearly from the staff that we met and from the workers we met last

week — that these issues are so key and crucial to ensuring that they can

provide the quality support in the long-term-care and assisted-living

sector, clearly providing…. Many of them provide that sense of family for

seniors. So these are key foundations that we’re continuing.

As well, I’m very pleased and honoured to be in the role and to have

the opportunity to visit sites now where we are repatriating these workers.

They’re coming back. Dietary workers and housekeeping workers who had been

contracted out in 2001-2002 to pay for the tax cuts for the top 1 percent

are coming back in-house. It’s a great honour to be there to welcome them

back for their first day.

There’s a lot of work behind the scenes — staff in the health

authorities. There’s a lot to do to coordinate that integration. To have the

opportunity to be there on their first day back, to welcome them back, to

hear their stories and their experiences and also to convey and communicate

that the government recognizes and values the work they do, the important

work they do. To reunite them, that they’re reunited as part of the health

care team….

This is work that has been several years in the making. It’s happening

now. Vancouver Island is the first jurisdiction to see the repatriation. The

reuniting of that health care team in Vancouver…. Also, now it will continue

through this year across the Lower Mainland and also into the

Interior.

This is a clear commitment and a really important principle around

quality of care, providing quality of care and recognizing the importance of

public services, valuing these workers and the important work they do. It’s

really held up, particularly in terms of COVID, where we understand the

importance to ensure that facilities are kept clean. We sometimes forget

about those workers who are also on the front lines with those

responsibilities to ensure that facilities are clean — housekeeping and,

also, cleaning. That work is so critical.

These workers are being repatriated, coming back in under the health

authority. They had been contracted out nearly 20 years ago. What are they

seeing? One, they’re seeing their wages commensurate in terms of the health

authority. Two, they’re seeing their pensions as a principle of deferred

wages to support them in their retirement. We have a generation of workers

who have worked on the front lines in assisted living, in long-term care, in

home support, in our health care system, who have done this work on the

front lines, working hard at decreased wages and retiring now, without the

support of a pension.

It’s a long time coming, and I think it’s just, in terms of

recognizing and supporting these workers in this sector. That continues to

be a key commitment in terms of reuniting these health care teams under

health authorities.

[4:10 p.m.]

We also know, in terms of the sector, the need to invest in

infrastructure. Our government has made a commitment to end multi-bed rooms

and to put a record capital investment in terms of infrastructure and

building new beds and also renovating existing facilities.

It is interesting in terms of many of the buildings from the ’50s,

’60s and ’70s. They’re in need of renovation. It was a different time. It

was a different approach and understanding in terms what long-term care

meant, and that’s where we get a lot of the multi-bed rooms. There have just

been so many…. There’s a need in terms of upgrading the design and

renovating these facilities. So I am very pleased that we have made that

commitment and continue to work on that. That is something that has to be

built every day right across the province.

We know that there are increasing demands and challenges around

support for seniors and people suffering from dementia, Alzheimer’s and

other such ailments. So in terms of new designs, really looking at best

practices around the world…. We’re also integrating that in terms of our

approach.

In terms of our throne speech, continuing and recognizing the support

for seniors in particular, we know that Canadians are aging faster than….

We’re getting older. It’s also no surprise that British Columbia is a

destination area for seniors to retire, so we’re seeing a higher proportion

as well in terms of seniors.

We know, of course, as a national trend — and international, of course

— that seniors want to age in their homes, in their communities, in place.

We’re seeing that. We’re seeing, also, that advance of our medical system.

We’re living longer. So that’s great. But then that brings the challenges in

terms of how we ensure that seniors are supported to live healthy and are

supported in their communities. So I’m pleased with our continued

commitments.

We know that 4 percent of seniors 65 and older live in assisted-living

and long-term-care homes, so the majority of seniors are in community. We’ve

undertaken and continue to implement programs to ensure that seniors are

supported through the infrastructure in terms of access to medical services

and the expansion of our urgent care centres. Our primary care centres are a

component of that.

Part of one of the challenges as well and the role of government…. The

view is not that the government does everything or can solve their problems.

No. We need to look at how we build relationships, how we partner and,

really, the role of the community. I think that that is something in terms

of the opportunities that I’ve had to meet with seniors and to hear about

initiatives happening in communities right across the province. The concern

and, I think, the love, which I would say that all of us here in this House

know, is there in terms of our communities across the province. So

partnering with communities is key.

B.C., during the pandemic, in response to how we support seniors, the

difficulty getting out and getting to appointments…. We launched a new

program — safe seniors, stronger communities — to partner with and work with

community partners, United Way, really tapping into volunteers. I think that

it really reflects just the heart of British Columbians concerned for

seniors in their communities. I know every community across our province is

wanting to help and support, for a way to facilitate that.

The program, which was very successful…. It was volunteer. We had

close to 15,000 volunteers, as of this year, provide over one million —

either support or visit or dropped seniors off. One million to over 31,000

seniors, right? That was really…. I characterize it as….

[4:15 p.m.]

All of us know that, in terms of our communities wanting to come

together and really build community, that’s what we’re facing in terms of

when we look at what the realities are of supporting seniors, our aging

population. We’re also seeing smaller families. There’s a change in the

nature of our communities. There’s a change in neighbourhoods. Maybe not as

integrated. You know, neighbours don’t know each other as much.

There’s a need also to address that. That’s one example where I’m

really pleased in terms of the response, our continued support for that and

the partnership that is so crucial and key that our budget continues to

make.

I don’t know where the time has gone. I see it’s ticking down there

for me. I’m going to wrap up my remarks. It’s just a great privilege to be

here and to work with, right across all sides, all members of the House in

facing and taking on the challenges in British Columbia.

It has been an unprecedented time. I think that is certainly reflected

in our throne speech — prioritizing people, prioritizing communities,

ensuring that there’s access to our public services, opportunities for young

people, investing in an innovative economy. An economy that respects our

environment and takes a long-term view, as well, is key.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

R. Glumac: People call me a politician. For a long time, I struggled with that,

because I actually never had a very high view of politicians myself. Most of

my life I had that perspective. I grew up in a small town, Port Alberni, and

I spent a lot of time in the forest with my dad. My dad worked in the

forestry industry. We explored a lot of the back roads and lakes and fishing

and all of that.

I look back and ask myself: how did I make this journey from someone

who really didn’t think highly of politicians to now becoming a politician?

I think I didn’t really know much about politics. I didn’t grow up in that

kind of a lifestyle in any way. I think a lot of the people that become

politicians are motivated by something that draws them in

somehow.

For me, it was the rivers of British Columbia. I spent a lot of time

on the rivers with my dad, fishing — countless hours doing that. I worked

down in the States for a while, and when I came back to British Columbia,

the government of B.C. was embarking on this program to build these

run-of-river projects on rivers across the province.

I had an issue with that on two levels. One, it wasn’t really run of

river. It was putting a pipe on a river and diverting most of it, in some

rivers affecting the runs of the fish that were in the river. From an

environmental standpoint, it seemed like something that was good

environmentally, because it created energy, but it also had quite an

irreversible effect on the rivers. Secondly, it was a concern for me because

it was kind of like privatizing B.C. Hydro, giving very lucrative contracts

to private companies to make money off our beautiful rivers in our province.

That’s what motivated me to get involved in politics.

Now that I’ve been here for a few years, I understand. I think

everyone comes here with good intentions. I think everyone here that

represents their communities really cares about their communities. But I do

think there is a stark difference in philosophy between parties here in

British Columbia, and I wanted to spend some time trying to share what I’ve

learned about that in my time here.

[4:20 p.m.]

I think that if I had to characterize that time, the 16 years of B.C.

Liberal government in B.C., there’s quite a lot of evidence of what that

philosophy is.

When we’re talking about what we’re doing here today as a government,

a lot of what we’re doing is fixing some of the things that happened during

that 16-year period. I wanted to just walk down memory lane and give a few

examples of the kinds of things that happened during that time and what

we’re doing differently here in B.C.

I don’t know if you remember. Back in 2013, as an example, there was a

$234 million cut to health care. At the same time, there was a 4 percent

increase to MSP premiums. In 2020, our government eliminated MSP premiums.

This is the largest tax cut in B.C. history, and this is an example of this

divide that we have between our party and the opposition.

The previous government, if you remember, cancelled the weekday ferry

trips for seniors. This was restored by our government in 2018. In fact,

when you’re looking at ferry routes, ten ferry routes were cut in 2014. They

were restored by our government in 2019.

In 2002, the previous government dismantled the B.C. Human Rights

Commission. Our government restored the B.C. Human Rights Commission in

In 2001, a new B.C. Liberal government cancelled the Buy B.C. program.

This affected 1,200 companies and associations that used Buy B.C. and used

the Buy B.C. logo in their advertising. The B.C. NDP brought this back in

The previous government cancelled tuition-free adult basic education.

brought this back in 2017. In 2011, the B.C. Liberal government cut grants

for post-secondary students, including grants targeting new nurses and

residential care aides. Our government introduced the B.C. access grant to

support 40,000 low- and middle-income students in 2020.

If you remember, a lot of school PACs were raising money for

playgrounds for their kids in school. A lot of effort went into doing this

to try to raise money for playgrounds. Our government launched the

playground equipment program in 2018 to fund new playgrounds so that parents

don’t have to spend all their time raising money for that.

As you’ve heard a few times mentioned in the House, the B.C. Liberal

government only managed to build 130 beds of student housing in their entire

16 years in government. Our government has more than 5,800 new student

housing beds open or underway currently.

There was no increase to the seniors supplement on income assistance

under the previous government — no increase. Our government increased it by

more than double in 2021.

[4:25 p.m.]

There was no increase to income and disability assistance for ten

years. The B.C. Liberals froze it at $610 for a decade. Our government

increased income and disability assistance three times since 2017, adding a

total of $323 per month.

When we look back on the record on child care, they cancelled the

$14-a-day child care plan that was in place in 2002, and eliminated or

lowered subsidies for 10,500 families by raising the income threshold to

$258 a month. Meanwhile, we’re working on delivering a $20-a-day child care

plan by the end of 2022.

The list goes on. These are only a few examples. We could get into

differences in cuts in legal aid: 40 percent cuts in legal aid, mostly

poverty law and family law services, and mostly for low-income women. Our

government made a $2 million investment to open eight new legal clinics in

There was no increase to supports for foster parents for eight years

under the previous government. Our government gave foster parents and other

caregivers a raise in 2019.

We’ve been spending a lot of effort here as an NDP government dealing

with a lot of the cuts to services and health care and education that

happened under the previous government. But why did that happen? Why did the

previous government feel the need to make all these cuts? I mean, I’m sure

there are lots of reasons. It’s interesting, though.

There was an incentive program in place for B.C. Liberal ministers to

give raises to themselves to cut services. They needed to balance that

budget, and they had to do it in any way they could. When they did it, they

gave themselves a raise. That’s another thing that we changed.

Interjections.

R. Glumac: There’s a little bit of chatter going on right now.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Glumac: You probably can’t hear what they’re saying, but they’re reacting to

some of the things that are being said here. Maybe there’s a little bit of

embarrassment for the way they behaved for 16 years. I’m not sure. I know

we’re getting a little political here, obviously, but there are a lot of

things that are said here in the House, and I think you have to take some

time to talk about the reality of what’s being said.

I know that the opposition has many times said, “Oh, the B.C. NDP.

They’ve got 40 new taxes,” or whatever the number is. They’re saying that,

trying to, I think, paint a picture that these taxes are overburdening

people and all of that. But if we take a little closer look at these taxes

that they’re fighting against, well, they’re fighting against a luxury

vehicle tax on vehicles over $125,000, and there are other

examples.

These taxes are affecting the richest, most wealthy British

Columbians. They seem to have trouble with taxing the top 1 percent, for

some reason. The speculation and vacancy tax, for example, doesn’t even

apply to 99 percent of British Columbians, and it has created over 18,000

rental units in the province. The school property tax on mansions over $3

million — they don’t like that one. It raises money for affordable housing.

That’s why it’s important.

[4:30 p.m.]

The foreign buyers tax to curb speculation in the housing market —

they don’t like that one. The tax break for the top income earners, people

making more than $220,000 — we cancelled that tax break, and they’re calling

that a new tax. They don’t like that we cancelled it. They opposed all of

these changes that we’re making, but these changes are rooted in a

difference in philosophy. They took money out of ICBC to balance the budget.

They almost blew up ICBC on their way out. We fixed it. They took money out

of B.C. Hydro.

We ended the bridge tolls. We eliminated the MSP premiums. There is a

difference in philosophy here, and it’s important to understand that. What

we’re trying to do is run a strong economy, a strong province, while also

maintaining those services and improving those services in our

province.

Now, it’s important to talk about the past, that 16 year-period,

because the past has not left us. The past is coming back. The past is

coming back with their new leader, Kevin Falcon, who drags all of that

record with him. All of the decisions that were made during that time — he

was there, and he wants to do it again. It’s important to understand that.

It’s important to understand what their new leadership wants to do, in going

backwards to that 16-year period.

You have to remember that in 2009, as Health Minister, Kevin Falcon

cut funding for hospitals, and they had health authorities absorb $360

million in cuts. What effect did this have? This resulted in a reduction of

thousands of MRIs, surgeries and cuts to programs designed to help people

keep out of acute care. When there were questions around a two-tier health

care system, that Health Minister said: “I don’t have any philosophical

objection to it.” That’s where we’re going with their new

leadership.

I mentioned earlier the things that they did to try to balance the

budget so they could give themselves raises. It was as Finance Minister, in

the 2012-2013 budget — to give you an example — he raided $213 million from

B.C. Hydro. He forecast a raid of almost $500 million over three years from

ICBC. He initiated a fire sale that eventually sold $1 billion of public

land. Much of that land was sold for far less than assessed value, and if

you take a look at who that land was sold to, you might find some connection

to donors — rich donors.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth in

2012, speaking about the budget, said, “This will hurt people who are poor

or vulnerable” — the people that we’re caring for today.

[4:35 p.m.]

When he was in cabinet, the B.C. Liberals cut funding to schools and

refused to build new schools in growing communities. At the same time, if

you remember, they fought in court with teachers around class

sizes.

When their new leader was in cabinet, they cut $187 million from child

protection and Family Development. They cut $34.5 million from youth

justice, youth services and youth and child mental health. They cut $15.6

million in childhood development and special needs services for kids. This

is the philosophy that they’re carrying forward with their new

leadership.

In 2001, Kevin Falcon and the B.C. Liberals…. Even though, during the

election, they made a promise not to give a tax break to the top income

earners, they did anyway. They left a $4.4 billion hole in the provincial

budget. The only way you can fill that hole is to cut services for B.C.

families. That’s what we’re going back to with their leadership.

In 2017, our government cancelled those tax cuts to the top 1 percent.

We were able to reinvest in the services that were cut at that

time.

Here we are today. You know, under 12 years when Kevin Falcon was in

cabinet, wages increased an average of 50 cents a year. Under our

government, wages have grown twice as fast. Since being elected in 2017,

wages are up $6.05 per hour. This difference in philosophy we are capturing

in our new economic plan.

If you look at where we are today, our province is leading the country

economically. There are great projections for jobs coming to our province.

Our economic plan is set in place to make sure that as our economy grows,

it’s going to grow in a way that’s inclusive for all people of British

Columbia. It’s going to grow in a way where we’re embracing a clean

growth.

There are six main missions involved in our economic plan. One is

advancing true, lasting and meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous

peoples. One is meeting B.C.’s climate commitments. Another is leading on

environmental and social responsibility, fostering innovation across o