2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Electoral Districts Act (continued)

D. Eby

M. Hunt

Hon. S. Anton

Bill 35 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2015 (continued)

A. Dix

C. James

L. Larson

S. Fraser

D. Routley

D. Plecas

D. Donaldson

M. Farnworth

D. Bing

R. Fleming

N. Simons

Hon. S. Bond

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 39 — Provincial Immigration Programs Act

M. Elmore

Hon. S. Bond

[ Page 10013 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 42.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

(continued)

D. Eby: I’m very enthusiastic and excited about getting up to make a few remarks on the bill that’s in front of the House right now. Thank you for your patience with my enthusiasm.

I just wanted to start by thanking the commission that did this work — Mr. Justice Melnick, Beverley Busson and Keith Archer, the Chief Electoral Officer for the province of B.C. They visited 29 communities, heard from 128 presenters, 295 written submissions. That was before their preliminary report. Afterwards: 144 presenters at 15 community hearings, 426 written submissions.

The reason they did such extensive work is that it’s a very important issue for British Columbians, although one that might be a bit arcane for a lot of people in the province.

There was an important restriction on their work. That was the amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act of May 2014, which set out three areas of the province — the North region, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay — in which the number of electoral districts couldn’t be reduced.

They say in the report that it influenced, in large measure, their ability to propose electoral districts that are equal in population. “It has also influenced our decision to propose 87 electoral districts, an increase of two from the current number and the maximum allowable under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act.”

Why is that significant? Well, that’s because the courts in British Columbia and Canada have been willing to exercise jurisdiction over how a legislature sets out these electoral boundaries. In particular, they found that how you set up these boundaries can affect the right to vote. The voting right in Canada is a preferred right in the constitution. It’s one of the most important protected rights.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada said: “It cannot be denied that equality of voting power is fundamental to the Canadian concept of democracy. The claim of our forefathers” — and that’s in the text — “to representation by populations — ‘rep by pop’ — preceded Confederation and was confirmed by it.”

[1335]

The court doesn’t call for strict equality between communities, but nonetheless, “relative equality of voting power is fundamental to the right to vote enshrined in

section 3 of our Charter. In fact, it may be seen as a dominant principle underlying our system of representational democracy.” Very important comments from the Supreme Court of Canada, which has an oversight jurisdiction on our work here in this Legislature on electoral boundaries and the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

That’s why it is important that I note that on October 22, I did misspeak. Instead of using appendix B in the Electoral Boundaries Commission report, I used appendix A to illustrate this concern about constituencies that deviate from that critical 25 percent boundary set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. In particular, I want to read into the record the correct figures from appendix B for Richmond: Richmond North Centre, which is 7½ percent; Richmond South Centre, which is 5.7 percent; Surrey-Cloverdale, 12.3 percent; Surrey-Panorama, 13.2 percent.

Now, the constituencies I should have been pointing to were in appendix A, which exceed the 25 percent standard that the constitution requires: Stikine, 61.2; Nechako, 47.9; Nelson, 30.9; North Coast, 57.9; Peace River South, 47.1; Skeena, 43.1.

When you combine them with the overage in Vancouver–Point Grey, which is the constituency I represent, it shows a difference in population representation by MLAs of more than 70 percent in one case and almost 70 percent in another one.

These are, of course, the constituencies that were set out in the act in which the commission was instructed by this Legislature, which was a divided Legislature, that they were required to maintain the same number of constituencies and that they were allowed to exceed that 25 percent standard, and that was the work that they did. My error inadvertently created the impression that the commission had not done what they’d been asked to do. In fact, they did exactly what they were asked to do by this Legislature.

But concerningly, from my perspective, what they were asked to do by this Legislature was to violate the standard of 25 percent set out by the Supreme Court of Canada for a number of constituencies. I made my remarks earlier about why I feel that is a concern and should be a concern for everybody.

Of course, I do want to thank, one more time, the commission for their work and recognize that they did bring this report in within the terms that were set for them by this Legislature. With that, I’ll conclude my remarks.

[ Page 10014 ]

M. Hunt: It’s always my pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. We are dealing with the Electoral Districts Act, Bill 42, and obviously, changes have been made all over the province.

It’s been a very interesting debate. I mean, even Vaughn Palmer described whether he would actually call this a debate, because it’s basically been a whole process of us talking about the changes in our constituencies and talking about what’s happened in our constituencies and where we’re going from here.

Certainly for me, in my riding, I lose all of South Surrey. But that’s a positive for them, in that the north side of the peninsula will finally be back in South Surrey, where it has always been geographically. It started off being in Cloverdale, which is a real stretch.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: That’s right.

Then it was in Panorama, which meant I had all sides of Mud Bay.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: That’s enough out of that member.

It’s a delightful situation that the north half of the peninsula will now be called Surrey South and be a part of that.

Also, I lose another portion up in the Newton town centre, where previously three-quarters of the intersection of King George and 72 was in Newton.

[1340]

One-quarter of the Newton town centre wasn’t in Newton. It was in my riding of Panorama. That has been adjusted so that the main business core of the town centre, is all together in the Newton riding. However, when we get to the riding that I actually live in, which is Fleetwood, we have another challenge because of the whole demographic situation where Fleetwood is actually being cut in half.

The west half of Fleetwood is staying as Surrey-Fleetwood. The east half of Surrey-Fleetwood, the community of Fleetwood, is becoming Cloverdale. These are the challenges of population growth. These are the challenges of what happens when you have municipalities such as Surrey that is growing at tremendous rates.

We know that by the next time this is redone — another commission is set up eight years from now — that again they’ll be looking at these. Cloverdale and South Surrey will continue to have grown. They’ll be over the 25 percent again. It’ll be time for it to readjust, and of course, my area where I live will get put back into Fleetwood.

Lots of challenges, lots of difficulties, but by the same token, we’re very pleased with the commission and the work that it’s done, because it’s tried to be as fair as it can with the challenges of this massive province of ours.

With that, I certainly wish to give my support to Bill 42 and to second reading of Bill 42.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Justice closes the debate on second reading of Bill 42.

Hon. S. Anton: I appreciate all the comments from members of this House on this important piece of legislation. It has been interesting hearing about people’s ridings — who they talk to, who they see, what they do, why we all get attached to our own ridings. I think we heard that from many people over many different days and many different speeches. I really do appreciate the time and energy that people put into that.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 42.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 42, Electoral Districts Act, 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 35, intituled the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

BILL 35 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2015

(continued)

A. Dix: I rise to speak to the continuing debate on Bill 35, the government’s amendments to workers compensation law in British Columbia and workers safety law in British Columbia.

I think it’s fair to say that anyone who has been in contact, anyone who lived in Burns Lake or Prince George or worked in the forest industry or knew and has met the families and those that were injured in the Babine and Lakeland explosions and fires, will remember and understand the importance and the terrible events that occurred on January 20, 2012, and April 23, 2012.

On those two days, explosions and fires destroyed the Hampton Babine mill in Burns Lake and the Lakeland mill in Prince George. In both cases, two people were killed, probably close to 40 seriously injured, and many others permanently injured, both in terms of the impact through issues such as post-traumatic stress syndrome disorder or others that face all of them.

[1345]

We’ve had, subsequent to that, two inquests into those two explosions, into the deaths at those two explosions — inquests into the deaths of Carl Charlie and Robert

[ Page 10015 ]

Luggi in Burns Lake and Al Little and Glenn Roche in Prince George.

I think given the failures of both safety systems and prevention — failures that were government failures; failures that were industry failures — we owe a special obligation, it seems to me, to those men and their families and other men who were seriously injured, such as people I’ve come to know like Dirk Weissbach and his wife Kathleen in Burns Lake, Bruce Germyn in Prince George and so many others who have been affected and whose lives have been permanently changed by what happened. We owe them, it seems to me, a special obligation to respond in a way that meets the test of what happened.

In Bill 35 — my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has gone over this in some detail in this speech — we have some responses to the recommendations of the inquest. The minister has called those small responses, and I think she’s right. But that doesn’t mean they’re not of value and importance. It’s why the opposition has decided to support those changes with some questions, which we will be raising principally at committee stage.

Those questions include what appears to us, at least, to be a weakening of the reporting provisions recommended by the coroner’s jury around fires and explosions. We’ll have specific questions about that because I think it’s important to go through that. And questions and significant questions that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings will be raising about the role and the voice of workers as a result of this legislation. He and I and others will be raising those issues in detail at committee stage.

But taken together, I think it’s fair to say…. It was, as you know, the view of the opposition that while the inquest process was useful and the recommendations were useful — not all of them, of course, have been implemented; but they were very useful and very moving processes in some ways — they don’t meet, I think, what is needed and what is required to respond to both these terrible accidents and what I would argue also is a reduction in both the services provided to injured workers and the protection of workers from being injured that have characterized the last 15 years.

It’s why we believed that there should be a public inquiry. The inquest process, while important and while the recommendations were important — and we’ll come to the inquest report in a moment — did not respond to some fundamental questions that people, I think, legitimately would want to have answered. There are more than this, but let me include three here.

The first one: how could WorkSafe fail to adequately recognize the dangers of combustible wood dust, especially when those dangers were well recognized, both to the industry and WorkSafe, before either explosion? How is it possible that they could have regulations on the books that weren’t enforced? How is it possible that hundreds of examples in the United States and in Canada and in British Columbia identified in the inquest report were not acted upon? How is that possible? That’s the first set of questions.

The second set of questions is: how could WorkSafe fail to ensure…? WorkSafe staff, workers for the Compensation Employees Union, regularly brought these issues to the attention of management. The changes the government made in 2002 centralized control of WorkSafe with management. How could there be a failure to appropriately train on detecting and mitigating the risks of wood dust?

In particular, WorkSafe officers attended both mills shortly before both explosions, yet no actions were taken at either mill to prevent the explosions. What changes are required? How could this have happened? These were not questions asked and answered in the inquest process and are why we believed and believe there should be an inquiry and a review of WorkSafe’s operations.

Thirdly, after the Babine explosion, how could WorkSafe fail to advise other industry employers of the risks and how to mitigate them?

[1350]

For example, one explosion occurred January 20 and the other April 23. There were regular actions by WorkSafe, meetings by WorkSafe, documents by WorkSafe — some of them redacted, but some of them available to us — where these issues were discussed.

There was a meeting on March 15 between WorkSafe and sawmill industry employers, and essentially, nothing happened. We know what could have happened, because it happened almost instantly after April 23 when people moved to action. But they did not happen before, in spite of the very substantial evidence of need.

What was that evidence? Those are the three questions. When you combine those failures with WorkSafe’s post-explosion investigations, with the process that occurred that allowed sawmill owners to escape prosecution and that left no justice for the families involved, those are significant questions that we have not addressed and are not addressing in this legislation, which is intended to deal with those issues.

I want to speak to that a little bit. You know and I know, hon. Speaker, that the inquests were prevented by statute from finding fault. That’s the inquest process. Their focus was much more on machines than institutions. We have a situation, and we have a report in the case of the death of Mr. Roche, which concludes and had evidence that…. There was, in fact, enormous evidence. Let me just quote from the report, where questions were not asked.

“Expert evidence from chemical engineers, as well as the United States Chemical Safety Board…provided information about the combustibility of dust. It was noted that the danger of dust explosions and fires is well known in the United States of America, where there were 450 dust explosions or fires, 150 deaths and 900 people injured in the years from 1980 to 2011.”

That information was available.

You know that we have WorkSafe B.C. and its executives and its management team. We have the government.

[ Page 10016 ]

We have an industry that is active in both the United States and in Canada. All of those things were true, yet in its response to the WCB, Hampton said the following: “To our knowledge, prior to January 20, 2012, no one in the sawmilling industry knew this fact, and no representative of WorkSafe had expressed this fact to the industry” — referring to the dangers of sawdust — “nor had Babine or any other sawmill in British Columbia received a warning related to combustible sawdust from any regulator.”

“To our knowledge…no one in the sawmilling industry knew.” That was the line taken. No one could have known except, of course, that there was substantial knowledge, and in fact, there were regulations provided.

If you look, in the two years before the explosion, WorkSafe provided regulatory guidelines on combustible dust. What did they say? “A layer of dust as thin as a dime poses an explosion hazard.” It went on to say: “If combustible dust collects in a building or structure or on machinery or equipment, it must be safely removed before accumulation of the dust could cause a fire or explosion.”

That was the guideline. That was the regulation, but we know that nothing happened with respect to that guideline or regulation two years before and nothing happened between January 20, 2012, and April 23, 2012, either.

We have to reflect on why that is. WorkSafe surely was aware, and a public inquiry would have asked WorkSafe and the government about this. American regulatory authorities had recognized the dangers of combustible dust years before the explosion. The inquest details the number of cases, but in fact reports were issued, including reports by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration — OSHA — in the United States developed a combustible dust national emphasis program, and no one knew in British Columbia.

[1355]

In its 2009 high-risk strategy, airborne wood dust was recognized as a hazard to respiratory health. They reviewed the question but nothing about its combustibility and no real enforcement of sections — for example, 5.81 — of the occupational health and safety regulations in British Columbia. The question is: did WorkSafe have appropriate guidelines, standards and policy in place? The answer is clearly no. The question is why? How is it possible?

Then we go on to the evidence in British Columbia. People will say, “Well, those hundreds of events occurred in the United States, and our highly paid executives may not have known about those,” even though our industry functions in Canada and in the United States.

Then there was September 2007. M&K, a small sawmill in Quesnel, was warned about wood dust’s potential to explode. In other words, people on the ground were raising these issues. In June 2010, the Canfor mill in Fort St. James was notified that wood dust could explode. WorkSafe cited the threat of the fire hazard and the explosive atmosphere created on a continual basis by wood dust. So on the ground, they were raising the issue. They were let down in the executive offices.

In July 2010, the Tolko mill in Quesnel was warned: “Wood dust is combustible when exposed to heat or flame and may form explosive mixtures with air in the presence of an ignition source.” They were told. In January 2011, the Elko mill in Elkford was warned: “Wood dust is a combustible mix and must be controlled to minimize the risks of fires and explosion.” That’s in British Columbia.

Yet in spite of existence of the regulation for two years, nothing happened prior to January 20, 2012. In spite of the fact that these issues were raised, they did not go forward. No action was taken.

That’s our first set of questions. How is it possible that the industry and WorkSafe could claim not to know, when all of that evidence, including in their own records, was in front of them? How is that possible? How is it possible you could have a regulatory regime — which is supposed to be in place to protect workers — that information is before them, and they don’t act? What circumstances were more important than the safety of workers in these cases?

The evidence is very clear in both cases. In January, before the Babine explosion, warning signs were ignored. A year before the explosion, there was a dust explosion and a significant fire at Babine. This is the case. In fall of 2011, WorkSafe gathered wood dust samples from Babine. They found that four of five samples exceeded the workplace exposure limit for wood dust. The inspection report says: “Workers in various positions in the sawmill are exposed to pinewood dust in excess of the exposure limit.”

No penalty was issued. They were only required to notify the board in writing of the steps to be taken to correct the contraventions cited in the inspection report. Why wasn’t action taken to deal with this issue? What was it about what was going on at WorkSafe and in the industry that meant that action wasn’t taken?

That brings us, of course, to the numerous warning signs at Lakeland that included, tragically, the Babine explosion and fire. We know because, again, there were inspections prior to it. There were fires and explosions prior to the ones that took the lives of Mr. Roche and Mr. Little.

We know that there was much reason to investigate. We know that after the Lakeland explosion, which had occurred the day before the Babine explosion in that mill — there was an explosion the day before — WorkSafe was called by a worker to intervene. And we don’t know. What is it? What is the answer? Why was it the case that action wasn’t taken then? The action that followed April 23 didn’t follow January 20. Why was that action not taken then?

We have some answers to that question, it seems to me, from WorkSafe. We do have some answers. These are the notes that have been obtained — yes, under FOI. Many of

[ Page 10017 ]

them have been redacted in their most interesting parts. They refer to the very regulations I’ve just quoted from, those regulations that said that such accumulations were not on and they shouldn’t be allowed. They referred to them, but said they had no way of implementing them.

[1400]

In fact, let me just quote OH-and-S 5.81. What it says is that it’s essentially a performance base and has no current guidelines. This regulation would apply to dust accumulations in general work areas. What they had was…. They understood it was a problem. They had a regulation in place. It did have requirements, but it was not being enforced. And this, by the way, is a note dated February of 2012, in between the Babine and the Lakeland explosions. That’s what they did.

Then another briefing note, which says as follows…. It’s an issues management process note, and it says that “although the cause of the Babine explosion has not been accurately determined, wood dust is being considered as a potential factor in the explosion. We have seen several wood dust–related fires in sawmills over the years.”

Just remember what Hampton said. No one had heard anything about this. Yet this is what this note said.

“We have seen several wood dust–related fires in sawmills over the years, and within this region, we have seen at least two explosions in other wood product production plants over the past few years.”

That’s what the note says.

“There is a belief that dust in sawmills” — this is February of 2012 — “has become finer, drier and more abundant over the past ten-plus years. This is related to the fact that many of the mills are processing beetle-kill, drier wood. They have increased production speeds and are running a finer system.”

Then they said:

“Potential impacts. Industry sensitivity to the issue, given the recent event” — that’s what they called the Babine disaster; it’s an event — “and limited clarity about what constitutes an explosion could head to push-back if the enforcement strategy is pursued at this time.”

All of this evidence, all of the evidence from the United States, all of the evidence of Babine, all of the evidence of WorkSafe, and why didn’t they act until April 24? Why didn’t they act culturally? Why didn’t they act automatically? Industry sensitivity is the answer. Not “we must protect workers.” Industry sensitivity.

They have a meeting with industry on March 15, and nothing substantive happens, no change in the enforcement patterns of the regulation. Nothing happened. Everyone continued on. What happened? There was the explosion at Babine. There was the intervention by workers at Lakeland to say: “We have problems here.” There was the failure to report a fire and explosion at Lakeland. There was much government action. There were commitments by the Premier and many others to protecting workers. There was evidence, ample evidence, that action was required.

There were regulations on the books that actions were required, and nothing happened. Nothing happened, until the explosion at Lakeland, of any substance to protect those workers.

People at WorkSafe and in the government have avoided answering those fundamental questions. Why wasn’t action taken before, when there was ample evidence? Why weren’t people on the ground, who were reporting problems, being supported and driven to ensure that the law was being obeyed? And why wasn’t any action taken before the explosion?

Then, of course, we have — which we’ve already dealt with this year in this House — the extraordinary failure to properly review both accidents after they happened, failure that has led to an absence of justice for those families. This is why we need a public inquiry.

You know, it’s not just this jurisdiction that reflects on these things. WorkSafe has an evolving and important responsibility. In other jurisdictions, such as Manitoba, they have an independent review put in the legislation every ten years so that they can review where they’re at with the law, not when a crisis happens but as a regular course of doing business — an independent review of how WorkSafe is functioning and what changes are required for it to do its job.

In those jurisdictions, it is seen as fundamental and as vital and necessary. That is the pattern they take, but not in British Columbia. Not even these explosions could force the government and WorkSafe to explain why this was going on.

You will recall, hon. Speaker, the 13 years this has been…. The fact is that in 2002, without consultation, except on the employer’s side — and we know that WorkSafe B.C. is intended to be a partnership between workers and employers — a series of changes were introduced by the government to cut benefits to workers.

[1405]

It was straightforward. Those benefits were cut to workers. The argument was made that WorkSafe was unsustainable — one that wasn’t borne out in subsequent years by the facts, but nonetheless, the argument was made. So the contrivance of that meant reductions in inspections, reductions in benefits to injured workers, reduction in vocational rehabilitation and reduction in premiums.

The choice was made to take money from injured workers, which is what they did, to centralize power at the senior levels of WorkSafe — the people who have not responded to what has gone on in this incident adequately in any way, in any forum. They centralized power. They reduced supports for injured workers dramatically, by the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars every year. They broke the compromise. They did this on their own.

We’ve been through 13 years of this. This is the pattern. This is what they’ve done.

The consequences of this are seen, frankly, in these incidents, because there was no adequate response, a profound effort to avoid an adequate response by the government and by WorkSafe B.C. to their role. All we

[ Page 10018 ]

got was betrayal, betrayal to enforce the law both by the industry — one has to reflect on this international industry and how anyone could argue that events that occurred in the United States were not known to the industry — and by the government, both of which benefited from lower premiums.

Both of them have benefited by the reduction in regulation. They call it red tape, I think, at times. Both of them benefited from the fact that workers….

The cost of worker injury was reduced, not by reducing the number of worker injuries. That’s not what happened. In fact, in the immediate years after the 2002-03 changes came into effect, worker injuries actually went up in number. But the reduction in benefits to workers, so that individual workers who had previously received family-supporting benefits after they were permanently injured at work…. This was true of both short-term injuries — which were cut dramatically in one year after the government’s change, by $160 million — and long-term injuries. Both of them were negatively affected. Both of them — every single one — off the top, a 13 percent reduction in benefits.

The government decided they were giving injured workers too much and that that had to change. The context of those decisions is what we face now. Those are the questions we need to be asking. Those are the questions that need to be resolved, it seems to me, by a public inquiry.

The inquest juries did their best with the information that was available to them, and we have some changes as a result. But the fundamental changes and the fundamental review of these fundamental questions…. Why, when you had the evidence, didn’t you act? What does that mean for the future, when other circumstances arise and a priority is not given to worker safety? Those fundamental questions were not dealt with.

I want to finally note that one of the recommendations of the jury dealt with the issue of the Westray law and the Criminal Code. What used to be and, we believe, what ought to be…. It, in fact, was a recommendation of the Macatee report as well, not acted upon. There needs to be steps taken. We now have one case — one — and 1,600 workers dead in the workplace. One place — one — since the Westray law came into effect where it’s even been utilized in British Columbia. The coroner’s jury remarked on this.

What was the response? The response from the government was that they believe, they concluded: “On balance, the existing legislation, both provincial and criminal, adequately addresses prosecutions and the imposition of administrative penalties for workplace fatality and serious injury cases.”

[1410]

We have a Westray law that was passed unanimously in the Parliament of Canada. We have two incidents where absolutely, unequivocally, failures by the government and by WorkSafe B.C. led to a failure to prosecute and to hold people accountable. There is no question about that, no ambiguity about that. That failure was…. It was the Crown itself that fundamentally condemned how WorkSafe had operated — the government itself, another agency of the Crown. So there can’t be ambiguity about it. They said to WorkSafe B.C.: “You bungled this” — they did — “and therefore we can’t go forward.” Imagine if you were a family member of someone who had been injured under those circumstances.

We have a Westray law in place in this country that isn’t enforced and, over the last number of years, an increase in workplace fatalities. This the reality of the situation.

The coroner’s jury sought to do something about this, and the government says: “We’re not going to do what was even recommended by Mr. Macatee and have a prosecutor dedicated to this question. We’re not going to do that. We’re not going to do anything. The existing legislation and its enforcement that is not being used to protect workers will continue not to be used. That’s fine with us.” That’s what it says here in black and white.

I started this speech by saying that I think we have to be true to people such as Rhonda Roche and Maureen Luggi, true to the families of those who were killed, true to the workers who were injured.

These changes provide some improvement, as the minister has suggested — small improvement. I don’t diminish that at all. But they do not respond adequately. It is our obligation to respond adequately.

A failure of this magnitude, a system failure where worker safety and an organization designed to protect workers’ safety absolutely failed, where workers’ safety was not given priority by the government or by WorkSafe — and the evidence is overwhelming that that’s the case — requires a better response than just this.

That is why we will continue to advocate for those workers and continue to advocate to ensure that WorkSafe fulfils the spirit of what was agreed to in 1917 in British Columbia and that workers are able to go home safely from work every day in every industry in every part of British Columbia.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I would like to announce the introduction of a school in my riding — 43 elementary school students from grade 5 at Glenlyon Norfolk School. They’re accompanied by Mr. Benji Brooks, their grade 5 teacher; Ms. Sarah Wallace, their grade 5 teacher; and Mr. James Rhodes and Ms. Amanda Lee, who are both accompanying them as educational assistants.

Glenlyon Norfolk has a rich tradition of debate, pro-

[ Page 10019 ]

ducing many, many international debate stars. They’ve just witnessed a profound speech by the former Leader of the Official Opposition.

And in addition, they did witness as well the discussions and deliberations on the Electoral Boundaries Commissions Act, which is interesting because their school is presently split across two jurisdictions. Under the new electoral boundary changes, they’ll be all in the same riding, which will be the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

C. James: It is my honour to rise to speak to Bill 35, Workers Compensation Amendment Act. This is, as others have mentioned, a bill coming forward in response to the coroner’s inquest into the deaths of Robert Luggi, Carl Charlie, Glenn Roche and Alan Little. These are the four workers that were killed in the 2012 Prince George and Burns Lake mill explosions.

I want to use my time and take my place to speak about that tragedy, to speak about the changes that are included in this legislation and to speak about what’s not here based on the concerns from workers that I hear every single day regarding WorkSafe in British Columbia.

[1415]

But I do want to begin with the tragedy that was the push for these changes. I have to say that I won’t ever forget that call in January 2012 that came forward and that impacted so many of the lives in Burns Lake and certainly will be imprinted on the town forever.

My husband was Chief of the Burns Lake Band during that time. He called that afternoon when the explosion occurred, when he was waiting at the hospital for some of the injured workers to be brought forward. I booked my flight that night to head up to Burns Lake the next morning, and I have to say, it will be forever part of the memories of what went on in that town.

They say that a tragedy can bring people together. I have to say that in Burns Lake, you certainly saw that. It was a living example of exactly that. It was a community in shock. It was a community with families grieving, with members who at that point…. No one knew for the first few days after that explosion whether people had passed away or not. There were men missing. There were individuals who had been flown out of province, had been flown, obviously, out of Burns Lake because of the size of Burns Lake. And there were workers in shock.

To see the extraordinary efforts of that town to come together — I think it’s important to make sure that that’s also part of the record. The Babine First Nation opened up what is one of the biggest halls in the community. Burns Lake, as many people know, is a very small town. They opened up, in that town, the Margaret Patrick hall, which is the large hall that’s on reserve.

The town just came together in an extraordinary way. It really was a very powerful thing to witness. That hall became the place for everything over that next couple of months. It became the place where people would make food and bring it out. The hall was open almost 24 hours for the first few weeks. It became the place where counselling occurred, where counsellors were brought in to provide support to family members.

It became a place for people to share their emotions, to share their shock, to share the news, as they heard it, of each individual person, because in a small town like Burns Lake, everybody knew someone at that mill. Everyone knew the individuals who were there. Everyone knew the individuals who were hurt. Everyone is part of a large family in a very small community.

Food poured in. That support poured in. There were tears, there were hugs, there were prayers, and there was music every night in that hall. There was First Nations drumming and, as I said, counselling provided by professionals but also provided by community members. That kind of comfort can only come from people who know the kind of experience that you’re going through, and that’s really what I saw in that hall. I saw an extraordinary community come together to provide that kind of support.

I saw people who had worked in that mill almost their entire lives who would choke up talking about what might happen, not knowing whether the mill was going to reopen, not knowing what their future was going to be like.

I think that description only gives a little, tiny part of the life changes that really were there, and still to come, for those workers and their families. I experienced that aftermath of the Burns Lake fire with my family, with my husband’s family, but I also have spent time with the families of the survivors and of those who passed away at Lakeland, and I know they face the same kinds of lifelong challenges — the nightmares, the anger, the fear, the loss of work for many of those individuals.

I talked to some of those individuals who had never been out of work, who had worked their entire lives and now, all of a sudden, were faced with: “What do I do every single day? I’ve worked at the mill. I got up, I went to the mill, and I provided that kind of support for my family. Now I not only can’t support my family; I have this huge gap, this sense of a loss of worth that was there.”

I think that’s something that is incredibly profound. When you look at legislation, it doesn’t describe the kinds of challenges for those individuals.

I talked to a worker last year who actually went back to work at another mill. He managed to heal, managed to heal his burns, was able to go back to work to another mill, and he couldn’t do it. He talked about how challenging that was. He went there three days in a row and couldn’t do it because of the flashbacks, because of the challenges and because of remembering the fireball in the mill and going through that experience.

[1420]

[ Page 10020 ]

I rise to speak to these and to put these stories on the record because I think it’s important that we remember. It’s important that we never forget that these changes are coming forward because of the fires in two mills, because of deaths, because of a tragedy and because the checks and balances were not in place to prevent that loss of lives and to prevent those injuries.

I believe that it certainly is the right thing to bring this bill forward and to make some of the changes that have been recommended by the coroner’s inquest. But I do not believe — and I’ve heard, and I understand why people have raised it — that Bill 35 should come forward as a comfort or a legacy for the families. I feel that Bill 35 shouldn’t come forward as a legacy or shouldn’t come forward as a comfort. It should come forward because safety — worker safety — is just a basic right for every individual worker in this province.

Things didn’t happen because those rights weren’t there. That safety was not there at those two individual mills. While those families certainly deserve for this legislation to come forward, I see these changes as a basic right, as a basic, fundamental right for workers in this province.

I think it’s important — and I know others have spoken to this as well — to talk about why we’re seeing the need for these changes. Why are these kinds of changes important? Yes, these changes came forward in the coroner’s recommendations. Yes, two inquests occurred — not what the families were looking for. They did want a public inquiry and deserved a public inquiry. Two inquests did happen, and they did bring forward some important recommendations, but I believe it’s much deeper than that.

I believe that these recommendations and the changes are needed because we have seen, for at least ten years in this province, a government that has taken apart a system that should have been there to support workers, a system that should have been there to provide the kind of health and safety that always should be there, that should have been in place — the kinds of checks and balances to say, when there was a dust warning previously, that other mills should have been warned about that.

That kind of information should have been there. Work should have been stopped when it was seen as not a safe environment. Workers shouldn’t have been worried about coming forward, that they were going to lose their jobs if they raised some health and safety concerns, that they were worried about the temperature that night and whether they should be working.

Previously, there’d been checks and balances in place to say: “You don’t work when the temperature goes below a certain degree.” That wasn’t there in this case. Those workers, in our conversations and my conversations with them afterwards, expressed that kind of fear, that kind of worry about a culture where they’re afraid to come forward, where they’re afraid to raise health and safety issues because they’re worried that they’re going to lose their jobs.

Well, that kind of culture doesn’t happen by itself. It happens because there was a culture around WorkSafe and around worker safety in this province that said, under the B.C. Liberals, that we need to find a balance there that swings back to the employers. Well, what could be more important than health and safety of workers every single day?

No one in this entire Legislature would say that they don’t expect that workers have the right to go to work every day and come home every day — safe while they’re at work, healthy when they come back home again. Yet when you look at the changes that were made over the last number of years, many of those changes, in fact, did swing the pendulum too far, did take away checks and balances — when you’re talking about people not going out on WorkSafe checks, not going out to make sure that health and safety regulations are being followed, saying to companies: “It’s okay. You take care of it. We trust you.” Well, in fact, it is important to have those checks and balances.

We’ve gone through a debate in this Legislature about red tape and reducing red tape. Well, hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that when we talk about getting rid of unnecessary red tape but recognizing that there are some regulations that are there for a reason, health and safety is one of those reasons. It’s one of those reasons you have regulations in place. It’s one of the reasons you make sure that you’ve got the checks and balances. It’s not enough to say to someone, “You can go and read this on line,” and you’ve now taken care of your health and safety issues.

[1425]

If you look at the issues around young workers in our province and the lack of training that many young workers get in going into dangerous worksites and dangerous workplaces without the proper health and safety time that they need, the training on the job to make sure they’re safe, those are huge concerns. Those are concerns, from my perspective, that were built into the system, that created that kind of culture that says: “Don’t worry. The employer will take care of it.” Well, if you look at the statistics, it’s clear that that hasn’t happened.

When I take a look at the changes needed at WorkSafe, while I’m glad to see these changes come forward in this bill, I think it’s simply one piece. I think it is a cultural shift that is needed. I think it is an important piece that is needed to say that worker safety is critical and important in this province and that we are going to make sure that the checks and balances, the regulations, are in place, that the people to follow up on those regulations are in place, and that those are taken care of. That just seems to me basic rights that need to be in place in British Columbia.

I’m sure every member in this Legislature hears from individuals who bring their personal stories — often injured workers who are not able to return to the workplace — into their MLA’s office asking about what can be done with the challenges that they’re facing. Many of

[ Page 10021 ]

them are simply asking for, again, what I consider basic rights after you’ve been injured in the workplace: rights for rehabilitation — physio, occupational and physiotherapy; rights for retraining or workplace accommodation so that they can get back to work; to further training and to further education.

I think some of the most heartbreaking stories are individuals who come to say that they have been told by their own medical doctor, and specialists in many cases, that they can’t return to the workplace. Yet they’re told by WorkSafe doctors that they have to go back tomorrow or the next day and that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them.

I think those are the most shocking stories to hear, from individuals who question how on earth that can happen. How can they have medical professionals, specialists, saying that it’s not possible for them to return to the workplace, with all of the evidence to show that, and still they’re getting pressure from WorkSafe, saying, “No, sorry. You’re back to the work,” and if you aren’t, you get cut off all of your benefits and all of your supports and any kind of retraining that might occur?

While I certainly see these changes as a step, I don’t believe that they address the imbalance. I don’t believe they address the attitude or the approach that I’ve seen in WorkSafe, which often seems to be that the worker is always wrong and that WorkSafe is always right. We have to change that. WorkSafe should be there as a support. It should be there with the focus on prevention first — prevention and education.

We have a wonderful organization here in Victoria called the Together Against Poverty Society. They’ve partnered up with labour over this last couple of years to do an amazing project, where they are providing not only support and education but also advocacy for workers, often young workers, who are not able to move ahead their concerns in the workplace without a fear that they’re going to be fired or let go. They’re providing an amazing service, but that service should not be necessary.

Again, I come back to the basic need of WorkSafe. WorkSafe should be there to ensure that workplaces are safe and that the prevention piece is being focused on; that we’re doing everything we can to prevent accidents; that the health and safety culture is there; that if a worker believes that the workplace isn’t safe, they have every right and they feel comfortable and have the protection to come forward and say: “This isn’t right. This workplace is not safe. You shouldn’t be asking me to take this on because of the safety issues.” Again, that doesn’t happen right now. That should be something that certainly goes on.

As I mentioned, the regulations and the checks and balances are critical to any kind of regulation. Without someone doing the checks, without someone going out there and making sure that regulations are being followed, they are simply pieces of paper — which doesn’t protect those workers and that health and safety.

You know, many of us, and I’m sure most of us in the House, have stood at the National Day of Mourning ceremony that occurs in April each year. I think it’s important for us to recognize those statistics as we debate Bill 35, because as I said at the start of my remarks, these are people. These are families. These are communities that are forever impacted, forever changed, by the occurrences.

[1430]

If we take a look at the statistics of work-related deaths, we see the number in 2014 was 173. Those are 173 individuals, families and communities that are forever changed. Four young workers under the age of 24 died last year.

I have to ask: will the changes in Bill 35 address those workers? Will the changes make a difference for those who are injured and those who are killed each year? The families in Burns Lake and Prince George, the families of Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie and Glenn Roche and Alan Little, certainly felt that a public enquiry would have addressed their concerns, would have better addressed their need for answers and accountability.

I certainly hope, as they hope, that we learn from what happened, that there’s accountability for what happened and that the changes that need to occur aren’t simply changes based on this individual incident but based on a change in the culture and the approach and the attitude in British Columbia to support workers each and every day.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I would hope, in closing, that the changes in Bill 35 are simply a start. They’re simply a start and simply a reminder for all of us that worker safety is something that we need to pay attention to, not just on the day that we debate this bill, not just on the day that crisis happens, a loss of lives happen. Worker safety needs to be something we focus on each and every single day in British Columbia.

L. Larson: I rise in support of Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2). This legislation implements the five changes to the Workers Compensation Act the coroners’ juries recommended in the Lakeland and Babine mill explosion inquests.

The amendments are part of the ongoing coordinated work our government has undertaken to make workplaces safer. We have accepted all 43 of the recommendations made by Gord Macatee in the WorkSafeBC Review and Action Plan .

The Workers Compensation Amendment Act builds on the legislative changes made under Bill 9, earlier this year, that strengthened WorkSafe B.C.’s ability to promote and enforce occupational health and safety compliance in B.C. workplaces. Enshrining these changes in legislation is a legacy for the families who lost loved ones and those

[ Page 10022 ]

who were injured. It shows how serious we are about keeping British Columbians safe in their workplaces.

Amendment to

section 130 will not impede industry’s ability to make timely business decisions. It clarifies the role of joint occupational health and safety committees to provide advice about significant proposed changes to equipment and machinery that may affect workers’ health and safety. This amendment acts directly on recommendation No. 7 issued by the Lakeland jury. This strikes a good balance to keep workers safe while allowing industry to make necessary business decisions.

We are committed to ensuring all workers in B.C. come home to their families safe every night.

S. Fraser: I rise here today to speak to Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015. I know I’ll be repeating this, but the bill implements recommendations from the coroners’ inquests into the deaths of Robert Luggi, Carl Charlie, Glenn Roche and Alan Little — the four workers that were killed in the 2012 Prince George and Burns Lake mill explosions.

I certainly spent some time with some of the survivors of these horrendous accidents, preventable accidents, and I think it’s important that we have the opportunity to speak broadly on the issues that led us here and where we still need to go, regardless of this bill.

[1435]

Bill 35 is, arguably, a step in response to two terrible tragedies that took lives and hurt so many other lives.

I would say that those killed and those horribly injured in these accidents, these explosions, deserve the very best that we can provide in compensation. The fact is that many people that are injured in the workplace in this province end up relegated to poverty. The statistics are pretty grim — marriage breakups, personal bankruptcies. These are statistics that the minister and this government have access to.

In my opinion, that is not living up to the deal. The Meredith principle goes back to 1917. It was a deal. The workers, on the one hand, would not be able to sue their employers for compensation for injuries sustained in the workplace. The quid pro quo — the other side of the deal, if you will — was that workers needed to be treated fairly. They needed to be compensated fairly. The statistics in British Columbia indicate otherwise.

Now, these explosions ruined lives. They took lives. I think fulfilling the recommendations in the coroner’s inquest is important because, hopefully, they will close the gap that existed with WorkSafe and that, arguably, contributed to the explosions themselves — the failures of WorkSafe B.C. What’s wrong, what’s missing, in Bill 35 and through Bill 35 was that there was no public inquiry. Two horrendous accidents took lives and ruined lives — and no public inquiry, no look at the bigger picture. There may be systemic problems that have led to these accidents, and maybe others.

When this government took over, early in their mandate back in early 2001, significant changes were made to WorkSafe B.C., to the Workers Compensation Board. As a matter of fact, about half a billion dollars a year was reduced in premiums to companies — essentially, a tax break for companies. To pay for that half a billion a year, it was removed right from injured workers. It was taken out of rehab. It was taken out of pensions. It was taken out of a variety of benefits, if you will, that should flow to workers that are injured in the workplace. So many billions of dollars in the last 12 or 14 years have been removed from workers.

We see it. We, as MLAs, see it in our offices all the time. It is the worst cases that we have to deal with. The worst part of it is that we, as MLAs, have a very limited role. We can’t be the advocates for workers. We can’t be the workers’ advisers. We don’t have the resources. We don’t have the knowledge. Government and WorkSafe B.C. are supposed to provide those resources.

[1440]

Look at these tragic cases coming into the office, where workers have been hurt or have been victimized in their workplace. In their opinions — and I tend to agree, in many of these cases — they end up being revictimized by the system, by the workers compensation system, which seems always intent on trying to save a buck.

How do you make up that half a billion dollars you’ve removed from premiums? From the workers, who seem to have the burden of being guilty right off the bat, and they have to prove their innocence, if you will. It’s sort of counterintuitive to our justice system. That justice should apply to WorkSafe B.C. Workers should be treated fairly.

Following these explosions, the head of WorkSafe left his position without much explanation, certainly from government. He was replaced by an administrator, which tends to indicate a problem right from the top down.

Now, workers at Lake Babine, their families; in Lakeland, the families — those that lost their loved ones should have the right to a comprehensive public inquiry that would look at those contributing factors, those that might land on government. Government should not feel uncomfortable about this if they want to fix the problems with WorkSafe B.C.

The problems were huge. Both incidents…. Investigative reports into the mill blasts concluded that the explosions fuelled by dust were preventable. They should not have happened. They also noted that in the weeks and the months prior to both explosions, WorkSafe B.C. did not enforce the combustible dust provisions of the occupational health and safety regulation. That led directly to these explosions.

How do the changes to an organization that is supposed to protect workers and to help workers if they have been injured in the workplace…? How does it fail them like that? It’s not just the person at the top. It’s systemic. It’s a problem. We’re dealing with some symptoms that

[ Page 10023 ]

we must deal with through Bill 35, yes, but there is much more that we need to do.

In my constituency, in Alberni–Pacific Rim, in Port Alberni, there is a new university, the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences. The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences was created by

an act. It is

an act that came through this august chamber. It was unanimous — both sides of the House. I’m honoured to have played a small role in bringing that legislation through. The university was created.

It deals with addressing the workplace, addressing safety in the workplace, addressing rehab, addressing back-to-work strategies so that once someone is hurt in the workplace, they have every opportunity to still be productive members of society, not be relegated to poverty, which often happens, bankruptcies, marriage breakups, divorce, family breakups.

The Pacific Coast University’s strategies should inform organizations like WorkSafe B.C. Indeed, this university is in B.C. It’s in Port Alberni. Their strategies and policies on workplace management and disability management have been adopted by, I think, 19 countries in the world.

[1445]

The largest workers compensation board in the world is in Germany — over 60 million workers there — and they’ve adopted these strategies. Canada Post has adopted these strategies. The United Nations has adopted these strategies. But not here in B.C. — not where these strategies were developed.

WorkSafe B.C. does not apply these strategies. They do not use the university and the National Institute of Disability Management’s audit tools to help make sure that when there are gaps in the workplace that could lead to injuries or help people to get back to work if they are injured…. We’re not applying the basic strategies developed in British Columbia. We’re not applying them here even though the rest of the world is adopting those. Why are we not addressing issues like that in these bills? We have an opportunity to fix a system that is broken.

Now, I’ve left my constituency office in tears after dealing with workers that have been fighting the system and the injury that they are facing from that. The stress injury from that is more significant than the injury they faced in the first place in their workplace. That is simply wrong. This is not a system for bean-counters. This is a system that requires compassion, and it is lacking.

When we come to this chamber and try to fix problems after the fact — well, yeah, I guess we’ve got to do that. So yes, I guess I’ll be voting for this Bill 35. But we’re not covering everything off. We’re missing the big picture. As it stands in British Columbia, many workers that are injured in the workplace feel they are not being treated fairly and feel they are being revictimized by the very system that was supposed to help them.

I would submit that in B.C., in many cases, the government and the Workers Compensation Board are not fulfilling their requirements of the Meredith principles. Their end of the deal is lacking. The workers are paying that price.

I’ve been honoured to serve for most of my ten years in this place as the spokesperson for aboriginal affairs. I want to just throw a quote into the record here. This is from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. “I know these families in these two sawmill explosions have been so diligent to ensure this issue was properly investigated, and the provincial government has completely frustrated their efforts to see a full measure of justice.”

That was a quote from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs going back to November 18, 2014. It was printed in the Globe and Mail . Grand Chief Stewart Phillip had it right.

The Premier said that she’d have the workers’ backs. They don’t feel that way. I appreciated the words, but words are not enough. We need to fix the system that is broken. We can fix some pieces of that with Bill 35, but it doesn’t fix the system. The workers of B.C. may still pay the price for that.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

As my colleague before me stated, we will be supporting this bill. It is particularly tragic that it’s only in reaction to accidents that the government has seen fit to act to protect workers.

[1450]

I have served as a union rep in the past and had to deal with many, many workers who have had terrible experiences trying to get compensation from WorkSafe B.C. for injuries. I have seen terrible circumstances on the job. The forest industry, of course, with…. The dust explosion was the precursor of this bill, or the catalyst of this action, and the coroner’s inquest that followed it. Perhaps I could speak a little bit about the forest industry in general.

I’ve had experience in the forest industry. I worked as a chokerman. I worked in sawmills. I worked planting trees. I’ve seen many circumstances that were incredibly dangerous, and it’s only the cooperation between workers and companies and workers themselves that prevents even worse tragedies from occurring more frequently.

I learned as a union rep that health and safety committees were a non-confrontational, balanced body that addressed issues of common interest in order to keep workers safe. They were not only a huge benefit to health and safety, but in fact, they were a huge benefit to relations between labour and companies in general. You know, it has clearly been shown numerous times that relationships built through these committees have served to help move labour conflict logjams ahead, as people were able to approach each other in an atmosphere and a history of trust.

I know that we are talking about an industry where

[ Page 10024 ]

courage is a major factor in what people have to bring to their jobs. I know that when I was a greenhorn working in the bush, I was constantly under the supervision of workers with great experience who watched out for me and pointed out whenever I was in a dangerous position. I can remember.

A chokerman wraps a wire bead, a cable bead, around a tree, and that choker, that cable, pulls the tree down the hillside. These are trees that are falling in a tic-tac-toe, often a really chaotic pile, and there’s a lot of force. There’s a lot of force — and steep embankments with trees sitting in a position where they can easily roll. There’s a lot of pressure on workers in the bush and in mills to perform and to measure up against their co-workers.

I remember feeling like I had to be able to wrap a choker around a tree once that required me to dig under the tree and, with my cheek against the tree, reach as far under as I could. I realized, as I could smell the bark of the tree and the moss, that if the tree shifted in any way, any minuscule way, I would surely be killed — as my arm was extended as far as I could reach under that huge log and my cheek up against it. I had nowhere to go. It was only a veteran worker who pointed out the risk that I had just undertaken.

This is an atmosphere, a workplace that’s guaranteed to create risk and danger. The management of that risk and danger is something that the workers and the companies must jointly undertake as their first responsibility in those workplaces, but also our government, as the leader of regulation and controls over workplaces, needs to be uncompromising in their approach to managing safety.

[1455]

You know, as much as it hurts to say it and hurts to hear it, the deregulation of industry and of protections to workers has contributed to these tragic circumstances. This is clear. This case where this dust explosion occurred…. It’s clear that the proper precautions were not undertaken after warnings were issued and warnings were heard, after workers brought forward concerns.

The mechanisms of health and safety committees and all the regulations that were in place in the past might have prevented this tragedy, just as other tragedies in the forest industry might have been prevented.

I’m going to speak, for a moment, about one that touched me very deeply. One of my first experiences as an MLA was to sit through the inquest into the death of a faller named Ted Gramlich.

Ted Gramlich was an experienced faller. He was 52 years old, and he was nearing his retirement when he died on a side hill on Vancouver Island. He died, and the coroner’s inquest into his death stated that deregulation was a contributing factor to his death. This was back in 2006, a year when 41 forest workers lost their lives. There were two instances where the deaths of forest workers were attributed, partially — the cause of those deaths — to deregulation of the forest industry.

I’d like to tell you the circumstances of Ted Gramlich’s death. Ted Gramlich was a logging contractor. He was a falling contractor. He formerly had worked for one of the major companies as one of their fallers, but part of the deregulation of the industry and part of the restructuring of the industry was that these fallers became independent contractors in competition with each other. And the many mechanisms that were put in place to protect them when they worked for the major licensee logging companies were abandoned and removed in a hasty restructuring and deregulation of the industry.

Ted Gramlich was on a side hill, and he was working in fog and bad weather conditions that he probably wouldn’t have been working in previous to this deregulation. His partner, Mark Lee, had expected a radio call-in, a safety call-in, a scheduled call-in from his partner. When that didn’t come three minutes after its scheduled time, Mr. Lee raced through the bush towards his partner, his colleague. He found the mortally wounded Ted Gramlich so badly injured that Mr. Lee could only reassure him.

Mr. Lee described Mr. Gramlich’s last words in the hour-long wait for the fogbound helicopters, before the fogbound helicopters could reach them at this remote logging site of Black Ridge Bay west of Nanoose on Vancouver Island. Ted told him: “Mark, I’m dying.” Mark said: “Ted, you’re not going to die. Just hang in there.” He said this with the gruff, rough voice of a faller with 20 years’ experience. He pressed his finger to his eye to wipe away the tears.

Mr. Lee testified before a five-member coroner’s jury, including three people with forestry experience, that Ted was so punctual and safety-conscious that he immediately knew something was wrong when he failed to call in at the scheduled time of 12:30. At 12:33, Mark was racing through the bush towards Ted.

Ted Gramlich was an experienced faller, and he was crushed by a tree he was trying to bring down. He was the 40th of 41 forestry sector deaths that year.

Mr. Lee said he immediately knew his friend’s situation was grim. His scalp was peeled back, showing his skull. Mr. Lee, who was trained in first aid, applied a pressure bandage with one hand while bracing Mr. Gramlich, who was going into shock.

A workplace report about the accident found Mr. Gramlich’s death to have been caused primarily by his decision to fell a Douglas fir against its lean. That means trying to make the tree fall away from the direction that it’s leaning, and there are various techniques that fallers use to do that.

[1500]

But he cut a second tree, called a pusher tree, about four metres away, in an effort to add its weight to the first tree. But instead of toppling as intended, the second tree got hung up against the first. Then Mr. Gramlich tried to chop around the first tree with six cuts of his axe. It shifted and caused the second tree to fall, striking

[ Page 10025 ]

the worker on his head, chest, groin and legs as it rolled down the rock bluff.

With the rock bluff behind him and the stump in front of him, Mr. Gramlich had no escape route. The injuries were consistent with him facing the tree as it fell, rather than running away. He likely leaned back against the bluff, trying to avoid being hit.

Now, Mr. Gramlich made a series of decisions that resulted in his work taking place in extremely hazardous conditions. He had always put safety first, but as other articles and other reports from workers point out, workers were feeling such heavy pressure to perform and to produce and to not be the ones who couldn’t do the job, no matter what the circumstance.

In fact, fallers who were newly contracted rather than working for the big companies were essentially in competition with each other. If they couldn’t get the wood out, somebody else would, and they wouldn’t get another contract.

This was all contributing to this pressure that was on Ted Gramlich that day — the pressure that’s on forest workers, whether they be in mills, like the men who died in Prince George, or working in the forest, in the bush.

Contractors recognize…. Brock Brown, the owner of LJC Contracting, had known Ted for 15 years. He said he was a good, experienced faller, and his death caused him to reflect on how things could be improved. He points out that there’s been this long-standing macho culture in the business, and it’s absolutely true that nobody wants to be the one who says: “I can’t do that.”

It contributes to this circumstance where people put themselves at risk — particularly inexperienced people, but even workers like Ted, who had a long history. They put themselves at risk in order to “get ’er done.” That’s the phrase loggers and sawmillers use: get ’er done.

It is the responsibility of the companies and the workers, organized in their unions, working through health and safety committees, to ensure that there are checks and balances against that culture and that pressure. The ultimate responsibility falls on the regulator. The ultimate responsibility falls on our government.

The coroner listed deregulation as a cause of Ted’s death. When they worked for the major companies, in the morning, the fallers would make sure that they were in contact with the helicopter crews. They would be assured whether or not the helicopters were able to fly. There was a chain of communication from the rescue helicopters through the company to the work crews, so that if the fog came in and the helicopters weren’t able to fly, the work would stop until they were. That was the vital link in the chain that was broken.

Even though there had been notification that the helicopters couldn’t fly, Ted and his work partner never heard that because of this breaking of the links of the safety chain that they had become accustomed to working and depending on.

Although not directly connected to this issue, it points to the role of government. The role of government should be to adequately respond to circumstances and prevent these factors — these forces of competition, of macho culture, of the pressure to produce and to profit. The government’s role is to balance that and to ensure that the highest safety standards are met and maintained.

[1505]

Workers and companies had worked together closely in order to achieve this in a constructive and productive culture of health and safety committees.

You know, the really tragic part of any death is, perhaps, mostly the people left behind. During and after the inquest into Ted’s death, his long-time partner, Debbie Geddes, was very, very impacted and grieving and very angry. She lost her partner in this accident unnecessarily. What really hit me the hardest was that outside the inquest one day, she told me that the thing she missed the most was dancing. That’s what they did together. They danced. Ted and she were great dancers. She said this to me in tears.

It really drove home to me the fact that we talk about numbers. We talk about standards of, in this case, dust, cleanliness in a mill and, in that case, communication standards in the bush. We can become, in a way, accountants of misery. How many is an acceptable number? How much risk is an acceptable risk when, in fact, we’re dealing with fragile human beings? No matter how tough they might consider themselves and no matter how brave they might be, we’re still dealing with fragile people and vulnerable families who depend on these mechanisms in order to survive — survive individually but also survive as families and communities.

The impact is so great — the impact on Debbie Geddes; the impact, in this case, on the communities of Prince George and Burns Lake. The deep, deep, far-ranging impacts of the loss of life or serious injury are inestimable. We wind up in a situation of balancing profit against safety, balancing efficiency against the need to protect people, and I think it’s absolutely tragic.

We can look to the Grant De Patie situation. He was a young man working alone, trying to collect money at a gas station when a customer failed to pay and drove off, and he wound up dragged under a car to his death. Who would expect that a young person would put themselves at such risk in order to collect a tiny little bill? But that’s what happens. Then the government responded with a bill that served to protect workers who work alone at night, but even that, because of the pressure it puts on business, has been diluted in its effect on people in the workplace.

I think we can never forget the families and the people affected. As we’re asked to consider diluting the protections of workers and asked to celebrate red-tape-reduction day, we have to remember that we’re talking about rules that protect the lives of individual people who af-

[ Page 10026 ]

fect communities, who affect their families so absolutely deeply. It’s not something where we can simply wager accountants over the number of people and the risk that we’re allowing.

It was a tragedy that Ted died. He shouldn’t have died. The length of time that he lived after the accident indicated that there was a strong possibility that had there been helicopter evacuation available, he would have lived. But he didn’t know, and his partner on that side hill didn’t know, that they weren’t protected by helicopter evacuation because the notice that was given never actually reached the workers. These are the unintended consequences of actions like the deregulation of the forest industry but also industry generally.

[1510]

I know that no member of this House and no member of the government said: “Well, let’s do this. We don’t care if someone dies. We’ll just do this. We’ll rip out these regulations because they’re troublesome and they’re difficult for companies to observe, and we just want to be friendly to business and get rid of red tape.”

That’s why it hurt me to hear this debate over celebrating red-tape-reduction day. In my life, in my limited experience around this whole issue…. I can just see the face of Debbie Geddes, the life partner of Ted Gramlich, in tears over the loss of Ted. That’s what deregulation, what getting rid of red tape, means to me.

I ran a small business, and I didn’t enjoy red tape that I felt was unnecessary. But as a British Columbian, I understand that these regulations, especially now that I’ve had this experience, are there to protect people. They’re not there simply as a troublesome obstacle, unnecessary to the prospering and efficiency and profit of business.

When the government considers its role in the death of Ted Gramlich or the explosions at these mills, they need to be directly honest with themselves that what they’ve chosen to do, the path they’ve taken this province on when it comes to worker safety, has been fatal, lethal. People have lost their lives. Many, many people have been injured beyond being able to function ever again in their lives — many, many more. Some of this was unnecessary. Some of this was driven by a refusal to recognize the ultimate consequences of decisions that have been made in this House.

Even when the government decided to engage a coroner’s inquest into the mill explosions rather than a full inquiry, that was a choice. How was the choice made? Was it made in order to facilitate greater safety standards for workers once the government realized that the path they’d taken us down was leading to these tragedies? Did they decide that, well, a coroner’s inquest will actually do a better job of protecting workers, even if it exposes the government to embarrassment or liability, even if it causes loss of profit and consequences for business that are less than favourable?

Is that why they chose? I don’t think so. So many people who are expert in the field and the families themselves and the communities have demanded a full inquiry. We feel it’s unfortunate that that wasn’t provided to these workers and their families and these communities.

We feel that the bill, specifically in

section 7, dilutes the power of workers to improve safety conditions and to reduce occupational hazards. Specifically, it could circumscribe a worker’s participation in an accident investigation to being just an observer or a consultant role versus being an active member of the investigation team. Such action runs counter to the intent of the inquest recommendations underpinning the amendment.

The jurors on that coroner’s inquest envisioned their recommendations, once implemented, to empower workers with a stronger voice and a role in occupational health and safety issues. I know from experience that that is a vital necessity. Safety is not simply rules and regulations. It’s a constant vigilance on the part of workers, on the part of responsible companies and operators and on the part of government as the regulator and the manager of risk, ultimately.

[1515]

Now, TimberWest, the company that Ted was contracted to, wound up being fined $67,936, which is a significant penalty but tiny, minuscule and insignificant in comparison to the loss of life of a gentleman who was loved and appreciated — the loss to a family, the loss to a community.

I don’t know, like I came to know Ted’s family, the families of those workers in Prince George and Burns Lake. But I wager they feel exactly as Debbie Geddes felt about Ted’s death — that it was unnecessary, that actions taken far away from where they worked reduced the protections that they worked under and ultimately contributed to the loss of a loved one.

I think it’s impossible to overstate the tragedy of that. It’s impossible to overstate the enormous weight of responsibility that falls on government once they take decisions, even if these are unintended consequences of those decisions. This is what workers throughout this province have had to face because of the approach of regulators — ultimately, the government, the ultimate authority in regulating industry.

Even though, as a former small business owner, I wouldn’t want to…. I exported bicycles to the United States, and I was troubled by all sorts of regulations at the border that caused me problems that I thought were unnecessary.

Yeah, we can see and we could support any reduction of unnecessary regulation that impairs the ability of business to function profitably and efficiently, except at the expense of safety to workers, to the environment and to their communities — except when it comes to putting lives, the environment and community interests at risk.

That’s the dividing line. Unfortunately, as has been shown through the inquest into Ted Gramlich’s death,

[ Page 10027 ]

that dividing line was crossed. I’m willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to the government and to the members that it was crossed without purpose — that they didn’t mean that. I am not willing to forgive the fact that they were told, they were warned, and they ignored that. Just as with these explosions, they ignored warnings.

So while I will support the bill, and while I commend any effort by any person and any government to improve safety for workers, I am still bitter and angry on behalf of Ted’s family and any worker that was hurt or killed because of the changes and the deregulation brought by this government. That’s a responsibility that this government needs to face.

In every circumstance like this one we’re dealing with now, they need to do better. They need to not resort to the least damaging form of inquiry, the least challenging regulatory role that would put them in conflict with corporations that might donate to them or business interests that pressure them. They are the protector of public interests. They’re the protectors of British Columbians, and they should be doing a better job.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South, I rise today to speak on Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2). This amendment in this bill builds on the legislative changes made earlier this year under Bill 9.

This government is strengthening WorkSafe B.C.’s ability to promote and enforce occupational health and safety compliance in B.C. workplaces. We are building on the work we’ve already done to improve workplace safety for all British Columbians.

Early in October, I attended the unveiling of the Golden Tree Monument in Abbotsford. I know the Speaker himself was there. It was great to see you there. I know how important it was for you to be there.

[1520]

It is this monument in Canada that recognizes the important contributions that farmworkers provide to society. In March 2007, sadly, three women lost their lives when their work van lost control on a highway near Abbotsford. The Golden Tree is a symbol to honour their memory. We hope this monument will also raise awareness of the important work that farmworkers do in British Columbia.

These senseless deaths sparked a provincewide review of farm transportation and a coroner’s inquest that gave rise to stronger rules, regulations and enforcement. These changes made farm work safer in British Columbia.

This government continues to enhance worker safety in our province, not just for millworkers but for farmworkers and workers in all jobs in the province. These amendments are part of the ongoing and coordinated work our government has undertaken to make workplaces safer.

We are introducing this legislation in response to the inquest recommendations. The legislation implements the five changes to the Workers Compensation Act that the coroner’s juries recommended in the Lakeland and Babine mill explosion inquests.

These amendments will require workers to immediately report to WorkSafe B.C. all workplace fires or explosions that had the potential to cause serious injury to a worker. It will also require employer investigative reports to be provided to the workplace health and safety committee or to the worker health and safety representative or to be posted at the worksite. It will specify meaningful participation for workers’ and employers’ representatives in employer accident investigations.

As well, amendments will specify a role for workplace health and safety committees to provide advice to employers on significant proposed equipment and machinery changes that may affect worker health and safety. Finally, the amendments also allow WorkSafe B.C. to proactively assist workplace health and safety committees in resolving disagreements over health and safety matters.

Bringing in these changes through legislation is the right approach. Those who were injured or lost loved ones in the Lakeland and Babine sawmill tragedies have shown grace and dignity during the inquests and through very difficult times. Enshrining these changes in legislation is a legacy to those families.

It shows how serious we are about keeping British Columbians safe in their workplaces. We want to do everything we can to make sure that these types of accidents never, ever happen again.

D. Donaldson: I rise to take my place in second reading debate on Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, and I know I will be presenting a slightly different view of this legislation compared to what the previous member spoke of.

I think that we have to, in addressing second reading of Bill 35, address the context within which this bill is being considered. I remember well January 20, 2012. I was in the constituency in Stikine. For those who don’t live in rural areas and remote-rural areas of the province, people are well connected. When a tragedy happens….

So immediately, people start connecting with each other when they hear of an explosion like that — an industrial accident of that scale. And we get worried.

[1525]

As it turns out, after that explosion in January 2012, we learned quite quickly that two men died — Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie — but there were also 19 injured

[ Page 10028 ]

in that mill explosion. I know people in my community who were part of those 19 who were injured.

It affects more than just Burns Lake and the millworkers and the millworkers’ families. It goes beyond that, to really rocking the foundation of what people in small communities expect of their government.

They expect their government to have their backs, as the Premier said, when workers go to work. When men and women go to work in remote-rural areas, resource-based communities in the province, they provide economic benefit for the rest of the province. They provide economic benefit for their families, oftentimes in dangerous situations, but they expect the rules to be followed. They expect the government to properly investigate when they’re not, and they expect the government — to put it in the Premier’s words — to have their backs.

I don’t think, in this situation or in this legislation — and I’ll have my comments to demonstrate this — that is what has happened here. Shortly afterwards…. That was January 2012, and people were still recovering from that. I know that people in the north and members from the other side, as well, were really impacted by this.

Then, on April 24, 2012, there was the explosion at the Lakeland mill in Prince George, and another two people died — Glenn Roche and Alan Little — and 22 were injured in that. Just a few months later, these two events, terrible tragedies in communities…. The ripple effect spread out throughout the north and throughout the province about people’s fundamental belief that the government had their back when they went to work in these mill situations.

This is what happens. I’m not going to mention his name, but I know from the injured millworker that I know from Babine Forest Products mill explosion that the retraining opportunities weren’t appropriate. The support he had there wasn’t appropriate.

I know from reading reports of other injured workers that the support from the government when it came to dealing with what those workers experienced in those explosions wasn’t sufficient when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder. There was one report of a worker who basically crawled through flames, helped to rescue others. When he was in his recovery from that — he’s dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder from that, under Bill 35 that we’re discussing today — he was told to go to counselling for alcohol and drug treatment. That’s all that was available in the community that he lived in.

That, again, is an unsupportive move by the government. These are workers who go to work…. We should have their backs, and we should bend over backwards in order to try to support them in their post–industrial accident, post–mill explosion environment. I don’t think we’ve done that properly, and I feel for those families and workers.

That is the context under which we’re considering Bill 35, these amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act. What really is troubling is that in both incident investigations after these mill explosions that were fuelled by dust…. We know from the beetle-killed wood in the northern areas that dust became a huge problem in mills. The wood is very dry. It’s usually tried to be harvested as quickly as possible after being killed by the pine beetles, but it’s much drier than harvesting green trees and can lead to an unusual buildup of dust.

[1530]

This was known. Both investigations — both into the Babine mill explosion and the Lakeland mill explosion — found that the explosions were preventable. As we’re discussing Bill 35, this is the context that we’re faced with. The two investigations found that the explosions were preventable and that WorkSafe B.C. did not enforce the combustible dust provision of the occupational health and safety regulations in the weeks and months prior to these explosions.

I can’t fathom what that kind of finding would have on the families of those who died in those two explosions and on the families of those workers who were injured. Relatively shortly after those explosions, the families are told: “Well, these explosions were preventable.” So what would one expect from that? Well, I think one would expect that charges would be laid. But in the meantime…. We had both explosions in 2012. Not only would we anticipate charges being laid, but we would anticipate that the government would ensure….

We’ve had two explosions here. Four people died, 19 injured in one mill, 22 injured in another. We would expect a government to say to the mills, “You’d better make sure that this dust isn’t accumulating, that you are following the occupational health and safety regulations.” Or whatever agency of the government was responsible for that — for instance, WorkSafe B.C.

We then find that a year and a half later, in November 2013, WorkSafe has gone out to see how mills are reacting, following these explosions a year and a half earlier. They find that 42 percent of 144 mills inspected had failed to comply with WorkSafe B.C. rules. That’s almost beyond comprehension after the tragedy that we hear, the human cost that’s happened. That 42 percent translates into 61 of 144 mills that were found not in compliance with dust management rules. In 13 cases, the hazards were severe enough to force temporary shutdowns.

Here we have the Premier coming to Prince George after the Lakeland explosion, visiting injured workers in the hospital and quoted in the local media as saying at the bedside of an injured worker: “We have your back.” One would assume that by saying that, the Premier is saying, “We have your back,” not only to the injured workers but to workers working in mills in other parts of the province. But a year and a half later 41 percent of the mills that WorkSafe B.C. visited were still not in compliance with dust regulations.

I’m not sure what impact the Premier’s words had, but

[ Page 10029 ]

by that evidence, it sure didn’t mean a lot. Something was terribly amiss, and the industry wasn’t paying attention. We have the two mill explosions that Bill 35 is trying to address. We have incident investigation reports saying that they were fuelled by dust and were preventable. A year and a half later we have 41 percent of 144 mills in the province still not complying, even though the Premier has said that this is going to be addressed.

Then we have, in 2014, the families finding out that the criminal justice branch in the Crown has declined to lay charges against either company because WorkSafe B.C. has improperly collected evidence. They’ve failed to sufficiently flag wood dust as a risk prior to the blasts, and the reasonable due diligence defence by the companies would likely stand, so the Crown decided not to lay charges.

[1535]

This bill that we’re looking at today, Bill 35, is attempting, in some small ways, to address the fact that WorkSafe B.C. failed to collect the evidence properly. Again, I think most people would just shake their heads, to say that we have this agency that’s directed by the government, that has bungled the investigation — the collecting of evidence — so much that criminal charges couldn’t be laid in 2014. Again, Bill 35 is in response to this series of bungling.

Again, the families, first of all, hear that the explosions were preventable. They hear that a year and a half later there’s still dust collecting in mills. In 2014 — two years later, pretty well — they hear that charges are not going to be laid. So what happened then, in relation to what we’re addressing today in Bill 35?

The families, understandably, are getting worried about whether anything will come out of the deaths of their family members, the injury of their family members. They, along with First Nations…. The Babine Forest Products mill was primarily a First Nations–owned and –operated mill, so First Nations families and workers call for a public inquiry starting in the spring of 2014, because they are worried. They are worried, because they’ve found out that these explosions were preventable and they’ve found out that WorkSafe B.C. is in such a state of disarray that the evidence they collected is going to be tainted. So they’re worried about accountability.

After saying to the injured workers, “We have your back,” in Prince George — the workers who crawled through flames to save others, who were lying in hospital beds — the Premier denies their request for a public inquiry. The coroner’s inquest, which this Bill 35 is in reaction to, is the most appropriate forum, according to the Premier.

We know that the inquest can’t do what a public inquiry could have done. Then we get into splitting of hairs, legal opinions around that. This is what the Premier decided to engage in. A public inquiry can address more issues than an inquest. It has broader powers. It can make findings on misconduct. It can cover more issues. We know that a coroner’s inquest cannot find fault. That’s what the families faced.

Bill 35. The inquests proceed. Bill 35 is a response by the government to the results of these inquests. We know that the inquests had some findings, and I’ll get to those a little bit in this second reading debate, because they are pertinent to Bill 35. Again, the inquests have inherent limitations based on statute.

Most importantly, I think, after the injustice of these mill explosions being preventable, after the injustice of no charges being laid by the Crown, the injustice of not having a public inquiry when the families asked for it and First Nations asked for it, the families then are faced with a coroner’s inquest where they don’t have equal standings with the government, with the agencies or with the companies.

[1540]

How is that? Well, despite what the government said about how a coroner’s inquest would prevent the lawyering up of the different parties to the inquest, they did lawyer up. The government lawyered up. The government agencies lawyered up. The employers, the companies, lawyered up.

The families, who had suffered the most, didn’t have the resources to lawyer up. They pointed out to the minister and the ministry and the government and the Premier that this was a great disadvantage. They made a request for legal assistance, a request for support to have legal representation at the inquest.

Again, we must remember that these inquest processes are what generated this government’s response through Bill 35. So we have to really have a close look at the inquest process.

They asked for assistance with legal representation. It seems fair enough to me. I mean, you’ve had a husband or a co-worker or a family member die or be injured. You see a government agency with lawyers at an inquest. You see the companies with lawyers at a coroner’s inquest. You’re standing alone. Where is your support legally?

It seems to me that it would be a reasonable request for assistance for legal representation that the families made. It would seem to me that it would be in the spirit of, “We’ve got your back,” for this government to grant that request. In fact, on October 22, 2014, the widows of the workers killed wrote to the Premier, and part of what they said was:

“Despite our skepticism in the mandate of the coroner’s inquest to find the answers that we and the workers across B.C. need and deserve, one thing is clear. Our families need independent counsel to represent us at the coroner’s inquest. Our questions must be asked. Our voices must be heard. Our interests must be protected, and our efforts to ensure justice has been done and seen to be done must be fulfilled.”

Here are the families making what I find an incredibly magnanimous approach to the Premier after they found out that the explosions were preventable. It’s after

[ Page 10030 ]

they found out that a government agency that this government is responsible for has collected evidence inappropriately. So no charges will be laid. It’s after being refused a request for a full public inquiry. They say: “Okay. This is the best deal we’re going to get from the province, from the government — a coroner’s inquest. The least we would like is equal footing at this coroner’s inquest.”

They wrote that letter on October 22, 2014. A month later, approximately — November 2014 — the Premier wrote back and refused their request to have assistance for legal representation, saying that the coroner’s counsel would be available to assist them — the coroner’s counsel.

How could the coroner’s counsel argue on behalf of the families and workers — for instance, that a certain witness testify — and then advise the coroner on what decision she should make in regards to that argument? That’s playing two different roles. That’s a conflict of interest. I’m not sure about the advice that the Premier got back, saying to these families that the coroner’s counsel would be able to assist them, but it was obvious that there would be a clear conflict of interest then.

The families, at the inquest, were unable to have the same independent counsel that the other parties had to ask questions, to request access to documents, to demand evidence or to conduct a cross-examination.

[1545]

You have to think about this. These are families that have suffered unbelievable tragedy — their loved ones taken away from them forever, other families with workers who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. And through this coroner’s inquest, the government expects them to cross-examine witnesses in the same manner that counsel for the companies and counsel for the government agency are doing. I’m at a loss for words as to how that is an empathetic approach, how that’s a sympathetic approach, how that’s an approach that says: “We’ve got your back.”

In fact, First Nations leader Stewart Phillip, the Grand Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, responded to the refusal of the Premier to support the families through assistance to legal representation. He said: “I know the families in these two sawmill explosions have been so diligent to ensure this issue is properly investigated, and the provincial government has completely frustrated their efforts to see a full measure of justice.”

The coroner’s inquests that Bill 35 is in response to proceeded. The lack of standalone, independent counsel left the workers who were called as witnesses unprepared for cross-examination. These workers, again, have suffered trauma. As I pointed out, they weren’t getting proper post-traumatic stress disorder counselling. They’re unprepared. They have to testify and be cross-examined by lawyers from WorkSafe B.C., by lawyers from the companies whose mills exploded. Those explosions were preventable. I don’t know what more can be said about how that’s putting people through further pain.

The inquest was adjourned, as we know, on March 25, 2015, before the final recommendations came out — for five weeks — because it was learned that WorkSafe and Lakeland, two parties who did have legal representation, had effectively withheld evidence. All we can ascertain is that if the families had had proper legal representation during the many months and weeks of the inquest before that, they might have had the ability to compel or request all evidence and documents related to the explosions from the company and from WorkSafe.

So, again, adding insult to injury, the workers, because they didn’t have legal representation, are faced with another five-week delay in anticipation of the findings of those two inquests.

To recap — and it’s a recap around the context of how we’re considering Bill 35 today — two explosions happened in 2012. They were deemed preventable. A year and a half later, 41 percent of the mills in B.C. are still found to be substandard when it comes to dust regulations and dust cleanup. Two years later, in 2014, the Crown decides that they can’t lay charges. So there are no charges going to be laid because of the ineffective way that WorkSafe B.C. collected evidence.

The families call for a public inquiry in the spring of 2014. That’s denied by the Premier, saying a coroner’s inquest would be sufficient when it wasn’t and isn’t. The families go ahead with the inquest, only to find that government agencies and the companies are lawyered up. They have legal representation.

[1550]

They make a request to the Premier for their own legal representation. That’s denied. The Premier says the coroner’s counsel can do it. The coroner’s counsel is, obviously, in a conflict of interest. That person can’t do that.

The inquest eventually made conclusions. But we’re still not at the point…. After all that, after the terrible pain and suffering the families have gone through, we’re still not able to answer why WorkSafe B.C. failed to fulfil its fiduciary duty to protect workers by not taking prompt action against wood dust. I mean, it’s a basic question that I think anybody would ask: why didn’t something happen?

The most tragic thing is that between the mill explosion in January 2012 in Burns Lake, at Babine Forest Products, a mill that I’ve visited before…. Between that mill exploding in January and the mill exploding in Prince George, the Lakeland mill, in April, there were no lessons learned, it appears.

In notes that we were able to gain access to…. A note from February 27, 2012 — in between the two explosions — from WorkSafe B.C. says: “Industry sensitivity to the issue, given the recent event and limited clarity around what constitutes an explosion, could lead to pushback if an enforcement strategy is pursued at this time.”

Not only were 41 percent of mills in B.C. still not in compliance a year and a half after these mills exploded, but we had, in between the two explosions, WorkSafe

[ Page 10031 ]

backing off on enforcement strategy. And we know that in April, another mill exploded. That makes one assume there’s a culture that is allowing that kind of behaviour to happen.

What I see is that by not even addressing a dedicated Crown prosecutor, for instance, like this, as was indicated by the inquest should be done, these workers are continuing to suffer injustice. We can do better than this legislation, and we can do better for the workers in this province.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to take my place on Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. I think this is an important piece of legislation for a number of issues. Clearly, there are the circumstances around which this particular piece of legislation has emerged. Everybody in this House knows this tragic situation of the explosions at the mills in Prince George and Babine, Burns Lake, the deaths of those workers and the subsequent events that have flowed from that.

This piece of legislation attempts to deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the ensuing years since those explosions, issues that have been raised on this side of the House and outside this House in terms of ensuring this never happens again, efforts to ensure that the families receive some justice, attempting to ensure that WorkSafe is actually doing what it is supposed to be doing.

There have been some very eloquent remarks by my colleagues the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the member for Stikine, who recounted in great detail. But I want to touch on some aspects of the legislation, which we have said that we are supporting at second reading. We think these are important steps, but there is much more to be done.

[1555]

I also want to take the opportunity to comment on the fact that the issues that are before us in this case with WorkSafe are issues that apply to other workers around the province. All of us as MLAs have, in our constituency offices, WorkSafe cases that we find to be extremely frustrating, that workers in this province are extremely frustrated by and want to see changes taking place. My comments will relate to that but will relate in the context of the bill.

When you look back at what has happened in those tragedies at those two mills and you look at what has happened since that — the number of questions that have been outstanding and the questions that remain unanswered and the issues that need to be addressed…. We on this side have said very clearly that we have felt the need for a public inquiry to address those issues that have not been answered and that cannot and will not be answered through the coroner’s inquest.

One of the ones that really is the most striking is this issue of dust — why the regulations were not enforced, why it appears that it was not recognized and dealt with. When you think about it, what is one of the key products, besides the lumber in the mill, that’s produced in a sawmill? It is, of course, dust. It’s not rocket science in the sense that dust and fine particulate matter can be explosive. That’s not new. The combustive effects of dust, in whatever form, have been known for centuries.

When these tragedies took place and the issue focused on dust and regulations and what came out of WorkSafe, it really does…. It’s beyond belief.

My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway outlined what’s been going on in the United States. Between 1980 and 2011, 450 dust explosions in the United States. More than 100 people killed or injured. A real effort down there to look at causes around dust and what triggers the explosions. The understanding and the regulations that are in place and the fact that a dime’s thickness of dust can cause an explosion.

It really does boggle the mind that in this day and age, when there are rules and regulations around that, when there are supposed to be rules in place and rules being enforced to ensure that the dust doesn’t collect this way, that the dust does not gather in mills and industrial areas in such a way that it can combust and cause an explosion, this happened. It’s even more unbelievable when we hear from WorkSafe that they didn’t know or they didn’t realize.

You really have to ask: what was going on at WorkSafe during that time? Why was this happening? The families deserve answers, the public deserves answers, and we in this House deserve answers.

This legislation is important in attempting to address some of those issues, but it is not going to provide those answers. It is not going to provide answers to this House or to the families of the victims or to the public at large. I think that’s unfortunate. That’s why, on this side of the House, we’ve said that we wanted to see a public inquiry.

[1600]

Some of the changes in the bill, though, are important to mention.

Section 7 will be amending

section 174. It will make important changes around the ability of being able to express concerns like…. As it’s currently drafted, could it dilute the power of workers to improve safety conditions and reduce occupational hazards?

We want to ensure, in the changes the minister is proposing, that this does not happen. In committee stage, we will be wanting to get answers to sections such as

section 7 and ensure that they are doing what they are intended to do.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The sections of the act that are amended include sections dealing with the annual report, issues around service plans, staffing, duties and functions of joint committees, how to resolve disagreements within commit-

[ Page 10032 ]

tees, the immediacy of the notification of accidents, the progress of investigations, issues around full investigation and reporting and follow-up action, what happens if there is no joint committee or worker health and safety representative posted at the workplace — important issues that flow out of the investigation and that, when implemented, will make some improvements.

That part of the legislation, I think, as we’ve said, we are supportive of. But there is another issue, and that applies to WorkSafe in general. That’s what I’d like to talk about in the context of this legislation. Workers outside — that this legislation does not impact — are still going to look and say: “Hang on a sec. I’m glad there are changes taking place, but are these changes going to help my situation?”

The key issues that I know crop up in terms of whenever discussions around WorkSafe take place are the issues of timing, the length of time it takes to get a claim processed, what happens if there is a mistake made on a claimant’s application and the continual hoop-jumping that people go through in order to get a result.

I want to raise a particular case that has been in my constituency. The frustration of the individual has been such that they have e-mailed just about every member in this House. My office has been working extremely hard with WorkSafe to try and facilitate a solution to the individual’s case. As of yet, that has not happened to the claimant’s satisfaction. But I just want to briefly outline what they have been through.

The individual was injured back in 2008. WorkSafe accepted the claim, as they’re supposed to. They had their first surgery in February of 2009. The surgery was successful. They followed the doctor’s advice in terms of the recovery process, and that was going well.

However, during the recovery process, they were advised by WorkSafe to see some additional individuals at another clinic. They did that, and their treatment, according to the claimant, resulted in the arm being injured even further. And the result of that was their recovery stalled. The result of that was they weren’t able to go back to the job that they wanted to go back to.

Had they stuck with the original doctor’s advice, they’d be back at work today doing the job that they love. Instead, WorkSafe sent them to another facility, and they were subsequently injured there. Since that time, they have been fighting with WorkSafe to get that injury recognized.

[1605]

That was in 2009. It is six years later, and it’s still going on. The individual has literally gone through all of their money. It has placed great stress on their relationship, on their family. They have had to go to a food bank. They have been bounced back and forth within WorkSafe.

The individual we’ve been working with at WorkSafe has been doing their best, but the reality is that the system does not seem to be set up to deal with their concerns. It’s more concerned about WorkSafe than it is about the worker. It’s more about the money side of things than it is about the worker.

From the worker’s perspective in this particular case — they don’t see WorkSafe as the insurer anymore. They don’t see them as being helpful. That’s unfortunate, because it shouldn’t be that way.

Right now, they are back at their physician, who is looking at the particular injury they suffered at this secondary facility. WorkSafe is, hopefully, trying to determine that, in fact, the injury was caused at this secondary facility and it is not the fault of the worker but rather the fault of the treatment that he received. What we want to see is for them to come to a proper resolution for this particular worker.

This particular piece of legislation does, as I said earlier…. It’s a right step. It’s a first step out of a terrible tragedy. But at the end of the day, when we pass this, we also need to recognize that there are other steps that need to be taken on this particular case.

There are other steps that need to be taken to bring justice to the families, but there are also steps that need to be taken on WorkSafe as a whole so that other workers who are stuck in the system, who feel that it’s not working for them, can get the justice that they deserve, that they can get the resolution to their claims that they deserve and that the system works as it should, which is to be in the worker’s interests, which too many feel right now it’s not.

D. Bing: I rise today to speak on Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2).

On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I want to speak about how this government is ensuring that British Columbians have safe workplaces so that they come home to their families at the end of the day.

We are introducing this legislation in response to the inquest recommendations from the Lakeland and Babine sawmill tragedies. Our government appreciates the thoughtful and important recommendations put forth by both inquest juries, and we take them very seriously.

Tragedy struck the communities of Burns Lake and Prince George in 2012. This legislation implements the five changes to the Workers Compensation Act that the coroner’s juries recommended. This bill is taking the necessary steps to make workplaces safer.

The amendments in this bill make important changes to improve workplace safety. It will require employers to immediately report to WorkSafe B.C. all workplace fires or explosions that have the potential to cause serious injury to a worker. It will require employer investigation reports to be provided to the workplace health and safety committee or the work health and safety representative or be posted at the worksite.

This bill specifies meaningful participation for worker and employer representatives in employer accident investigations. As well, it specifies a role for workplace health

[ Page 10033 ]

and safety committees to provide advice to the employer on significant proposed equipment and machinery changes that may affect worker health and safety.

Finally, this bill allows WorkSafe B.C. to proactively assist workplace health and safety committees in resolving disagreements over health and safety matters. These amendments are part of the ongoing, coordinated work that government has undertaken to make workplaces safer for British Columbians.

[1610]

In 2012, this government asked Gord Macatee to develop the WorkSafeBC Action Plan to improve worker safety in this province. We have accepted all 43 recommendations made in this report.

These changes build on the legislative changes made earlier this year under Bill 9. Addressing these changes in legislation is the right approach. Enshrining these changes in legislation is a legacy for those who have lost loved ones and were injured in the Lakeland and Babine sawmill tragedies.

Through the difficult times, those families have shown grace and dignity. Making these changes in legislation shows how serious we are about keeping British Columbians safe in their workplaces. We want to do everything we can to make sure that what happened in the Babine and Lakeland sawmill explosions never happens again.

The work to address the outstanding recommendations from the inquest jury continues across government. In addition to acting on the coroner’s inquest jury recommendations, these amendments also address administrative issues related to WorkSafe B.C.

These amendments relate to WorkSafe B.C.’s annual report and service plan and superannuation plan. Specifically, these amendments will streamline the process for approving changes to WorkSafe B.C.’s employee pension plan by removing an outdated requirement for cabinet approval of these changes. Another amendment in this bill will change the annual due date for WorkSafe B.C.’s annual report and service plan. It will move from late March to April 30 so that WorkSafe B.C. can continue to comply with international financial reporting standards.

This government is committed to making workplaces safer in British Columbia. This bill strengthens WorkSafe B.C.’s ability to promote and enforce occupational health and safety compliance in B.C. workplaces.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the chance to make some comments on Bill 35 this afternoon. In this bill there are changes, obviously, to the act that are born of tragedy — two, specifically. This is legislation and a responsibility of government that goes back over a century to the original creation of that limited liability regime that we created in our province. I think the bill this afternoon obviously takes into account some of the key findings of the juries in the two inquests.

I would like to make some comments about that specifically. I think all of us in this House who are aware of some of the evidence and testimony at those events would be shocked to learn that in many cases, the agency responsible did not perform in the way that is expected of it by the government, by the public, in terms of its prevention strategy, in terms of its compliance duties, with an emerging issue — one that was known to the agency, around the dust problems from wood-beetle milled wood in those facilities, the accumulation.

There is direct testimony throughout both the inquests that, I think, points to situations that are troubling for all British Columbians — particularly, of course, for the families and communities of the victims of those accidents. The question for us, really, in the debate around Bill 35 is: are we making the right legislative changes that will empower the agency to do its job better?

[1615]

Are we making the kinds of changes that will allow workers in industrial facilities — like the ones we’re talking about this afternoon but in workplaces right around British Columbia — to be able to make their workplaces more safe, to have a safety regime where their voices are listened to and where, if there is non-compliance or non-responsiveness from the employer, there’s a reasonable chance that there will be penalties and sanctions that will be effective to drive improvements in British Columbia?

You know, every April, in this province and nationally, we have the workers’ day of mourning. I know that elected representatives from all sides of the House typically attend those events. We join with the labour movement, with unorganized workers, with managers of companies or public sector employers involved in promoting workplace health and safety to make a vow that all of us will do everything that we can within our areas of responsibility, but as a team and as a society, to make sure that every man and woman working in our province, in Canada, comes home safe from their job every day.

Of course, what we are trying to do is make improvements. There have been workplace deaths in British Columbia in a number of dangerous industries for as long as those industries have existed. We need to make sure, in the cases of both the Lakeland and Babine mill inquest inquiries, that this legislation is making sure thos