British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, April 16, 2015 (40th Parliament, 4th Session) (20150416pm-Hansard-v23n5) (20150416pm Hansard v23n5)

20150416pm-Hansard-v23n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Thursday, April 16, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Volume 23, Number 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Thursday, April 16, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Page Speaker’s Statement ................................................................................................................................................................. 7297 Requirement for respectful debate Personal Statement .................................................................................................................................................................. 7297 Apology for comments made in the House B.

Routley Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 7297 Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7297 R.

Sultan Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 7297 Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015 (continued) B. Routley D. Barnett J. Darcy G. Heyman Hon. S. Bond Bill 21 — Fish and Seafood Act Hon. N. Letnick G. Holman V . Huntington Hon. N.

Letnick Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7310 Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Hon. T. Stone C. Trevena V . Huntington Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7328 Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued) N. Macdonald Hon. B. Bennett

THURSDAY , APRIL 16, 2015 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Speaker’s Statement REQUIREMENT FOR RESPECTFUL DEBATE Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members. I have reviewed the transcript of remarks by the mem- ber for Cowichan Valley prior to the noon adjournment. The rules governing parliamentary debate require that members’ comments are respectful of this institution and of each other. Parliamentary debate can, at times, evoke considerable emotion and passion.

However, as Speaker, I will ensure that members do not resort to disrespectful conduct or personal allegation, be they directed to indi - vidual members or groups of members. This legislative chamber is the heart of our parliament- ary democracy in British Columbia. All members must contribute to debate without using language that impairs the dignity of our proceedings. Personal Statement APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE B. Routley: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I apologize unreservedly if I have offended or hurt any- one with my comments or statements, particularly you, Speaker, and, I know, the member from Prince George. I apologize for my statements. Routine Business Introductions by Members A. Dix: I had the pleasure just a few minutes ago of meeting a class of students from David Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver. They were unbeliev - ably enthusiastic, I have to say, even at meeting govern - ment MLAs, never mind opposition MLAs. It was great to have them there.

I think one of the remarkable things that we do togeth- er in this Legislature is to greet people who come here and who find, in the institutions that we represent here, real excitement and even express their willingness to stand for office here one day. On behalf of all members, we want to wish the students from David Thompson our very best for a visit in Victoria. [1335] R. Sultan: I seek leave to present a petition. Leave granted. Petitions R.

Sultan: Emily Kelsall is a student in grade 11 at Collingwood School in West Vancouver, and she has col- lected 165 signatures on a petition which reads: “The petition of the undersigned, the youth of West V ancouver– Capilano, states that the Port Metro Vancouver’s proposal to increase exports of American thermal coal through the Fraser Surrey Docks coal transfer facility by eight million tonnes annually would pose extensive risks to the health and well-being of the com- munities in proximity to rail lines, port facilities and power plants. ” Dated the 30th of March. Orders of the Day Hon. M.

Polak: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Second Reading of Bills BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 (continued) B. Routley: Again, I’ d like to reiterate that we will be supporting this bill and these changes as a move in the right direction. The steelworkers did leave the recent hearings, and I’m extremely concerned about that and the impact that has not only on this kind of legislation but on the over - all getting to the truth of the matter.

While the Babine inquest is scheduled for July of this year, the Lakeland inquest began on the 5th of March. The steelworkers tell me that from the outset they have had strong concerns that the inquest would be limited in its ability to deter - mine the causes of the explosion and the circumstances leading up to it. At no time have the steelworkers believed that there was ever the proper venue to determine the entire cause of the explosions or how both investigations were so badly botched.

Nevertheless, the steelworkers believed that it was important to participate and do our utmost to help uncover as much of the truth as possible in this coroner’s hearing. Sadly, the inquest thus far has failed to produce the truth. At the outset, John Rogers, legal counsel from Victory Square, who was acting on behalf of the wood - workers and their families through the steelworkers, en- deavoured to ensure there was a full hearing of the facts, including the regulatory environment administered by WorkSafe B.C.

They wanted to ensure that that was fully canvassed, despite the fact that they were ruled against by the coroner in their request to subpoena the former 7297

British Columbia Debates7298 Thursday, April 16, 2015 CEO of WorkSafe, David Anderson, and other senior management. The steelworkers complain that they’ve been thwarted in their efforts to ensure the coroner’s jury would have the full ability to see all pertinent documents, and their counsel wanted the opportunity to cross-examine all ap- propriate individuals. Instead, the steelworkers felt that there was a kind of defensive posturing by Lakeland’s legal representatives and, in particular, those repre - senting WorkSafe B.C.

They believe that the inquest es - sentially ground to a halt and has led to the workers’ representatives withdrawing, which I believe is a sad state of affairs. Again, the purpose of the legislation and the recom - mendations of Macatee and others to make improvements is definitely worthwhile, so this bill can be supported in that regard. But I’m concerned when I hear that the work- ers’ representatives are saying…. And Mr. Steve Hunt was going to give testimony.

In advance of his testimony, it had been made abundantly clear by WorkSafe B.C. that they were essentially going to take actions to avoid any scrutiny of what happened in previous events in the time- line leading up to the events and the accident. [1340] Any of us that have been involved in accident investiga- tions….

And that certainly has been something that I’ve done in my career as safety chairman of a mill with 550 employees, to ensure that the accident was thoroughly investigated and that we didn’t simply conclude at the end of the day that the worker was at fault — which, by the way, is obviously something that is an easy conclu - sion to come to. Y ou know: the worker stumbled into the hole. Well, wait a minute, why was the hole there? Don’t we need to fix the hole rather than saying: “Well, what was the worker thinking stumbling into the hole?” That’s a simple example of the kind of problem.

The Steelworkers say they cannot lend credence to a process that they feel is fundamentally flawed and fails to ask the most critical questions to get to the bottom of the root causes to ensure that this kind of situation doesn’t happen again. I think we can all acknowledge that that would be a worthwhile endeavour, indeed — to really get to the bottom of it. It should be one of the absolute demands that the pro- cess be transparent and thorough and that there should be nothing withheld. There should be no blockages or walls that the workers’ representatives should have to try to plow through or go over.

They should be torn down. The authorities responsible should be doing everything to work with the workers’ representative. Apparently, my understanding is that isn’t happening. That’s why, I’m told, the Steelworkers’ position at this point is to call for a public inquiry, and they’re asking other unions and the public involved to join with that. I was also told by the president of the Steelworkers that he, too, supported the amendments that were being made as a move in the right direction, that there were definitely some good parts to the new legislation that make it worthwhile, in a sense.

But it’s unfortunate that at this juncture, when workers in both of those mills sim- ply want to get to the bottom of exactly what transpired. Hon. Speaker, I’ll leave it to you to determine…. I do very much respect your views and your opinion. I’m do- ing my best to be very careful with my words as a result of my noonhour reprimand that I should be careful in how I convey my emotions and my concerns about these matters.

I do want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that if you’re a worker and you feel somewhat power - less by the system, if you’re a worker and you discov - er — whether it’s on a non-union site or, in this case, a unionized site — that the workers’ needs and concerns and questions can’t be addressed or will not be addressed, that leads to a feeling that the system is somehow flawed and unfair. I hope that you would see it from the context of how a worker might feel, if you imagined yourself walking through that plant gate every day and, essentially, having no power.

When you walk through that gate, you hang your rights at the door to any say in, ultimately, how all of the rules and regulations are going to be developed. Y ou might have a say in the lunchroom. They might come and ask you what you think, but ultimately, the rules and the regulations are going to be written by somebody with higher authority. When we have a situation like this, clearly, the system failed somehow. There’s no question about that. Now, is it in multiple ways? Will we ever get to the bottom of the fact that at the hearing there was evidence given that the dust explosions were known about?

I was surprised to read in the note from the Steelworkers that there was even a fireball at the mill prior to the ultimate explosion. There had been another event that had not been proper- ly…. When you have an event that could potentially lead to injury or even death, there’s an obligation to report that to WorkSafe B.C., or the Workers Compensation Board. That didn’t happen. [1345] There are a number of errors and omissions that, tra - gically, can lead to a death. I have seen that before — simple errors or omissions. I can use the example in the Y oubou mill, where there was a tipple table.

They forgot to put a strap cable and bolt it to the ceiling. They should, at the end of the shift, have a brand-new tipple table. The evidence that came out later was: “Y es, we knew we were supposed to put a cable there and a clamp, and we were supposed to be able to clamp it to the ceiling with ¾-inch cable. ” But it was a new system, and the evidence was that it was an error or an omission — that they had simply forgot to do it at the end of the shift. Tragically, the next morning an 18-year-old young man showed up for work with his wheelbarrow and his

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7299 rake and his shovel, walked underneath a 2½-tonne tip- ple table, touched a pencil whisker switch — just touched it with his rake — and down came 2½ tonnes of steel and squashed him like a bug. I got called. It was in the middle of the night. I got called, and they said: “We need you, as safety chairman, to come down here right away. There’s been a fatality. ” When I went into that mill and walked down the walk - way and saw this figure draped with a millwright’s blan- ket, essentially, my heart sunk. I realized that he was still trapped.

It was a horrible, outrageous situation to witness and to be involved with. The poor millwrights were trying to figure out wheth- er to activate the machine and literally start it up so you could lift him out of there — it was like a mousetrap — or if they were going to cut bolts and nuts and try to tear the machine apart. Anyway, I know I’m straying, but I’m making the point, I hope, that without due diligence…. This bill starts to talk about compliance and enforcement. Y ou know, my mistake today…. Let me use myself as an example. Us human beings are, after all, human.

We don’t always do the right thing, and I apologize again. I don’t want to offend people or hurt people, but some- times I have a way of going above and beyond, and again, for that I’m truly regretful and sorry. I want you to know that I’m trying to emphasize in the strongest possible terms, and I don’t mean hurtful terms, that what work - ers need and want is to have a listening ear — to be able to get to the bottom…. It’s not about just pointing fingers of blame. It’s not about just punishment, but there is such a thing as being accountable. For example, I think I was held pretty well accountable today.

I don’t want another one of those trips down the hall to see the Speaker, so I’ll be behaving my- self more carefully in the future. The reality is that’s what sometimes has to happen, I would suggest — even to management. Even though managers are wonderful people, it’s sad but true that sometimes somebody needs to overlook them. They get busy, and again, it’s not out of ill will or bad intention. Often it is those errors and omissions that just come with day-to-day life that, being human beings, allow people to stray away and get their thoughts pulled away from an issue like the dust thing.

Again, after having one explosion, though, I would have thought everyone would have been on red alert throughout the province of British Columbia. I’m sorry if that offends people that I think that, but I’m sure that most workers, particularly after the Babine explosion, would be saying: “Whoa, if I work at a workplace…. ” Apparently, that did happen. There were phone calls made by workers saying: “We don’t want to be the next Babine. ” Again, this starts to move in the direction that is help- ful and will be helpful for forest workers and their fam - ilies. Does it go far enough?

No, I don’t think it does go far enough. There are ideas that we have on ways that we can get even more improvements. [1350] Some of the ways of finding those improvements would be to have a proper commission into this event and get some transparency and some discussion amongst all of the stakeholders on how we can better work together. It is important to say at this juncture that it’s not with - out notice that there are not enough forest workers or not enough workers in general who are holding roles of importance at any of the….

Whether it be WorkSafe or workers compensation, there seems to be a bent towards more management positions. Again, that’s what I’m told by the workers. They tell me it’s been their experience that they feel like they’re a voice in the wilderness sometimes in trying to talk about the issues that are critical to workers and their families. And nothing could be…. I have a lot of respect for a guy named Reynold Hert. He was a Western Forest Products manager. He came to the Cowichan Valley, but he also represented a lot of people in Western Forest Products mills as the CEO.

He had an amazing attitude towards safety that was re - freshing. It was like a breath of fresh air to have him walk around…. I was actually there at one of his sawmill lunchroom talks to the workers, and he said: “Safety is not just something that we do; it’s something we have to own. ” He said he believes that as a result of working safer, we’re going to have not only more people go home with less injuries and/or, potentially, fatalities, but it’s good for business too.

He urged the workers to shut down. “If you see something unsafe, you shut down, and do the right thing. ” That was very rare to see that kind of thing. I do want to conclude by saying that I hope that as a result of this discussion or this debate, there will be some more thought into the potential for a full commission. We need a public inquiry into this matter to get to the bottom of it. That’s certainly what I’ve heard that the workers are calling for, as late as this morning. It’s alarming that things are unfolding as they are.

I’m sure the minister and others are paying attention to these events and what’s going on. If they come to the conclusion, as I have, that there is something very wrong…. Again, I understand there was an internal report done by the company, which was offered to WorkSafe in the event of one of these fires, and WorkSafe declined it on the basis that they were re- viewing other matters. There are a lot of these things that, to me, are a mystery. I don’t understand some of the information that I’ve been given and how it’s possible that we couldn’t be using ex- haustive efforts to get to the bottom of this.

For the sake of those workers and the families, we need to do our best. D. Barnett: I am pleased today to stand here to sup - port Bill 9, entitled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015.

British Columbia Debates7300 Thursday, April 16, 2015 For those of us that have been around for a few years, been employers and have worked for people — in my world, safety has always been number one with the em - ployer and with the employee. We have a society today that has all kinds of different people — employers, employees. Some communicate, and some don’t. But there is no one that I know — and I have the utmost respect for unions, for employees and employers — that would do anything to harm an employ- ee, a visitor or anyone else coming to their establishment.

We are all human beings, and there are incidents that happen in this world. No matter how much legislation you pass, how many regulations or laws you have, there will be incidents, because we are human beings. [1355] I am proud that our minister has done so much work over the past two years to improve the quality of life for workers, for employees, and has collaborated to put people together to understand what human life is about. I can speak from the heart. My dad, back in the early days of sawmilling, on Knight Street with Wellwood, fell in a chipper. My dad’s legs were cut off here. We got a phone call.

It was devastating, but the support that we got from the employees, from the employers, from Workers Compensation — it was called at that time — was amazing. [D. Horne in the chair.] My dad was a stubborn guy. My dad, a year after he had lost his legs here…. I can still see him, when I went to the hospital and they told us he might not live. He looked up, and he said: “Don’t worry, Sis. We’ll be dancing in a year. ” And we did. They retrained my dad. He didn’t give up. He went to work in another part of the mill, and he had an office job.

My dad lived a good life, with the support of Workers Compensation and his employer. Today, as we stand here, this is not pointing fingers. This is about learning, and this is about moving forward and making life better for all of us. When I look at the cor- oner’s inquest…. I understand the coroner’s inquest. They will come out with recommendations, and they will find the cause. We have all learned from this. We have all been hurt from this. Families have been desecrated, decimated, but yelling and pointing fingers is not what we must do. When I look at Mr.

Macatee’s report, he has made 43 recommendations outlined in the action plan. Twelve require legislative changes in order to be implemented. And they will be. WorkSafe B.C. has its issues. As one of my colleagues across the way said, they get people coming to their of - fice who are claimants that are having difficulty getting their cheques. We all as MLAs do what we can to work through this to help people. Sometimes there’s a good reason for them not getting a cheque. Sometimes it’s not the right thing that WorkSafe has done, but it is corrected.

I can’t say enough about how important it is that we work together and we understand human life, we under- stand tragedy, and we understand legislation. Our job as legislators in this great House is to help improve the qual- ity of life. It is to help put rules and regulations in place, and it’s to help see that they are implemented. But I can- not say it enough. Human errors and human life are most important, and there will always be incidents in this prov- ince and in this country that are unforeseen. J. Darcy: I am pleased to stand today to speak in sup- port of Bill 9.

I think we all know, in this chamber, and I think people know right across British Columbia of the hor - rific events that happened at the Babine and Lakeland mill explosions that cost four workers their lives, that injured 42 others — perhaps one of the worst indict - ments of WorkSafe B.C. and of the lack of proper health and safety protections, the lack of sufficient occupational health and safety inspections in this province. I rise to support this bill because it begins…. It be - gins.

It’s a first step to fixing some of the systemic lapses in workplace safety that frankly — and it must be said — were caused, in part, by a decade of neglect by this B.C. Liberal government of issues related to workplace health and safety. [1400] This bill, following up on the Macatee report released last year, takes some important steps forward to address- ing some very, very grave concerns. The bill will provide a range of new safety enforcement tools. It will shorten the process for finalizing financial penalties to improve their effectiveness as an enforcement tool.

It will ensure more timely employer investigations of workplace inci - dents and reports. It will enhance workplace safety exper- tise on the WorkSafe B.C. board of directors in the area of occupational health and safety and in the area of law and law enforcement. Those are certainly important steps forward, but let’s be very clear why this issue is in front of us today. Let’s be very clear that WorkSafe B.C. has one main job. It has one main job. It exists for the purposes of keeping work- ers safe. It exists to help ensure that workers are able to return to their families at night safe, whole — alive.

The workers who worked in these mills and the fam - ilies of the workers who worked in these mills — I’ve had the opportunity to meet with them. I know the minis - ter has. People on both sides of this House have had the opportunity to meet with them. They have said to me over and over again: “Y ou know, it wasn’t a secret. It was known that dust in these mills was a hazard. ” Workers had gone to the employers. They had raised these issues. It was known throughout the industry.

Despite the fact that people were pointing to wood dust as a factor in the first mill fire and were certainly speaking out in the days that followed it, the time before

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7301 action was actually taken in mills across the province was far too long. Then we were faced with another hor - rific mill fire that again killed workers, that again meant that workers would not be returning at night to their families and their loved ones. This is despite the fact that WorkSafe had received a briefing from a U.S. expert in 2010 — 2010 — about the dangers of wood dust.

The WorkSafe report that was issued a year ago found very clearly that sawdust was a factor in the explosion at Lakeland that killed Glenn Roche and Alan Little and left 14 others critically injured, and it also found that it was preventable. It was preventable. It also determined the same with the Babine explosion that killed Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie. Those deaths were preventable. This bill moves us forward. Unquestionably, it moves us forward. But we have an awful lot of moving forward to do, it must be said.

It must be said that we have to look at the context in which these fires and these tragic deaths and these injuries that will scar workers physically and emotionally for life took place. I think it is appropriate, and I will say it calmly. It must be said that we’ve had a decade of action by this government that has contribut - ed to workplaces across British Columbia becoming less safe for workers — less safe for workers. As part of the B.C. Liberal government’s deregulation exercise, WorkSafe B.C. was asked to cut health and safety regulations by a third.

WorkSafe B.C. exists to keep work- ers safe and for no other reason. Under the B.C. Liberals, WorkSafe B.C. made major cuts to its staff and to services. [1405] In 2002 alone the budget of WorkSafe B.C. was reduced by 12 percent, a move that resulted in office closures and a 30 percent reduction in site visits by prevention officers. I know that many of the people who work for WorkSafe B.C. are not happy about this. They’ve wanted, in the past decade, to be able to do their jobs more effectively. But with those kinds of cuts, those kinds of staffing levels, it gets harder and harder.

Under this government WorkSafe B.C. drastically re - duced inspection reports — down 45 percent just from 2002 to 2004. Written orders were down 49 percent in that two-year period; employer penalties, down 36 per - cent just in a two-year period. Also in 2002, when some of these more sweeping chan- ges were made to workers compensation, the government virtually eliminated…. Virtually all loss of earnings pen - sions for permanently injured or ill workers were elimin- ated.

As a result, the annual number of loss of earnings pensions awarded dropped from 927 to only 39 in a few- year period, and the average value of those pensions was also reduced. Again, going back over a decade. But this is part of the context, and we can’t ignore it. We can’t sweep it under the table. We can’t refuse to recognize it or talk about it. In 2002 the government also made significant changes to the Workers Compensation Act which made it almost impossible for police officers or other emergency work - ers to access stress-related compensation.

For many of the workers, the survivors of these mill fires, that’s what they’re living with — post-traumatic stress disorder, which also affects many other occupations, like police, like firefighters, like ambulance paramedics. At the same time that the government made these cost- saving changes to reduce the amount of compensation paid to workers, they set employer premium rates that were at the lowest level in 30 years — the lowest level.

Some of my colleagues who spoke to this bill earlier today asked the question, and I ask the question as well as these workers — as the survivors of the mill fire did, as their families have, as working people across B.C. have — why did these fires happen? The answer is clear: because profits came before safety. Profits came before safety. Warnings were ignored, warnings by some of the same workers who were severely injured in those fires. I’ve spoken with them. I’ve heard the stories of the people they went to and told about the hazards and said something needed to be done, that were ignored.

It is for all of us an incredibly moving experience to speak with some of these workers, to meet them person- ally, to meet with the widows, to meet with family mem- bers of the workers who were killed or severely injured — injured physically, injured emotionally — for life. I want to say in this House that these workers, these sur - vivors, their widows, their children, their relatives have shown remarkable courage over these last few years since they lost their loved ones.

The workers who survived that fire live with memories that will never, ever go away of what happened that day when the workplace that they were accustomed to going to every day turned into a fireball, when they saw their co-workers incinerated. [1410] Some of the workers who survived, some who were most severely injured, dragged as many of their co-work- ers to safety as they possibly could before they were over- come. They suffered incredibly serious burns and trauma as a result. Some of those workers, many of those work - ers, remain traumatized to this day.

It also must be said that some of the workers who sur- vived that fire with severe burns to most of their body and severe trauma are diagnosed as suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder. We’ve heard those words so many times in recent years that sometimes, maybe, we’ve become inured to what they mean. But imagine how it scars the psyche, the well-being and the emotional health, not to mention the physical health, of these workers to have experienced what they did. Y et some of those workers suffering today from PTSD have, in the intervening time since the fire, actually been victimized again.

Some have been followed, some have been videotaped, and it’s wrong. It’s wrong. They were

British Columbia Debates7302 Thursday, April 16, 2015 victimized. They were victimized so severely in that fire, and their families were, and some of them continue to be victimized as they fight for justice today. Despite that, these same workers stand up, speak out, travel the province, attend the inquest and give their heart and their soul to get justice not just for themselves but, also, to do everything in their power to ensure that what happened to them, and to their co-workers who died, doesn’t ever happen again.

Despite the unspeakable grief experienced by wives and family members — daughters, sons, sisters, brothers…. Despite the unspeakable grief and horror that they live with — because they have learned so much about exactly what happened to their loved ones…. They are learning more all the time. Despite them living with the horror of what happened to their loved ones, they continue to have the courage to speak out for justice. And so should we. We owe it to them. We owe it to those workers who lost their lives. We owe it to those workers who’ve been injured for life.

We owe it to the families whose husbands and fathers and sisters and brothers didn’t come home at night. Those families are still seeking justice. They are still seeking a public inquiry in order to finally, decisively, get to the bottom of what happened and why. They’ve said to me, as I’m sure they’ve said to the min- ister and as I know they’ve said to many people in this House, that nothing will ever bring back their loved ones. Nothing will ever fill that hole in their lives.

But know - ing what happened, a public inquiry that digs deep, that can ask every question, that can call any witness, that can truly get to the bottom of why these horrific fires hap - pened and why these workers were injured and killed…. They deserve justice, and they don’t have it yet. In conclusion, let me say that this bill is a step forward. I will certainly be voting for it, as I know my colleagues on this side of the House will. But I will also say that these workers and their families deserve much, much, much more. They deserve better than this.

Workers across British Columbia deserve better than this. [1415] Too many workers still go to work every day and are often forced, through pressures of various sorts, to make unacceptable choices about whether they’re going to keep their job, stay on the job or come home safe and whole. Workers make those unacceptable choices every day, and families have the right to know that their loved ones will return to their families whole, safe, alive. I will be supporting this bill, but I think we should all say in this House, on both sides of this House, that this bill is the beginning.

It’s not the end; it’s the beginning. I would hope that everyone in this House would join together in a solemn commitment to the workers from Lakeland and Babine, join together in a solemn commit- ment to the families and the survivors of those workers, that we will stand with them. We will stand with them as they continue to seek justice. These workers are calling for an independent review. Their family members are calling for an independent re- view. Right across this province workers and the organ - izations, the unions, that represent them are calling for an independent review. Let’s support that call.

The memory of these workers deserves no less. G. Heyman: Let me begin by saying that along with my other colleagues, we will support this bill because it’s better than what we currently have. It’s a step forward, and over the course of this debate and committee stage we will discuss whether it could be improved, whether it should be improved. Whatever the outcome of that de - bate, the end result hopefully of this bill, once it’s passed, will be better than what we’ve experienced for the last 13 or 14 years.

As I begin my remarks, I want to talk a little bit per - sonally about my own experience in the areas of occu - pational health and safety — in fact, in the workforce. I spent much of my working life, about 15 years of my working life, in the logging industry directly or in jobs that were related to the logging industry which put me on logging sites. I know what it’s like to work in operations where there is a culture of safety and an attention to safety that’s en- trenched, and there’s a real commitment.

The measures are taken that ensure that together managers and work - ers meet regularly to review practices and ensure that the workplace is safe, the conditions are safe and the prac - tices are safe.

I also know what it’s like to work in operations where that is not the culture; where danger is ever-present; where, frankly, going to work is frightening and life- threatening; and where there is a high degree of intimi - dation of workers who stand up for their rights — most importantly among those rights being the right to return home to their families whole: whole in body, whole in mind, in order to, with their families, see the growth of their children and eventually retire in health and enjoy their children and grandchildren.

I also spent probably 20 years of my life in negotiat - ing health and safety language in collective agreements; teaching health and safety courses; serving on regu - lation consideration and advisory committees for the Workers Compensation Board in British Columbia; serv- ing on the board of directors of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety; and ultimately, serving on the board of directors of the Workers Compensation Board.

I know what it takes to develop a culture and a system of ensuring that workers are safe and, where regrettable ac- cidents take place, that workers are properly compensated. [1420] My own interest in this field is quite simple. When I was in my 20s, I was a faller. I injured my back. I filed a workers compensation claim. Three days later I was fired.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7303 I did get my job back. I think it’s pretty evident that it should be — and is — difficult to get away with firing somebody for filing a workers compensation claim when they’re clearly injured. But this was not a small employer. This was a large employer that should have known better. Their manager should have known better. There should have been more respect for the obvious, yet there wasn’t. Like many people who have taken an active interest in workers’ health and safety, we came to it from our own experience, and we came to it with a determination to try to do our best to see (

a) that other workers were not injured and (

b) that if workers were injured, they were treated fairly. That’s my background. Having said that, let me talk a little bit about what I’ve seen, as somebody with an interest in the field, somebody charged with making regulations, somebody charged with overseeing, ultimately, a system that both regulated health and safety in the workplace and the compensa - tion of workers. I know that there is constant tension in the history of what workers compensation is in British Columbia. It’s referred to as a historic compromise.

The compromise is that employers are protected from suit by individual workers and the possibility of having to pay millions of dollars in compensation, depending on the outcome of the suit, for a form of collective insurance. The com - promise by workers is they give up the right to sue for no-fault insurance.

Notwithstanding this history, notwithstanding the fact that it’s still entrenched in law in British Columbia, I know firsthand what the pressure from employers looks like: the pressure to limit the basis of claims; to limit the size of claims; to rush workers through a rehabilitation process and force them back to work, sometimes before they’re ready; to not admit certain categories of occupa- tional injury, illness and disease until finally the evidence becomes so preponderant that there’s no choice but to recognize those. Workplace cancers are one example.

The risk of injury from workplace violence is another example. During my career it went from complete refusal to admit that work- place violence was even a problem or a source of com - pensable injury to actually taking measures to require employers to address these. Repetitive strain injuries from either lifting or bad ergonomics is another clear ex- ample. Post-traumatic stress disorder is another example. We have seen some gains made in these areas.

But, every step of the way, the tension was always with recog- nizing injury to workers, sometimes cataclysmic injury — although not necessarily the kind of cataclysmic injury we think of with the Lakeland and Babine fires, where workers are killed — things that affect workers emotion - ally and psychologically for the rest of their lives, impin- ging on their ability to maintain relationships, impinging on their ability to enjoy life, impinging on their ability to enjoy their children and families or perhaps having to live with pain for their whole life due to back injuries or other forms of injury.

On the other side of that tension is the categorization of Workers Compensation Board premiums as a payroll tax. They’re not a payroll tax. They’re an insurance premium. In British Columbia, where we have a board charged with regulation as well as with compensation — and prevention activities, in addition to regulation and com- pensation — there’s a reason for that.

The reason is that there’s a direct link between learning from the cost of compensation and taking the steps necessary to protect workers’ health and safety and therefore limit the amount of compensation that will be paid. [1425] Other speakers before me on this side of the House have talked about some of the changes and pressures on compensation, the limiting of pensions in the case of workers who have been injured, both in terms of quan - tum and how many are actually awarded.

It’s critically important in protecting workers’ health and safety that the system not be subject, or be subject at least on as limited a basis as possible, to the kinds of pres- sures where employers or industry or corporations come forward and say: “We can’t afford to do business with these onerous regulations. We can’t afford to do business if the cost of compensation rises this high. ” I know from my experience at the Workers Compensation Board that if that’s the attitude you take, you end up with cycles that look like this.

I realize that hand gestures do not suffice to a written transcript, but if you can imagine a wave that goes up and down and up and down, that’s what it looks like. If you don’t ensure that there’s proper regulation of workplace safety because somehow it’s deemed too ex - pensive, if you suppress claims, eventually you end up with more injuries and eventually you end up with those claims, at least some of them, being upheld on appeal and you see the costs rise.

So when employers complain that their premiums are too high, what they’re really saying is: “Our premiums are high because we have a bad insurance record and we’re a bad insurance risk.

Rather than make ourselves a bet - ter insurance risk, we just want to change the rules of the game to keep the premiums low, and other people will have to suffer the consequences. ” There’s something wrong with our values and our compensation in an economic system that sees heads of large corporations awarded massive amounts of sev - erance when they’re shown the door for failing in their duty and workers who are injured and can’t return to the gainful employment they formerly held are forced to choose employment that pays much less, are denied adequate compensation for the difference, are denied enough time to recuperate and be able to do their work and are denied the compensation or pensions that should go with their injuries.

British Columbia Debates7304 Thursday, April 16, 2015 Underlying all of this is the simple fact…. Notwithstanding the statement of the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin that we’re humans and that injuries will always happen — there’s a grain of truth in that — the truth is that fewer injuries will happen if we take the pre- cautionary principle and we make an underlying value of the workplace that it is a worker’s right, it’s their family’s right, to work in the safest possible environment.

That’s simply the cost of doing business, and it’s not a cost that companies should be allowed to pressure governments to find a way out of. We will support this bill. This bill addresses serious issues, and it is a step forward. But this bill is a result of some history. This bill is a result of history that began in 2001. Let me talk a little bit about what a system of regulating workplaces that is based on evidence and science and a reasoned dialogue between employers and worker repre- sentatives looks like.

It looks like collecting evidence, em- ploying researchers to evaluate that evidence, looking at experience and deciding what level of protection is abso- lutely necessary to protect people and then allowing that decision to be implemented.

I had the experience — on a board that had a gov - ernment representative, a couple of independent repre - sentatives, a worker representative which was myself and an employer representative who was chosen from the Business Council of B.C. — of having those dialogues and finding myself more often than not reaching an agree - ment with the employer representative based on conver- sations we had which went like this: if we ignore evidence, we can never trust each other and nobody can ever trust us, least of all our constituents. [1430] If we honour the evidence — whether it’s what we think is necessary or not, whether it’s what our constitu- ents are pressuring us to do or not — we will make good decisions, and they’ll be defensible decisions.

I and my employer colleagues served on that board for four years. In the last year we spent a year looking through hundreds of pages of evidence — and I offer this as an example — of the danger of environmental tobacco smoke. That danger is now accepted by everyone — by this government, by the Workers Compensation Board, by the public — on the understanding that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke puts people at risk of dis- eases, including cancer, and it’s unacceptable. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] There was a lot of pressure to do nothing.

Nobody thinks the bar industry has gone under because you can’t smoke in bars now, but back in the late ’90s that was the narrative. People said: “If you introduce regulations to remove environmental tobacco smoke from our work - places, you will put us under. Find another alternative. ” We reviewed all the alternatives that were suggested, we reviewed the scientific evidence, and we decided after many months of discussion that the only safe workplace with respect to environmental tobacco smoke was a workplace that didn’t have environmental tobacco smoke, so we introduced a regulation.

Shortly after we introduced the regulation, the then Minister of Labour, Graham Bruce, called the chair of the board and asked that the board reconsider the regulation, which was his power under the act. We had a meeting. We discussed it, and I had a discussion with the employer representative.

His answer to me when I said, “What are you going to do?” was: “I didn’t spend a year reviewing sci- entific evidence, making a hard decision that many of my colleagues dislike me intensely for, to reverse it because somebody who hasn’t reviewed the evidence made a call. ” A couple of weeks after that decision, and our mes - sage to the minister was: “We made our decision based on science. Y ou have the power to change the regulation yourself. Don’t look to us for cover. Take responsibility for your action if you want it taken. ” He overruled the regu- lation, and he fired the board.

I’ve never been prouder of being fired in my life, because we were fired for doing the right thing. The minister many months later was forced to acknowledge, by reintroducing the protection himself, that it had been the right thing. Why do I raise this? I have listened to the Minister of Jobs and for Labour speak many times in this House about how concerned she is about the victims of the Lakeland and Babine fires. I don’t doubt that she’s sincere in that. I don’t doubt that anybody in this House would be sincere about that. But accidents, serious incidents, do not happen in a vacuum.

They happen because we allow them to happen, and they happened twice in a period of months because we haven’t learned from our mistakes. I would say to the Minister for Labour: if you’re sincere, it’s important to acknowledge that you are part of a gov- ernment…. She was part of the government that made significant changes to protection of workplaces, to regu- lation, to prevention activity. There are consequences and results of that. Colleagues have spoken about the Workers Compensation Board being asked to reduce regulations by an arbitrary number of a third because employers said they needed that.

That process happened. Rules regarding first aid were eliminated. Rules regarding fall protection were eliminated. Rules regarding ladders and scaffolds were eliminated. Changes were made to staffing. The budget was cut in 2002 by 12 percent, resulting in office closures and a 30 percent reduction in visits by prevention officers. This was arbitrary. It was done in order to reduce the pre - miums that employers were paying. [1435] I was a member of the board of directors of the com - pensation board. I was chair of the audit committee. I

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7305 know what the injury rate was. I know how rates were set. I know all the measures that were taken to keep rates low. I know the measures that were taken internally to reach every administrative efficiency that we could and to keep looking for more. The one thing we did not do was pick a number and drive premiums down to that without regard for the con- sequence. If workers are being injured, it takes a certain level of premium to pay them compensation.

If work - places are unsafe, it takes a certain level of premium to support the educational and prevention and inspection activity that will protect them. That was what was given up when the government first took office. The Labour Minister was part of that government, and she was part of that cabinet. I accept the minister say - ing that she is introducing this bill in order to protect workers and prevent tragedies like those that happened at Lakeland and Babine.

But I’ d have more faith in the process and more faith in the development of the bill if anybody on that side of the House — but particularly the Labour Minister — would acknowledge that the ap - proach that was taken to prevention and compensation when they first took office was a mistake, that they’ve learned from it and that they’re going to do something different. We will support this bill. I will vote for this bill. It’s an important bill, but it’s not good enough. More needs to be done, and perhaps more will be done.

But more will only be done if there’s a commitment that yes, we do need to have an environment that allows businesses to make a profit and employ people — we all agree with that — but if workers are injured, they should be compensated; that if there are occupational diseases, they should be recognized; that if there are measures that can be taken to ensure that all employers understand the rules necessary to protect workers from incident, from injury, from occupational disease and illness, those meas- ures will be taken; that those employers who don’t follow the rules while other employers do are made to pay for that; and that the staff needed to make the inspections, to bring out the education and to make the orders are in place and have the tools necessary to do their job.

With that, I’ll take my place. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, minister closes the debate. Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to make just a few comments. I appreciate also the Speaker’s lati- tude in some of the discussion that has occurred this afternoon in this House. I also appreciate the apology that was offered by the member for Cowichan Valley. I appreciate that, and I accept it. The debate we are having in the House is not about hurting a minister’s feelings or getting emotional or hav- ing a heated debate. That’s what people send us here to do.

Believe you me in my 14 years as a cabinet minister, I have had a significant number of debates in this House, many of which were difficult and painful. But I have to say, in honesty, that probably some of the commentary that occurred today would be registered as a low point in my cabinet career. While I absolutely understand and agree that this is a place that brings passion and different experience…. I don’t have the same experience that members on the other side of the House, and even on the same side of the House as me, have.

But what I will not do is make commentary or assign blame that members on one side of this House or the other feel more strongly, in a more principled way, about worker death in this province. Every single member of this House — every British Columbian, for that matter — is horrified when a worker is injured or even, more tragically, killed in a place where they should be able to go and believe they are safe. [1440] The most offensive part of the discussion is not about hurting someone’s feelings. British Columbians expect more of us.

While I have sat and listened, and tried to listen with open ears, for constructive, thoughtful addi - tions to what we can do together to improve…. I look for- ward to committee stage, because we’ve certainly heard that this bill is a good start and yet it’s not good enough. Of course it’s not good enough. I heard the member, and I very much respect the passion and intellect of the member for Vancouver- Kingsway. I quote what he said. This bill is “nowhere near sufficient. ” Of course it’s not.

There is nothing that we can do in this House, as people or as legislators, that will make up for the loss of life that occurred at Babine and Lakeland — nothing. I’ve heard, over and over, from the speakers before, just previously: “We owe it to these families. ” Of course we do. It is certainly not a matter of saying “it must be said. ” I would remind the members opposite that we on this side of the House have certainly not once stepped away from the fact that WorkSafe made mistakes, that it needs to be fixed. We’ve embraced it. We’ve grappled with it. Is this bill perfect? Probably not.

I’m not an expert, but I can tell you this. We asked someone who has integrity to go in and look at WorkSafe from top to bottom and to come back to this government with recommenda - tions that said: “How can we ensure that this never hap- pens again?” I wish today that I could stand in this House, along with every other member who has been elected to rep - resent their constituents, and say: “It will never hap - pen again. ” We have absolutely no guarantees. It doesn’t mean we’re not going to work tirelessly on both sides of this House.

I want to read to the members opposite, particular - ly the last two, who have implied that, over the last ten years, somehow this government has been negligent. Let

British Columbia Debates7306 Thursday, April 16, 2015 me read some numbers — tragic, horrific, hurtful num - bers: 125, 147, 156, 168, 157, 170, 134, 188, 160, 139, 160, 121 and 156. Do you know what is significant about those numbers, other than the fact that every single one of those num - bers reflects a person, a family, a job, a worker-related death? Those numbers span two systems of worker safety in this province — the workers compensation system and WorkSafe B.C. They span two governments, not one.

The thing that is so troubling about those numbers is that it doesn’t matter who sat on either side of this House. I’m sure we could go back and look at years and decades be- fore. Those numbers haven’t improved nearly enough. This bill is one piece — one piece — of the work that is underway. While we want to stand in this House and talk about whether it’s an inquest or an inquiry, we didn’t arbi- trarily decide that an inquiry wasn’t the appropriate way. We went and asked one of the most highly respected law- yers in our country: “Would it make a difference?

Would it change the outcomes?” As I’ve shared in this House on numerous occasions, when we asked that question, the answer was: “No, it wouldn’t. ” [1445] There is an inquest underway. All of us want to ensure that it has integrity, that it gives families an opportunity to hear, though painful, what happened. Not one of us can put ourselves in their shoes. I wouldn’t, and I know other members wouldn’t attempt to try either. Worker safety is a core value for everyone in this House. To make the implication that a change in a sys - tem was responsible when, in fact, we look over two dec- ades plus worth of numbers….

Tragically, workers in this province…. Throughout the course of the ‘90s, the 2000s and, tragically, into 2011, ’12, ’13, ’14, the numbers show very little variation. That says to me we all have a job to do. I look forward to the dialogue and the input. I really hope that we can concentrate on this bill as one piece of ensuring that workers go to work in the morning and come home at the end of every day — one piece. Not one person on this side of the House has suggested this is the answer. There is much work to be done. I appreciate the passion of members opposite. I appre- ciate their experience.

I appreciate people coming to this place with strong beliefs and values. But I also believe that comes with responsibility. I appreciate the comments that we’ve heard. In fact, we do owe families a legacy. We need to make sure that they get answers and that we respond to the coroner’s inquest so that the families of Carl Charlie, Robert Luggi, Alan Little and Glenn Roche know that we took this serious - ly. Nothing will ever make it sufficient. There is nothing that we can do that will ever make up for what happened to those families.

It is incumbent upon all of us in this House to recog - nize that it doesn’t matter what side of the House you sit on. It doesn’t matter if you sit in this House or not. British Columbians’ core value is ensuring that workers can go to work and come home safely at the end of every day. With those comments…. And there will be others as we go through the process, as we look at trying to clarify some of the issues that have been brought forward, issues like whether or not there are random and unannounced inspections. Of course there are. The implication today was that there are not.

The questions about worker rights. In fact, today in British Columbia…. One of the things I’m passion - ate about is making sure that workers understand their rights. Do they have the right to shut down an unsafe workplace? Y es, they do. There were implications here to- day and there were comments about how workers don’t have that right. Y es, they do. But do many workers know that, understand it and feel confident enough to exercise it? No, they don’t.

That’s why we brought in members of the Steelworkers to say: “What can we do to give workers in this province the tools and the confidence and the power they need to say: ‘I will not work in an unsafe workplace’?” All of those things are the pieces that we need to work on in order to ensure that British Columbians feel confident in the workplaces that they go to each day. With that, I move second reading of Bill 9. Motion approved. Hon. S. Bond: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 21, intituled the Fish and Seafood Act. BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 21 be now read for a second time. I’m pleased to speak to the new Fish and Seafood Act.

Before I talk about some of the details of the new bill, I want to provide a little context as to why we feel that this sector is so important and why new legislation is im - portant. [1450] Around 100 species of fish, shellfish and marine plants are produced commercially from British Columbia’s marine and fresh waters. In 2013 British Columbia pro - duced a range of 483 seafood commodities with a com - bined wholesale value of $1.43 billion, the second-highest

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7307 wholesale value in the last 25 years. In the same year 159,000 tonnes of processed B.C. seafood was shipped to 62 export markets, with a total value of $902.6 million. These statistics show the current demand for B.C. fish and seafood. I believe that significant future growth is also possible. Part of that market growth will be sup - ported by the new Fish and Seafood Act, which is the cornerstone of the new fish and seafood strategy men - tioned in the 2015 Speech from the Throne.

The Fish and Seafood Act will update and modernize provincial legislation to be responsive to today’s busi - ness environment and to better serve the public inter - est. The Fish and Seafood Act ensures that processing facilities producing products for consumption within British Columbia will meet modern food safety standards. Although products sold into international markets are processed at federally regulated processing facilities, the handling, storage, transportation and basic preparation functions are all regulated under this act.

I’ d like to touch on a few of the highlights of the new act now, which regulates a range of activities, from the growing and harvest of aquatic plants to receiving, sell - ing, storage, transport and processing of aquatic plants and fish. First, in

part 2 of the act there is a new and important requirement for all persons to ensure that the fish and aquatic plants they are dealing with are safe for human consumption.

Part 3 enables licensing of certain functions, which will be set out in future regulations. Generally speaking, the regulations will involve more stringent standards for higher-risk fish-processing activities. While there may have been no serious food safety outbreaks to date, a re- port conducted in 2009 by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control shows that the fish-processing facilities have a higher risk of listeria than dairy or meat-processing fa - cilities. The future regulations enabled by the Fish and Seafood Act will prescribe licensing requirements.

Once the act is passed, the ministry will be consulting with affected par- ties prior to drafting these new regulations. Parts 4 through 6 of the new act set out the new en - forcement system. The current enforcement system mainly relies on a series of warnings, tickets and pros - ecution. In future, inspectors also will have the ability to make orders similar to the Animal Health Act and the Public Health Act. Higher penalties will provide a signifi- cant deterrent to non-compliance.

A future administra - tive penalty system is enabled by the act that allows for penalties to be assessed by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Part 7 provides for regulation-making authorities, which continues some of the regulation-making author- ities of the Fisheries Act and Fish Inspection Act and in- cludes new regulation-making authorities to support the new licensing, traceability and enforcement provisions. In

summary, the Fish and Seafood Act is a corner - stone of the ministry’s commitment to growth and de - velopment of this sector and the production of safe food. With that, I look forward to comments of other members. G. Holman: I’m pleased to speak to this legislation. We will be supporting the bill, with debate, but in gen - eral, there are some positive aspects. We do have some questions about specific aspects of the new legislation that we’ll be dealing with in committee. There are some concerns that I did want to just touch on today.

British Columbia does have somewhat lim - ited jurisdiction in fisheries — jurisdiction only over some finfish and aquatic animals and aquatic plants. Nevertheless, that jurisdiction is important. It’s import- ant not just in terms of food safety, but it’s also important in terms of ensuring that fisheries are conducted in a way that doesn’t threaten their sustainability or have deleteri- ous environmental impacts on either the environment in general or other species. [1455] As the minister indicated, this legislation brings together two older bills, older pieces of legislation.

To some degree, it’s a kind of housekeeping function, al - though there are some new provisions, as the minister indicated, in order to support growth in the industry but, also, to ensure that we’ve got the highest possible stan - dard for food safety. Some of these measures are welcome — for example, the newer provisions around traceability. It is very important. It’s analogous to systems that are in place for other agricultural products in British Columbia.

Hopefully, it will ensure that for fish and aquatic ani - mals, we know where they’re coming from, know where they’re harvested and can trace back to origins. This is an important provision. The modernized inspection powers with higher pen - alties are also a good thing. There’s no point in having rules that are disregarded simply because the penalties are too weak and because the enforcement system has too many loopholes. The legislation, as I understand it, though, is about more than just food safety. There are licensing and ten - ure provisions in the legislation, which are important.

The minister was kind enough to have his staff give sev - eral MLAs, including the member from Delta, a briefing on the legislation. In the discussion in that briefing there were some concerns raised about, for example, sustain - ability for aquatic plants. Now, aquatic plants, in general, are under provincial jurisdiction, so it’s not just the food safety aspects or the harvesting. It’s the aspect around the sustainability of those harvests and whether those harvests are having im- pacts on other species and impacts on the environment.

For example, one of the questions asked was: “How do we know, for certain aquatic plants, that the harvests are sustainable?” The response we got from staff was: “Well,

British Columbia Debates7308 Thursday, April 16, 2015 in general, they’re so minimal that we don’t regard sus- tainability, the concern about harvestable surpluses…. We don’t see that as a major issue because the volumes being harvested are so tiny. ” But it still begs the ques - tion about the denominator. It’s not clear whether we do have reasonably up-to-date, accurate inventories of biomass for aquatic plants and, therefore, what the har - vestable surplus would be. This concern may also apply to aquatic animals. So that’s one of the issues that came up in the briefing.

Members of this House will be aware of, for example, commercial harvesting of seaweeds in the Comox- Courtenay area — fairly large-scale commercial harvests of seaweed coming up onto the beaches. There has been, certainly, concern expressed in those communities about those activities and whether or not we’ve done the proper science to ensure that, in fact, the harvests are sustainable and that they are being done in a way that doesn’t nega- tively affect the environment or other species.

One of the specific issues also raised during that brief- ing, and a briefing from our own research staff, was that there is an element of the former Fisheries Act — which is one of the acts, along with the Fish Inspection Act, that are being brought together in Bill 21. It removes provi - sions for the protection of fish resulting from dams or hydraulic projects. [1500] Now, it may be that those provisions are picked up elsewhere in other legislation, and that’s a question that we’re going to have.

But it is an example of a concern that this legislation may be focused too strictly on just the food safety aspects and that there may be broader con - siderations that we want to make sure are addressed, if not in this legislation, at least in other provincial legis - lation. There is a context here.

I realize I may be getting a lit- tle bit further or broader afield than the specific legisla - tion, but there is a troubling context when it comes to environmental protection in British Columbia and cer - tainly around fishways, around fisheries — for example, the gutting of environmental provisions by the federal government, the so-called Navigable Waters Protection Act and the weakening of those provisions. There are also concerns expressed by our own Forest Practices Board around habitat protection and logging practices, bridge-building practices in and around fish streams.

There’s a context here that does raise concerns about not just managing and administrating and ensur - ing food safety for fisheries products but also the environ- mental context. Provincially, of course, as well, the environmental as - sessment process twice approved the Prosperity lake mine, the so-called Fish Lake mine, where essentially the proposal was to turn Fish Lake into a tailings pond. This is the kind of context in which this legislation ap - pears. We do want to make sure that, if not covered in this legislation, at least other provincial legislation is go- ing to provide better protection.

The trends are not good. The trends appear to be a weakening of environmental legislation both at the federal level and, our concern as well, at the provincial level. One issue that was raised in our briefing was the ap - plicability of this legislation to First Nations. It’s our understanding that technically, so-called legal First Nations fisheries — the handling, processing, the laws, the rules in this legislation would also apply to those ac- tivities.

But as the minister, I know, is aware, there are a number of First Nations fisheries that are so-called illegal, where there’s a question there about whether and how these rules can possibly apply to those activities. There is a more general point there, as well, around First Nations fisheries. Again, as with the Tsilhqot’in de- cision, over time court decisions have gradually been recognizing First Nations’ rights to fish, not just for food and ceremonial purposes but also rights to effectively use those fish for commercial purposes, either sale or trade or barter, which for millennia they’ve been doing.

We created rules in the early 1900s to establish so- called food and ceremonial fisheries, and the settler cul- ture telling First Nations: yes, you can have access to these fish, but you can only use them for food and ceremonial purposes. That is patently…. That’s nonsense. In court decisions, including more recently the Ahousaht decision, the courts are beginning to recog - nize and understand and rule that First Nations do have a right, not just for food or ceremonial purposes; they also have a right to use those fish for so-called commer - cial purposes.

That trend is going to continue, and in my view, this is a good thing. We need to bring First Nations fisheries into the main- stream so-called, like the Nisga’a treaty. I had an in - volvement in the Nisga’a treaty as a fisheries consultant working for them. That’s an example of what formerly were food and ceremonial fisheries also opened up for commercial use and sale and processing. [1505] That’s where we need to go in this province, to bring those fisheries into the mainstream and to ensure that the same provisions around food safety apply to those fisheries as well.

Let’s bring them into the management mainstream, regulate them properly. But that’s predi - cated on acknowledging that First Nations have a right around their traditional fisheries to use them not just for food and ceremonial purposes but for commercial pur - poses as well. Fish farms. We want to clarify the extent to which this legislation applies to tenuring of fish farms in British Columbia. Clearly, a number of concerns coming….

Well, the federal Cohen commission was a response to con - cerns about the impacts of fish farms on passing migrat- ing salmon stocks and in fact recommended, essentially, a moratorium in some of those fish migration routes.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7309 We want to understand and make sure that there is legislation in place, again, not just around the technical aspects of issuing tenures for certain periods of time; but where, in either this legislation or other provincial legisla- tion, are the potential environmental implications of fish farms for wild fish being addressed? It is interesting. One of the provisions of this legisla - tion, which I understand is new….

I’m a rookie at this, so I’m not sure necessarily what’s new or not, but there is a provision in this legislation for protection of marine beds when it comes to harvesting aquatic plants. This is a good thing. Again, it does speak to that concern that licensing should be addressing not just food safety issues but environmental issues as well. That particular provi - sion does speak to that, does address that concern. I guess a question I’m going to have in committee is: does that same level of concern also apply, for example, to aquatic animals? Does it apply to fish farms?

When we issue licences and tenures for these activities, are we also taking into account their potential environmental con - sequences and implications? Maybe it’s not in this legis- lation, although there does appear to be a reference in there to aquatic plants. So a question is: well, what about other species that are under provincial jurisdiction? Why is there not provision, for example, around tenuring of fish farms in here? This legislation actually allows government to discon- tinue a licence if, in the view of the licensing officer, there are negative impacts associated with aquatic plant har - vesting.

That kind of provision is important, and one of the questions we have is: does that apply to other species or just to aquatic plants? Again, in

summary — I believe my colleague from Delta may also have some comments on the legislation — we’ll be supportive of the bill. It does in some respects represent some steps forward. We have some questions about implications of certain provisions or lack of. By the way, one concern in terms of consultation. It’s our understanding that the seafood processing industry and also the salmon farmers industry are supportive of the legislation, although, because many of the specific regulations will be brought in later, there is a concern that the process for developing those regulations will be fulsome and transparent.

I know the minister has heard that, and we’re hopeful that that process will be compre- hensive and that government will be listening to con - cerns of industry. [1510] One other interesting issue came up in our briefing. We were provided with a list of the organizations that were consulted — that was very helpful — so we know exactly who the ministry was talking to. There wasn’t one environmental organization on that list.

I would strongly urge the minister to think about that in developing regulations, to think about consulting with environmental groups, because as I say, there are broad- er considerations here. It’s not just about food safety. If those concerns are addressed with other pieces of legis - lation, let’s hear that, and let’s talk to groups who aren’t necessarily just within the salmon-farming industry or the seafood-processing industry. I think that’s it for my comments at this point in time. I believe other colleagues may want to speak to the bill.

I very much look forward to further discussion during the committee stage of the bill. V . Huntington: I’m pleased to briefly speak to Bill 21, the Fish and Seafood Act. On the whole, it is a welcome modernization of our laws around health standards for the processing and sale of seafood and aquatic plants sold for human consumption. This bill is designed to ensure that everyone selling defined classes of seafood to the public is licensed to do so under food-safe guidelines and procedures.

There is no denying the necessity and value of updating our laws that ensure seafood is meet - ing provincial health standards. In that respect, this bill is an admirable step. I congratulate the minister in bring- ing the legislation forward. I would also like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the deputy minister and his staff for their lengthy and thorough responses to our many questions. That said, there are a few components of the bill that, in my opinion, need to be further canvassed.

One is the very tricky and sensitive issue of illegal sales of fish caught under the traditional food, social and cere- monial provisions of the native fishery. The briefing left a definite impression that insufficient thought had been given to the province’s role in regulating the illegal sales of fish caught during food, social and ceremonial fish - eries. These fish are consumed by the public, yet the safety of the fish has no oversight by either provincial or federal officials. It is something the province should consider — how or whether the sale and consumption of these fish properly belong under this act.

The legislation also fails to recognize some key com - ponents that should be part and parcel of the licensed harvesting of wild aquatic plants. While this is present - ly a rather minor economic activity, as it was described during our briefing, it was obvious that the province has no guidelines in place to ensure that future harvests are sustainable. There is no baseline data on the quantity and quality of the wild aquatic plant beds on this coast. Case-by-case monitoring of the marine beds would not cover a poten- tial spike in demand of a class of plant.

I urge the minis- ter to consider this important issue prior to pursuing the licensed harvest of plants that have no inventory baseline data attached to them. The harvest under this act is not limited to farmed aquatic plants, and it is thus critical that monitoring and measuring be required. Royalties are important, but royalties gathered in ig - norance are irresponsible. The legislation opens the door

British Columbia Debates7310 Thursday, April 16, 2015 for the potential destruction of our marine environment. Its failure to set out parameters around the aquatic plant– harvesting industry is notable. We were also told that while ministry staff are cog - nizant of the vulnerable-species-at-risk list in B.C., the legislation does not bind the ministry or government when making judgments around conservation values or administrative actions.

There is no species-at-risk legis - lation in B.C., and failure to regulate harvests in the face of scientific recommendation regarding a species at risk is a failure to respect our environment and its carrying capacity. I will also want to explore in committee stage the ad - ministrative penalties and offences contemplated by the act. The premise upon which the regime is based should be an interesting discussion. [1515] Further, the consultation done prior to developing the legislation was interesting — a survey sent to a long list of stakeholders in the hope that there would be helpful responses to the survey.

However, not many stakehold - ers responded, and only the Allied Tsimshian Tribes Association responded from First Nations. Given the number of products available through First Nation com- panies, I believe a stronger attempt to discuss the legisla- tion would behoove the government. I am also very concerned that environmental stake - holders were not surveyed. There are many knowledgable individuals within that sector, and the ministry could well have benefited from their advice.

I also believe it would be very helpful if the survey responses were pub - licly available, as assessing the legislation would be much easier and more meaningful. My final concern is the lack of manpower to properly implement and enforce this bill. At the moment there are only three agricultural inspectors in this province — three. Clearly, to properly enforce this bill, there will need to be more.

Officials and employees of other organ- izations can be delegated the authority and responsibility, but we have seen how the lack of independent inspection authority has desperately hindered enforcement of of - fences on the ALR by the Agricultural Land Commission. I hope the ministry is giving this manpower issue a great deal of thought. Why have an offence if you can’t enforce it? Why have an enabling bill that may end up being toothless? In conclusion, this is a positive piece of legislation which certainly has the public interest in mind.

There are, however, a few sections which I believe are worthy of further consideration. I hope the minister will reflect on same during committee stage of the bill. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, minister to conclude the debate. Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the hon. members for their input and their words — especially, a thank-you to them for identifying areas in the bill that they had some concerns with. I’m sure that’ll help our staff go back and do some work over the weekend before we get to commit- tee stage, whenever that occurs. Of course, that’s up to the House Leader.

We’ll have a good discussion at that point. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 21. Motion approved. Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 21 be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 21, Fish and Seafood Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for con - sideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. T. Stone: I now call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 3:20 p.m. On Vote 43: ministry operations, $813,473,000. The Chair: Minister, are you going to make an open - ing statement? Hon. T. Stone: Very briefly. The Chair: Proceed. Hon. T. Stone: It is my pleasure to stand in the House today as we begin the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I look forward to a good discussion, particularly with the opposition critic, the member for North Island.

I know a number of her colleagues will also take an interest in different parts of the Transportation and Infrastructure estimates process. I’ d like to begin by introducing a couple of fine indi- viduals who are here with me today from the ministry. We have Grant Main, the deputy minister; Kevin Richter, the new assistant deputy minister responsible for the highways division as well as the infrastructure folks; and Norm Parkes, the executive director of engineering. This is the third time I’ve been through this estimates process.

It’s always a pleasure to take a couple moments at the front end to acknowledge the hard-working men

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7311 and women in the ministry, many of whom I’ve had the privilege of meeting and touring offices with, doing field visits with. I really want to say — on behalf of, I know, everyone in this chamber — thank you to the men and women in the Ministry of Transportation as well as the Crowns that we’re responsible for: B.C. Transit, ICBC, PavCo, the TI Corporation, the BCTFA. We really do appreciate the efforts of everyone who works in those Crowns and in the ministry more broadly.

I want to just take one moment at the front end of this process to also acknowledge how proud I was, on behalf of government, about three weeks ago to launch our gov- ernment’s new transportation plan, a ten-year plan called B.C. on the Move. It’s not every day that you get the op- portunity to put together a ten-year plan for what will really be critical infrastructure investments in every facet of transportation and infrastructure across the province. This plan covers all facets of transportation. It pro - vides for about $2.5 billion of investment in the first three years of the plan.

That is building upon the $17 billion and change which we have invested in transportation and infrastructure since 2001 — one of the most robust transportation programs in the country. This plan provides for 12 key themes, including for the first time a real laser focus on ensuring that, in transpor- tation, we are focusing on supporting partnerships with First Nations and supporting projects which foster eco - nomic development opportunities on First Nations lands.

For the first time ever in a transportation plan, we have a trucking strategy which recognizes just how im - portant the trucking industry is to the province of British Columbia. This plan provides for a lift in funding of about 50 per- cent for the replacement and upgrading of bridges across the province.

This plan provides for a 33 percent increase in funding for rural side roads and secondary highways — about a billion dollars in the first three years of the plan allocated to highway expansion on all of our major cor - ridors around the province. [1525] It provides for a continuation of a record level of fund- ing for B.C. Transit to support the transit systems that we have across the province, outside of Metro Vancouver. It continues the record level of funding for our coastal fer- ries in British Columbia. It also provides a heightened commitment for cycling and related infrastructure investments as well.

We have increased the budget for cycling by 50 percent in the first three years of the plan. Certainly, the resurrection of an airport program, which is contained within B.C. on the Move, is some - thing we’re also very proud of. It’s providing about $24 million over the first three years of the plan alone, which will see strategic investments in community, rural, local and municipal airports in every corner of the province. I’m very proud that with B.C. on the Move, we’ve been able to reset the context through which we will be priori- tizing transportation and infrastructure investments.

As we move forward, we’ll be looking through the lens, ob- viously, of safety, first and foremost, but also economic development and partnerships — partnerships with First Nations, with local governments, with the federal govern- ment and, indeed, with the private sector. With that, I look forward to today’s round of questions and answers — I assume, for the most part, by the mem - ber for North Island. I will now take my place. C. Trevena: To the minister, I thank him for his open- ing remarks.

Y es, this afternoon, since it’s our little bonus time in addition to the rest, it’ll be primarily myself ask- ing questions. Because it came with quite short notice, I’m going to try to keep as general as possible in my ques- tions so we’re not calling on people who may not be here, and we can proceed, I hope, quite smoothly. But I just really do need to…. While I don’t want to use time in a

preamble, I would like to respond to a couple of the items that the minister said when he was giving his short

preamble on the ten-year transportation plan. It’s a very bright, jolly document, B.C. on the Move. The details seem to be in the first three years, as is the budget that we’re looking at. I think there is a reflection there. When you get to the ongoing seven years, it seems to be a bit more vague, without specific costs attached. It is very interesting, though, when the minister talks about this fantastic plan. I think it’s very well worth noting at the beginning of the budget estimates that the plan itself has got a value — it states several times — of $2½ billion.

It sounds like a lot of money, but that is less than the cost of Port Mann Bridge overruns. So we’ve got the Port Mann Bridge at $3.3 billion and growing, and the whole ten-year transportation plan is $2½ billion. If I’m wrong, I’m happy to have that corrected by the minister, but this is how I’m reading it. Y ou also hear the minister talking about how we’ve got, this year, record funding for B.C. Transit. We are ac- tually $1 million down on B.C. Transit. This is the value of this budget estimate process.

It gives us a chance to go through the budget line by line and deconstruct some of the myths, talk about some of the different ways of speak- ing about the investment, whether it’s an investment or a subsidy. I attest that when we are putting money into B.C. Ferries, which is at crisis level, it is an investment in our infrastructure. The minister talks about a subsidy. I think we’re going to be having a little bit of friction there. That is not today’s discussion.

I’m going to start today’s discussion on an area that I expect the minister knows quite well and his assistant deputy minister would know quite well, as well as the en- gineers who are assisting. That is the Highway 1 improve- ments and the four-laning of Highway 1. I’ d like to focus some attention to this through the next little while. I’ve recently travelled Highway 1. I think the minister

British Columbia Debates7312 Thursday, April 16, 2015 is aware of it. It’s in his constituency. We have the propos- al to four-lane the highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border, but there seem to be two distinct projects. There’s Kamloops up until Golden, and then there’s the Kicking Horse project, which I believe is separate. First question, very simple. Is the Kicking Horse pro - ject regarded as part of the four-laning of the Trans- Canada, or not? And is there a time frame for the whole Kamloops–Alberta border completion? [1530] Hon. T.

Stone: Y es, the Kicking Horse Canyon project is part of the Trans-Canada Highway four-laning pro - ject that our government has committed to. For point of reference, I will say, again, with respect to the Kicking Horse Canyon, there are 26 kilometres through that stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway. I’m very proud of the fact that to date, in partnership with the federal gov- ernment, we have completed four-laning on 22 of the 26 kilometres, which leaves one remaining four-kilometre

section to do. I know the member was in that neck of the woods recently. I’m not sure if the member made it that far. She’s nodding, so yes. It really needs to get done, that final four kilometres. Another point of reference. We typically spend about $10 million per kilometre for four-laning. That’s the rough ballpark on most sections of highway in British Columbia — about $10 million per one kilometre. The estimates that we have for this particular four-kilometre section, for four-laning, is upwards of $650 million. That’s right — $650 million.

As I’ve said on numerous occasions in and out of this House, it is going to be very critical that we receive fed - eral support and federal partnership dollars in order for us to conclude the final four-laning in that four-kilo - metre section. To that end, we have requested of the federal govern - ment that they consider this particular project a project of national significance and, as such, allocate federal dol- lars towards it from within the national component of the Build Canada fund, which is a merit-based component.

This is an argument or a position that we have put for- ward with the government of Canada and one that we will continue to press as often as we can moving forward. C. Trevena: I think I’m going to treat the two sections a little separately. We’ve got the cost for that last four kilo- metres, five kilometres, in Kicking Horse, $650 million. Y es, I have driven it recently. I drove it in good weather. I’m very pleased I drove it in good weather. It’s not an area I’ d like to drive in the dark or the rain.

One of the things that you hear everybody talk about anywhere along the highway — effectively, from Salmon Arm to Golden — is the fact that everybody who lives along that highway knows somebody who’s been in - volved in an accident on the highway — somebody, often, who has been involved in a fatal accident on that highway. There is a huge sense of urgency. There is a real, com- plete non-partisan approach. Everybody who lives along that highway looks at the road and knows it needs re - pair. They know it needs rebuilding.

So, literally, which- ever side of the political fence you’re coming on, you’re looking at it as a safety issue and secondly as an eco - nomic issue. I go back to my original question to the minister. Is there a complete cost? So $10 million per kilometre — can the minister give a dollar figure for the four-laning? And can he give a timeline for when this four-laning will happen? We’ve had the billboards up since 2009. They look in good condition. I guess they’ve been cleaned off a little, because we’re six years on and they’ve still got all their colours up.

I wondered if the minister could give both the time - line and the dollar cost for Kamloops to the

section of Kicking Horse where we know that it’s going to cost $650 million. Hon. T. Stone: The $650 million estimate that I previ- ously provided to this House for the final four kilometres of the Kicking Horse Canyon is included within the overall global estimate.

In today’s dollars we estimate it’s somewhere in about the $6 billion range to complete the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway from where it currently ends, which is actually quite a ways east of Kamloops now, in the Pritchard area. [1535] So it’s from Pritchard right through to the Alberta bor- der — obviously not including the federal parks, which represent sections of the Trans-Canada Highway that are purely federal responsibility — that entire stretch, the four-laning work that’s still required to be done we esti- mate would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 billion.

Again, that’s inclusive of the $650 million for the four kilometres of the Kicking Horse Canyon. C. Trevena: Well, the project is…. I mean, it’s a won - derful concept — the idea of four-laning this national highway. It is the Trans-Canada. It is an iconic highway. It would be a great project for making work, for training people, for literally getting people to work and for getting apprentices trained. Putting a lot of emphasis on this $6 billion. It’s a nice figure. It’s just $2 billion less than it’s estimated the Site C dam is going to cost.

I’m wondering, from the minister: does he have a time- line to get from Pritchard, basically where we are now…? Noting that there are one or two places and a couple of bridges which are being worked on in the current com - ing seasons, does the minister have a timeline to get from that point east of Kamloops to the Alberta border? Hon. T. Stone: We have invested over $700 million in the Trans-Canada Highway four-laning project between

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 16, 2015 7313 Kamloops and the Alberta border since 2001. We have committed, through our B.C. on the Move ten-year trans- portation plan, an additional $650 million, though we will be leveraging that up to about a billion dollars over the next ten years. We recognize that that’s not going to complete the job — no question about it. This highway corridor receives perhaps one of the most robust investments of any highway corridor in the prov- ince. In the last decade we’ve invested about $420 mil - lion in the Cariboo connector.

We’ve invested several hundred million dollars in the Okanagan. We’ve invested about $150 million on Highway 16. We’ve invested, as I said in my opening remarks, about a billion dollars with B.C. Transit in the last ten years. We’ve invested $1.3 bil- lion in coastal ferries during that time period. We have many modes of transportation across the province, as the member knows well.

Government’s job — it’s a tough one at times — is to balance and allocate those funds, those precious resources that we have available to us, in as equitable a fashion as we can, where the highest needs are and the largest volumes and so forth. We could have spent more on the Trans-Canada Highway over the past ten years. We could allocate more going forward. Does that come out of the transit budget? Does that come out of the coastal ferries budget? Does that come out of highway budgets for corridors in other parts of the province?

These are the critical questions that we are constantly faced with as we allocate the resources around the province. I will say again that we have spent $17 billion on transportation-related infrastructure in the last 12 years in every corner of the province and all modes of trans - portation. On a per-capita basis that’s the most robust transportation infrastructure spent in the country.

We are quite intent on ensuring that British Columbia con - tinues to lead the country in terms of our infrastruc - ture spend, because we do believe it’s a critical element of quality of life and it’s a critical component to a strong and growing economy. C. Trevena: We’ve had the billboards up since 2009. We have the statement that we’re going to four-lane the Trans-Canada. As I asked the minister in my last ques - tion, do we have a time frame to get from Pritchard to the Alberta border? Hon. T. Stone: I’m wondering if the member for North Island could just repeat her question for us. [1540] C.

Trevena: Does the minister have a time frame to get from Pritchard to the Alberta border? Hon. T. Stone: As I’ve said here this afternoon, we’re going to leverage up to another $1 billion to invest in four-laning projects through the corridor. We identified a number of those priorities in B.C. on the Move. Specifically, we’re doing design work now on a four- laning section. It’s called Donald East, and that’s between Golden and Revelstoke. There is another

section that’s called Illecillewaet. That’s, I believe, about a 2.4-kilometre

section that will also provide a ponding location when there are highway closures so that cars and trucks can be more safely parked on the side of the road. We are in design on Salmon Arm West, which is a very significant project that involves a tremendous amount of four-laning as well as the replacement of the Salmon River Bridge. We’re doing the design work on that now. We are doing design work on the Bruhn Bridge, which is in Sicamous. We are doing design work on the Kicking Horse Canyon component, which I just mentioned.

We are doing design work on the North Fork Bridge to, hope- fully, be in a position to replace that very soon. We are in design on the next two sections that are east of Kamloops, east of where the four-laning ends now at Pritchard. Work is underway at Hoffman’s Bluff. We’re in design on the next two sections, which would take us from Hoffman’s Bluff up to Jade Mountain, which is just east of Chase. Part of the balancing act here is there’s only so much that you can do so fast in terms of the resources that you have available.

Again, as I said in my previous response, we’ve allocated the leveraging of up to $1 billion for con- tinued four-laning. That’s not going to get the entire job done. That’s going to get a big chunk of the work done. Part of the consideration moving forward is that the federal government, in terms of Build Canada funding and their willingness to partner on projects, don’t tend to like the province to get too far out in front of them in terms of announcing projects before funding has been approved.

So there’s a certain amount of back and forth that takes place with the federal government as we sign off on different sections that will receive federal dollars. But as the member knows well — and she just drove this corridor recently — there is a good amount of work underway on various locations throug

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150416pm-Hansard-v23n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150416pm Hansard v23n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d63bb9ce88c691adb51c4344624d91891cc649f5

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