British Columbia Hansard — 17 April 2018, p.m., Issue 117 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20180417pm-Hansard-n117

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 17, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 117 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

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

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ...............................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 17, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 3939 Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018(continued) Hon. H.

Bains Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 3939 Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 3939 Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 A. Weaver M. Polak Hon. H. Bains S.

Furstenau Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 3950 Bill 12 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 S. Sullivan Hon. S. Robinson A. Olsen T. Stone S.

Chandra Herbert Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 3957 Bill 12 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 3957 Estimates: Ministry of Labour(continued) J. Martin Hon. H. Bains D. Barnett B. Stewart C.

Oakes Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 3974 Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy(continued) P . Milobar Hon. G. Heyman J. Rustad J. Sturdy

TUESDAY , APRIL 17, 2018 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 9, and in Committee A, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Committee of the Whole House BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; L. Reid in the chair. The committee met at 1:35 p.m. Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. H. Bains:I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 1:36 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment. Mr. Speaker:When shall the bill be read for a third time? Hon. H. Bains:Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 A. Weaver:I rise to take my place in third reading to address the bill before the House at this particular junc- ture. I do rise with a great deal of dismay, knowing that this bill went through committee stage in but five minutes at a time…. Interjection. A. Weaver:I’ll wait for the Clerk to pass the message on. As it’s known, I had motions on the order paper. I had giv- en notice to the minister. I had given notice to the opposi- tion. The opposition informed me that they had numerous questions to raise on this bill.

I was in a meeting downstairs. I’m three minutes late for the start. Now, I understand par- liamentary rules. I understand parliamentary rules are such that I missed approval of the title. But at third reading, I’ d like to provide more reasons why I have profound troubles with this bill as put forward to us now. Those troubles are the fact that this bill does not include 911 dispatchers. Hon.

Speaker, I tell you, after the member from Vancouver, the minister now, for Vancouver-Hastings, rose and spoke yesterday, I received an email from one of the people he mentioned, who he had consulted in develop- ing his private member’s bill. That person had a panic attack when he thanked her for input. The government ignored, in this legislation, 911 dispatchers, despite the fact that they actually included the 911 dispatchers in the private mem- ber’s bill that the member for Vancouver-Hastings, now min- ister, brought to this in 2016 and in 2017 as well. Now, I get that the B.C. Liberals are playing games.

I get the fact that they don’t actually want to have this debated. I get the fact that they say one thing and do an absolute oth- er. I get the fact that the member for Chilliwack, the crit- ic for this file, who had told me that he had a number of questions to ask, would but ask five minutes of questions while I’m meeting with developers — who are profoundly troubled about the direction this government is taking on the speculation tax. [1:40 p.m.] If the opposition opposite did their job, we’ d still be debat- ing this bill, and the B.C.

Greens, who have spent many, many hours consulting with stakeholders from north to south and east to west of this province about what’s not in this bill…. We would actually have a debate of substance on this bill on the issues contained. But members opposite abdicated their responsibility as elected members to the B.C. Legislature to raise issues and bring these issues forward for debate. That is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable for members of that party opposite to not stand in this House and take to task the minister for a bill that he has introduced, which they had had time to explore when it was a private member’s bill introduced earlier — and after being told that they were going to do this. That’s shameful. I get that they can play games. But the message I want people to take home here today is: in this place, it’s not about doing what’s right for the people of British Columbia; it’s about doing what’s right for petty, political games for the B.C. Liberals. And frankly, I think the B.C. NDP owes some 3939

responsibility here, too, because they knew I that had these amendments on the order paper. I struggle right now with whether or not I’m going to support this bill, whether or not I’m going to support this bill and call division to have a standing vote on this bill because of the fact of what’s not included, because what just transpired in this House is reprehensible — reprehensible to nurses in the province of British Columbia, nurses strug- gling with PTSD, nurses struggling with systemic mental health issues from their job.

What’s wrong with this legislation is we’re not talking about teachers in this province of British Columbia — teach- ers who work in environments of bullying and harassment with unsupportive administrators, who struggle and take leave but are not covered by WCB, because they have to prove that their mental illness or disorder directly came from their workplace. They have to go to the WCB and actually argue their case. What can be more profoundly troubling to an individual than to have to stand and recount the stories and relive their experiences because the presumptive clause doesn’t apply to them?

Shame on the members of the B.C. Liberal Party. How you can go back to your constituents — 911 responders, nurses, teachers, factory workers, construction workers — and say that you played political games in this House today so that we’re not debating amendments to actually put their interests first? Hon. Speaker, this is a very sad day in politics in British Columbia, when once again the B.C. Liberals put their polit- ical interests, their desire not to have debate because of their quest for power, ahead of the interests and their responsibil- ity to the rights of British Columbians.

There were a number of things that I had put on the order paper. I put two orders. One is to have a presumptive clause for all workers. Now, I fortunately am here to say to those listening that I’ve had very, very good conversations and fol- low-up with the minister about the importance of this issue, and I truly believe that the minister understands this issue. I truly believe that we will see action in a timely fashion, par- ticularly with the 911 responders. That, to me, is critical. Again, what we need to recognize is what’s happening in other jurisdictions. Let’s look at the case of Florida, for example.

There is not a person in this place who does not recall what happened tragically in the Parkland high school in Florida — not a member in this place. What do they have in Florida? They’ve introduced presumptive clauses for PTSD for 911 responders, because they are the front-line responders. They are the first people to take the call. They’re the person talking to a child huddled under a desk while someone is going by and shooting their friends to death in the hallway.

These are the people that have to deal with PTSD, and this government — and opposition through their silly, petty games — have actually put them, thrown them under the bus. Y ou can tell I’m passionate about this, Hon. Speaker, because this is wrong. This is not right. This is not how this place should function. Frankly, I think the member from Chilliwack should resign as the critic, resign his chair, as he did not put the people of British Columbia front and centre here. Interjections. [1:45 p.m.] A. Weaver:They think this is funny, Hon. Speaker, and that’s what’s wrong with that party. This isn’t a game.

This is about good policy for people. This is about when you say something to someone…. This place only functions if you can trust your colleagues, when they say they’re going to do something, that they will actually do something. But no, no. That’s not the case for the B.C. Liberals. Let’s go to the province of Nova Scotia, which in Septem- ber of 2017, this last year, passed a bill to expand pre- sumptive PTSD to 911 operators and continuing-care work- ers — two different groups. Why? I come back to the story, the compelling story that I read yesterday, about a first responder.

I get that some first responders, the 911 dispatchers, are already paramedics or already police officers and so will be covered under the presumptive clauses. So not only have we got a problem here; we have an equity problem. If you hap- pen to be an RCMP dispatcher, you’re likely covered. But if you’re in a local government, you’re not. If you’re the dispatcher who actually is dealing with the Parkland shooter, in Florida you’ d be covered — but not in the province of British Columbia, for two reasons. This gov- ernment forgot, frankly, in my view, to put it in the legisla- tion.

But more important is the fact that the members oppos- ite, the B.C. Liberals, who should be hanging their heads in shame today, saw fit to end debate on this because of the fact that I’m about three minutes late, despite the fact I’m told that there were many questions to come. That’s clever. That’s clever politics. Got to give it to the B.C. Liberals. That’s what they’re good at. It’s all about politics for them. It was all about politics in the election, the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the five conditions — all about politics. They have no credibility. Hon.

Speaker, I must say that I use the word “honourable, ” and I mean that dearly and sincerely when I say hon. Speaker here, because I see a man of honour in the Speaker’s chair, and I don’t know how he ever could have sat on that side of the House with those members opposite. Coming back to the bill, we have a problem. We have a problem with the fact that right now this bill is oiling the squeaky wheel. It’s oiling the squeaky wheel of those who lobby the best. There’s no question we need to have presumptive clauses for police, firefighters, corrections officers, sheriffs.

But there’s also no question in my mind that we need to include emergency dispatchers. We need to include teachers, include nurses and include workers on the construction site. Y ou know what? If a worker on a construction site falls 3940 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

and breaks his or her arm, they’re covered under WCB. They don’t have to go through the presumptive clause when they show up in a cast and say: “This happened at work. ” But let’s suppose somebody falls from a high crane and lands, sadly, and gets splattered across the ground directly in front of a worker on a construction site, and that worker struggles with some mental disorder after that. Right now, there’s no pre- sumption clause. That worker has to prove to WCB that the PTSD was a direct consequence of that incident that they saw. That’s wrong. Saskatchewan understands that that’s wrong.

Alberta understands that that’s wrong. In both of those provinces, as defined under the acts, their respective workers com- pensation acts, all workers are covered under the pre- sumptive clause. I understand that there was a possibility that one or two of my amendments would have been ruled out of order, because there might have been fiscal consequences associ- ated with it. I understand that. The minister has missed an opportunity, though, to be able to put onto the record what his views are on this issue. It’s a very good opportunity that he’s missed.

The members opposite have missed an opportunity to actually let British Columbians know what they think. Their actions have told British Columbians what they think about this bill. Their actions have said they’re not willing to do their job as opposition. For heaven’s sake. Why don’t half of you guys quit? Let’s have an election. Let’s get some more B.C.

Greens down here, and we’ll do their job for them if they’re not willing to do it themselves — to actually hold government to account, not to ask stupid questions about stuff to try to score political gain but actually hold government to account for their actions as seen in the bill — not act as apologists but actually hold government to account. [1:50 p.m.] It’s shameful, what we just witnessed there from the B.C. Liberals today.

I come back to the teachers in British Columbia, none of whom now are afforded the opportunity to hear the min- ister’s response, the debate, members opposite discuss what they thought about their views. Given that you’ve missed the opportunity to hear what the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP believe to be their views, I’ll tell you what the B.C. Green views are. The B.C. Green views are this.

No teacher should have to stand in front of the Workers Compensation Board and argue that the fact that they have depression and anxiety issues from working in an intolerant workplace, where their school administrator doesn’t support them and their school board, school admin- istration and district administration don’t support them. No person should have to relive that experience in front of the Workers Compensation Board. Instead, just like in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the presumptive clause should be applied to them. I don’t know how many teachers I know who have had to deal with this.

In fact, if you look at statistics in British Columbia, something is pushing…. Almost 50 percent of new teachers actually quit the teaching profession in the first five years. Why do they do that? Because of the situation they’ve been put in. In many cases, it’s overwhelming, but they have no place to go now.

They can go on LTD and get a fraction of their wage, but if they actually had a presumptive clause within their con- tracts, it would force school districts’ administration to actu- ally ensure that the working environment that these teach- ers participate in is one that’s conducive, friendly, safe, free of bullying, free of harassment. But that’s not going to hap- pen here in the province of British Columbia, because mem- bers opposite saw so fit as to play silly political games to try to avoid discussion on the amendments before us. Again, let’s move beyond the teachers. Let’s talk about nurses.

I’m sure many of the members here…. I can’t be the only member…. Well, I’m probably the only member in opposition who actually reads their emails. I’m pretty sure none of them do. They probably have their staff read them, and they don’t respond themselves. Frankly, I know that to be the case, because I get so many people from their ridings email our office pointing out that they get no response from the B.C. Liberals, and will we please help them out. I will put the member for Prince George–Valemount…. I’ll say that that is not the case with her, but I’ve got it from so many oth- ers sitting there right now.

Let’s go to nurses. I can take a particular…. I don’t know how half the nurses do their job, but let me tell you a story about my daughter. Let me tell you a story that, to me, tells me the type of environment nurses have to work in. My daughter had a very, very serious heart issue, and she was misdiagnosed by the pediatrician — a young pedi- atrician, straight out of med school, who had diagnosed it as something different. The nurse was there. The nurse says: “I know what this is. I’ve worked here for 30 years. This doctor is not listening to me.

He won’t do anything, but this is what it is. ” Fortunately, I have some experience in research. So I went down to the medical library, and I started researching this disease. I went down, and I phoned one of my colleagues who happened to be in the Scripps Institute in California. They are one of the leading research areas on this disease. I was able to find out about this disease. I was able to find out about the cure for this disease.

With the help of that nurse, I was able to follow as I was told — to advocate on behalf of my child and demand a second opinion in the hospital, because the treatment that was being offered was not going to help her and, actually, was going to make her worse. That ended up in a happy place. My daughter got better. But I can imagine that nurse having to go through that day in, day out with other patients — watching children suf- fer because a doctor, who happens to think that they know everything and the nurse knows nothing, won’t listen to them. Tuesday, April 17, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3941

This isn’t dissing doctors in general, but it’s symptomatic of human behaviour. In all our society, there are people who are not willing to listen. There are people who know better than everyone. There are people who do not respect their staff ’s opinions, and people sometimes have to work in that.

The whole purpose of having these nurses included was to ensure that when systemic issues like that are in play, which can lead clearly to long-term mental disorders, clearly they should not have to relive these experiences before the WCB to prove that this is a direct consequence of this. [1:55 p.m.] I suspect that the member opposite…. Are you hoping to introduce? I don’t believe that that is allowed under the rules, because one side…. Interjections. A. Weaver:Well, what I can ask, hon. Speaker, is to seek leave to pause briefly to allow the member to introduce the guests, and then continue. Mr.

Speaker:Y es, if we may. Thank you. Introductions by Members M. Hunt:It’s just an opportunity to give the hon. member a moment to catch his breath as I introduce one of three classes that are coming today from a school in my district. They are from Surrey Christian School, grade 5 students with their parents and teacher. I ask that the House would please make them welcome here as they enjoy the debate. Debate Continued A. Weaver:We’ve got a full two hours to work with on this bill. I’m looking forward to using as much of that as pos- sible as I try to….

Y es, at third reading, I believe I get, as the designated speaker, a full two hours to address this. I would seek clarification from the Clerk, with reference to standing orders, please, to actually ensure and let me know how much time I actually have. We’ve talked about nurses. Let me talk about some others. Can you imagine the tragedy that happened at Burns Lake — the explosion of a mill.

I’m pretty sure that there are a num- ber of workers at this mill who, after the mill exploded — and they live in the community — actually are suffering from issues with respect to PTSD, mental health issues, depression and anxiety, as a direct consequence of that mill explosion. But what they have to do…. Two — what does the two mean? Exactly. I have two hours. Take your seat, Liberals opposite. Y ou had the oppor- tunity to have a short debate.

I’ d love to inform you of this issue in much more detail, seeing as you’re willing to abdic- ate your responsibility to serve as opposition and quiz gov- ernment on a critical bill that’s before us here in the House today, one that actually adds a presumptive clause for mental health issues to all workers in the province — sorry, to fire- fighters, paramedics, police officers, correction officers and sheriffs, but not all workers in the province. I’m laying the case as to why that has to happen.

I will tell people listening on TV now or checkingHansard later — again, I come back to this, and I’ll come back to this periodically over the next two hours as we enjoy this debate — that I have had good discussions with the minister about the fact that this is only a beginning. I wish he’ d had the opportunity to say that, too, himself. This is only the begin- ning of moving this bill forward. Rest assured, people reading this, I’m not going to give this one up. I’m going to be like a dog with a bone, more like a pit bull with a bone, on this issue, because it is wrong.

It is wrong not to have emergency dispatchers included. It is wrong not to have other workers included. It is wrong not to follow the leadership of Alberta and Saskatchewan and actu- ally have a presumptive clause for all workers. Let’s go back to the issue in Nova Scotia, or Florida. Again, these issues are front and centre in their recent legislation. Most provinces in the country have the same thing for 911 dispatchers. It makes no sense to me, when you talk about emergency responders…. This is what I find remarkable. I’m going to focus on the 911 dispatchers exclusively right now.

What I find remarkable about their omission is that when you say first responder, government and opposition, for years, have included 911 dispatchers in their understanding of what first responders are, so much so that the member for Vancouver-Hastings had them included in his private mem- ber’s bill, brought in, in 2016 as well as in February of 2017. Two times. But they’re missing. There’s no reason for it.

Can you imagine, now, if you’re a local government first responder and you’re sitting next to somebody from the RCMP who’s a dispatcher, who happens to be covered because they’re a police officer, or an ambulance dispatcher who happens to be a paramedic? They’re covered under this. But that community, local person sitting right beside them, in the same room, the call-receiver, for heaven’s sake, getting that distress call…. [2:00 p.m.] Remember the story.

I do apologize to the children in the crowd here for the story that I’m about to tell, the story I told yesterday about a man who phoned in a 911 as he had tried to commit suicide, as his entrails were hanging out. This woman had to keep him alive, yet she wasn’t covered, but her colleague sitting next to her in the RCMP would be covered. It’s just wrong. It’s just wrong at a very fundamental level. We talked about office workers. What about office work- ers?

The whole purpose of including office workers, bank tellers, employees in universities, in colleges, in schools, custodians or whatever is that there are many, many envir- onments in the province of British Columbia that are not safe places to work because of systemic workplace bully- ing, workplace harassment, systemic issues with dysfunc- tional governance, dysfunctional administration, power 3942 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

over conflicts. I could go on and on, and the litany of examples I could give would make most people’s faces drop over here. Unfor- tunately, half the members opposite spent their entire time in politics, and they probably don’t actually have any experi- ence other than politics. I could actually provide members from their own staff who came to me because they’ve experienced this in their MLA offices. This is a problem. But those staff, if they were covered under workers compensation, would actually be able to go and make a claim without having to prove it.

They’ d still have to go to a psychiatrist or a qualified psycho- logist. They’ d still have to get the medical evidence, but they’ d have benefits right from the get-go. Now let’s suppose you’re working…. I come back to an example that I alluded to at second reading. Y ou’re a single mother. Y ou could be a single father, but let’s just suppose, for clarity, you’re a single mother. Y ou’re a single mother living in, say, the Kamloops–South Thompson riding. Y ou’re a single mother living there, and you’re working in an office. Y ou’re a receptionist in an office. Y ou’ve got two kids at home.

Y ou had a deadbeat dad involved. Deadbeat dad got in a car and took off, ran away somewhere. Y ou’re stuck paying the bills. Y ou’ve got two children. Y ou don’t want to go on welfare because you’re a worker. Y ou’re somebody who actually believes in the importance of actually working hard, earning a living. [L. Reid in the chair.] Then you go and you realize that your skills are limited. Y ou’ve got a job that gives you the right number of hours with the appropriate wage. There are very few of these jobs.

Y ou might be working and have developed expertise in terms of as a receptionist in, let’s say, an auto mechanic shop, for lack of a better example. There are probably a lot of those in Kamloops. Let’s think of something that’s not…. Maybe a college department where you need specific skills. Thomp- son Rivers University — I love the university. Let’s just find a department there where they need your skills. Now you get into an environment where you need this job, you’ve got kids at home, and the environment is abusive. Y ou’ve got a boss who’s abusive. Y ou’ve got a boss who’s demeaning.

Y ou’ve got a boss with unrealistic expectations. Y ou’ve got a boss who basically has an insecurity complex because they know they shouldn’t actually be in their pos- ition of authority, but they’re your boss. And they try to exert their power because bad bosses lack self-confidence and feel the appropriate way to overcome that is to belittle their employees or harass their employees or put unneces- sary expectations or demands on their employees. But you need this job. Y ou need this job because there is no other job that you can have. Y ou are a single mom. Y ou’ve got two children at home.

Y ou’re working that job to provide food for your children, and you don’t want to go on welfare and the stigma of that. If we had basic income, it would be different, but you don’t want to go on welfare. What do you do? Well, right now what you do is you can go on disability leave if you happen to be a unionized employee that has a long-term disability plan negotiated with your employer. That’s fine. Y ou’ll get some reduced salary. Typically, there’s a short period of time.

Typically there’s an approach to getting you back to work. [2:05 p.m.] If you wanted to go to workers compensation — suppose you’re not even a union employee and you don’t have LTD — you have to take the risk, when you expose yourself to make a claim, that they will agree, even if you have profes- sionals. Y ou have to prove that that is happening in the work- force. Y ou have to relive everything, with all the risk of you recounting that story, as to whether or not your boss will actually be worse than he or she was before. Y ou take on that risk with no certainty as to what the outcome will be.

We had an opportunity here to actually have a pre- sumptive clause which would give certainty to allow that person to have coverage while they went to make a claim. If WCB…. No one has taken away their rights to challenge a claim. That’s what the amendment, which I didn’t get a chance to put…. We’ve all had a chance to read it on the order papers because it’s been there for two days. Members opposite knew full well that I was going to raise it. Members opposite actually told me — the member for Chilliwack — that he had a couple more questions to go and he’ll be going for a while.

That’s good leadership from the B.C. Liberals. We had an opportunity to help that person. I don’t know how many examples I’ve heard from professions across Brit- ish Columbia, not only firefighters and police officers. There’s no question about them requiring presumptive clauses. There’s just no question. What about tow truck drivers?

Y ou know, prior to getting elected — I had a couple hang over last term, but I’m done now — I had done a lot of expert witnessing in forensic met- eorology, which is an area where we use meteorological con- ditions to reconstruct weather conditions, road conditions, at the time of the accident. Now, in that time — some of these go to court; some don’t — I get to see a lot of pictures. Let me tell you, most people in this room would not want to see those pictures.

What you see in these pictures are bits of people splayed across the street, entrails hanging here, decapitation hanging there, a missing limb over there. These are not pleasant pictures to see. But I just see pictures. They’re not real to me. Now, imagine you’re a tow truck driver and you’ve been called because they’ve blocked the main highway on the Coquihalla. Y ou’ve been called to move some cars, but because they’re doing an investigation, you’ve still got some body parts on the scene, and you show up there.

What is the difference between that tow truck driver going there and a first responder who goes there? They see the same thing. In the one case, we’re going to give presumptive clause. In the other, we say, “No, no, we’re not going to consider you, ” Tuesday, April 17, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3943

because you didn’t have a lobby group come to the Legis- lature and actually push this forward. Y ou didn’t have a lobby group to do that. This is a lack of courage in leadership. We could have fol- lowed the lead of both Saskatchewan and Alberta and done what they have done and introduced presumptive clauses for all workers covered under the Workers Compensation Act, but no, we didn’t do that. Games were played in the Legislature here today. Games were played in a desperate attempt…. Even after I was asked by one member opposite — a member opposite who I actu- ally have a lot of respect for….

That member was going to contemplate the merits of one of the amendments and get back to me but never got back to me because the member for Chilliwack, their critic, decided to shut down debate, despite the fact of saying he had a number of questions. I was five minutes late — not even five minutes. I was three minutes late because I had developers in my office who are at wit’s end because the B.C. Liberals, for years, ignored the crisis in affordability and the B.C. NDP have brought in issues with respect to taxation that have led to a crisis that they have to deal with. They see us as the only opportunity.

Let’s get back to this bill, which we should have canvassed much more extensively at committee stage, but the member for Chilliwack abdicated his responsibility to do his due dili- gence. Frankly, British Columbians should be quite upset about that. Coming back to the bill, I’ve talked about Florida, PTSD responders there. I’ve talked about Nova Scotia. I’ve talked about other provinces like Ontario, Manitoba, the maritime provinces, which all have presumptive clauses.

But we some- how think that in B.C., we’re not going to actually consider 911 responders as emergency responders, as first responders, as those that this legislation should be brought to. [2:10 p.m.] I’ve given examples of nurses. I’ve given examples of teachers. I’ve given examples of office workers. I’ve given examples of construction workers. Let’s find other examples. What about a manufacturer? I used to work — one of my first jobs that I had as a youngster — in Edinburgh on the Leith docks. Now, any of you who know Edinburgh and the Leith docks there will know that that is the roughest part of Edinburgh.

My first day to work, I showed up and a guy had his arm covered in stitches because his wife had stabbed him with an umbrella. The other guy I had to work with had scars around his face because he recently had a beer glass put in his face. I know that there was a student in that environment who was working there. I was a big guy. I played rugby. I got on with these guys. But there was a student there who they didn’t like. They didn’t like this guy because he was nippy. Then two things could have happened. I’ll tell you what did happen, and I’ll tell you what could have happened.

What did happen for this guy is that he had his door slammed…. I worked in this ice factory. We ground ice and put it on fishing boat trawlers and trucks that came to get it. It was minimum wage, etc. So what happened here is they slammed his arm in a door, and they broke it. They broke his arm. That young man lived in terror when he came to work, but he needed the money. He wasn’t from an uppity side of Edinburgh. He was from the north side of Edinburgh. He needed that money, so he came to work every day and lived in terror as he tried to make a small living.

In B.C., we had the opportunity to protect someone like that, a factory worker like that. Heaven forbid someone in that ice factory — we had ice grinders there — slipped into an ice grinder. Can you imagine if you’ d seen someone fall in that ice grinder and come out into the ice bags that we were holding — in bits and pieces, blocks of cubed ice? Can you imagine the PTSD that would have arisen from that?

In B.C., now we had an opportunity — as Alberta and Saskatchewan have done — to include a presumptive clause that would have said that rather than you having to relive this and go and argue before the WCB that your PTSD or your systemic issues of anxiety and depression have arisen from that incident…. Despite the fact you have psychiatric and psychological assessments saying it did, you have to argue your case to the WCB, and you get no benefits until that case is approved.

Despite that we had an opportunity to do something dif- ferent here, to recognize that it’s pretty clear that that kid, who’s living in an abusive environment…. There’s no way that guy would want to risk his life and go and challenge a ruling about where he is. It literally would have been risking his life. Or in the other case, to have to relive going through that ice shredder — I can’t imagine it. There’s another example from another one of my jobs in Edinburgh. I worked flipping burgers, again on the north side of Edinburgh. That’s a tough side of Edinburgh. There was a young guy there who was a cook.

Management didn’t like the cook, so they were very abusive to the cook. The cook took a lot of grief there. He was a short-order cook trying to make ends meet. If that short-order cook leaned on the stove and burnt his hand, we don’t need to worry about presumption there. He burnt his hand in work. But there’s a stigma in our society that this government promised that they would take steps to mitigate. It’s a stigma about mental disorders, anxiety, depression. For the first time in history, we have a ministry here ded- icated to this — dedicated to mental health and addictions.

Y et why we are not actually standing up and standing for what we believe in when we’ve put in place the mechanism, the support, and campaigned in elections on destigmatizing mental health illness and treating it as a disease like any physical disease…. We come back to that cook, who would get presumption for a burn. But presumption for an abusive, bullying work- place? No way. He’ d have to prove it. Good luck trying to prove it in the north side of Edinburgh. If the word gets out that you’re trying to prove it, publicly, that’s not going to be a good situation.

I could go on with other examples, but I did 3944 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

want to come back to the reason why this is critical to have it to all clauses. I come back to the last government and the Premier at the time, who actually saw an opportunity to do something dif- ferent here. That was with respect to sexualized violence in post-secondary institutions. [2:15 p.m.] What she recognized was that the right thing to do was to force public institutions to develop policies to actually ensure that they had sexualized violence policies to deal with it.

The reason why — as I introduced the bill when the last government was in, and what passed, eventually, in a slightly different form — of course, is that public institutions have a vested interest in trying to ensure that actually they are deemed to be safe places for students to come. What was happening, as I was getting told story after story from institution after institution…. There was no one that was particularly bad over another. They all had the problems, and it was systemic. The issues were kept below the surface, and nothing was done.

But by forcing policy measures and a process to be in place, these issues now must be dealt with. That comes to the issue of WCB and the presumptive clause for mental illness. If you are in an abusive work environment and you actually now report it and go on LTD, nothing gets done because there’s no incentive for the institution to do anything.

There’s a fear that there might be, “Oh, if we react here, they might get mad at us” or: “Oh, we might do this. ” But if we had a presumptive clause for mental health disorders, their WCB rates would start to go up for that institution if they started to see an awful lot of claims emerging from it. I would have thought these supposed free marketers on the other side would have liked to see this financial measure to ensure that you are creating a process that actually incentivizes safe workplaces.

I would have thought that members here, the so-called labour party, would have seen the importance of doing this — the importance of creating a stick and a carrot, the stick being in the workers compens- ation board premiums that every employer has to pay for covered workers. Those go up in an unhealthy work environment. If you start to have a lot of accidents, a lot of people tripping and falling, breaking legs, on a lumber mill site, you know your premiums are going to go up. So there’s an incentive to make that workplace safe.

Again, there seems to be a fundamental lack of under- standing in government — I don’t even have to talk about opposition, who’s abdicated their responsibility on this bill — to recognize that mental disorders are no different from physical disorders. Y ou can say what you like in an election campaign. “We’re going to create a ministry of mental health and addictions. ” That’s just lip service. It’s kind of like saying to my friend from Saanich North and the Islands beside me: “We’re going to do truth and reconciliation with Indigenous people. ” Indigenous com- munities are sick and tired…. Hon.

Speaker, there’s a direct parallel between this ana- logy…. Deputy Speaker:Relevance to the bill, Member. A. Weaver: There is. There’s a direct parallel between politicians saying they want to do truth and reconciliation, and their actions — or not thereof. In fact, Indigenous people are sick and tired of words. They want to see action. And it’s exactly the same — and therein lies the analogy — with mental health and addiction. It’s really easy to say we’re destigmatizing mental health and addictions. So where’s the beef? Where’s the Alberta beef? Why aren’t you actually doing it?

Y ou have a min- istry to do this. Y ou have an opportunity to do it. Y ou issued a private member’s bill, for heaven’s sake, in 2016 and 2017 that included 911 dispatchers. But we didn’t do it. We didn’t do this opportunity because of petty games by the B.C. Liberals, which actually didn’t follow through with what they said. Y ou know, this place doesn’t work. This place doesn’t work if we can’t trust that when we say we’re going to be up on something, that we will be up on something. I took the opportunity immediately before lunch to show the member for Chilliwack, who actually had the amend- ments.

He knew exactly what I was going to do. I told him the three amendments, the three phases. I was going to start with the “include all workers. ” The second phase…. I mean I could read it in, because this is what I had planned to do, and this is relevant to the bill. The second thing I was going to do, assuming that there was some objection for including all workers…. I would have given the opportunity for the minister to actually out- line the direction he was going to take this legislation in the months ahead. I would have then talked about: “Okay, we’ll understand that.

Let’s include nurses, social workers and 911 dispatchers right off the bat. ” We know we’ve got so many examples. Y ou’ve all received emails. Let’s put them in with the other first responders. [2:20 p.m.] Then I would have seen how that debate goes. If that didn’t work, I would have come back with the 911 dispatchers, because there is no reason why this bill does not include 911 dispatchers — or, more formally, 911 emergency communic- ations operators and dispatchers — today. There’s no reason why it’s not there today. But they didn’t want to have a vote, because they are just playing politics.

Unfortunately, they don’t realize — again, with greatest respect — that I get two hours to outline my case at third reading. And I’m taking every minute of the two hours to outline why we should have done this, knowing that I prob- ably wouldn’t have had members’ opposite support. They’ve had my amendments for three days, and the member for Chilliwack never got back to me about any views on any- thing about this. So clearly, it was a game It was a game. B.C. Liberals once more playing games at the expense of Tuesday, April 17, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3945

British Columbians. I do see another school group here. I’ d like to look to the member, my friend here. I will understand that I will just pause briefly, with leave, to allow him to introduce them. Introductions by Members M. Hunt:It’s my pleasure to give the member a break in the midst of his two-hour speech that he is giving. Again, it’s my pleasure to introduce to you the second of three classes that are here today from Surrey Christian School. They’re here with their teachers, their parents, who are chaperones, and others.

I would ask the House to please make these won- derful students from Surrey Christian School very welcome to the House. Debate Continued A. Weaver:I will proceed. I believe there’s a third class coming. I look forward to the value provided to the intro- duction, at the start of the introduction, as well. Perhaps the member might want to tone that down; otherwise, leave may not be granted him a third time. I do continue. I was talking about the importance of having a carrot and a stick, knowing full well that there are organizations where nothing is done.

Nothing is done because there’s no incentive to do anything about abusive work environments with systemic harassment, systemic bullying. I see another few teachers in the audience. Let me talk to them who are here and talk to the relevance of this case, so the children in the audience and their parents know what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about here — to the gallery — is the bill that’s called Bill 9, Workers Compensa- tion Amendment Act. We’re now at third reading of that bill. We went from first reading, where it’s introduced, to second reading, where we made our points known.

Then the controversy which has led me to try to explains what’s been going on here was that at committee stage, where we go line by line, we had had an agreement that there would be a number of questions coming from the Liberals opposite. Then the member for Chilliwack, who knew all the amendments I was going to bring forward, decided to play some political games and stand down when I was three minutes late into the chamber so we couldn’t bring forward the amendments to the bill and have the discussion there.

The thing is, obviously, the member didn’t realize that at third reading, I get a full two hours to explain these amend- ments and what I was hoping to do and why this bill is on dodgy grounds for approval without these other bills. One of the things I’ve been putting forward here is that in this bill is a presumptive clause. Right now if you suffer mental illness as a direct consequence of your workplace and you are covered under workers compensation, you must go to Workers Compensation and prove that your mental dis- order is a direct consequence of your work.

Y ou can imagine a firefighter has to see some horrific things or a police officer has to see some horrific things. This bill is actually giving firefighters and police officers the right to not have to prove to Workers Compensation that their mental disorder is a direct consequence of their work- place. Rather, if they have the psychiatric or psychological assessments, the medical assessments, that suggest it to be so, they will start getting benefits immediately that are better than long-term disability benefits. But Workers Compens- ation still has the ability to challenge it.

It’s called a pre- sumptive clause. It’s really important. What is done in Alberta and Saskatchewan — to the gal- lery there — is that they have presumptive clauses for all workers. The examples I’ve been giving here…. I’ll give one that’s relevant to teachers. Teachers, for example…. Hon. Speaker, I don’t think you heard my example. Y ou weren’t in the chair at the time. My wife’s a teacher. Most of my family are teachers. Teach- ers have an amazing job.

They get to instil knowledge in youth, particularly at that age when you guys are sponges for knowledge and it’s so exciting to actually try to get you to talk about what inspires you and to ask questions. Y ou’re all scientists. Kids are born scientists. They always ask why, why, why? They’re always asking questions. [2:25 p.m.] Not all teachers have the best working environment. I know some who work in environments that one might argue are actually abusive. I know some who feel that they don’t get the support they need.

In fact, I know some very specific- ally where duties to report under the act are such that when they report inappropriate issues that they must report, it falls upon the deaf ears of the administrators, the senior admin- istration and the school boards. In one particular case, they started to get attacked for having the gall to raise this issue. Can you imagine being a teacher when you know something wrong is happening to a child, or you know that a child is in a abusive family, and you’ve reported it, and nobody’s listening? Y ou have to go into that classroom every day, every day, every day.

Y ou know as a teacher that you’re the first responder, because you’re the only voice that that child has — the only safe voice that that child has. But you feel powerless as a teacher to do anything because nobody’s listening to you. These are true stories. I know about that. I’m sure other teachers know teachers like that too. What happens? Systemic, time after time after time…. Y ou develop anxiety and depression issues. There’s no doubt.

If you had broken your hand in the workplace because there was something inappropriate or there was some slippery soap on the floor, and you broke it on the job, you’ d be covered by workers compensation. But if you happen to suf- fer depression and anxiety as a direct consequence of your workforce, you’ d have to stand before the workers compens- ation and prove it. Y ou’ d have to prove it, even if you had psy- chological assessments and doctors notes saying it was. Y ou’ d have to relive these stories. Y ou’ d have to argue.

Y ou’ d have to argue against a tribunal. 3946 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

As the minister knows, that’s not the easiest thing to do, even with a broken arm, if there’s a challenge, because there’s no presumptive clause. Were there a presumptive clause, you’ d be covered. Y ou’ d be covered and presumed that your illness was from your work, assuming you had the appropri- ate medical backup. And WCB could still challenge it down the road. We had the opportunity in this bill to have a debate at committee stage about the amendments that these members opposite knew I was going to bring forward because I gave it to them.

I was told: “We’re going to actually get back to you about them. ” They never got back. I was told that the member opposite had quite a number of questions on

section 1 and that he knew I was going to come up. I was three minutes late. What an opportunity for him to play games, to shut down debate. That’s shameful. That’s shameful because it’s not doing what this place is sup- posed to do. We here in British Columbia are supposed to debate the issues brought to us. We’re supposed to put our constituents front and centre. We’re supposed to challenge government when we see a bill, such an important bill, like this.

When you’ve sat for three days with amendments before you, and you know what they’re going to be, we have a duty and responsibility to debate these, not to play games. It’s a sad day. I don’t know what professions the parents are up there, but I suspect…. Maybe there’s an office worker up there. Maybe they know somebody in another job that works in an abusive environment, where the boss has no accountability to upper management and creates an envir- onment purely out of insecurity that is abusive or harassing to an employee. But that employee can’t leave because they need the job.

Here we had an opportunity in this bill to not only include police and fire and correction officers and sher- iffs, but also to include, as did the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, all workers covered under the act. Again, if the government truly believed in its commitment to dealing with the issues of mental health and addiction through the creation of a separate ministry, it would stop stigmatizing the difference between physical illness and mental illness, which is exactly what’s done here. It is only the physical response that we think is creating the mental ill- ness.

It is only the case of first responders who might have to respond to a car accident or police officers who might have to go into a home and see some horrific scene. Those senses are your eyes. This is only responding to those people who are actually experiencing things through their eyes — not through their ears, but only their eyes. Only horrific sights. But we know that mental health disorders in the workplace come far beyond just the traumatic events. [2:30 p.m.] In fact, our own workers compensation legislation recog- nizes that there are two types of mental health disorders that can occur in the workplace.

Some are traumatic, leading off to PTSD, and others are systemic, like harassment and bully- ing. It has recognized it right there. We’re saying that, okay, we recognize that there are two types. We recognize that. We recognize also that police officers and firefighters and paramedics — I can’t imagine what they have to go through — see a lot of the first type, the traumatic event. I’ll say it again. They see a lot of the first type, but there are others who experience the other first type daily.

The only reason I can think of why 911 dispatchers are not included is because a 911 dispatcher can’t see what is there; they only hear it. I would argue that if members in the gov- ernment had recognized or read the literature — the master’s thesis that I brought forward yesterday, as an example — the statistics, they would see that in fact it’s very clear that some- times the most profound mental health disorders and con- sequences come not so much from seeing something hap- pen but by your inability to actually prevent something from happening, even though you wish you could.

I read the compassionate and compelling story by one emergency call receiver who had on the phone a young man — I don’t know if he was young — a man who had com- mitted hara-kiri and whose entrails were hanging out. He phoned her, and she developed a rapport with that individu- al. Because he had a knife, she had to call in the emergency response team — or the dispatcher did. They wouldn’t go in until a spud gun was produced. The man was all distraught, and she was reprimanded initially for actually not getting off the phone.

Her PTSD was so profound that when the minister, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, in his speech yesterday thanked her…. He thanked her for informing him over the years about this issue of presumptive clause that she wasn’t covered by, a 911 dispatcher. She had a panic attack last night, watching this, because she was pleased to hear that the government was potentially going forward. It’s good to see that we’re going to get some more debate from other members here. We can get a rip-roaring third reading debate here. I see some other members will be join- ing me, coming up in the debate.

I look forward to my friend from Peace River South. He might be able to do the job that the member from Chilliwack never did, which is to actually raise issues and challenge government on this particular…. The member for Peace River South, a member who…. Deputy Speaker:Relevance to the bill, Member. A. Weaver:Right. The member for Peace River South, as you know, hon. Speaker, is from the city of Dawson Creek, a wonderful part of town right in the centre of gas country. The question I hope he will address, in raising this, is those gas field workers. Y ou can get physical accidents in the gas field.

It happens all the time. Y ou can get physical…. We have, you know, accidents on the construction site. If you break an arm, you’re covered. There are no presumptive issues, because it’s a physical injury. What about if you’re the person who’s standing by as your co-worker gets run over by a truck? Y our best friend’s daugh- ter gets run over by a truck on the field. Or your best friend Tuesday, April 17, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3947

or your partner falls down and has a horrible accident on the other site. There’s no presumptive clause. Y ou have to prove…. Even though this could have happened…. This physically debilitating, if not fatal, injury that happened on the workplace would be covered if that person survived. Y ou would be covered if you broke your arm trying to help them. But you wouldn’t be covered unless you could prove that your subsequent PTSD or mental disorder was a direct consequence of your workplace. That’s wrong, hon. Speaker. That’s completely wrong. [2:35 p.m.] The province of Alberta recognized it was wrong.

The province of Saskatchewan recognized it was wrong. In the case of 911 dispatchers, other provinces, including very recently the province of Nova Scotia, recognized it was wrong. It was wrong to actually only have a presumptive clause for professions that are first responders that see, as opposed to also hear or witness as bystanders or second responders. Again, I do have some confidence, with that said — and I come back to it again. The Minister of Labour — it is Labour, I believe. I’ve had many discussions with him about this issue.

I do understand, particularly from his union back- ground, that he recognizes the issue is far broader than just police, fire, paramedics, first responders. I recognize that he realizes that emergency dispatchers are critical, and I’m hop- ing he will rise at third reading and afford me the oppor- tunity of the words I was hoping to extract from him during committee stage to outline a pathway that he sees forward in terms of this bill. I would like to give him that opportunity, and I’ d like to give him that opportunity while I sit here and listen.

With that, I hope that the minister is able to stand next, and I will sit and take my place at third reading and listen to the other debates. M. Polak: We have come to a point in the discussion where the member has outlined some deep concerns that he has with respect to the way in which debate on this bill has unfolded. There is, however, in the process of under- taking debate, an established way of doing things. Bills can be moved. Amendments to the bills can be moved on the order paper, off the order paper. The preference, of course, is for those to be moved on the order paper.

The member has made that clear a number of times in debate on various bills. In this case, the amendments were on the order paper. There is, though, one requirement for those amendments to be moved, and that is that the member needs to be present. He could have, indeed, asked someone else from his party to move his amendment, and it would have been dis- cussed on the floor. Indeed, he could have asked one of his members, if he was unavoidably detained, to come into the House and move a recess, and he would have had an opportunity to move the amendment that I believe he is very passionate about.

It is, however, the practice of this House that when no other members rise, the vote is called. In this case, no other speakers rose after the questions from the critic, and since they did not take the floor, then…. Interjection. Deputy Speaker:Member. Oak Bay–Gordon Head, another member has the floor. M. Polak:In this case, no other speakers rose. The mem- ber was not present and, therefore, was unable to put for- ward his amendment, and the vote was called. Now, the member is clearly seeking to blame the critic for the fact that he was late to the House.

I won’t quibble about the amount of time except to say that three minutes, in my experience in this House, would have been an awfully quick amount of time for people to be seated, for the orders of the day to be called, for the committee chair to then take their seat and then also to proceed through the section, the title and then subsequently the reporting up and the moving of the third reading motion. I suspect that was probably longer than three minutes, but be that as it may. The critic certainly has indicated, I think, throughout not only second reading but committee stage debate….

I think people would have already become alive to the fact that opposition is inclined to support this bill. Indeed, we are. It’s not the critic’s job to move the amendment for the member. If the member was unavoidably detained, as I said, there are all sorts of things that he could have done in that regard. The member speaks of the amount of time spent on debate. This is a bill that I know many members are very pas- sionate about in terms of the topics contained therein. This is a topic that many, many members are passionate about — the items that are contained therein.

I know that one of my colleagues who at one time had ministerial responsibility for the file feels deeply, deeply passionate about these issues and certainly takes this very, very seriously. [2:40 p.m.] It is also the case in this House…. In fact, whether in my time as Opposition House Leader or in my time as a minister of government, it’s quite common that a bill that is not generating controversy between the two sides — a bill that opposition intends, actually, to support — finds itself without a significant amount of debate because there is already a significant amount of agreement.

The measure of whether or not an opposition takes a bill or a motion seriously is not the measure of how much time was taken in debate; it’s what is said in debate. I do certainly take issue with the member’s characteriza- tion of the critic’s work. I know the critic to be a hard-work- ing person who delves deeply into his files. Interjection. M. Polak:I do believe that the member is sincere, but I am actually quite troubled that the member is so willing to insult 3948 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

the work of other members of this House at a time when the antidote to his problem was there in front of him, and he didn’t take it by arriving in the House in time to move his amendment. I understand, from the member’s lengthy description, that he had a thorough plan for how this whole range of his amendments would have unfolded, and indeed, they could have been debated here on this floor. That’s all well and good, except that the member should have planned, also, to be here to move his amendment or planned to have one of his mem- bers of his caucus move a recess or move the amendment on his behalf.

In closing my comments with respect to this bill, I want to thank all members for their participation and contribution to the debate. The opposition is in support of the bill going forward, and we look forward now to the closing of third reading debate. Hon. H. Bains: I just want to take this opportunity to thank all members who participated in the debate on Bill 9. The passion that you’ve seen in the speeches clearly shows the importance of the issue that we are debating — the importance of the bill and the people who will be provided support and coverage through this.

It clearly shows that it’s timely, it’s needed, and it is long overdue. I want to say to the member of the Third Party: I thank you for your passion. Y our passion is my passion. I’m sure, if you listen to other members, their passion is also the same. We all believe deeply that every worker who goes to work gets the highest protection, health and safety, and that they come home in the same shape that they went in. They deserve nothing less. Their families deserve nothing less.

We, as a state, have a responsibility to make sure that we provide them with the environment — at workplaces and outside — where they have that protection. That’s our responsibility, and that’s why we’re making improvements as we go forward. I want to say that we all know…. Our relatives, our friends, our neighbours — everyone goes to work. They all go to work. They all face different challenges at workplaces, and many of them face traumatic incidents as part of their job. That’s what we are trying to cover here.

For every member of our society who goes to work, even those who are doing housework, there are challenges. They can physically and mentally get hurt — even staying at home. But what we are talking about are workplaces and what the workers must go through — the stress of the work, dealing with health and safety. Many of them get injured, and many of them never come home. Over 160 workers every year in British Columbia die due to workplace injuries. That’s too many.

One death is too many. [2:45 p.m.] Therefore, I think it’s our responsibility — it’s my respons- ibility as the Minister of Labour — to make sure that our health and safety regime is such that they get the highest level of protection in workplaces and that we work with employers and workers and their representatives to make sure that we are always looking for new ways to provide that protection, the innovative way to provide that protection. We are doing that. I also want to add, the debate…. I love debate in this House.

Every time we are dealing with an issue, if we don’t have a thorough debate, it means that we haven’t done our job. That’s what the Leader of the Third Party is trying to do: engage in debate. I would have loved those amend- ments and to have discussion around those. I fully under- stand what the member is trying to do, because that pas- sion is my passion as well. I want to assure the Leader of the Third Party and the opposition members who are supporting this bill: this is not the end. This is the beginning. [Mr.

Speaker in the chair.] As soon as we finish this, I will be meeting with many members of our workforce, many different organizations and individual workers, who face traumatic experiences at their workplaces and come home with mental health dis- orders — who are living with mental health disorders. Many of them develop PTSD. That is too long for them to get help. We want to make sure we provide them support right in the beginning. I’m going to work with all workers out there, all of their representatives, to make sure that they get the protection that they need.

And the help they get when they need that help — that they get the support from the Workers Com- pensation Board when they need it, because they deserve nothing less. Every worker deserves to have our support, because they, along with their employer, create wealth for us. Many of them take very, very dangerous jobs. We must sup- port them. We must provide them with the protection that they need. This bill…. I couldn’t wait any longer. These are the first responders. We must move on. That’s why I brought it here earlier. As the Leader of the Third Party suggested, we will be working with….

I encourage all members of this House: come to me. I’ d like to work with you. Give me your opin- ions. Give me your ideas on how we can improve the health and safety, especially mental health, of our workforce. With that, I want to say that we have a lot of work to do. This is just the beginning. I will be encouraging every one of you to give me your ideas so that we can start to work with all workers in this province to give them the enhanced protection they need, especially on the mental health side. It is one of the most difficult injuries to deal with. Physical injuries, we know.

They’re a little easier to deal with. We know. We can see it. The doctors can exam- ine it and then start a treatment. Mental health — it’s totally different. It’s totally different because there’s a stigma. People are suffering with that dis- ease, alone. We need to encourage them to come out. We have this program, working with WorkSafe and my ministry: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3949

“Share it. Don’t wear it. ” That campaign is now countrywide. We need to continue to enhance that area so that we encour- age people to share their pain, to share what they are suffer- ing with, so that we can support them and provide them with help — and if it’s work related, that they get support from workers compensation. I want to thank every member of this House for the sup- port that you have shown, and like I said, the work isn’t com- pleted. We have a lot more work to be done. With that, I would say to all of the first responders: thank you very much for the support that you are giving.

Let’s continue to work so that no worker in this province is left without the support that they need and in a timely fashion. S. Furstenau:I just wanted to add a few words to the con- versation about how the debate unfolded or, in fact, didn’t unfold this afternoon. [2:50 p.m.] Hansard has a record, but the committee met this after- noon at 1:35. There were no questions, and at 1:36, the com- mittee rose. The members opposite were well aware of the Third Party Leader’s intention to introduce amendments at committee stage, and he had had conversations.

It’s very interesting to hear the minister speak about work- ers and that this bill is designed to protect workers in our province. I think that what happened this afternoon speaks, to some degree, to what can happen when we forget who we’re serving — and that there can be these opportunities that may seem like political opportunities, but they can take away from our capacity in this House as representatives of the people of this province to do the best work we possibly can on behalf of them.

To have no debate at committee, to have no questions, and to have not had these amendments entered and put up for debate means that we didn’t do our best work today in this chamber. For that, I think we should all feel some remorse, and I would hope that moving forward, we can rec- ognize that it’s not always about parties. It shouldn’t be about parties. It should be about how we work most effectively, all of us, on behalf of the citizens of B.C. Today we didn’t achieve that because of this lost opportunity. I hope we learn a great lesson from this going forward. Mr.

Speaker:The question is third reading of Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018. Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018, read a third time and passed. Hon. B. Ralston:I call committee debate on Bill 12. Committee of the Whole House BILL 12 — TENANCY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; L. Reid in the chair. On

section 1. Hon. S. Robinson:I’ d like to introduce some staff that I have here with me. I’ve got Brad Sparrow, Wendy Harrison and Greg Steves here joining me today. I want to thank them for their hard work in putting this together. S. Sullivan:Section 1 removes the requirement that a notice to end tenancy under a fixed term tenancy agreement must end the tenancy effective on a date that is not earlier than 12 months after the date the notice is received. I would like to ask the minister: what is the purpose of this section? What problem was she trying to solve? [2:55 p.m.] Hon. S.

Robinson:We wanted to make sure that, whether it’s fixed-term or any other kind of tenancy, it had the same 12-month period, that everyone in the mobile home and the manufactured home community would have the same amount of time in order to organize their life for the next chapter, organize their homes for their move. S. Sullivan:Y es, so this

section requires longer notice for eviction under the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. This is increasing the notice for evictions. Is that not correct? Hon. S. Robinson:This is to ensure that everyone gets the same 12 months notice regardless of their tenancy agreements. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. S. Sullivan:Y es, so this changes the compensation amount for a manufactured home park tenancy eviction from 12 months to a number set by regulation. This does seem to be a trend for this government — to remove a specific number and give the power to the minister in regulation. The question would be: why remove the trans- parency that comes with listing the figures in the act? Hon. S. Robinson:I know that the member will appreci- ate that we need to have the flexibility to ensure that we’re keeping up with changing costs over time. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] 3950 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

What we’re doing here is making sure that there’s some fair compensation, and we want to make sure that we have the ability to adjust that as costs for these homes change over time. S. Sullivan:The news release that was issued says that the compensation will increase. However, this

section gives the power to the minister, with no guarantee the value will increase. Can the minister confirm that she believes that the compensation will increase? Hon. S. Robinson:Y es, it will. S. Sullivan:Does she have an estimate of what the new value for compensation and failure to undertake the pre- scribed use will be? Hon. S. Robinson:Y es, we’ve done some preliminary ana- lysis, and we’re looking at $20,000 as a flat rate. S. Sullivan:Now, the director will have the power to excuse the compensation from

section 3(2). I wanted to get a sense of what the minister is thinking about in terms these extenuating circumstances. I was wondering if she could give any examples of what she would consider “extenuating cir- cumstances. ” Hon. S. Robinson: Let’s say a landlord was proceeding to make the changes. They had all the permits and were ready to move ahead, and something catastrophic happened in their family. They had to delay activity on their plans, so that sidetracked them for a period of time, or the landlord themselves passed away, and now the family has to sort out what the next steps were.

Those are some of the kinds of extenuating circumstances that I think we can all appreciate happen, and we need to have the room and the flexibility to accommodate that. [3:00 p.m.] A. Olsen: Just back to the $20,000 figure that was just floated. I’m just wondering. What is the rationale for choos- ing this amount? The minister suggested that there was some work that had been done on it, but what is the rationale behind $20,000? Hon. S. Robinson:We took a look at what the actual costs are. We wanted it to be grounded in something real. It had to be based on something. I appreciate the question.

When you take a look at what it actually costs to move a manufactured home to another location, it’s about $20,000. A. Olsen:I’m just wondering. In the backgrounder here from the government, they’re saying that it was a 12-month pad rental, that the rentals vary. The way it’s currently now, the rentals vary. Do we have an average of how much…? I’m trying to figure out what the difference is between what it is now — generally, because the pad rentals vary; I recognize that — to this $20,000 number. Hon. S.

Robinson: Right now, the way it exists, it’s a 12-month pad rental, which is about $400 or $500, but it ranges from $200 to $700. That’s what the compensation is now. The reality is that people, when they get an eviction, want to be able to hang on to their home, and they need to move it, if they can find a place to move it to. The moving costs are quite significant. The current structure doesn’t even cov- er the actual moving costs. We wanted to make sure that it was grounded in something that was meaningful to people.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. S. Sullivan:Y es,

section 4 requires landlords to pay addi- tional compensation if a manufactured home is unable to be moved. This requires the landlords to pay the costs. It sounds very good on the face of it. But I’m just wondering about ten- ants that allow their assets to be…. Well, they don’t keep up their assets, and they allow it to deteriorate. I’m just wonder- ing about the rationale of requiring the landlord to pay for the tenant not looking after their own property. Hon. S. Robinson:The assessed values are updated annu- ally. If people are unable or unwilling to invest in their asset, of course, it deteriorates.

The value deteriorates. The land- lord is only responsible for paying the difference between the assessed value and the flat rate of $20,000. A. Olsen: Just within the regulations that the minister is considering, are there going to be criteria to determine whether a place can or cannot be moved — can or cannot be relocated? Hon. S. Robinson:Y es, there will be criteria set in regula- tion for determining that. A. Olsen:Thank you, Minister. Is it possible for you to cla- rify what some of those conditions might be?

I recognize it’s not going to be in detail, but perhaps some of the high-level conditions that you might be using to determine if a unit cannot be moved. Hon. S. Robinson:I’m not a house mover. I have staff here to help me sort that out. It’s really the transportation permits that are the key. It has to be road-worthy in order for it to actually be transported, and if they can’t get a transportation permit, then it can’t be moved. That’s the key factor. There might be some local government permits as well, which they might not be able to get. That would also be an indication that they couldn’t move their home.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3951

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. [3:05 p.m.] S. Sullivan:Okay, so this is about ensuring that tenants are not responsible for the manufactured home disposal costs. I guess it’s just a question about the purpose of this sec- tion. This requires that a landlord is responsible, financially, for incurring the cost for the disposal of a derelict unit that they do not own. I’m just wanting to know what the purpose of this

section is. Hon. S. Robinson: The purpose here is to ensure that there is no clawback. We need to remember here what the context is. It’s where people are told that their home is no longer available, that the pad rental is no longer available. They have to move their home; they have to vacate their home. Their home isn’t mov- able if they can’t get transportation permits, or if their muni- cipal bylaws don’t allow it to be moved, or if there is no space, if there’s no place, if there’s no other manufactured home community in which to move. They can get their $20,000. The difference….

Let’s say it’s valued at $40,000. So they could get a total of $40,000. It’s the $20,000 flat, and then the difference, up to $40,000. Then they have to be responsible, now, for the disposal. That’s a clawback. The idea here is to make sure that people have the resources to actually move and find another place to live. We were seeing this happening across communities in British Columbia, where manufactured home park owners are turning these manufactured homes into places where there are highrises being built and significant opportunities for density.

But the people who had made their home here are displaced, and that’s certainly a challenge. We want to make sure that they have the opportunity to find a home that suits their needs. A. Olsen:I’m just wondering if there was any consider- ation about how this is going to impact potential mobile home park owners — future mobile home park owners. Looking at this now…. I recognize what the bill is intend- ing on doing but also want to consider what the unintended consequences of it might be, in that this is fairly punitive. I’m just wanting to know where the balance is, from the minis- ter’s perspective. Hon. S.

Robinson: I want to be clear. This isn’t about being punitive. This is about making sure that people get some fair value for their home. We think it’s not about pun- ishing anybody. We know, when the opportunity comes to sell a piece of land, that that gets built into what the actual costs are. There are two costs to dispose of these units. It just depends on who’s going to take responsibility for it. Right now this bill proposes that it’s the landlord.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. S. Sullivan:This is the one that extends the notice period for the renovation and demolition evictions. It extends this period from two months to four months. I wanted to ask the minister: could she explain why a sub- section (6) eviction is materially different from other evic- tions and needs a longer notice period? [3:10 p.m.] Hon. S. Robinson:I appreciate the question. We know that in the case the member refers to, this is happening quite frequently, particularly where there’s opportunity to invest in apartments and in terms of renovating them. We want to make sure that they have….

They know well in advance what their plans are. We want to make sure, if they know well in advance what their plans are — and it takes a long time to put all these plans in place — that the benefit actually goes to the tenant in these instances, that they have the benefit of having the time they need to find a new home. S. Sullivan:Now, also in this is the 30-day time frame for filing a dispute, which is doubling from the other time frame.

As I think about what a landlord has to do in order to get all of these working parts together, it’s often quite complicated to organize all of the many pieces that have to go into this. They would have to have every last piece in place before they can then give notice, which is then another four months. I’m just wondering: is that making it harder, then, for the people that want to renovate, want to improve their rental units? Hon. S. Robinson:Well, in light of the member’s com- ments about the lack of supply, and given the challenges around a very tight rental market, I certainly can appreciate his comments.

We also need to remember that renters in a tight rental market need as much notice as possible in order to continue to do the things that they need to do, which is continue to go to work, continue to take care of their chil- dren, continue to manage their family and make sure that there’s a roof over everyone’s heads. That’s what this is intended to do.

It’s intended to give people the kind of time they need to not only find accom- modation that meets their needs, but also, should a landlord not be, actually, well intentioned, there’s enough time for them to calm down, read through what their rights are, make sure they understand that there is an opportunity for them to dispute, learn the system — because if they’ve never had to do that before, it’s not always that easy — and file for an arbitration so that they can be heard by a third party.

We think that people need the time in order to do that so that they understand what their rights are and that the sys- tem is fair. 3952 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. S. Sullivan:Y es. This increases the amount a landlord must pay to 12 months’ rent if the purpose for an eviction was not completed in a reasonable time frame. I guess the natural question was: what’s the rationale for this 12 months’ rent? [3:15 p.m.] Was this just simply a round number, or was there any modelling or any estimates that the minister went through to get to that number? Hon. S. Robinson:I know that the member knows that currently the system is two months, and it’s not much of a deterrent. We’re looking for a significant amount that would be a deterrent.

This is about preventing landlords from mis- using the Residential Tenancy Act. We want them to be…. I believe that most landlords are good landlords and want to be good landlords. We want to make sure that those who are choosing to circumvent that can feel the pain of doing that, of being disingenuous. We want to make sure that there’s enough of a deterrent for that bad behaviour. S. Sullivan:This

section and the following

section refer to a reasonable time period. Is it the minister’s intention that issues around reasonableness will have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis? I want to know more about this reason- able time period. And will that have to be case by case? Hon. S. Robinson: The reasonable period is actually already in the act, and arbitrators have been interpreting “reasonable period” since 2004. What it means is that a land- lord has to take action to accomplish the purpose as soon as reasonably possible, given the circumstances.

I’m sure the member can well appreciate that there can be a number of circumstances. So we have arbitrators make that determina- tion based on the facts before them. A. Olsen:Similar to

section 3, just wondering how the bad-faith exemptions will be defined in this section. Hon. S. Robinson:We’re not making any changes about the bad-faith component. The only thing we’re changing is the amount of compensation. A. Olsen: So then just to be clear on that. Y ou have somebody who intends to act in good faith, vacating somebody for a family member to move into…. I’m just thinking of a situation in which a landlord may be acting in good faith, but then that situation comes to an end. The person that’s moving in is passing away. How does that get handled in this situation? Hon. S. Robinson:I’m sorry.

I didn’t understand the very first question. I appreciate that the member took the time to explain it. Again, we recognize that there can be some extenuating circumstances, and that’s really up to the arbitrator. We do imagine the case where someone does do all the right things, and something goes sideways. For example, they were intending to have a parent move in, and they did everything right. Then the parent, for example, can no longer live inde- pendently, and they have to go into care. As a result, one could, I guess, make an argument that it was bad faith when, in fact, that was never the intention.

Something happened that didn’t allow them to follow through. The arbitrator has the discretion to recognize and address that should that need to happen. M. Hunt:I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members M. Hunt: Just to give the minister a little break in the midst of her defending her bill, it is my absolute pleasure to introduce the third group of students from Surrey Christi- an, who are here with their teacher and with their parents to come and enjoy the processes.

I think it’s really informative for them, at this time, to be able to come and actually watch the process by which the real bills happen and the real process happens, as the min- ister is required to defend her work from the critics in the opposition. I would ask that the House would make these wonderful students welcome here today. [3:20 p.m.] Debate Continued T. Stone:I just wanted to weigh in with a question or two in this particular section. I do appreciate that the min- ister was asked about how “reasonable” time period will be defined. I guess my question is at a bit of a higher level here.

When we look at the change here, going from two months to 12 months, when we have an undefined phrase — reas- onable period of time — when we look at some of the other changes that have been layered on to landlords through oth- er amendments provided for in this bill…. The same goes for the next couple of sections that we’ll be talking about in a few moments, particularly

section 9 as well. I’m just wondering if the minister can advise the House whether her ministry has done some analysis or some mod- elling, recognizing that it’s very difficult to strike that bal- ance. I think we all agree that we want to make sure that those unscrupulous landlords out there — that there are much better teeth in the legislation to protect the rights of tenants from unscrupulous practices. We also don’t want to go so far as to layer on so many Tuesday, April 17, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3953

additional measures that serve to have the unintended consequence of resulting in some landlords saying: “Y ou know what? We’re done. We’re not going to be in this busi- ness anymore. That project that we were going to proceed with we’re not going to do anymore. ” Or it won’t be rental stock, in which case we’ve actually made the existing chal- lenge of available stock for people who want to rent much more difficult.

In the context of this particular section, I’m just won- dering if the minister could again advise this House as to what analysis, what modelling the ministry has done to try to assess what the impacts are, if any, that these changes will have on overall rental stock in communities that really need more. Hon. S. Robinson:I appreciate the balance that the mem- ber was referring to, but this

section right here is really about making sure that vexatious landlords are deterred from evicting people when they don’t need to be evicted. We’ve certainly been hearing stories, and we’ve certainly…. I think all of us, all of our MLA offices, have received phone calls from people who are evicted because the land- lord is doing a renovation that really isn’t an investment in their property; it’s a renovation of paint or carpet where people don’t actually need to be evicted. They’re using that as an opportunity to actually increase the rents, because they get a new tenant in.

They increase the rents, and with a two- month penalty, it’s the cost of doing business, so they’ll pay the penalty. We want to stop that practice. We’ve certainly had conversations with LandlordBC, and they want to stop that practice. They recognize that. It’s not the intent of the legislation, then. If you don’t have something that’s significant, that keeps people from doing it, there are those landlords that will misuse it, misuse the opportunity to make valid investments.

We want to make sure that we get the right balance, so making sure that we have a deterrent there that will not only keep people from those vexatious evictions but also recog- nize those who are doing it in good faith, who are actually doing a significant investment in their rental stock — mak- ing sure that the electrical is up to code, the plumbing is up to code. Putting in those investments that protect that stock that requires an eviction in order to get that work done…. That they also have all the permits and all of the….

That they’ve done all of the work that needs to go into doing that so that they can invest in that stock. We recognize that that’s important too. This is about trying to find that balance, and we believe we’ve struck it right here. [3:25 p.m.] T. Stone:Thank you to the minister. I do not doubt for a second that the minister’s intentions here are sound in want- ing to address the unscrupulous practices of some landlords. I’m certain that she would agree with me that we’re talking about a very small subsection of all the landlords out there. I guess I just really want to convey the concerns that I have heard.

I’ve heard from lots of tenants. I have also heard from lots of landlords. When looking at it again, this provision, in and of itself, doesn’t seem so bad. But there is concern about a layering-on of new requirements. This is a sixfold increase in the costs. Perhaps the two months didn’t do it. Maybe six months would have. Twelve months seems like a bit of a big leap from the two months.

But I come back to my question from a moment ago, and that is: can the minister speak to any analysis or any model- ling that her ministry has done that would address the con- cern that some have, myself included, as to any unintended consequences that may flow from a layering-on of these new provisions insofar as the availability of rental stock in com- munities that really need it? Hon. S. Robinson: Again, when it comes to, certainly, the

section around the vexatious behaviours of some land- lords, it is about deterring their behaviour and their choices. When they are choosing to use a piece of legislation to evict someone but they’re not actually doing the investments that are expected, then we need to find a place where they’re going to be deterred from doing that. It’s so that if somebody says, “Y ou don’t have the permits, ” it’s going to be painful to them. It’s not just the cost of doing business. Trying to find that sweet spot isn’t always easy. The mem- ber suggests maybe six months would have done it.

I would just argue that the way through…. If a landlord doesn’t want this burden, then they will be forthright. If they are choosing to invest in their rental stock and that requires eviction, they need to make sure that they get it all right, that they do it appropriately, that they follow the rules. That’s what this is about. It’s making sure that people follow the rules. T. Stone:Thank you, Minister. Again, I think we agree on the general premise here of what we’re trying to do. I guess it’s just really the concern of striking that balance.

There are previous sections of this bill that we’ve talked about where the government felt it was okay to move certain require- ments into regulation. Perhaps this could have been one area where the government could have moved this into regula- tion, as well, and gone with a slightly lower number to see if it works and ratcheted it up as required. My last question relates to the adjudication of any disputes here around a reasonable time period. Obviously, it will be the director of the residential tenancy branch that will over- see that adjudication process.

I’m just wondering if the minister is anticipating a signi- ficant spike in disputes. Or has there been any analysis done to determine that? And then, related to that: if there is an anticipated increase in the disputes relating to this provision, does the minister anticipate requiring more funding for the residential tenancy branch in order to be able to handle this increased workload in a timely fashion on behalf of both ten- ants and landlords? 3954 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson:We’re expecting everyone to follow the rules. If everyone plays by the rules and follows the rules, then we’re not expecting a significant increase in disputes. If people follow the rules, then there tend to be less disputes. But we also have just increased the budget for the residential tenancy branch by $7 million over three years, so they are well resourced to continue building their capacity. T. Stone:Sorry, I just can’t help myself — with one last question here. I come back to “reasonable time period. ” I mean, that’s very subjective.

It will be the director who will determine what is reasonable and what is not reasonable on a case-by-case basis, which means the director will take into account the circumstances that pertain to each case. [3:30 p.m.] I would like to give the minister an opportunity to perhaps just outline what some of those extenuating circumstances could be — issues in one’s personal life, inability to find secure contractors to do the renovations in a timely…. Whatever they might be. I think we agree that this is not….

I’m not disputing the fact here that if everyone plays by the rules, then there’s no additional work for the director. That is not likely to be the case. The issue in contention here will be the reasonable time period, and the application of that fairly vague phrase on a case-by-case basis, which I hope doesn’t lead to a spike in disputes, but it very well could. Could the minister comment on that? Hon. S. Robinson:I think maybe I have more faith in humanity than the member does around people playing by the rules.

But there is certainly appreciation that there could be things like labour shortages that would impact the ability to start a significant renovation. That could be a challenge — or something in someone’s personal life. Like I said before, we infused a significant amount of money into the residential tenancy branch that has been starved for some time — making sure that there are the resources necessary to address these kinds of challenges. Sections 7 and 8 approved. On

section 9. S. Sullivan:This gives tenants the right of first refusal in the case of an eviction due to renovation. The clause that got my attention is clause (2): “If a tenant has given a notice under subsection (1), the landlord, at least 45 days before the completion of the renovations or repairs, must give the ten- ant” notice and agreement. This brings to mind the question about renovations. Whenever I do something like this or I hear about something like renovation being done, you always multiply by 2.5 whatever you think it’s going to be.

So how would the landlord truly know when the renov- ations will be complete? They have to give this offer 45 days from when they’re complete. What about when renovations take a lot longer than is expected? A tenant may be part of a tenancy they’re signed on to but are unable to occupy the unit. Hon. S. Robinson:I want to thank the member for his question. The reason for 45 days is we want to make sure that ten- ants have adequate time to give notice to end their current tenancy, so they are not in the position of having to pay rent on two units. I think that the member would agree that that would be fair.

But also, we need to remember that we’re talking about major renovations that are a significant undertaking and that require a lot of planning and oversight. I appreciate that for many who do their own renovation or a renovation that’s not on a commercial scale, there’s often lots of bleed time or empty time or waiting time. But we need to remember that landlords where there are five or more unit

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20180417pm-Hansard-n117
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20180417pm Hansard n117
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ffa6e04bc17b4cd943b303b61d3189bf5a41718e

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