2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 11

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

(continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[R. Lee in the chair.]

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

[1335]

The court doesn’t call for strict equality between communities, but nonetheless, “relative equality of voting power is fundamental to the right to vote enshrined in section 3 of our Charter. In fact, it may be seen as a dominant principle underlying our system of representational democracy.” Very important comments from the Supreme Court of Canada, which has an oversight jurisdiction on our work here in this Legislature on electoral boundaries and the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, I do want to thank, one more time, the commission for their work and recognize that they did bring this report in within the terms that were set for them by this Legislature. With that, I’ll conclude my remarks.
[ Page 10014 ]

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

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

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

Interjection.

M. Hunt: That’s right.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

[1340]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I move second reading of Bill 42.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 42, Electoral Districts Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 35, intituled the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

BILL 35 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2015

(continued)

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

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

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

[1345]

We’ve had, subsequent to that, two inquests into those two explosions, into the deaths at those two explosions — inquests into the deaths of Carl Charlie and Robert
[ Page 10015 ]
Luggi in Burns Lake and Al Little and Glenn Roche in Prince George.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

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

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

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

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

That information was available.

You know that we have WorkSafe B.C. and its executives and its management team. We have the government.
[ Page 10016 ]
We have an industry that is active in both the United States and in Canada. All of those things were true, yet in its response to the WCB, Hampton said the following: “To our knowledge, prior to January 20, 2012, no one in the sawmilling industry knew this fact, and no representative of WorkSafe had expressed this fact to the industry” — referring to the dangers of sawdust — “nor had Babine or any other sawmill in British Columbia received a warning related to combustible sawdust from any regulator.”

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

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

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

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

[1355]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have some answers to that question, it seems to me, from WorkSafe. We do have some answers. These are the notes that have been obtained — yes, under FOI. Many of
[ Page 10017 ]
them have been redacted in their most interesting parts. They refer to the very regulations I’ve just quoted from, those regulations that said that such accumulations were not on and they shouldn’t be allowed. They referred to them, but said they had no way of implementing them.

[1400]

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

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

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

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

That’s what the note says.

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

Then they said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1405]

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

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

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

The consequences of this are seen, frankly, in these incidents, because there was no adequate response, a profound effort to avoid an adequate response by the government and by WorkSafe B.C. to their role. All we
[ Page 10018 ]
got was betrayal, betrayal to enforce the law both by the industry — one has to reflect on this international industry and how anyone could argue that events that occurred in the United States were not known to the industry — and by the government, both of which benefited from lower premiums.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

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

Glenlyon Norfolk has a rich tradition of debate, pro-
[ Page 10019 ]
ducing many, many international debate stars. They’ve just witnessed a profound speech by the former Leader of the Official Opposition.

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

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

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

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

[1415]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1420]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1425]

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

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

I’m sure every member in this Legislature hears from individuals who bring their personal stories — often injured workers who are not able to return to the workplace — into their MLA’s office asking about what can be done with the challenges that they’re facing. Many of
[ Page 10021 ]
them are simply asking for, again, what I consider basic rights after you’ve been injured in the workplace: rights for rehabilitation — physio, occupational and physiotherapy; rights for retraining or workplace accommodation so that they can get back to work; to further training and to further education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1430]

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

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

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

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

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

The Workers Compensation Amendment Act builds on the legislative changes made under Bill 9, earlier this year, that strengthened WorkSafe B.C.’s ability to promote and enforce occupational health and safety compliance in B.C. workplaces. Enshrining these changes in legislation is a legacy for the families who lost loved ones and those
[ Page 10022 ]
who were injured. It shows how serious we are about keeping British Columbians safe in their workplaces.

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

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

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

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

[1435]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1440]

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

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

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

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

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

How do the changes to an organization that is supposed to protect workers and to help workers if they have been injured in the workplace…? How does it fail them like that? It’s not just the person at the top. It’s systemic. It’s a problem. We’re dealing with some symptoms that
[ Page 10023 ]
we must deal with through Bill 35, yes, but there is much more that we need to do.

In my constituency, in Alberni–Pacific Rim, in Port Alberni, there is a new university, the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences. The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences was created by an act. It is an act that came through this august chamber. It was unanimous — both sides of the House. I’m honoured to have played a small role in bringing that legislation through. The university was created.

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

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

I know that we are talking about an industry where
[ Page 10024 ]
courage is a major factor in what people have to bring to their jobs. I know that when I was a greenhorn working in the bush, I was constantly under the supervision of workers with great experience who watched out for me and pointed out whenever I was in a dangerous position. I can remember.

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1500]

But he cut a second tree, called a pusher tree, about four metres away, in an effort to add its weight to the first tree. But instead of toppling as intended, the second tree got hung up against the first. Then Mr. Gramlich tried to chop around the first tree with six cuts of his axe. It shifted and caused the second tree to fall, striking
[ Page 10025 ]
the worker on his head, chest, groin and legs as it rolled down the rock bluff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1505]

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

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

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

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

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

I think we can never forget the families and the people affected. As we’re asked to consider diluting the protections of workers and asked to celebrate red-tape-reduction day, we have to remember that we’re talking about rules that protect the lives of individual people who af-
[ Page 10026 ]
fect communities, who affect their families so absolutely deeply. It’s not something where we can simply wager accountants over the number of people and the risk that we’re allowing.

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the dividing line. Unfortunately, as has been shown through the inquest into Ted Gramlich’s death,
[ Page 10027 ]
that dividing line was crossed. I’m willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to the government and to the members that it was crossed without purpose — that they didn’t mean that. I am not willing to forgive the fact that they were told, they were warned, and they ignored that. Just as with these explosions, they ignored warnings.

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That date was when the Babine Forest Products mill exploded. It was in the evening, and I remember well because quickly, through social media, through phone calls and other communications means, people started connecting with each other, because we have people from Stikine, from the community where I live in Hazelton, who work in that mill.

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

[1525]

As it turns out, after that explosion in January 2012, we learned quite quickly that two men died — Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie — but there were also 19 injured
[ Page 10028 ]
in that mill explosion. I know people in my community who were part of those 19 who were injured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1530]

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not sure what impact the Premier’s words had, but
[ Page 10029 ]
by that evidence, it sure didn’t mean a lot. Something was terribly amiss, and the industry wasn’t paying attention. We have the two mill explosions that Bill 35 is trying to address. We have incident investigation reports saying that they were fuelled by dust and were preventable. A year and a half later we have 41 percent of 144 mills in the province still not complying, even though the Premier has said that this is going to be addressed.

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the families making what I find an incredibly magnanimous approach to the Premier after they found out that the explosions were preventable. It’s after
[ Page 10030 ]
they found out that a government agency that this government is responsible for has collected evidence inappropriately. So no charges will be laid. It’s after being refused a request for a full public inquiry. They say: “Okay. This is the best deal we’re going to get from the province, from the government — a coroner’s inquest. The least we would like is equal footing at this coroner’s inquest.”

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

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

The inquest was adjourned, as we know, on March 25, 2015, before the final recommendations came out — for five weeks — because it was learned that WorkSafe and Lakeland, two parties who did have legal representation, had effectively withheld evidence. All we can ascertain is that if the families had had proper legal representation during the many months and weeks of the inquest before that, they might have had the ability to compel or request all evidence and documents related to the explosions from the company and from WorkSafe. So, again, adding insult to injury, the workers, because they didn’t have legal representation, are faced with another five-week delay in anticipation of the findings of those two inquests.

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

Not only were 41 percent of mills in B.C. still not in compliance a year and a half after these mills exploded, but we had, in between the two explosions, WorkSafe
[ Page 10031 ]
backing off on enforcement strategy. And we know that in April, another mill exploded. That makes one assume there’s a culture that is allowing that kind of behaviour to happen.

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

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

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

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

[1555]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1600]

Some of the changes in the bill, though, are important to mention. Section 7 will be amending section 174. It will make important changes around the ability of being able to express concerns like…. As it’s currently drafted, could it dilute the power of workers to improve safety conditions and reduce occupational hazards?

We want to ensure, in the changes the minister is proposing, that this does not happen. In committee stage, we will be wanting to get answers to sections such as section 7 and ensure that they are doing what they are intended to do.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The sections of the act that are amended include sections dealing with the annual report, issues around service plans, staffing, duties and functions of joint committees, how to resolve disagreements within commit-
[ Page 10032 ]
tees, the immediacy of the notification of accidents, the progress of investigations, issues around full investigation and reporting and follow-up action, what happens if there is no joint committee or worker health and safety representative posted at the workplace — important issues that flow out of the investigation and that, when implemented, will make some improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1605]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This bill specifies meaningful participation for worker and employer representatives in employer accident investigations. As well, it specifies a role for workplace health
[ Page 10033 ]
and safety committees to provide advice to the employer on significant proposed equipment and machinery changes that may affect worker health and safety.

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

[1610]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1615]

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

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

Of course, what we are trying to do is make improvements. There have been workplace deaths in British Columbia in a number of dangerous industries for as long as those industries have existed. We need to make sure, in the cases of both the Lakeland and Babine mill inquest inquiries, that this legislation is making sure those kinds of accidents can never happen again in B.C. and that WorkSafe will have the tools it needs to be able to deliver upon that commitment that it’s making.

There are recommendations that flow out of the Macatee report that are based on this. Government has said they are accepting all of those recommendations. I think, here on the opposition side, we might urge government to go a little bit further in the interests of worker safety and a stronger preventive regime in workplaces around B.C. But we recognize that the sacrifice and the hard work of the juries and everybody that was involved, the testimony that was given, are going to replace, in
[ Page 10034 ]
some cases, provisions that were formerly in the act and, in other cases, we hope will drive improvements to make sure that industrial accidents like this don’t happen.

I think one of the things that is of interest is that Bill 35 came out of reactive, terrible incidences of tragedy in northern B.C., in Burns Lake. I think everybody would agree that provinces like ours need to revisit legislation like the act we’re debating this afternoon not just when there is a reactive period where there are inquests, where there are investigations and where there are independent reports, such as the coroner’s, covering that period.

We have to have a provision, I think, in the act…. Maybe we’ll have a chance to debate this at committee stage of the bill, and I will defer to our critic for Labour, who will lead us in that section of debate. We have to have a health and safety regime in British Columbia that is examined not just reactively but periodically and regularly. That’s something that exists in at least four other provinces that I’m aware of. It’s something that was, the last time the act was reviewed from top to bottom — I believe in 1999 — one of the key recommendations — that that be done in British Columbia at least every ten years.

That’s exactly a provision that is included in the Manitoba Workers Compensation Act, and I think it’s one that I wish were included in Bill 35, because that’s something that has to happen. That’s something that needs to be done independently, that should not be directed by the appointed board of directors of WorkSafe who, you know, face a performance review and would have an interest in it which would be conflicted.

[1620]

It needs to be done by independent experts. It needs to be done because it will drive performance improvements by the agency. It will also inform all members of this House, regardless of party, about how well the legislation is holding up in terms of protecting the lives of workers and British Columbians from death and injury on the job, where there are areas of improvement and what the culture and the organizational effectiveness of the agency are like.

That’s not something that we saw as a result of all of the reviews surrounding these two industrial accidents. Mr. Macatee, himself, made a very specific recommendation that reaffirmed the need for mandated systemic independent reviews of the workplace system that we have. He felt very strongly about it, because he felt that the independent reviews done periodically will be proactive.

By proactive, I mean they’ll be able to address emerging weaknesses in our system — emerging weaknesses, for example, similar to the problem around pine beetle–kill wood, dust accumulation and explosion risks. We heard, in one of the inquiries, direct testimony that other workplace safety agencies had anticipated this and brought in regulations that were much more strenuous than what we have in British Columbia.

The United States safety authority, for example, had regulations that differed from ours. The point is the idea around systemic independent reviews done, I’d say, every ten years, because that’s typically how they’re done in other provinces.

These are the kinds of things that I think can give assurances and also incentives to employers in British Columbia, both public and private, and to unions — and in the case of non-union workplaces, workplace health and safety committees — and the ability to perform at the highest level possible, to have safety in mind and to make sure that it is a rigorous problem that is understood and addressed each day in the workplace.

I think it’s a missed opportunity to not have an alternative, I suppose, to the episodic and reactive reviews that we have had in recent times that led up, for example, to the piece of legislation before us today. I really believe that the independent review process is critical. Internal reviews are not the same and don’t drive the same kinds of results. It needs to be done by the stakeholders, by British Columbians who are independent of those agencies.

That is not, of course, in Bill 35 this afternoon. I hope that there is an opportunity at least during the lifetime of this parliament to revisit that kind of provision, to put it in the act that at least every ten years it needs to be independently reviewed. Then, I think, we would be truly getting at the heart of one of the key recommendations that Mr. Macatee felt so very strongly about.

There’s another area of concern here, and I think it goes to one of the key areas, actually, around Bill 35, which are changes, in section 7, to the Workers Compensation Act — the original section 174. This is around the composition of investigatory conduct and the composition of accident investigations on the job.

I do note that the B.C. Federation of Labour has expressed concern around this section. It doesn’t seem like those concerns have been addressed by government and directed, in terms of the legislative drafters, to ameliorate these concerns.

[1625]

The concern is this. As currently drafted, the ability of workers that we currently enjoy to have powers, I suppose, to make recommendations to improve safety conditions and reduce occupational hazards, instead of being strengthened, could be at risk of being weakened. And when it comes to accident investigations, those current provisions that allow workers to be part of the investigation team are now left in a much more undefined state.

It’s that vagary that concerns trade unions in the province of British Columbia. I think that’s a rightly placed concern, because instead of being part of the accident investigation team going forward, assuming Bill 35 becomes law, there is concern that instead, the worker who is nominated by their co-workers to be acting on their behalf will be relegated to a position of being merely an observer, to having a role in a consultation around an ac-
[ Page 10035 ]
cident investigation but not in fact being part of an active investigation team.

I think that interpretation of this section and this amendment is at odds with the inquest recommendations that are underpinning the amendment.

Lakeland jurors believed that their recommendations would, without a doubt, give workers more powers, would empower workers to have a stronger voice and role in occupational health and safety — full stop. That was what they wished to come out of their months of work and their deliberation process of the evidence that was presented before them. And now we have organized labour in British Columbia having a serious concern about the interpretation of this amendment. That’s a concern, I think, about this bill.

Just going back to the independent review provision that we wished could have been in this bill, let’s remember that there has been so much pain and suffering around the inquests. After the grieving process was over for loved ones who died in those terrible accidents, the pain continued because so many families and workers and communities felt unable that they could in fact have full access to justice, that they could get accountability from WorkSafe, from those who were in positions of power. And the proper supports that were due to them were in fact denied to them.

That is the history since those horrible accidents occurred in January and April of 2012. It is in their honour that we should be debating legislation that is complete and considered of all of the fine and valid points that were made by those who did go out of their way and worked within the process and fought to amend the process. All of those efforts that were forced upon them and that were considered and listened to by the jurors — those are the things that we should see in totality in Bill 35.

One of the recommendations…. The previous speaker, once again, said we’re implementing all of the recommendations in those inquests. One of them that isn’t touched upon is around the idea of having a dedicated Crown prosecutor.

[1630]

The justice system is at pains to show that there isn’t a distinction between property crime or white-collar crime or any type of crime, that there will be fair prosecution of infractions that are on a parity with one another, that there won’t be different sentencing conditions. There won’t be lighter treatment or a lighter touch on some types of crimes than others. They will consider the facts, and they will prosecute the offences equally. I think there is some proving to do in the justice system around the area of negligence in the workplace.

One of the ways that the justice system could address this perception is to have a dedicated Crown prosecutor. That was urged by the recommendations in these inquests, urged by Mr. Macatee. In fact, it was something that existed in this province. That position existed prior to the year 2002. So it would be a reinstatement of having a dedicated Crown prosecutor, which this province once had — to send a signal, I think, but also to be in keeping with the information we now have before us in the year 2015, after these horrific accidents in 2012. Such a position would offer value. To understand….

I’m not going to go into the details. Frankly, I don’t know all of the details about why this position was eliminated just over ten years ago. But I would project, would hazard a guess that I think it’s because there were rounds of cuts to the justice system that we’re still feeling all over the justice system. There was a core review in government that led to serious cuts in all kinds of ministries.

Whatever the reason, we now have new information that suggests that this position would be helpful as a tool to make the workplace health and safety regime in the province of British Columbia stronger, to make compliance gaps that have been examined, all of the holes that have been found in the system…. Fill those to make the system work better and, of course, ultimately, to protect the men and women in the workforce, who go to work in so many different industries and so many different situations each and every day and are at different kinds of risk of injury to life and limb. Not done in the bill. I think that’s unfortunate.

Let me just say that we hope that the powers of investigation, in fact, will be strengthened. We have those concerns that, in some cases, workers’ involvement in investigations will not be improved or bettered as a result of this process.

Government disagrees. They offer a different view. But I think it’s important that, considering major stakeholders have no confidence that that, in fact, is the case…. They’ve had their lawyers, and they’ve got lots of people who have experience on the job in health and safety committees that are part of their membership.

Given that the lack of confidence is there that, in fact, the amendments were done correctly, I think gives us some concern. What would probably lessen that concern is a commitment from the government, because it’s going to insist that it got it right, for the time being. It would be a commitment that this parliament, or perhaps the next, be given the ability to evaluate independently whether those improvements around workplace investigations have been beneficial or whether, in fact, as some are predicting, they could be open to abuse. I think that would make passage of Bill 35 easier for some members of this House, myself included, to be supportive of the legislation.

[1635]

Now, there is much to commend in here, in terms of government listening to the work of the jurors, and the painful stories of the families, around what led to those fateful accidents and loss of life. The juries, unquestionably, did a good job.
[ Page 10036 ]

I know that there were a lot of challenges around the coroners’ inquests. I know there were calls — and we won’t apologize for that; in fact, we would repeat them — around having a proper, full-blown public inquiry into those deaths, which would have given significant judicial powers and strength if that process had been chosen. It wasn’t.

But I think that we also have to thank the coroner’s office and coroner’s counsel for also trying to get at the truth and for also putting in enormous effort at answering some of the serious questions about why those accidents occurred. As exhaustive as those inquests were — and I say that despite the limitations, which have been well covered by many members of the House, including the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is, of course, the opposition Labour critic — there are still some problems with the inquests. There are still some unanswered questions — for elected officials, but particularly for the executive council of this government — that deserve answers and accountability.

I think one of the questions is the one that was raised constantly through both inquiries and in the immediate aftermath of the accidents themselves, and that was around WorkSafe’s failure in fulfilling its core duties in not taking prompt action against wood dust. There was evidence suggesting that provisions were not enforced that would have prevented fires, that would have required companies to deal with combustible wood dust in their operations, which could have prevented the explosion at Lakeland. That’s evidence that is deeply concerning, to say the least, about WorkSafe failing in one of its core mandates and responsibilities to the people of British Columbia.

There were briefing notes authored by WorkSafe, their issues management briefing notes, that were prepared during the intervening period between the two explosions. So they knew, between January and the April explosion in 2012, what the cause was, and they knew that this would be applicable to the other mills using the same type of feedstock, the pine beetle–infested wood that had been harvested.

The note reveals — and this was submitted as evidence by the United Steelworkers — that there was hesitation on the part of the agency to enforce the combustible dust provisions of the occupational health and safety regulation, even after the Burns Lake explosion. The reason stated in this discussion note between the management team was that it was fearful of an industry backlash. This is a WorkSafe memo following an accident in which two people died and prior to, of course — and they wouldn’t have known this — an accident that occurred just months later.

Let me read the excerpt from this note that’s in question. It’s dated February 27, 2012. “Industry sensitivity to the issue, given the recent event and the limited clarity around what constitutes an explosion, could lead to push-back if an enforcement strategy is pursued at this time.”

[1640]

Well, no British Columbian wants an agency that is responsible for workplace health and safety to act timidly, to fail to put health and safety first and foremost and to cower, as this internal memo suggests, in the face of anticipated reaction from employers.

That is not the point of having that agency. Yet evidence heard by the inquest and submitted suggests that this was, in fact, what the agency was most concerned about. Instead of prevention, it was about: “What would the industry think if we were to actually enforce existing regulations to the letter of the code?”

What I’ve just read, too, in terms of the memo, is also why we will never have criminal charges laid against mill owners in either of these two explosions. WorkSafe basically acknowledged that they had knowledge of the risk or, in this case, the cause of the first explosion but failed to act upon it. It gave the mill owners the ability to say that that discussion didn’t happen or that there were no requirements or enforcement letters put upon them by the health and safety agency.

We have incompetence — and this is well documented in the inquest as well — around securing an investigation scene and ensuring that evidence gathering is done in a way that Crown prosecutors could utilize to make a successful argument that charges should be laid and proceedings should begin. We also have incompetence based on timidity and fear to do the right thing.

I hope Bill 35 will address that and erase that culture forever so British Columbian workers are safer going forward.

N. Simons: I’m pleased to have this opportunity to speak a little bit to the bill before this House, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), and speak a little bit around the issues that perhaps led to the drafting of this legislation. Perhaps some of the background information can help us understand whether or not this is adequate response to tragedies that occurred in this province.

My hope is that by discussing this, we can bring attention to an issue I think is of primary importance, not just to British Columbians but is of great importance to governments. It is governments that set the stage and set the tone for how the relationship between employers and workers is governed. That relationship is one that’s subject to, obviously, lots of rules and regulations.

More importantly, I think the legislative ability of government can set the tone for how workers are treated and how workers, when injured, are dealt with and how concerns about the workplace are addressed through legislation.

Largely, this bill comes out of the tragedy of the mill explosions that occurred in 2012. I believe that they’re
[ Page 10037 ]
primarily based on the coroner’s recommendations that came from the inquest into those four deaths.

Obviously, the people of British Columbia, regardless of their political perspective, were deeply saddened by the events that occurred. All British Columbians clearly expressed condolences and sadness with the families who have been affected and the communities that have been impacted. We’ve heard some eloquent words from people who’ve been closely tied to the communities involved.

[1645]

We’ve heard quite a bit about how the relationship between government and workers and the protection of worker safety have been influenced by government regulations and by changes to what the government requires of employers with respect to protecting workers and maintaining healthy work environments.

Just to recap the timeline leading up to the explosions. I think it’s important to put it into some perspective. In February of 2011, a fire and small explosion occurred at the Babine sawmill in Burns Lake. An investigation pointed to the dry dust from beetle-killed wood. That was in February of 2011.

At the end of 2011, in December, air sample testing showed a problem in the mill and that the dust in the air exceeded regulations. The mill was cited for a violation of safety rules. That was in December of 2011.

I’m getting this particular timeline from…. It’s been put together by Global.

In January of 2012, the Babine sawmill manager said they were looking into outfitting their workers with dust masks — clearly indicating, I suppose, that they were fully aware of the presence in the air of dust at a level that exceeded what would normally be considered safe for workers. Dust masks would have been, I suppose, protecting the workers from inhaling harmful dust.

Shortly thereafter, still in January of 2012, an explosion destroyed the mill and killed two workers and injured 20, some quite severely.

The next month, less than a month later, an anonymous caller contacted WorkSafe B.C. and warned about excessive dust buildup at the Lakeland sawmill in Prince George. The caller apparently indicated that he was worried about the mill turning into the next Burns Lake. An investigator visited the mill, but no violation order was issued. That was in February of 2012, a month after the explosion at Babine.

Two months later, in April 2012, a representative of an industrial vacuum manufacturer visited Lakeland, took photographs and warned about the risk of an explosion because of dust buildup.

Later that month, still in April of 2012, another explosion, similar to the one that destroyed the Babine mill, caused the Lakeland mill to be destroyed. Two workers were killed, and 22 were injured.

Toward the end of 2012, in October, forest companies created dust audits to increase safety at their mills in B.C. The audits, unfortunately, are voluntary and not set in regulation. That was in October 2012.

Let’s skip ahead to January of 2014, when we found out as British Columbians that the criminal justice branch decided not to pursue a criminal case because of no substantial likelihood of conviction. That’s one of the tests that they use, the Ministry of Justice, to determine whether or not criminal action would take place. Because there was no substantial likelihood of conviction, there would be no prosecution.

March 2014. The Premier said her government would not hold an inquiry into the explosions despite what clearly was a groundswell of support among the public, led primarily by the families and co-workers of the dead and injured, asking for government to try to have answered every question that could possibly be asked. It was felt at the time, understandably, that an inquest would not have the same breadth and depth as an inquiry.

[1650]

The public, the people of British Columbia, believed that these two explosions, these four deaths and these 42 injuries, warranted, at the least, an inquiry so that we as a society could learn as much as we could possibly learn in order to prevent a tragedy from reoccurring.

Now, this is one of those situations where it speaks to the concern of a community that a decision is made to take a path that is slightly less onerous, slightly less involved, slightly shallower than an inquiry. That is a coroner’s inquest. The decision was made by this government not to pursue an inquiry, despite the fact that most people know that it would be in that venue that most of the questions, at least, could be asked and, hopefully, most of the answers would have been given.

In April, the Babine sawmill was hit with an administrative penalty. Also in April, the criminal justice branch said no regulatory charges would be laid against the owners of Lakeland, for the same reasons that they decided not to charge the Babine owners.

Key to this particular issue and the concern around what type of inquiry needed to be pursued or what kind of investigation needed to be pursued, the criminal justice branch said that WorkSafe B.C. didn’t follow the legal procedures and the company would likely be able to succeed with a defence of due diligence, that they took whatever measures they thought were necessary.

WorkSafe fined Lakeland Mills in administrative penalties. No charges were laid. An inquiry was held. The coroner’s recommendations were tabled, and the government, in 2015, decided to put some of those into legislation: Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. Essentially, what this bill attempts to do is implement the recommendations of the coroner’s inquest.

The coroner’s report, like most coroners’ reports, tends to identify specific recommendations for different public bodies, including, in this particular case, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; the Minister of Justice;
[ Page 10038 ]
WorkSafe B.C.; the B.C. Forest Safety Council; steelworkers; the RCMP; and the B.C. Ambulance Service.

Now, the current legislation, the legislation before us today, addresses the recommendations as they relate to WorkSafe B.C. I’m going to talk a little bit more about concerns I have around WorkSafe B.C. and concerns that we have as MLAs around that agency, likely because…. It’s no secret that when people are permanently injured and unable to work in the jobs that they were trained for or have been working in, it has a traumatic impact on them and their families if they’re unable to work.

I think as a society we had decided, or we thought we had decided, that we would care for those people who became injured or disabled because of their work or during the course of their work. We’ve seen many tragic examples of situations where workers have lost their lives or certain abilities because of the conditions that they were in.

[1655]

Specific to this legislation, section 7 amends the Workers Compensation Act. There are concerns around it, obviously. There are issues that need to be raised. I think we need to talk about, specifically, not necessarily what is in this bill, as it’s just a very short bill, but what could be in this bill if we were truly intending to address the concerns of those who’ve been bereaved and those who have suffered because of the explosions that were preventable.

Let me just speak a bit to the issue around how we as a society reacted to those explosions, what we said versus what we have done. I think that when you look at the chasm that exists between those two things, it speaks a bit more to the real intent of government — a government that is preoccupied with trying as best they can to stay out of the way of businesses doing what they do. Seeing regulation and restrictions on the ability of these companies to act without oversight…. Any efforts to constrain those freedoms seem to be contrary to the government’s perspective on things.

The Premier did promise the people of the communities that they would be there, that we would be there for them, that the community would be supported. “We will be there to support you.” But, you know, when I think of what kind of support the communities needed, I would have thought the first thing would be to get as many answers as possible. Show, make an obvious display that government is not only interested but has a strong desire to find out if there were things that could have been done differently, even if those questions would cast government in a negative light, even if it would cast our system of protecting workers in a less than flattering light.

The role of government isn’t to protect a particular image. It’s to ensure that public policy is in place that serves the public good. I speak again to the issue of the inquiry. The decision not to conduct an inquiry, it seems to me, did not correspond to the statement that we would be there for them. In fact, we weren’t necessarily there for them, because we didn’t even provide legal counsel during the coroners’ inquests.

Both of the mill blasts were preventable. In the weeks and months prior to the explosions, WorkSafe didn’t enforce the combustible dust provisions of the occupational health and safety regulations.

As I mentioned earlier, in 2014, because investigating workers…. WCB didn’t collect evidence properly, failed to sufficiently flag wood dust as a risk prior to the blast. Those both helped the companies’ reasonable due diligence defence.

In spring, families, First Nations and workers from the area started a campaign asking that government call a public inquiry. They wanted some accountability, but I think that accountability meant answers to the questions that they would have, that they would think of every single day.

Now, the coroner’s inquest was apparently the appropriate form to provide closure and accountability to families. I can just speak to my experience on this issue. The very, very same thing was said by this government when the public wanted government to be accountable for the changes they made in child welfare.

[1700]

You know, when Sherry Charlie was killed, government said that the coroner’s inquest would be sufficient, and if you look back at what actually did happen, ultimately because of public pressure, the government could not escape the fact that more needed to be understood about what led to her death.

I think when you start off with a position of saying, “We’re going to do nothing more than what would normally happen in a workplace accident or a workplace fatality,” it did not reflect the seriousness that this situation warranted — the serious response that this situation, these two explosions, warranted.

Nor did the coroner’s inquest respond adequately to the death of Sherry Charlie. So when you look at a government’s response, to do the minimum required, and it might be a fulsome but limited-scope inquiry, I don’t think we’re serving the public interests properly.

Now, clearly an inquiry would not only have been more comprehensive; it would have expressed publicly the position of the people of the province — that we would leave no stone unturned. We would go to every corner of every issue and ensure that we would learn and make appropriate changes to legislation to address those concerns.

It didn’t really happen that way. What we have now is legislation changing Workers Compensation slightly in terms of how they do investigations. We’ve known for a long time that the investigation process has been not exactly comprehensive and that the majority of the most serious concerns raised to MLAs is the treatment from Workers Compensation — WorkSafe as they’re called now.
[ Page 10039 ]

The so-called historic compromise has been compromised, and the balance that we seek to find between workers’ rights and workers’ safety, workers’ rights and productivity, seems to be out of balance. I think it’s our responsibility as legislators to have a look at that and make sure that we find the balance that isn’t based on ideology but is based on how we best protect workers who work in dangerous occupations and who work in any occupation. We’ve seen tragedies affect workers in every sector in our society.

The shortcoming of the inquest was clear. Whereas there’s a suggestion that the coroner’s lawyer acts for the people impacted, I’ve attended enough inquests to know the limitations of the legal counsel for the coroner and what they can do and the access of the people involved to that counsel.

What we had, in fact, in terms of the coroner’s inquest, was an imbalance. The big parties — WorkSafe and the government and what have you — had legal counsel, and individual families of those impacted were really left somewhat adrift. I think that in itself did not reflect, in my opinion, well on government or on the decisions of the province. I think, in retrospect, clearly a decision to conduct a public inquiry would have been better for everyone.

[1705]

Independent counsel would have provided the families and workers with standing, would have given them access to documents, evidence and cross-examination. If you’ve attended an inquest or even a coroner’s inquest, you’ll know that it’s a hugely emotional situation. In this case, there would have been a lot of people, a lot of confusion, a lot of unanswered questions and difficulty in accessing answers.

My hope is that the legislation before us takes at least a step in the right direction, and I’m hoping that that step leads to many more steps — steps that can cause us, at least, to have some understanding or belief that things would be different should tragedies occur.

There were questions around how it was that WorkSafe didn’t enforce provisions to prevent fires involving combustible wood dust in time to prevent Lakeland. Now, I was talking to an RCMP officer who said that in 1974 he took a course on combustion, and he was told that wood dust was highly explosive. He knew it in 1974.

What we saw, subsequent to the explosions, was confusion at first as to whether it was possibly related to that or not. I wonder if the doubt and obfuscation was legitimate. The United Steelworkers released a WorkSafe issues management briefing note that was prepared, actually, between the two explosions. It revealed an unsettling perspective, one that indicated that one of the reasons not to engage more forcefully with the companies was because of the potential pushback from the companies involved. But these kinds of things shouldn’t be top priority. It should be about what is the best for the workers.

There are so many questions that still lingered after the inquest, and so many questions around how the investigation could have been so flawed that workers were left, once again, victims and that really, there wasn’t a lot of accountability. At the end of the day, the accountability wasn’t there. I mean, we have laws in place — the Westray law, which suggested that companies should be accountable for putting workers in unsafe situations and that there should be accountability.

My friend from Vancouver-Kingsway spoke earlier about the failure to prosecute along those lines. I think it’s maybe happened once in over 25 years. The Lakeland and Babine inquests made recommendations related to strengthening the enforcement and deterrent effect of the Westray law, which is also known as section 217.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Lakeland jurors recommended that B.C.’s Justice Minister request the federal Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to review the onus of proof in cases of criminal negligence involving workplace injury and harm. The Babine jurors recommended that the minister advocate for amendments to the Westray law to strengthen its force as deterrent so that an employer who fails to take reasonable steps to prevent death or bodily harm will be guilty of an indictable offence.

[1710]

In my view, it would be a statement if the government took those recommendations seriously and to heart.

It concerns me that the government does think that the current situation adequately addresses prosecutions and the imposition of administrative penalties. I don’t know if that’s just a question of balance. It may be a question of balance. But it’s my view that we should always err on…. It’s the safety of workers, regardless of anything else.

I have to say I think about all of those individuals who come to our offices concerned about the ineffectiveness or the cold-heartedness or the nature of their interaction with WorkSafe B.C. I look at the coroner’s recommendations at the Kang inquiry, and I’m waiting to hear if the death of Bhupinder Kang in February of 2006 has led to any significant changes in WorkSafe. I’m certainly hoping so.

I hope that we, instead of becoming defensive, say: “We are open to every possible suggestion. We want to find the answers. We want to know what all of the questions are, and we want to have all of the answers.” I think a public inquiry clearly would’ve reflected the community’s concerns around the deaths that occurred. It would’ve shown the people affected that their government takes it more seriously than anything else at the time.

Short of that, I think we’re just playing catch-up now, and I’m hoping that this legislation does something to address the concerns of the folks that have been impacted, and prevents incidents like the ones we saw in 2012 from occurring again.
[ Page 10040 ]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour concludes the second reading.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m going to close second reading with just a few comments. I think there’s been lots of, at times, emotional and powerful commentary in the Legislature about this issue, and I think all of us can understand why.

I think what’s most important is to recognize — it doesn’t matter which side of the House a person sits on — that the tragedies that surrounded the deaths of Glenn Roche, Alan Little, Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie changed communities’ and families’ lives forever.

I am appreciative of the fact that members, generally speaking, have talked about this bill being an important step. But it is important to recognize…. We have said that from the very beginning — certainly since I have become minister, in particular, dealing with this file — that this is only one piece of the work that has been done.

As we look back to what happened, all of us wish that it didn’t and that, in fact, we could change that. We can’t. What we can do is learn lessons. Many members on the opposite side have asked the question: “Did we learn lessons? Do we take this seriously?” Of course we do.

As others have shared, I live in one of the communities where one of these horrific accidents happened. That doesn’t make my feelings any stronger or different than anyone else.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I, too, got one of those phone calls, knowing what was going on in my community and trying to figure out how we were going to grapple with the pain and loss that people suffered.

[1715]

This bill…. Again, it is important to recognize it is only a piece of the work that’s been done. I don’t want to…. The reason I wanted to make a few comments was that we do need to make sure that there is context here. In January of 2014, the Deputy Minister to the Premier was asked to look at the decision to not lay charges against Babine Forest Products, because that concerned all of us. That work was done. Recommendations were made, and there were recommendations to change and improve WorkSafe B.C.’s investigation and communication processes.

I, for one — and most others, obviously — was not happy about how all of that unfolded. So what did we do about that? We took those recommendations. WorkSafe implemented all of those recommendations, so that is an additional step.

Government also immediately…. I was there at the table when we held meetings with industry, labour and WorkSafe to bring about real and sustained safety improvements to protect workers in British Columbia. Over and over, I’ve heard about: “Is it really our priority to protect workers in British Columbia?” Yes, it is. There isn’t a person here — and, in fact, in WorkSafe — who doesn’t believe that workers in this province should be coming home safely at the end of their workday.

What happened was tragic. Areas that need to be fixed are being fixed. For example, on March 31, 2014, we sat down — the government, the forest industry, organized labour and WorkSafe — and we worked together to coordinate and plan, over the following 90 days, a number of specific outcomes regarding mill safety and a combustible dust strategy.

In April 2014, the WorkSafe B.C. chair appointed Gord Macatee as administrator, at my recommendation, to make sure that reform was taking place at WorkSafe. In turn, as the Minister Responsible for Labour and for WorkSafe B.C., I provided a letter to the chair of WorkSafe describing the changes that Gord Macatee would lead.

We didn’t leave it up to WorkSafe to decide. We laid it out clearly that things needed to change — making sure, for example, that future investigations would be handled correctly by implementing the recommendations that previously had been made, making sure that sawmills were safer by implementing the 90-day action plan on sawmill safety and developing a plan for implementing a world-class inspection and investigation regime.

In July of 2014, Mr. Macatee delivered his report. Even employers and families were surprised by the speed with which Mr. Macatee did his work. By all accounts, he did an exceptional job. He worked to understand the challenges and put together a plan that made it very straightforward for us to move forward on the 43 recommendations that were in his plan.

More than two-thirds of the recommendations in Mr. Macatee’s action plan did not require legislation. Many of those recommendations were acted on immediately, including a sustained compliance plan for B.C. sawmills, and ongoing inspections of mills and other wood products manufacturers.

To deal with the issue of investigations at WorkSafe and to make sure that WorkSafe B.C. was allowing for there to be successful prosecutions, the action plan included a number of steps: a memorandum of understanding between WorkSafe B.C., police services and the criminal justice branch; improved communications; major case management; and a model with two distinct units for investigations.

Earlier this year we introduced and passed Bill 9 to implement the legislative recommendations from Mr. Macatee’s action plan. Bill 9 made improvements in four areas. The first was to add new enforcement tools so that WorkSafe B.C. could achieve better workplace safety compliance. The second area included several changes to shorten the process for issuing and reviewing employer penalties so that they are more effective at promoting workplace safety.

Thirdly, Bill 9 specified new time frames for employ-
[ Page 10041 ]
ers to conduct an investigation when there is a significant workplace accident. The time frames ensure that remedial action happens in a timely manner to protect workers.

Fourthly, Bill 9 added two new members to the WorkSafe board of directors, one with a background in occupational health and safety and one in law or law enforcement.

[1720]

These new members ensure that workplace safety expertise is in place at the highest levels of WorkSafe B.C. Now our latest action is to act on all five of the recommendations from the two coroner’s juries calling for amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. That is what Bill 35 does.

I heard references, through some of the comments, that this deals with some of the recommendations of the coroner’s work. Well, that would be correct. But what we do need to say is that all of the areas that required legislation are being dealt with in this bill, and that is important. That is important to families who said to me: “If a report and recommendations come forward from the coroner, we want to be sure that government acts swiftly and effectively on those recommendations.” That is exactly what Bill 35 does. It picks up all of the recommendations that required legislative change.

There are many other recommendations. In fact, as I pointed out in my opening comments, there are 74 recommendations flowing from the two inquests, and 40 of those were directed to the provincial government or provincial government agencies. As the Minister Responsible for Labour, I have taken the lead role in coordinating government’s response.

In fact, I have already…. I’m pleased to say that we have sent a letter to the chief coroner setting out our government’s response to the Lakeland inquest, which was aimed at the provincial government and its associated agencies. As I said earlier, that letter is available to the public on the coroner’s website.

I am in the process of sending a second formal response to the chief coroner regarding the Babine inquest recommendations.

No one here believes that all of the work we have to do is done. There is more work to be done. But I think it is absolutely critical that we recognize that this is the latest step.

I do want to close with just this. The decision, as we looked at how best to move swiftly and make sure that families had a chance to have the opportunity to have questions answered…. Unlike what has been suggested, it was not simply a quick or easy decision to look at whether it should be an inquest or an inquiry. We continue to hear that.

In fact, we actually asked Mr. Len Doust, Q.C., in his capacity as an independent adviser, about a public inquiry. He said: “You have also asked me whether a public inquiry could result in a reconsideration of the decision by Crown counsel not to approve the regulatory charges for prosecution. I can confirm, as you have indicated in your document, that there is very clear case law…confirming that a decision of Crown counsel to approve or not approve…is not a proper subject for review in a public inquiry.”

We gave a great deal of thought to how…. It was not easy, and it is not easy. We moved forward, and our decision was to put faith in the coroner’s process. I think that the results of the coroner’s inquest…. Though some will, obviously, always continue to look at what other options may have been available, the coroner’s inquest that took place provided thoughtful, careful, important recommendations. Our government has taken them seriously, has moved as swiftly as possible. We continue to coordinate the responses to all of the other recommendations that have been made.

I would encourage other parties who have been provided with recommendations, including the Steelworkers and others, to also take their recommendations seriously and move forward so that, together, we can find a way to continue to work to improve the safety and opportunities for workers in British Columbia.

With those comments…. I know there will be time to discuss what I think have been some very helpful comments, particularly from the critic opposite. We’ve had conversations about how we might make sure that this bill is the best that it possibly can be. I am very open to those comments, and I have very much appreciated his input. I look forward to having a chance to discuss those with him publicly throughout the committee stage.

[1725]

With that, I would move second reading of Bill 35.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 35, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I call committee on Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

[1730]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION
PROGRAMS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 39; R. Lee in the chair.
[ Page 10042 ]

The committee met at 5:31 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, committee stage.

With respect to definitions…. I also appreciate the opportunity to have some clarification from the Hon. Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and the Minister Responsible for Labour with respect to some of the provisions, as well as the staff from the ministry.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In terms of the definitions in the act, with respect to the definition of the provincial immigration program — we have it here — it means: “a program established under a prescribed agreement made under the Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.”

Does the current provincial immigration program mean the provincial nominee program, and are other programs included under that?

Hon. S. Bond: I’d like to introduce the staff that I have that have worked incredibly hard and work so diligently on the immigration file, in particular.

Obviously, my Deputy Minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos, is here; Rob Mingay, the assistant deputy minister of workforce development; Erin Seeley, who is the assistant executive director; and Kevin Contzen, who is our legal counsel.

Currently, the province’s only immigrant selection program is the provincial nominee program. But we believe that it’s important that the legislation has been cast a bit more broadly to allow for any new immigrant selection programs that may be applicable in the future.

M. Elmore: The provincial nominee program was initiated in 1998 by the NDP, and certainly, I think it’s a positive step to bring a legislative framework in terms of ensuring that accountability and laying out the process around the application through the program.

In terms of additional programs…. Certainly, it’s been an important program and avenue for the province to have input in terms of selecting workers to apply for permanent residency under provincial jurisdiction in the context of the federal mandate governing immigration.

Are there any other specific programs or expectations in terms of other programs that would be included currently, besides the PNP?

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: No. At this point in time, the only one is the provincial nominee program, as I noted. While we are leaving room for there to be new programs, they would have to be prescribed from a federal-provincial agreement.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the clarification.

I guess we can get into it in terms of fleshing that out. Just to establish the scope, certainly, of Bill 39, dealing primarily with the provincial nominee program, an important program. But it’s still a narrow scope in terms of the overall numbers of individuals coming into our province, particularly under the permanent residency stream but also in terms of the numbers of temporary foreign workers, migrant workers — those under a temporary visa or status in British Columbia. Certainly, it’s an important program nonetheless. There’s still a need to address a broader scope.

Maybe I can get into some further questions in terms of the administration of the program in subsequent sections.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Elmore: Section 2 deals with the director of the provincial immigration programs, which is a positive step — to appoint a director to oversee the administration of the provincial nominee program and to provide a process, to lay that out more clearly.

In section 2.1, it states: “The minister may designate as the Director of Provincial Immigration Programs an individual appointed under the Public Service Act.”

Can the minister just give some explanation in terms of qualifications of the individual and the appointment process for the director?

Hon. S. Bond: I can certainly tell you, from my much shorter tenure in this ministry than many of the staff that are here…. First of all, they are very, very good at what they do.

In fact, this really is formalizing a role that’s in place already. I can tell you that Erin Seeley is actually the person that will be designated under the Public Service Act as the director of provincial immigration programs. She has ten years of experience in her work on immigration files. She has a fantastic working relationship with the federal government. I know that will continue, because the teams that are in place in Ottawa will work very constructively.

In essence, it is a position that already exists, and this formalizes that role.

M. Elmore: Congratulations for being announced as the director. I think that’s a very positive step. Also, in terms of the experience in the role and doing that work, it will be a benefit. So congratulations for that.

For section 2.2. “Sections 1, 55 and 61 of the Administrative Tribunals Act apply to the director as if the dir-
[ Page 10043 ]
ector were a tribunal.” Could the minister just explain that more fully?

[1740]

Hon. S. Bond: While the legislation doesn’t create an administrative tribunal, immigration program decisions are analogous to decisions that are governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, which is fondly known as the ATA.

In the draft legislation, we have section 1, which would be consistent definitions for applicant, application, decision, etc., so that would be referenced.

Section 55 is: analogous to a tribunal member, the director or delegated decision-making authority is protected against compulsion to testify or produce evidence about records or information obtained in the course of their duties under the act.

And in section 61, it provides an exemption from FOIPPA to decision-makers from the release of information specific to the decision, including information such as personal notes, communication or draft decisions.

As I said, that lines up and is governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister for the explanation.

In terms of section 61, with the exclusion of the provisions under FOIPPA, can the minister just explain and give some further explanation to the inclusion of that provision explicitly in terms of the concerns of having to comply with section 61?

Hon. S. Bond: A draft decision would not be released, because throughout the course of their work, a person’s employment record, their educational background — all of those things — might be considered. As is permissible under the Administrative Tribunals Act, what would need to be released would be the final decision.

So it lines up with the parameters of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and draft information, particularly personal notes or draft decisions, would not be required to be released.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

[1745]

M. Elmore: Section 3 deals with applications. “Subject to subsection (3), a person may apply to the director for an approval respecting a provincial immigration program by submitting, in the form and manner required by the director, (a) an application, (b) documents and information in support of the application as required by the director, and (c) the prescribed fee.” That’s section (1).

Can the minister explain to me who will be eligible to submit an application to be considered under the PNP?

Hon. S. Bond: It will be up to the director to determine and lay out in policy who may apply and what constitutes an application. Some of the details, for example, related to applications would be found in regulation, and fees will certainly be prescribed in regulation.

M. Elmore: In terms of the details around the application, can the minister comment with respect to the NOC, the national occupational skill level to be accepted? Will it be limited to level 0, managerial; level A, professional; level B, skilled trades — the highly skilled? Those are, I think, what typically have been processed.

Will level C, requiring up to two years of training or apprenticeships, or level D, which can be performed as on-the-job training…? Will those also be applicable under the provincial nominee program?

[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: I know that the member opposite is very interested in this file and would know that recently we did look at the whole system. We asked ourselves, for example: “With the number of nominations that we have through the PNP program, how do we best ensure that British Columbia’s labour market needs are met?” Today in the current system, there is a lower-skilled worker pathway to permanency.

Having said that, we’ve made a very conscious decision to look at the stream of immigrants coming to our province, as part of our response to labour market demand. We are making a shift that will look at the needs that we have in this province. What are the labour market needs, and how do we best match those needs? It will be driven by labour market data. We will look at who is best suited to meet the needs of the workforce in British Columbia. Obviously, there’s a wide spectrum, whether it’s technology, whether it’s film. There are a broad number of areas where there is need and where people want to become permanent residents of Canada.

There will still exist — there exists today, and there will continue to exist — a stream that would allow for lower-skilled workers. But our focus has shifted in terms of how we make them match — the best possible match for British Columbia.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister for the response. Certainly, the temporary foreign worker program in Canada originated with bringing in highly skilled individuals. Certainly, that’s an area — level zero, level A, level B — that continues to be in demand.

Can the minister just give some more explanation in terms of what is the lower-skilled worker pathway to citizenship under the PNP — so level C and level D? Previously there had been a particular lower-skilled pilot project, I think it was, that was extended. Can the minister just explain that?

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: As I said, one of the key principles that we’ve looked at in the ministry over the last couple of years is how we make decisions based on labour market data. You will see that whether it’s our training programs or our immigration programs, we need to make decisions based on the best labour market data we can come up with. In fact, we’ve worked very closely with industries. We’ve held round tables. We’ve worked very hard to get the specifics of who we need in British Columbia, where we need them and when we need them.

Based on labour market demand, the low-skilled occupations that are currently in the process in three particular areas: tourism and hospitality — that’s considered one — food processing and long-haul trucking. As we look at the programs, at the intake, the areas that we would be focusing on are based, again, on labour market data. Those would be the particular areas of focus.

One of the reasons we actually took a closure period and looked at the reform of this program is so that we have flexibility to respond to labour market demands as they emerge. I can’t tell the member opposite for certain that these will be the areas of focus next year. We will analyze, we will look at the sectors, and we will work through the data. The new program allows us to have some flexibility in terms of where that focus is on, where that focus rests.

I should say — and I think it’s an important thing to note — that when we look at the pathways to permanency in the province, certainly up until this point, 90 percent of the people in that pathway have actually been temporary foreign workers. So the notion that temporary foreign workers come, work and go somewhere else isn’t always accurate. In fact, 90 percent of the workers that begin on a temporary basis move over into the permanent stream and, ultimately, have the opportunity to become Canadian citizens.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the low-skilled pilot project — that stream eligibility for PNP — had been extended. My understanding was that it had come to an end. If I’m mistaken, certainly in terms of this calendar year, if you could elaborate on that.

With respect to the point of the provincial nominee program that the majority of applicants are temporary foreign workers and that 90 percent have an opportunity to become permanent residents in British Columbia, certainly that’s also my understanding of the program — that it’s within the provincial jurisdiction of the federal immigration program that makes most of the decisions. However, because of the limited number — currently it’s been expanded to 5,500 — that will be accepted under the provincial nominee program, the vast number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. will not have an opportunity to apply to the program.

My question. If I am mistaken…. The pathway for levels C and D — if the lower-skilled…. Those pathways — has that ended, or is it still extended? Also, can you give me an idea of the number of applications previously to the provincial nominee program?

[1800]

If you also have the information of the number of labour market impact assessments in B.C. — just to give a picture of the total number of folks in the temporary foreign worker program in B.C. — how many have applied to the program? What proportion of those were in the high-skilled versus lower-skilled categories?

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things that we should probably, right off the top, have some clarity around…. I think it’s a really important observation that you can’t equate “temporary foreign worker” with “low-skilled” and assume that they are interchangeable. They are not. In fact, many, many professionals who come to Canada — for example, engineers, students — are considered temporary foreign workers. They are certainly not low skilled, and they come through a variety of streams.

When we look at 2014, for example, in British Columbia, there were 70,000 individuals who would be called temporary foreign workers, but only 32 percent of those came through the federal temporary foreign worker program. This is one of the discussions we have all the time. People use the language that we have vast numbers of them. In fact, only 32 percent of 70,000 people in the province came as a result of the federal temporary foreign worker program.

[1805]

There are many other streams — for example, the Canadian Experience stream, which is students. They are considered temporary foreign workers, but they hardly equate with the language associated with lower-skilled workers. You can’t use those interchangeably. I think it is important to note.

I did want to go back and be sure that the member opposite had the correct information. The 90 percent in terms of TFWs that move into the program — that’s into our program. In British Columbia, when you’re thinking about the PNP program, 90 percent of the applicants were considered temporary foreign workers.

What’s important is that there is a wide range of skill sets and categories that would end up being called a temporary foreign worker, but they certainly are not all lower-skilled workers. While there is a pathway and where there is a process for lower-skilled workers, they are not, necessarily, the majority.

M. Elmore: Yes, there is just a wide, broad range of categories and occupations where temporary foreign workers come into Canada — hundreds of occupations, divided primarily between high skilled — the level 0, dealing with managerial; level A, professional; and skilled trades, level B — and the lower skilled, which is characterized as level C or level D.
[ Page 10045 ]

I agree with the minister that, particularly in the historical context, the majority of individuals coming into Canada under the temporary foreign worker program, the initial program when it was brought in, in the 1970s, were in the higher-skilled categories.

It was only very recently, within the last ten years in Canada and British Columbia, where we saw increasing numbers coming in under low skilled — under category C and D. Certainly, that proportion has increased. I agree that they don’t comprise the majority of the temporary foreign workers.

The reason I am inquiring is because these are often the individuals who have the difficulties. We hear the stories coming up in the media in terms of their rights being violated, being injured in their workplace and not feeling the confidence to come forward, or with employment standards, when their rights are violated and the reluctance to come forward. With many of these conditions, it’s with that tier of workers, the lower skilled, that experience, particularly, a lot of precariousness and are very vulnerable to exploitation.

Does the minister have numbers — just to give me an idea? I know, obviously, the provincial nominee program is very well prescribed — overprescribed — because there is a desire for workers to come and to become citizens. The stories I hear are that everyone who comes to British Columbia as a temporary foreign worker…. They are all looking to apply for permanent residency, and that is often one of the selling points that recruiters use to bring temporary foreign workers in.

Does the minister have a number, to give me an idea in terms of the number of applications, previously, to the provincial nominee program — how popular it has been? Also, the current 32 percent of the 70,000 under 2014 — that corresponds to the general number of the labour market impact assessments that are issued in B.C.?

[1810]

Hon. S. Bond: There certainly has been a change in the number of applications that we’re seeing on the PNP side. I think it’s fair to say that, certainly, in recent history, the number of applicants would have lined up much more closely with the actual number of nominations that we have, that have been provided to us.

In fact, we worked very hard to engage with the federal government to ensure that British Columbia got an increased number of PNP nominations. We were pleased to see that happen. Obviously, we’ll be continuing to talk to the new federal government about seeing that number increase.

We laid out a three-year plan, which looks at the needs of our province. And we take that plan…. We’re expected to take a levels plan to the federal government. I can’t imagine that that will change. We’re looking for more. We were pleased to get an increase, but we’re certainly looking for more.

Historically, it’s probably a similar number of applications to nominations — the nominees that we could provide. Then the federal government made changes in the temporary foreign worker program, many of which we supported.

We certainly believe that if there are employers that are not acting appropriately, there should be significant consequences. So there was much dialogue between our government and the federal government. The changes were made. That’s when we started to see a spike in the number of applications to the PNP program.

We did take some time. We took a pause so that we could look at how we focus the program differently, and we’ve done that. But there certainly was a significant spike in the number of applications. We have worked very hard and, in fact, added additional staff to process those as quickly and effectively as possible.

There is no doubt that we are receiving more applications. We need to continue to work and lobby the federal government to see our allocation increased. But in the meantime, we are working our way through the queue to ensure that people who have been in it will be processed.

M. Elmore: Yes — pleased that the annual allocation was increased to 5,500, along with other western provinces, with the exception of Quebec. We’re all in line there.

Certainly, I understand, in terms of the increases, that it has been relatively recent that we have seen the increasing numbers. Certainly, it’s been within the last ten years that the regulatory changes have come in by the federal government to really bring increasing numbers. It’s not only historically of high-skilled, but that’s where we really saw the growth of the low-skilled categories.

I can appreciate how those increasing numbers would outstrip the demand of the federally allocated number of spots in the provincial nominee program. Can the minister give me an idea in terms of what those numbers look like? Or generally…?

[1815]

For example, in 2014, 32 percent of the 70,000 folks characterized as temporary foreign workers came in under the federal temporary foreign worker program. What’s that? In excess of 20,000, 21,000, 22,000? Was that the corresponding number of applicants, generally, to the provincial nominee program?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I want to differentiate. The only jurisdiction that we have in terms of immigration decisions is the PNP program. While this bill leaves room for other immigrant programs, there are none, at this point in time, where we have jurisdiction. The data that we’ve been provided with is federal government data.

I need to correct the record. I’m sure Erin said it, and what I wrote down did not line up. It was actually 2013 data, not 2014. So I do want to correct the record — that
[ Page 10046 ]
it is 2013 data. It precedes the changes to the temporary foreign worker program that the federal government made, subsequent to that data.

I would be very concerned about extrapolating data from 2013 under the previous model to what is going to happen either in 2015 or 2016. We need to wait and see what the impacts are.

What I can say is that the number that we were provided, based on federal data, was the 32 percent of the 70,000, which is, obviously, 22,500. That’s the number, I believe, that came through the federal temporary foreign worker program. Again, I want to caution all of us to remember that there is a wide range of categories that would be included in that 22,500. We can’t assume that 22,500 temporary foreign workers fit within the low-skilled-workers classification. There would be many others that would still be coming through that stream. Time will tell.

Based on the 2013 data, we can give the member that percentage — but again, difficult to extrapolate, because the changes were made subsequent to that year.

M. Elmore: Certainly, yes, I’m aware of that, with respect to the composition and makeup of the various skill levels and NOC levels that temporary foreign workers come into B.C. with.

My interest is with regard to a historical perspective of the subscription to the provincial nominee program. Is that information available, in terms of an annual…? Is that tracked — the number of applicants that are made to the program overall? Just to get a general picture.

[1820]

Hon. S. Bond: I’ll try to work through the member’s question.

When we look at the 90 percent that applied, 90 percent of them had work permits, but we are unable to identify which stream they came from. For example, they could have come through NAFTA. They could have come through the working holiday program or the temporary foreign worker program — a variety of streams. But 90 percent of the applicants had work permits.

When it comes to our program, which is the only one we have jurisdiction over, in 2014…. I did get the number right this time. In terms of 2014, of our 4,150 potential nominations through the PNP program, we…. When we look at statistics, 15 percent of the PNP numbers, the nominations, would actually have been in the low-skilled category. So 15 percent of the nominations would have fit in low-skilled. That’s in 2014. Again, we’re still waiting to see what the impacts will be as we move forward, but that’s the data for 2014.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. That’s helpful. That’s interesting as well.

Certainly, I recognize that the provincial nominee program is the only program that the province has jurisdiction for resident employers to sponsor employees to become permanent residents. As far as I know, that’s been the only program since 1998, since it was brought in.

That’s kind of on the end number of successful applicants in 2014. Do you have a number corresponding with how many actually made applications that were unsuccessful?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things we certainly want to highlight is…. I want to just let the member opposite know that the act and the agreement between the federal and provincial governments was signed in 1998, but the PNP program actually was not initiated until 2001. So there was a gap between the actual agreement and then the creation of the PNP program itself.

In terms of the number of applicants versus nominations, there’s a very high approval rate. It is typically 80 to 85 percent. When we look at the 15 percent of nominations, it would track relatively similarly to the number of applicants because the acceptance rate is so high — roughly 15 percent of the applicants, roughly 15 percent of the nominations.

Noting the hour, I ask that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada