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)

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 1

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

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Personal Statements

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

V. Huntington: I would like to apologize to members of the House for my unparliamentary language of yesterday.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Indeed, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the Consular Corps of British Columbia to our House. The Consular Corps, based mainly in Vancouver, consists of consular officers resident in the province, representing 82 countries.

Today we are pleased to have representations from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Serbia, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Would you please help me make them feel very welcome.

[1335]

Also joining us in the House is Mr. Pavel Hrnčíř, the Ambassador of the Czech Republic to Canada. Would you please help the ambassador feel very welcome as well.

J. Shin: Today I’m very pleased to introduce to the House a very special delegation from British Columbia’s tae kwon do community. Tae kwon do is a full-contact martial art from Korea that is now celebrated around the world as the most-practised martial art. In our province, over 10,000 British Columbians regularly engage in this sport at over 70 registered clubs and academies.

I was honoured to be warmly received at Kukkiwon, the tae kwon do headquarters, along with my colleagues the members for Surrey-Whalley and Surrey–Green Timbers, when we visited Korea last week. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Kukkiwon and the government of South Korea for not only their kind reception but also for sending us their top athletes to perform at the Korean festival here in B.C. for two years in a row.

Leading the group here today is my very, very good friend, master Tony Kook, with four academies in North Vancouver, West Vancouver, East Vancouver and Port Moody. Tony has made B.C. proud as 11-time provincial champion as well as our two-time national champion. Master Kook is also relentlessly engaged in our community, serving as the director of the Korean Cultural Heritage Society and as the elected vice-president of both the B.C. Taekwondo Federation and Canada tae kwon do federation.

Also joining us in the gallery are master Huy Phan of Tri-City Taekwondo in Coquitlam, who is qualified with a fourth-degree black belt; master Milad Bahrami of Port Moody Taekwondo in Port Moody, with a fourth-degree black belt; master Young Suh of OMAC Taekwondo in New Westminster, with a sixth-degree black belt. So I think we’re in good hands here today. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: On a day when a new Prime Minister is installed, perhaps a future Prime Minister has joined our human family. Barinder Bhullar has toiled faithfully in various branches of government for many years. Today at 11:28, he and his wife, Seema’s, first son, Maeva Singh Bhullar, was born. Maeva means the fruit of hard work. I’ll let his mother and father explain the significance of the name, but this chamber, I know, will want to welcome Maeva and congratulate his very proud parents.

S. Fraser: It’s been an honour to be serving as the opposition Aboriginal Relations critic and spokesperson for many years. I had the honour and opportunity to work with some great people and some wonderful organizations. I see Paul Lacerte is in the audience here today. He’s the executive director of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

This is an organization that does amazing work. There are 25 different centres spread out across the province, and they provide wonderful opportunities, especially for aboriginal youth. I credit all in the organization — three people here today. But I credit Paul Lacerte for a lot of the success of that organization and the work they do. Would this House please join me in making Paul and his friends all very, very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the rotunda, we celebrated 110 years of British Columbia’s conservation officer service, and we welcomed to the rotunda many conservation officers who were receiving not only awards for their long service but, many of them, awards for truly exemplary service above and beyond the call of duty.

They are joining us here today in the gallery, many with their families. I want to acknowledge Doug Forsdick, chief conservation officer; Aaron Canuel, deputy chief; David Airey, deputy chief; Chris Doyle, inspector; Gord Hitchcock, inspector; Jason Hawkes, conservation officer; Andrew Anaka, conservation officer; Micah Kneller,
[ Page 10048 ]
conservation officer; Josh Lockwood, sergeant; Kevin Van Damme, conservation officer and, I’m told to mention also, from Kamloops; Steve Jacobi, sergeant; Darrell Ashworth, conservation officer; Dave Webster, conservation officer; Paul McFadden, conservation officer; Martin Melderis, inspector; Robert Leblanc, conservation officer; and Gerry Lister, conservation officer and COS historian; and Brittany Mueller, conservation officer.

[1340]

They are joined by Cheryl Johnson, executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Would the House please make them welcome and acknowledge their dedicated service to our province.

J. Rice: Today we have the elected Chief Councillor Doug Neasloss in the House. Doug is the chief councillor of the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation from Klemtu on the central coast. He’s also the resource stewardship director. He’s been the lead tour guide for the spirit bear company that’s very successful in Klemtu right now, Spirit Bear Adventures. He’s been the band’s marine use planning coordinator. He’s a phenomenal photographer, and he’s one of those young, innovative and inspiring leaders — he’s my age — that has led his community to great successes, with 90 percent employment in Klemtu.

I would like to make the House make him feel welcome but also just acknowledge the phenomenal job that he’s done in the Spirit Bear Adventures company. It started, from what I understand, in a leaky boat and some pretty shabby accommodations to having high-end, high-class, Red Seal chef meals and first-rate accommodations. It’s a great place. If you ever want to see spirit bears, Doug’s the guy — central coast community, Klemtu.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House today Keegan Small and his father, Bill Small.

Keegan is a grade 9 student at Belmont Secondary School who is participating in the annual Take Our Kids to Work Day. He has the pleasure of accompanying his father, Bill, to work today. Bill is an extremely valued member of Justice and Attorney General, serving as the provincial director of community corrections and corporate planning. He will be a recipient of the 2015 Governor General’s Exemplary Service award, to be awarded before too long.

Keegan’s mother, Dianne, also works for the Ministry Of Justice and Attorney General as the director of security services in our police services branch.

Keegan is an avid hockey and rugby player. He has a strong interest in politics, making this afternoon’s visit to the House very special for both him and his family. I ask that the House make them feel very welcome.

M. Mungall: The minister mentioned the conservation officers and others who are here in the House today. I didn’t get a chance to say this directly to Jason Hawkes from Nelson. What he did in Kaslo this summer…. On June 30, he woke up and he didn’t know that he was going to be saving lives that day, but he saved four from a sinking boat on Kootenay Lake.

From everybody in the Kootenays, especially the family and all of us who live around Kootenay Lake, thank you so much, Jason. Without you and people like you, our lake would not be as safe as it can be.

Hon. M. Bernier: As you’ve heard today, we do have quite a few students that are gracing us in these buildings. I was very fortunate to have one of those students, a grade 9 student from Vic High living in Langford, to spend the day with me.

It’s really enjoyable any time we have students in this building. Thank you to the hon. Speaker as well for her hospitality earlier today as we were going around the building.

I’m hoping the group here will please help welcome Logan Willford to the building. We’ve had a great day spent together. Thank you very much, and welcome to the building, Logan.

J. Shin: I just want to join the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming to the House the delegation of diplomats from around the world and especially the consular general from South Korea, Mr. Ki Chung Li.

Hon. N. Letnick: Also from Belmont Secondary School in grade nine, Antonia Audette is here, and she is shadowing her mom as she works in these wonderful facilities.

Could the House please make Antonia feel very welcome.

J. Martin: It’s a great pleasure to introduce a good friend, a constituent, no stranger to this House, a former colleague and arch adversary to many members here today. Please welcome John Les.

[1345]

Hon. J. Rustad: I also want to recognize Paul Lacerte from the aboriginal friendship centre today. He’s actually here in the context of the B.C. Partners for Social Impact, and we had an opportunity to meet earlier, as well, with Ken Gauthier and Tonni Lerat. They’re a great group, trying to do some great things in the province. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We have four very important people here today. They happen to be 13 or 14 years old. They are Alison Karim, Adam Brewster, Kellen Brown and Annika Flower. They’re very important, because in three or four years, they’ll be candidates for higher education. And their parents happen to work in my ministry, which makes it even more important.
[ Page 10049 ]

R. Lee: From Burnaby North, we have a visitor today. Allan Purmanand Bunjun is a management and transportation consultant. He was actually the person that got Bombardier involved in the Republic of Mauritius rapid transit project there. Would the House please join me to give him a very warm welcome.

G. Hogg: I’ve been advised that the record for introducing one person at one sitting in this House is two, so in an effort to break that record, I’d also like to also welcome Paul Lacerte today.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I think we can all agree that 50 years is an extraordinary career. I have two guests in the gallery: Dr. Roy Karjala, who’s served Richmond as a physician for more than 50 years — extraordinary — and he’s joined by his wife, Penny. Thank you both for joining us.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

GEORGE FERGUSON

S. Gibson: It’s a real pleasure for me, on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for Abbotsford South and myself, to pay tribute to George Ferguson, who celebrated his 90th birthday this year. It was my privilege to serve with him on Abbotsford council for many years.

The name George Ferguson is synonymous with local government in our province. He was born in Vancouver in 1925 and spent most of his life on Sumas Prairie in Abbotsford. He was married to Betty for many, many years. She passed away, tragically, in the 1990s. They had 11 kids, and one of his daughters actually served as mayor of White Rock. He later married Ria, and they still live on the family farm.

He was the only mayor of Abbotsford district and also served on Sumas council. Of course, Sumas no longer exists. About 20 years ago Abbotsford and Matsqui finally amalgamated, after a lot of conversation. And after a shootout with two other very strong candidates, George succeeded in becoming mayor of the new city.

George was very well known around the country, and he was president of the FCM, president of the UBCM. It was a real privilege for me to be able to serve with him. He’s an outstanding statesman for Abbottsford and somebody we can all take pride in saying we know. It’s a privilege for me to have him as a friend.

Again, I want to acknowledge him and give this tribute to him today here in the Legislature in Victoria, British Columbia. Well done, George Ferguson.

TAE KWON DO

B. Ralston: Tae kwon do is a Korean martial art, meaning “way of the hand and foot” and is practised in over 200 countries worldwide. An official Olympic sport since 1988, it is practised by people of all ages and backgrounds.

The tenets of tae kwon do — courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self-control and indomitable spirit — are universal and comprise a global standard to guide the conduct of practitioners. Tae kwon do academies and clubs worldwide are committed to improving people’s lives through the practice of sport by instilling valuable life skills and building a strong trinity of the mind, body and spirit.

Kukkiwon is the global headquarters of tae kwon do, established in Seoul, Korea, in 1972. This organization is the authority that promotes tae kwon do and the development of its leaders. It is the only authority in the tae kwon do world empowered to issue black belt certificates. The B.C. Korean Cultural Heritage Society and B.C. Taekwondo Federation are proud to initiate and support the recent proclamations of Taekwondo Kukkiwon Day in the city of Burnaby and in the city of North Vancouver.

[1350]

I’d like to thank and recognize president Song Chul Kim and vice-president Tony Kook at the B.C. Taekwondo Federation; executive director Mike Suk at the Korean Cultural Heritage Society; president Ma Soon Jeong, vice-president Hyun Deuk Oh and master Chul Woong Park at Kukkiwon in Seoul; city of Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan and councillor Paul McDonell for their proclamation; and the city of North Vancouver mayor Darrell Mussatto and councillor Craig Keating for their proclamation.

Respect is an integral part of tae kwo do practice, and the word is repeated frequently during training: respect.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

D. Barnett: Today I rise in the House on this November 4, 2015, to recognize that from today onwards, November 4 will be known as Conservation Officer Day in British Columbia.

As the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, I have seen firsthand the contributions of our officers. Driven by a sense of duty and commitment to the job, they routinely go above the call of duty to defend our natural environment and protect individual and collective safety. On any day, our officers are preventing poaching of our iconic species, investigating environmental violations that could put our health at risk and our ecosystems in danger, working with communities to prevent human-wildlife conflicts and ensuring that hunters and outdoor recreationists are obeying the law and operating safely.

The results of this work matter and have impacts throughout the province. Our iconic species continue to contribute to our rich biodiversity. Violations are pursued, showing that we will not tolerate pollution in our air, waterways and lands. Close encounters with our beautiful predator species are prevented, which also protects them from us. Finally, when we are experiencing our
[ Page 10050 ]
great outdoors, we know there are conservation officers helping to ensure that we do so safely and in a manner that respects our environment.

Today I have an opportunity to thank our conservation officers for everything they do. I believe we are indebted to the service of these men and women and that it is timely that we as British Columbians stand up and formally recognize their enormous contributions. This November 4, let’s start a tradition of recognizing conservation officers and raising awareness about their work and what we can do to support them in reducing wildlife conflicts and protecting the environment. Please join me in recognizing November 4 as Conservation Officer Day.

BIRD MIGRATION IN
FRASER RIVER DELTA

V. Huntington: The winter migration is upon us, and if you come to south Delta right now, you will see what this migration really means to the world. Whether you go to Boundary Bay, the Reifel Bird Sanctuary, the Alaksen national wildlife refuge or to Brunswick Point, the congregation of millions of birds has descended on the Fraser River delta.

The weekly report from the president of the Delta Naturalists reads almost like poetry:

“We spent another beautiful Delta morning walking the dike trail at Brunswick Point…. As always…we started our walk at the mouth of the south arm of the Fraser River. Not much in the river, but in the bushes along the trail, we saw lots of stuff, including four sparrow species — song, fox, golden- and white-crowned — separate flocks of pine siskins and cedar waxwings, house finches and American goldfinches, some brilliant golden-crowned kinglets, marsh wrens, Eurasian collared doves and, of course, towhees, robins, red-winged blackbirds, chickadees and everyone’s favourite, the great blue heron.

“Other sightings included northern flickers, flocks of double-crested cormorants, northern harriers and a neat peregrine falcon hoping to get lucky with a shorebird meal.

“There were literally thousands and thousands of snow geese…on Roberts Bank and overhead, many of them juveniles — obviously a good breeding year on Wrangel Island in Russia. Among them were thousands of shorebirds — mostly dunlin, black-bellied plovers and western sandpipers — and, of course, thousands of waterfowl — mostly green-winged teal with northern pintail, northern shoveller and American wigeon among them.

“Do you get my point? There were a heck of a lot of birds there.”

Fall has arrived on the delta, and the migration is underway. Come and see its magnificence and its beauty, and begin to understand how our decisions will determine its very survival.

[1355]

PORT MOODY BRANCH OF
ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

L. Reimer: As we lead up to Remembrance Day on November 11, it is important to remember the contribution that local branches of the Royal Canadian Legion have made to the development of communities right across our country.

In my constituency, the Port Moody Branch 119 is no exception. In 1931, 11 veterans of the First World War decided to form a branch of the Legion. They had no money, no property and no building. But they had a great deal of determination and received a charter that same year.

The first meetings were held in the basement of the Port Arms Hotel, which is now more commonly known as the Burrard Public House.

At the height of the Great Depression, the original founders worked hard to raise money through dinners and dances, while the Ladies Auxiliary made quilts and baked goods for sale. It was not until 1951 that enough money had been raised to purchase a property at 2513 Clark Street.

Veterans worked their day jobs and then worked on construction of the Legion at night. Many of them contributed $5 a paycheque to cover the building costs. Finally, on New Year’s Day in 1951, the building was officially opened. It had a roof but no floor installed yet.

Throughout its history, branch 119 continues to support cadets, scouts, hospitals, hospices, youth and senior sports, the arts, fire and police community projects and, of course, the poppy campaign.

But after 65 years and with a failing roof, the time has come to rebuild and redevelop. The old building will be replaced with a brand-new structure that will reopen in mid-2017.

Legion branch 119 Port Moody will once again be open to serve veterans and remain committed to its mission statement: “Honouring yesterday, living for today and visions of tomorrow.”

ELIZABETH FISCHER

G. Heyman: Faced with a terminal diagnosis and the prospect of agonizing pain, Elizabeth Fischer chose to end her life in mid-October as she had lived it, with dignity.

Elizabeth had a long, influential career as a Vancouver artist, poet, writer and musician. She sang with the bands Animal Slaves and DarkBlueWorld, fusing her poetry with rock and improvisational jazz. To hear her interpret the songs of Brecht and Weill was to experience all their beauty, humour, dark irony and nuance. Those characteristics might describe Elizabeth herself.

Elizabeth created paintings and drawings exhibited internationally, known for meticulous attention to line, colour and composition but appearing spontaneous and effortless. She also produced numerous gig posters that she distributed freely outside the commercial art market.

She recently published Orphans and Dogs, a book of writing, photos and drawings to accompany her summer exhibit at the UNIT/PITT Gallery. The book is described as personal and honest observations about poverty and alienation.

Elizabeth was the only child of Hungarian Holocaust
[ Page 10051 ]
survivors. Perhaps that’s why her art and her life perspective combined skeptical realism, often delivered with wry humour and a smile. There were two recent ironies in Elizabeth Fischer’s life. In her own words, “Here I was having the best year with a retrospective exhibition, my first book out and the band playing great,” when a pain in her ribs was revealed as terminal lung cancer.

The second irony, she pointed out, was her need to leave B.C. for Switzerland, the only country where assisted suicide is legal for non-residents. Before ending her life, she spoke very publicly about the importance of making her own choice about her quality of life in the final months. She said shortly before her death: “I’ve lived freely all my life. I want to leave the same way, under my own agency, as easily as possible.” And her final advice to me was: “Sharpen them claws a little, George.”

Oral Questions

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY
COMMISSIONER REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION AND RELEASE

D. Routley: We heard two things again and again from the Minister of Citizens’ Services yesterday. First, that staff are not deleting records, and second, that over the next six weeks, former Information Commissioner David Loukidelis will solve the freedom-of-information problems that this government took 14 years to create.

In 2003, Mr. Loukidelis commented on the practice of deleting records. He said at the time that there was no indication that people were deliberately deleting e-mail records which should be included in a response to freedom-of-information requests, but he said: “I would take something like that very seriously.”

[1400]

The opposition has demonstrated pretty clearly the lengths people are going to delete records. Is the minister going to ask former Commissioner Loukidelis to review these troubling new cases, or should we be asking current Information and Privacy Commissioner Denham to review them?

Hon. A. Virk: I’ve made it quite clear that the report from Commissioner Denham made some findings. I’ve made it quite clear that I and government have accepted the number of recommendations. I’ve also made it quite clear that we have made a commitment to act on those recommendations. I’ve also made it quite clear that we’re going to engage the services of an expert, a former Privacy Commissioner, to give advice on enacting those recommendations.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: There’s an old expression that a man with two watches never really knows what time it is. Government now has two freedom-of-information commissioners. We’re curious who the minister is going to take advice from, if anyone. Over the past four years, this government has rejected most of the recommendations from the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

We have a simple question for the minister. If Mr. Loukidelis makes a recommendation that contradicts or conflicts with the recommendations of Commissioner Denham, who, if anyone, is he going to listen to?

Hon. A. Virk: I’ve presented that Mr. Loukidelis has, indeed, been engaged to provide advice, to provide counsel on the manner of how to act on the recommendations, how to provide ongoing advice on how to strengthen FOIs as we move forward, to engage Mr. Loukidelis on how to provide continuous learning and continuous training.

I’m not going to speculate or be hypothetical on what his report is going to say. When it comes to government on December 15, I have committed that his report will become public.

C. James: Another troubling aspect of the latest report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner is the length to which this government went to keep it under wraps during this legislative session.

Last week the Premier said: “No one in government has done anything but express acceptance in welcoming this report from the Privacy Commissioner — absolutely.” What the Premier didn’t say is that the B.C. Liberals sent lawyers from the Ministry of Justice after the commissioner and told her not to release the report. So much for welcoming.

My question is to the Minister of Justice. Why did she ask lawyers in her ministry to stall off the commissioner’s report?

Hon. A. Virk: The report by Commissioner Denham was received by government. The report was accepted by government. The recommendations are accepted by government, with a commitment to work on taking action on each of those recommendations. We are committed to doing that.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Well, it’s a strange way of showing your commitment to this report by trying to prevent it from being released during this legislative session. Sending lawyers after the commissioner is truly a new low. It’s remarkable to think that we have come to this point, where independent officers of the Legislature, people whose sole job it is to protect the public interest, are seen by this government as political enemies.
[ Page 10052 ]

My question is to the Minister of Justice. How does it serve the public to have her ministry trying to obstruct the work of the Privacy Commissioner?

[1405]

Hon. A. Virk: We do have a report in front of us. I’ve said that a number of times. And the number of times a question is asked…. The answer is not going to change. We have a report that we accepted. We have accepted to take action on the recommendations. We have brought forth an individual who is a former Deputy Attorney General, a member of the bar, a former Privacy Commissioner, an individual who is providing counsel on privacy all across the country. We’re engaging an expert to take action on those recommendations.

S. Simpson: My question is a simple one to the Minister of Justice. Lawyers from her ministry attempted to obstruct the release of the commissioner’s report. Will the minister get to her feet and explain why lawyers went and attempted to block the release of the report?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite certainly chooses to use words within the confines of the Legislative Assembly. I challenge that member to take those same suggestions and repeat those outside of the Legislative Assembly.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We will try again, as soon as the bellowing ends over there.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member. Member. Vancouver-Hastings, we’ll wait until everyone’s quiet.

Please proceed.

S. Simpson: We’ll try again. Will the Minister of Justice get up and explain why lawyers from her ministry engaged with Ms. Denham to stop the release of the report at the time she wanted to release it?

Hon. A. Virk: The choice of words once again…. The member opposite certainly chooses to change them. The suggestion that government lawyers, who are operating under the highest of ethics, are engaged in obstruction is beyond me. I encourage that member either to redact or to go outside this chamber and to repeat that same assertion that lawyers are attempting to provide obstruction.

BUSINESS PLAN FOR MASSEY
TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

G. Heyman: The Auditor General has the George Massey bridge on her 2015-16 audit plan. Her audit will “evaluate the quality of evidence to support the decision to replace the Massey Tunnel.” But yesterday we heard in this House about an FOI request to which the Premier’s office replied that there were no records of evidence supporting the Premier’s decision.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the Auditor General find that the Premier made a major decision to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars without any analysis or business case, or did he and the Premier just delete it all?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, first, let me say this. Our government is extremely proud of the fact that we’re moving forward with the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. We are going to continue to ensure that this project, as with every major infrastructure project in British Columbia, is done in a manner that encourages as much transparency and openness as possible.

[1410]

For the member’s information, there have been two extensive rounds of public engagement. There has also been a tremendous amount of stakeholder engagement related to this project. If he was to go to the George Massey Tunnel replacement website — the website — he would see that there are hundreds of pages of information reflecting all of that input, reflecting reports done on potential designs, on potential alignment and all kinds of other issues related to this project.

We have been transparent. We will continue to be transparent as we build a bridge which is going to address the largest bottleneck in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: It’s beyond us on this side of the House how the minister can continue what’s never begun. It’s clear that due diligence, to this minister, means saying yes to whatever idea the Premier scribbles on the back of a napkin and sticking taxpayers with the bill.

Three years ago….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

We’ll just wait.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Ministers.

G. Heyman: Thee years ago the Premier was warned against making flashy spending announcements without a business plan. A memo from then Minister of Finance Kevin Falcon read: “Ministries cannot announce details about the proposed timing, scope or budget of priority
[ Page 10053 ]
capital projects until government formally approves a business case.”

The George Massey Tunnel replacement project didn’t have a business plan before the Premier announced the scope and timing of it two years ago. In fact, it still doesn’t.

To the minister: why did the Premier completely disregard Treasury Board directives? Or did she just delete the evidence?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, we are proud of the fact that we have a leader who has vision. We know that they might be sensitive on the other side, because they’re so bereft of vision that they wouldn’t know what it looked like.

British Columbians also know that sound planning and decision-making first starts with a vision. It starts with a statement of political intent. You then follow that up with engagement, with reaching out to the public, with a consultation process.

Then you follow that up with….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: You then follow up that consultation — we’ve had two rounds on the George Massey Tunnel — with a business case, with a project definition report.

Then what do you do? Then you go and you build the projects. This is what we did with the SFPR, which they said no to. This is what we did with the Port Mann project, which they said no to. This is what we did with Sea to Sky, which they said no to. It is no surprise to us that they’re once again saying no to the George Massey Tunnel project.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL RULING ON
CONDUCT OF COLLEGE OF VETERINARIANS

H. Bains: Time and again we have asked this government to ensure that the College of Veterinarians ends institutional discrimination against their own members of South Asian descent, as ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal. Last week I asked the minister if he would tell the college to call off their attacks on the victims of racial discrimination, because despite the ruling, the college is still on a witch-hunt, continuing to harass the victims of racism, employing similar tactics that were found to be discriminatory by the tribunal.

[1415]

An inspector hired by the college has been threatening the same victims that they will be reported to the CRA, to employment standards, among other things. Here’s a quote from that inspector: “They have made a mistake. They need to do something. In this case, they took the licence away. They don’t want to give it back to him.” These actions clearly put the college in contempt of the human rights decision.

Last week the minister said he would not tolerate this sort of behaviour. So my question to the minister is: why is this still going on?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

As I said last week…. Actually, it’s enunciated even more today, when we have visitors from our First Nations, visitors from around the world and everyone in this House representing all kinds of different nationalities. It’s unacceptable that we have any organization in British Columbia that would operate in a prejudicial manner.

I have advised the public members of the college of the expression of interest in this by the government. I’ve also advised them on what the likely outcome would be, what I hope will be, of their meeting tomorrow. I’ll wait for that outcome before I make any further comment on any decision by government.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The dithering and flip-flopping by this minister are the reasons why the college continues to engage in the same tactics that were found to be discriminatory.

The college isn’t the only guilty party in this. This government has a hand in it as well. They went to backstop the college with taxpayer dollars, not to go and stand with the victims but to stand with the perpetrator. That’s their record.

Even when this ruling came down, the government stayed silent. Then they said, well, they need to respect the independence of the college. With the record of that kind of flip-flop, you can understand why victims of discrimination do not have much faith in this minister that he will do the right thing.

My question to the minister is this. They have ignored the ruling of the tribunal. They have been ignoring the minister’s direction. Tomorrow, if they try to ignore to do the right thing, to implement the tribunal’s ruling…. What is the minister going to do to make sure that the laws of the land are enforced immediately?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: The only thing this side of the House is guilty of is supporting the independence of a college to make sure it comes to the right decision tomorrow — that respects the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal. Tomorrow that independence will be seen. The Human Rights Tribunal decision will be reflected, I hope, by the members of the college.
[ Page 10054 ]

I want to talk about other things this member has brought up — the whole idea of a flip-flop. Look what happens here. The Leader of the Opposition on October 22 said: “Meanwhile, the veterinary college has indicated it intends to appeal the ruling.” Then, in the Indo-Canadian Voice on October 29, the Leader of the Opposition says the college is now considering an appeal of the ruling.

Continually, the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know what’s happening with the college. The member opposite is also jumping to conclusions. Last week….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: Last week the member opposite said that the government was helping the college with the indemnity program, but at no time has the province contributed to the defence costs or awards settled in this matter. At no time has the province agreed to contribute any award resulting in this matter.

[1420]

Indeed, if the member did his research properly, he would have found out that the complainant to the issue was getting support by the government through their lawyers that are appointed by government. So I ask the member to wait until tomorrow. Then, as all members of the House will see, we will do something if the college does not meet the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal.

MYEDUCATION B.C. INFORMATION SYSTEM

R. Fleming: Since the school year began, school districts across our province have struggled with system-wide malfunctions from this government’s new $100 million MyEducation B.C. computer system.

The chair of the Central Okanagan school district recently wrote to the minister and described the performance of the new system as unacceptable and outlined how teachers and staff are “putting in countless hours of extra time to ensure that schools and classrooms are able to function.” The system is described as “monumentally time-consuming, just for basic tasks like taking attendance or changing a student’s course registration,” and the mounting extra costs and frustrations continue.

This week the entire MyEd B.C. system will be off line right in the middle of when mid-term reports are due in the school system.

To the Minister of Education, how much has his government’s failure on the implementation of MyEd B.C. cost school district budgets in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Bernier: What’s really important to stress here is that a couple of weeks ago, when this issue came up in the House, one of the things I did talk about was the fact that we recognized there was a slowdown.

That’s why ministry staff was working around the clock. That’s why ministry staff engaged with the vendor. The vendor stepped forward and recognized that there were some issues with the performance of this.

We communicated with the school districts. In fact, we set up a committee working right around the province, working with school districts, to ensure that as we worked forward with MyEd B.C., it met the expectations that the vendor promised and one that we, as a government, are willing to commit to.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Let’s remember that it was this government that negotiated this IT deal and then forced it on to all school districts. It is school districts who have their staff working around the clock and on weekends and are incurring the costs that his government won’t pay for, and they’re bearing all the risks when this system fails.

The minister is right. There’s been an acknowledgement from the vendor. The vice-president of Fujitsu America wrote a letter to all school districts and admitted that his company has failed them and that school districts aren’t the ones at fault. Let me just quote from this letter, because I think it’s interesting.

He writes all chairs to “directly acknowledge the concerns with the new MyEducation B.C. system. Our role in supporting the education of children in British Columbia is truly a sacred responsibility. Recently the incremental load on the system has caused performance issues. We deeply regret this and sincerely apologize. We acknowledge that more effort on our part is required to meet the standards of our contractual commitments” — contractual commitments.

Yet it is districts that are incurring the costs for unbudgeted staff overtime, hiring extra IT personnel and dealing with the failings of the new system. None of it is covered by the province. None of it is covered by Fujitsu.

To the minister again, if his government’s handpicked IT provider provided a system that failed on day one, why is it that school districts are paying the costs and, ultimately, our kids paying the price?

Hon. M. Bernier: First, I want to clarify something the member opposite said.

This was not handpicked specifically by the Ministry of Education or by this government. In fact, there were three years of hard work done, working with teachers around the province, working with superintendents from around the province, who collectively came forward and said: “This is what we need as a system to ensure we have the best outcomes for the students in British Columbia.”

[1425]

One more thing I want to clarify. I appreciate the letter
[ Page 10055 ]
from Fujitsu. I’m glad that the member opposite read out some of the quotes from Fujitsu. The vendor has stepped forward and recognized that they have not met their commitment. There were penalties applied to this company, and the company has said that they will be standing up. They have made changes.

The hon. member opposite should know, also, from the letter that he received, that the person that was complaining about the slowdown was referring to last month. Since we’ve changed — the vendor has put in further applications to this system — we have continued to see steady improvements in the system.

MEDICAL FEES FOR SENIORS
REQUIRING DRIVING ASSESSMENTS

G. Holman: When seniors reach the age of 80, the province requires them to take a medical exam, and every two years thereafter, to determine their fitness to drive. The cost of these mandatory exams is not covered by MSP, and the fees for the exams are established at the discretion of physicians.

Seniors from my constituency are being asked to pay anywhere from $100 to $400 for each exam. This is just not right, particularly for low-income seniors. What is the minister going to do about these arbitrary and unfair fees for a medical exam imposed by the province onto seniors?

Hon. S. Anton: We are very ambitious in road safety in British Columbia. In fact, we have a goal in British Columbia of having the safest roads in North America by 2020.

There is a well-established system in place that when you do reach the age of 80, you do need to be tested. That is part of our system. It is risk-managed. It’s tested. It’s thought about, it’s considered, and all the evidence is that it is wise to request that older drivers be tested in order to continue to have a licence. As I have said, this is all part of our larger goal of having safe roads and having safety on all of our roads in British Columbia — the safest roads in North America by 2020.

Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

G. Holman: The question wasn’t about the need for the exam. The question was about the arbitrary nature of the fees being charged. Doctors are, in fact, mandated to reduce fees to reflect economic hardship. The definition of hardship or even whether it is reflected in the fees charged is completely discretionary. This is the issue: the arbitrary nature of fees.

Will the minister commit today to ending the arbitrary and unfair nature of the fees for these mandatory medical exams?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, this is part of a well-established system — that older drivers do need to be tested. It is the case that they go to their doctor for that testing. Doctors do set their own fees, and the amount can vary widely. I acknowledge that. But Doctors of British Columbia has suggested that doctors reduce or waive the fee for patients who are experiencing economic hardship, and if you have a known medical condition and you need a test, your fee may, as well, be waived.

This is part of a larger picture — which, as I said a moment ago, is that we have safety on our roads and our highways in British Columbia.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE
MEETING CANCELLATIONS

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam. I, in fact, did recognize you before the bell, so please proceed.

[1430]

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I recognize that today is November 4 and that today was to be scheduled meetings of the Standing Committee on Children and Youth with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children’s representative. Unfortunately, those meetings were cancelled.

The last time I asked the question, we didn’t get an answer. So I’d like to take this opportunity, because I see that the Chair of the committee is here — the appropriate person to answer the question — and the members of the committee are here with happy, shiny faces. Could she answer the question, which is: what meetings were so important, what obligations were so important that the Chair of the committee had to cancel scheduled meetings with the very individual, the children’s commissioner, that her committee was set up to hear from?

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, as members know, it is a long-established principle that the decision as to who may respond to a question rests with government. As Speaker, I will recognize whomever stands to answer the question, and I cannot intervene to direct or compel a specific minister or private member to answer a question.

J. Thornthwaite: I can confirm that we do have a confirmed appointment by all members attending on November 23.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s continued committee stage debate on Bill 39.

[1435]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION
PROGRAMS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 39; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On section 3 (continued).

M. Elmore: Very pleased to be resuming discussion on committee for Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act — section 3, “Applications.” In section 3(1)(c), “the prescribed fee” — is there a fee that’s been decided upon? What was the previous fee that was administered in the program?

Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon. I’m really pleased to welcome back our staff today. I introduced them yesterday, but I’ll do it again today. We have Athana Mentzelopoulos, the deputy minister of our ministry; Rob Mingay, assistant deputy minister of workforce development; Erin Seeley, assistant executive director; and Kevin Contzen, who is our legal counsel on this file.

In regards to fees, I think the overall context is important. British Columbia finds itself in the middle of the pack when you look across the country, in terms of fees. On the skills stream…. As the member knows, there are two streams. One is the skills stream; the other is the entrepreneur stream. The application fee on the skills side is $550. To give some context, Ontario’s is $1,000. On the entrepreneur stream, there is a $300 registration fee, the application fee is $3,500, and the key staff fee is $1,000.

Again, when we look jurisdictionally, British Columbia is pretty much in the middle of the pack, but we should also note that not every jurisdiction actually has an entrepreneur stream.

M. Elmore: The fees will be following that general prescription for the new program that will continue to be undertaken, I presume.

[1440]

I have a question with regards to 3(2). “The director may, in accordance with the regulations, if any, invite applications for a class of approvals specified in the invitation.” Could the minister explain the meaning of “for a class of approvals”?

Hon. S. Bond: We have made a significant shift. As I walked through yesterday with the member opposite, much of it is based on the decision to look at how we make the best fit for British Columbia with the intake process that we have.

We’ve also looked at what other provinces, other jurisdictions and, of course, the federal government are doing. So this lines up quite nicely, and we’re going to, I think, see other provinces take on a process similar to this.

What that subsection means is that there will be the ability for people to apply — there will be a pool of applicants — but it will require an invitation to then proceed to the next level of the process so that we have the ability to meet the needs that British Columbia has and to make that based on labour market data — what the best fit for the province is.

It does give us the ability that if, for example, there was a need in a particular class, we would also be able to issue invitations for a specific class to make application.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister.

The minister mentioned…. In terms of informing the process of the selection of specific areas that may be of need for the economy to benefit the economy in British Columbia, is there information or data available in terms of what informed or what informs or what will inform that decision around the labour market needs of British Columbia?

Part of the phenomenon of temporary foreign workers since it has shifted in the last number of years under the federal government, bringing in more lower-skilled workers, has been generating quite a bit of concern from the public. One of the contributing factors, I think, has been the lack of opportunity for conversation about these issues and the lack of a public dialogue.

[1445]

Certainly, a challenge in terms of the claims, initially, to bring in the program — that there was a need for workers in certain areas and that there were labour shortages — is that premise did not necessarily hold out in terms of a continuing rate of unemployment and the concern around the opportunity for British Columbians to have access to those jobs. So can the minister explain and talk about the process around those labour market decisions?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I can assure the member opposite that one of the concerns that we, as ministers across the country, have expressed to the previous federal government…. Obviously, today is a fairly auspicious day in the country, as we have a brand-new Prime Minister and cabinet. I’m very excited about being able to work with the new ministers who have portfolios that line up with mine. I look forward to that.

One of the things, though, that we agreed on across the country was the fact that there is very little…. Let’s put it this way. There is not enough, and certainly the quality
[ Page 10057 ]
of data that’s available across the country and often provided by the federal government is inadequate and needs improvement. I think there was general agreement across the country and by the previous federal government that that was the case.

We determined, in the ministry, that one of the things we really needed to concentrate on over the last couple of years has been: how do we collect data? What kind of data is it? We work with sectors. We’ve recently held, and we continue to hold, round tables with sectors in British Columbia to say to them: what are the needs that you have? How do we prepare a workforce for the future?

Despite what is often mentioned, our focus has not been singularly on LNG. We meet with the apparel sector, the technology sector, the construction sector. We, I think it’s fair to say, have some of the most robust and, certainly, current labour market data in the country. Our decision to reshape the immigration programs — and, particularly, the only stream that we have actual jurisdiction over — was based on making sure that when we have those very, very important nominations to make for people to come to British Columbia, it lines up with the needs that we have.

I think it goes without saying, but much better with, that of course British Columbians should be first in line for jobs in this province. That’s exactly what our focus has been. But I know the member opposite would know that in some parts of British Columbia today, we have virtual full employment. Anything that is in the range of 4 percent unemployment or lower is considered full employment, which means it’s really hard to fill the job demands in some particular sectors.

We currently are in single-digit unemployment rates right across the province. I’m always reluctant to speak to that, because it fluctuates. I know that we’ll have numbers out in the next little while. It goes up and down, but generally speaking, we are at full employment in some parts of the province.

In addition to that, I live in a part of the province where it is very hard to attract the workforce that’s necessary. In northern British Columbia, it is a real challenge in some sectors. We’re trying to find a balance here, always ensuring that British Columbians come first. But there is the reality of the workforce demands that I hear from employers on a regular basis. There are challenges, and I’m sure the member opposite hears them as well. I’ve certainly heard from members opposite on case files, for example, saying: “Please help. We have constituents in my riding who can’t actually get the employees that they need.”

[1450]

The changes are meant to be based on the most current labour market data, allowing us some flexibility, when necessary, to reach out to the applicant pool, which is always substantive in our province, and make sure that we have the best match possible for those who choose to immigrate to our province.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister for the response.

Some of the criticisms of the temporary foreign worker program in B.C. and the country is that it also creates a secondary labour market, where you have a labour market for residents and citizens and a secondary labour market where you have workers who have restricted labour mobility, due to the employer-specific work permit, and often a reluctance to come forward if concerns are issued.

Certainly, the bill…. Dealing with the restructuring and the changes to the provincial nominee program is a specific area. It’s the only area under provincial jurisdiction, in terms of having the ability to select and recommend individuals for permanent residency, and doesn’t have the ability to capture the overall numbers, the bigger number of temporary foreign workers in B.C.

That remains an outstanding challenge and also an area that I think needs more attention and that can have more oversight in British Columbia.

I want to also inquire about subsection (3): “The director may refuse to accept an application under subsection (1)….” Then particularly subsection (3)(b): “the person has retained, for the purposes of making an application under subsection (1) or for another purpose respecting this Act, a representative who does not meet the prescribed requirements.”

Can the minister just explain what the definition of a representative is and the prescribed requirements?

Hon. S. Bond: This is an important piece. I know the member has expressed concerns about this previously, in discussions. The definition will be described in regulation, but I can tell the member now that there will be two positions included in regulation. One would be a lawyer in good standing here in British Columbia, part of the Law Society.

Again, these would match the federal government requirements. That’s really important to us — that we have that consistency.

The second would be an authorized immigration consultant. That means that they would be required to be registered. Again, there is a federal process. There is a particular committee that oversees that and requires that registration.

So it would be a lawyer and an authorized immigration consultant.

[1455]

M. Elmore: Just to follow, and if the minister could further explain…. Are those the only representatives that will be entitled to submit an application on behalf of applicants to the PNP?

Hon. S. Bond: It is an important question. The differentiation is whether or not the person is paid. The only paid people that would be captured here and permitted
[ Page 10058 ]
would be lawyers or regulated consultants. There are, though — and we know of them, and I’m sure the member does as well — volunteers who do this work.

Today there is a set of expectations for those volunteers, unpaid support that’s provided. There is currently policy around how that works. We will then take those policies and move those into regulation. The differentiation is whether or not it’s paid or unpaid. There are roles for both. We will be prescribing in regulation the expectations for unpaid.

M. Elmore: Am I correct, Minister, that if an applicant hires a representative that is not a lawyer in good standing and is not an authorized immigration consultant — so the applicant hires someone and pays them to put in their application — that the application will be denied on that basis?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the terminology is important. The application wouldn’t be denied. It simply wouldn’t be processed.

M. Elmore: In terms of it not being processed, that presumably would…. It wouldn’t reach the point of being denied, but it basically wouldn’t proceed further.

Hon. S. Bond: I think it’s very straightforward. We would not accept the application, so it doesn’t get into the process. The word “denied,” certainly in the immigration system, is once it’s in the process and then, for some reason, it doesn’t meet criteria and it’s denied. In this case, if they do not use either a lawyer or a registered consultant, then we would not even accept the application.

M. Elmore: Thank you for the clarification. That is an area of concern that I have. I know the minister and folks who are experienced in the program…. Often that’s where difficulties arise, in terms of where applicants who are quite anxious to apply and be accepted in the program are very vulnerable and can be taken advantage of by folks who don’t have a high ethical standard. That’s certainly a concern.

That’s an outstanding concern that I have in terms of the exposure of folks under the temporary foreign worker program exposed to illegal recruitment fees and also being charged very high processing fees.

[1500]

Can the minister speak to…? Are there penalties in place against representatives if they are found to be in violation?

Hon. S. Bond: I think there’s also an important thing before we describe what happens in terms of disciplinary action. I think we just want to be clearly on the record that you don’t have to have a representative. You can apply as an individual.

What we are saying here is that, if you are going to have a representative — a paid one — then you need to be sure that it is a lawyer in good standing or someone who is a registered consultant. There are people who apply all the time, and they do it on their own. I think that’s a really critical piece. Not every application has a representative.

The body that regulates on the consultant side is the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council. If someone is not behaving in a manner that one would expect, then there is a disciplinary process. But I think it is important to know that you can apply and work through your application on your own.

S. Simpson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I’m really pleased today to have a class here from Vancouver Technical School — 30 grade 11 students who are here with their teacher, Mr. Bryn Stephenson. They’re here to learn about what we do here and to visit the precinct.

I had a chance to speak with them earlier today and to encourage them to get engaged in politics. Hopefully, some of them will be able to vote come the next election — and that they will take advantage of that. I would ask the House to make these Vancouver Technical students welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Elmore: Further to the remarks from the minister, there are no steps in place from the provincial government in terms of intervening. Other provinces do require representatives to be registered provincially and also suffer repercussions if they are found guilty of violations.

Just to further that, I do recognize that many individuals do apply on their own and often, as well, these are folks in the higher-skilled stream. Typically, it’s the lower-skilled stream where individuals utilize the services of a paid representative.

Can the minister explain the steps in place to ensure…?

[1505]

I’ve just heard back from immigration lawyers concerned about the potential to punish victims of fraud who may not have known that an immigration consultant may or may not be appropriately registered. Can the minister talk about safeguards around that?

Hon. S. Bond: I think probably some months ago, I signalled my concern about creating a duplicative system. We are very confident that the federal system that is in place will work adequately for British Columbia. This
[ Page 10059 ]
bill actually strengthens the information-sharing process between us and the federal government, which would allow the disciplinary process to be utilized. I think that’s an important step.

I can assure the member opposite that even prior to this bill, we would always check with the federal government, with the regulatory body to ensure that consultants were duly registered.

M. Elmore: Thank you for the reply. Can the minister talk about the practices in place or regulations or the intent with respect to ensuring that victims of fraud are not unduly punished?

Hon. S. Bond: Just as the bill looks at how we have better information-sharing with the federal government, the same would be true of other bodies — for example, law enforcement, employment standards. So we would have the ability to exchange information and, we think, be able to be in a better position to protect those people who may be vulnerable.

M. Elmore: Thank you, to the minister. That remains a concern that I have. Certainly, I’ve heard anecdotes in terms of the preying upon vulnerable workers in a very precarious position by unscrupulous — either registered or unregistered — immigration consultants or individuals who promised to assist in filling out applications to be processed through the PNP. That’s an ongoing concern that I have with respect to ensuring that workers in British Columbia are not defrauded.

[1510]

I’d like to also just inquire about the prescribed requirements. The minister mentioned that they’ll be set out through regulation. Can the minister provide any more details around that?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the key principle that we will be looking at is around transparency, consistency and fairness. Before the regulations are created, we are required — and we’ll certainly be doing that — to engage in a robust consultation process around the regulations. We’re not going to be sitting in the ministry creating the regulation. We’re going to go and, as we would expect to, have a dialogue with key partners around the regulation.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister.

Before we move on from this section, I’d just like to highlight and reiterate my concerns around fraud — that individuals experience being taken advantage of when applying to the program. Certainly, I know the minister and staff are familiar with that. It’s also in the context of the labour migration cycle, which the bill does not explicitly address.

It’s a component of that reality that gives rise to the vulnerability of those workers, particularly in the low-skilled streams, in terms of their susceptibility to being charged, initially, illegal recruitment fees, which, anecdotally, pretty much right across the board, temporary foreign workers in B.C. pay illegally. That’s compounded by the paying of fees in the thousands of dollars, as well, for individuals to assist these workers through the application process of the provincial nominee program.

Just on that issue, I’m wondering if the minister can comment, in the context of Bill 39, if there’s an intersection of that or if there’s an opportunity to address that.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the addition of inspection and information-sharing provisions in the bill…. We believe that will help us combat potential abuses. That is a concern for us as well.

[1515]

If at some point, or even now, there are concerns about fraud and they are specific, I would welcome and urge the member to share those with the ministry. We have been vigilant. We will continue to be vigilant. These tools allow us, I think, to better protect against potential abuse.

I would also invite the member opposite…. As we engage in the consultation process, we would welcome any input or suggestions that she may have to look at the regulation that’s so critical. We want this system…. The reason that the bill is here today is we are committed to transparency, to fairness. We understand how important this process is for many, many people who want to come to live in Canada and, particularly, in British Columbia.

If there are ever any specific concerns around fraud, I would urge the member to share them, and secondly, I would welcome any input as we move through the creation of regulation.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister. Certainly, if specific cases come forward, I will raise them and bring them to the minister’s attention, also to the appropriate authorities.

Part of the challenge is also connecting with these individuals. Often they have a reluctance to come forward. But, certainly, we’ll endeavour to do that.

I appreciate also the opportunity to participate and be a part of the process around the formation of the regulations. Appreciate that. That’s a positive step — ensuring that within the confines of the PNP program, it’s a process that stands the rule of law. That’s very positive. Certainly, the challenge, as well, is to address outside of that — it’s out of the scope — the other individuals and workers under the temporary foreign worker program who also live and work here in British Columbia.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Elmore: Section 4, “Approvals”: “On application by a person under section 3, the director may, after taking
[ Page 10060 ]
into consideration the prescribed matters and any other matters the director considers relevant, (a) approve the application, or (b) decline the application….”

Can the minister explain just generally the…? I know there have been some changes in terms of how the program will be administered, but just to give me an idea in terms of the previous process of approval in the program and just a general idea of how the applications and the approval process will run.

[1520]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons the bill is important is that currently we have much of the operation process in policy, and this will codify it. It will make sure that it is transparent. That is critically important.

One of the things, as I noted yesterday, was the fact that previous to the changes that were made by the federal government in the temporary foreign worker program, we had roughly the same number of applicants with the number of nominees and nominations that we’re able to make. But with the changes to that system, we have seen a spike, obviously, and people moving over to the permanent stream.

I think what happened over time was that while there wasn’t policy about it being a first-come, first-served process, that is how practice evolved. And when you have far more applications than you have nominations or support letters, under the entrepreneur stream, you have to grapple with how we are going to be transparent and accountable and do a better job of matching up the needs for British Columbia. That really drove the changes.

But it will be a much more transparent system. In particular, for example, refusals will be explained in writing to people. I think that’s important. And later in the bill, you’ll see that there is now due process in terms of reconsideration — those kinds of things.

The major principle is: let’s match the growing…. We have to deal with the growing demand in terms of the number of applicants, and we need it to better match British Columbia’s needs. And we need to do that…. Rather than in policy, we need to codify that.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the explanation from the minister. Just with respect to the prescribed matters and conditions referred to in the section, will those also be further laid out in regulation?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there will be the introduction of regulation. We will retain some flexibility by keeping some of the aspects in policy, so it’ll be a combination of regulation and policy. That’s really about maximizing flexibility as we analyze what happens in the days ahead. We have the ability to have some of that flexibility that we think we’re going to need. But again, the issue of transparency will be in play, no matter which. Things will be published and be made very transparent. Only those decisions and that process will follow rigorous consultation.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Elmore: Section 5, “Obligations of approved person.” If an application is successful, the approved person must notify the director of “any material change in the approved person’s circumstances.” Approved persons must also “comply with conditions imposed under section 4 (2).” Again, following on the line, will there be a definition for material change, and can the minister speak to what this means under the act?

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, there will be a definition. A couple of examples of the criteria that would be in place. Resident in British Columbia would be one. Also, the requirement for a job offer. In some streams, that is also a requirement.

So yes, they will be defined, and it will, again, be part of that consultation process.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

M. Elmore: Section 8, “Personal information.”

“(2) Subject to section 10, the director may…(a) collect personal information, including from sources other than the individual the information is about, and (b) disclose and use that personal information.”

My question is that there have been concerns raised from immigration groups about the protection of privacy. Can the minister explain why it’s necessary for the director to have the ability to collect and disclose such a wide range of personal information?

Hon. S. Bond: I assume that what the member is concerned about isn’t the collection of data; it’s how we manage it. Obviously, in order to allow or nominate someone to become a Canadian citizen, there are some things we need to know about that person.

The collection of certain data is required through the Canada-B.C. agreement that we signed. It’s a federal requirement that we actually collect particular types of information. It has to be disclosed to the federal government.

The member opposite would also note that previous to this, we discussed how we were going to try to better manage and protect against abuse. There will be information-sharing agreements put in place with other organizations as well, including, potentially, law enforcement. It is critical in the process in order to ensure that we have the due diligence that I think everyone would expect if a person is going to become a Canadian citizen. We are re-
[ Page 10061 ]
quired to collect and disclose data, and it would be done, obviously, according to the protocols that are in place.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

M. Elmore: This is the section on confidentiality. The section reads:

“(1) If requested in writing by a person who has, for any purpose under this Act, provided information to the director, the director must not disclose any identifying information about the person unless (a) the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of a proceeding under this Act, or (b) the director considers the disclosure is in the public interest.

“(2) Subsection (1) applies despite any provision of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act other than section 44 (1) (b), (2), (2.1) and (3) of that Act.”

[1530]

I’m just going to read an excerpt from a letter from the B.C. Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, which the minister also has a copy of, just to raise concerns that she has with this section. She says that Section 10 of the proposed act “provides for the confidentiality of the identity of individuals who provide information to the director for any purpose under the act.”

“Section 10(2) takes the further step of overriding FIPPA with respect to that identifying information.

“It is my belief that this override is unnecessary, as the protection of the identity of the informant is already provided for in section 22 of FIPPA, which requires that the head of a public body must refuse to disclose personal information where that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy….

“I remain concerned about the proliferation of express FIPPA overrides in legislation and amendments to legislation that have been enacted in recent years, as each override weakens FIPPA as a whole. FIPPA is a carefully balanced statutory instrument which seeks to meet the important public policy goals of public bodies and of government, while protecting the rights of British Columbians to their privacy as well as to their access to information.

“The use of an express FIPPA override removes these rights, which is a step that must not be undertaken lightly or without due regard to the need for such an override. It is particularly problematic where, as here, the objective…is already provided for by FIPPA.”

This section gives the director far-reaching powers with regard to inspection of immigration applications.

My question to the minister. There are concerns that these far-reaching inspection powers will impact privacy rights of applicants. Can the minister speak to why it’s necessary for the director to have such wide-ranging powers?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to say that certainly, in the course of my career as a cabinet minister, I have very much appreciated advice from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and I take all of the recommendations seriously.

But the member has expressed, and I completely agree with her…. When we were discussing, in section 3, the concern about vulnerable individuals, the member herself noted that often there are cases where people are afraid to come forward. This provision is designed exactly to protect them. The point of this section is to make sure that there is protection for the information provided by an informant.

I’ll give the member an example. If someone is employed and an employer is charging a recruitment fee, for example, which I know has been a concern expressed by the member opposite, they are going to be very reluctant to come forward if that information can somehow be made public or they are not protected.

[1535]

In essence, I very carefully weighed it. I am not eager to move quickly or aggressively in the face of information that’s provided by the Privacy Commissioner. I take that very seriously, but I should also point out that this is not unique. This mirrors legislation that is in place when there is highly sensitive and potentially harmful information in place, and that includes in the Employment Standards Act and in the Child, Family and Community Services Act.

I do appreciate the question. It was not unexpected, and I have given it a great deal of thought as we prepared the legislation. But what matters to me is that if someone is facing a circumstance in British Columbia, I do not want them to be worried about coming forward. In fact, they become an informant, in the case of fraud and in many other circumstances.

I am very respectful of the letter. We did adjust other issues according to the advice provided by the Privacy Commissioner, but in this case, I believe that it is critical that we protect those people who come forward. They must be absolutely certain that their information will be protected.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

M. Elmore: We’re just nearing the end of the sections for Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. I’d just like to thank the minister for the opportunity to explain the sections in the act. I appreciate the staff on hand and also the new director. I appreciate the invitation, also, to participate in the process around being advised of the regulations as they come into force.

I also note that it’s positive with respect to improving the operation of the provincial nominee program, but certainly, it’s a narrow focus, and also, other areas, challenges, are still upon us in British Columbia in terms of ensuring that issues around the mistreatment of temporary foreign workers, violations, the charging of illegal recruitment fees, which we’ve touched upon briefly…. Those are still realities and still need to be addressed.
[ Page 10062 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to thank the member opposite for her thoughtful questions. I do know that this is a very personal and passionate issue for her, and I do appreciate that. I would welcome input in terms of regulations. We want to make sure that the system is as transparent, as accountable and as focused on British Columbia’s needs as we can possibly be, while recognizing that when you want to become a Canadian citizen, it’s a pretty passionate thing for people.

I, too, want to thank the staff. They’ve done a great job. I know that it’s been a lot of work in a very short period of time as we looked at how we redesigned the system.

We are still working through the list of people that had applied previously. We’ve made good progress. We are going to see a different system in British Columbia. We will have the flexibility, from time to time, to invite people to apply. There will be times when we have reached the maximum number.

I do appreciate the input, and I appreciate the member’s comments.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

The committee rose at 3:39 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1540]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION
PROGRAMS ACT

Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Oakes: I now call committee on Bill 35.

Committee of the Whole House

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

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

On section 1.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to be able to get committee stage underway for the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

This legislation is a response, as we all know, to the two tragic incidents at Babine and Lakeland mills, where four gentlemen lost their lives and about 40 others, a little over 40 others, were seriously injured, many of them facing traumatic circumstances that will be with them for their whole lives.

This bill looks to deal primarily with issues that relate to recommendations from the coroner’s inquest about the roles, responsibilities, participation of joint occupational health and safety committees, their functioning, how they should function and the roles and authority they have to do what they do.

[1545]

However, at the beginning of the bill, there are a couple of sections that deal with other matters that I think are more than housekeeping. We’ll work our way through those and then get to the discussion of the more substantive pieces of the bill a little later on this afternoon.

Section 1 of the bill says:

“The Board must, on or before April 30 in each year, make to the minister a report of its transactions during the last preceding calendar year, and the report must contain the particulars the minister specifies. (2) The minister must promptly, with respect to the report referred to in subsection (1), (a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if the…Assembly is in session, or (b) file the report with the Clerk…if the Legislative Assembly is not in session.”

Could the minister tell us what the intent for this change was and why she felt it was necessary to make the change?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. Previously WorkSafe had been asked to change, as others were, to the international financial reporting standards. What happened was…. They have a very large and complicated portfolio, and from my perspective, not meeting a deadline consistently is a problem. When I looked at what the challenge was, it’s very difficult for this organization to actually meet the existing deadline that is in March. That happened in 2011, when we made the shift to IFRS.

What this allows them to do is to have a reasonable and acceptable time frame that they can actually manage to meet. So the decision was to move the due date from March 25 to April 30.

S. Simpson: The section says that it will administer “a report of its transactions during the last preceding calendar year, and the report must contain the particulars the minister specifies.” Could she clarify what that means and how that will be a different circumstance from what occurs today?

Hon. S. Bond: It’s a fairly straightforward answer. The content won’t change. What does change is that fact that the report will now be given to the minister. It’ll be pre-
[ Page 10063 ]
sented to the minister. So the whole issue of specifying by the minister is consequential to the fact that the report is coming to the minister now.

S. Simpson: So, then, is it the expectation…? As it says that “the report must contain the particulars the minister specifies,” maybe the minister could be clear about: is there a list of specifics that the minister provides to the agency saying, “I expect your annual report to include A through X” or whatever, and what is that?

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: No, there isn’t a checklist. The report has to be consistent with IFRS. It does, however, allow that if the minister should want to include a particular focus or an area, that could take place with this amendment.

Having said that, I don’t anticipate that. The reports are well done. The issue at stake here is the issue of timeliness. If it is impossible for the organization to meet the timeline, I think we needed to address that, and that is why the change. That is the substantive change here.

I should take a moment to introduce this group of staff. We’ve just finished one bill with a fantastic group, and we have another one today. Once again, I’m supported by my deputy minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos. Trevor Hughes is the assistant deputy minister, Michael Tanner is the director of policy and legislation, and Jake Ayers is the senior policy adviser who worked on this file. They’ve done a really great job.

S. Simpson: I think this, actually, will probably pertain more to section 2, which we’ll get to in a minute. There is a sense here that the specifics, particularly in the service plan but also in the annual report….

Is the minister increasing her role with WorkSafe B.C.? It’s an agency that is probably in many ways one of the more independent agencies in government, obviously with a whole array of responsibilities and an array of authority that most other agencies of government don’t have. Is this the beginning of a move for the minister to increase her accountability for the agency by taking a more direct approach, a more hands-on approach, than maybe has been the past practice for a minister?

Hon. S. Bond: The direct answer to the member’s question is no. This is not a new role where the minister would be directly engaged with the oversight of WorkSafe.

It does allow for the minister to request, should it be necessary…. It’s not my intention at this point in time, but it does allow for the minister to request a particular focus in a reporting-out way. The reporting out will continue. It is not about a direct role for the minister in that.

[1555]

I should say to the member opposite, though, that…. I believe that’s appropriate. This is an independent organization. Certainly, since I’ve become minister, I meet with them regularly and don’t hesitate to lay out my concerns and also my expectations.

S. Simpson: Just so I understand the process. This is stepping back one question, again, to the thing about particulars that the minister specifies in the report.

I’m trying to understand how the process of the preparation of the annual report works. Is it a process where WorkSafe prepares a draft of the annual report, provides it to the ministry and through there to the minister, whatever? The minister gets to not write the report but to make sure that the areas — the content — reflects what she wants in terms of areas of content. If there are holes in that, she sends it back and says: “You should be discussing this issue” or “I’m concerned that this issue is not dealt with in your report, and take another look at it.”

When it says that the report must contain the particulars the minister specifies, and the minister says, “I don’t have a list that I give to WorkSafe before they start,” then does she review a draft and satisfy herself that all of the areas that she believes need to be covered are addressed and, if not, sends the draft back saying there are holes and you should address them?

Hon. S. Bond: I don’t review a draft. I certainly haven’t at this point in practice, and I don’t intend to change that.

I think that one of the critical things, for me, is the three-year service plan. It gives us a sense of what the thinking is over a three-year period. I think if there were going to be discussion, it would be based on that three-year strategic plan looking at where the priorities lie.

I think it’s safe to say that through our regular meetings and through the work done by senior staff with WorkSafe on a very regular basis that by the time we get to writing the report, we have a pretty good sense of what the year ahead is going to look like, and so the report really reflects that.

No, I don’t review drafts. I do have ongoing dialogue, and I would certainly review with interest — and dialogue with WorkSafe — the three-year service plan.

S. Simpson: It says in subsection (2): “The minister must promptly, with respect to the report referred to in subsection (1), (a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is in session, or (b) file the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is not in session.”

[1600]

So if we’re not sitting at the time that the report arrives — and being as it’s end of April, I expect in most instances we probably will be, but if we’re not — is the result of filing the report with the Clerk that the report is released publicly? Or does the report sit until it finally hits the table of the Legislature?
[ Page 10064 ]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon, hon. Chair.

WorkSafe is responsible for making it public. The trigger for making it public is when it’s tabled here in the Legislature. What we don’t want is WorkSafe not making it public. You have to bring it to the Legislature currently. It would not be released by WorkSafe until that happened.

In the event we were not sitting, we would be able to lay the report with the Clerk of the Legislature. Then WorkSafe would make it public. So, yes, it becomes public. We just don’t want it sitting and waiting until the Legislature is sitting.

S. Simpson: With that, we know that at the point the minister tables it in the Legislature, it is a public document that day, once the minister chooses to table it. What I think I hear the minister saying is that should we not be sitting — should it be filed with the Clerk — then that does not make it a public document. It then allows WorkSafe to release it if they choose to, up until the time that the House would sit again, and it would be put before the House. Is that accurate?

Hon. S. Bond: We would expect that process to be simultaneous. Once it’s in front of the Clerk, WorkSafe would press the button and release it.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Simpson: Section 2 deals with similar questions but relates to the service plan rather than the annual report. Maybe I’ll just go back, and I’ll ask that question and confirm with the minister that the thinking is the same as relates to the service plans.

Should there be some reason, not expected, that we are not sitting and the service plan is provided to the minister and the minister files the service plan with the Clerk, would it then be her expectation that at the point that she informed WorkSafe that the Clerk was in possession of it, WorkSafe would release the service plan? Or are service plans dealt with in a different fashion than annual reports?

Hon. S. Bond: They are two documents that we release together. In fact, one of the reasons that both dates have been changed is because the community actually likes to see both of them side by side. The same practice would be in place that we saw in the previous section.

S. Simpson: We know that in most of the areas related to service plans, the ministry deals with the production of service plans and the preparation and the thinking and all of that on behalf of the minister.

Service plans for WorkSafe are a slightly different item. Is there a role for the ministry itself in the development of WorkSafe service plans? Does the ministry play a role? Do they consult around the specifics of a service plan with WorkSafe prior to the finalization of the plan?

[1605]

Hon. S. Bond: We as a ministry, and certainly as the minister, don’t have a direct hand in creating the service plan. I would think it would be most accurate to say that there is certainly discussion with WorkSafe, the chair and senior executive team, about what the priorities are. They’re not often hard to figure out.

We’re pretty public about what the expectations are, but we do not have a direct hand in the service plan. In fact, the WorkSafe organization creates their service plan and presents it to us.

S. Simpson: So in that development of the service plans, it’s independent. WorkSafe functions independently around that.

I’m interested, around that, in whether it’s decisions of WorkSafe or where the decisions come. I’ll take one example. We know, for example, in the 2011-2013 and the 2012-2014 service plans, the notion of wood dust doesn’t get mentioned. Then, of course, in the 2013-2015 plan, it does, and it becomes a topic.

With incidents like we know, like the tragic situations that we saw — decisions around that…. Is that the kind of place where the ministry has a conversation with WorkSafe about the expectation — maybe it’s the minister’s expectations — that WorkSafe will, in fact, address those specific questions — not tell them how to address them, not prescribe how they should be addressed but say, “I have expectations, the ministry has expectations, that those questions will be addressed in the service plan”? Does that kind of conversation go on?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, perhaps I can use an example to best describe how their planning and thinking evolve and how their service plans evolve. The number one priority of WorkSafe, despite all of the challenges that we have seen and that we continue to hear about and the work that we’ve done to improve circumstances, is worker safety.

When you think about, for example, the evolving science around asbestos, I’m sure that if you went back in time, there would not have been strategic plans developed around how to deal with the latent issues that emerged as a result of asbestos.

When that science evolves and when WorkSafe, who are the experts in the area, realize and analyze what the risks and emerging risks are for workers, I would, of course, expect to see those reflected in their service plans. Do I direct them to do that? No, but what I would certain-
[ Page 10065 ]
ly do is, when an issue emerges, I would emphasize the need for rigour and continuity — those kinds of things.

In the case of wood dust, I would have been shocked if it wasn’t included in their service plan. It was an emerging issue. Certainly, I have heard lots of commentary and debate from members on the opposite side of the House. I am not an expert on wood dust, but I do know this. As the science emerged, WorkSafe’s job was to make that a focus of their work. They did that. It was reflected in their service plans. As new science emerges on other issues that present risks to workers, even potential risks, I would expect to see those reflected in their service plans.

S. Simpson: Just around this, it is no surprise that wood dust is incorporated in the service plans. A question I have that relates to the service plans…. We’ll move on after this. But it is a curiosity for me and an important…. Particularly as we look to some of the future sections here — sections that, as with much legislation, require a regulatory regime to operationalize them…. We know that WorkSafe — not quite as engaged when they do policy but pretty engaged when they do regulation.

I’m sure the minister understands how the process is evolved by WorkSafe, but can the minister tell me: in the development of the service plans, is there a level of engagement, maybe like the engagement around regulation?

Is there a level of engagement with legitimate stakeholders, the public, whoever, in the development of those plans so that they’re taking that in? They get, obviously, whatever advice they get from the minister and the ministry through the ongoing discussions over the period of a year and, certainly, the minister’s comments when she’s speaking about issues that relate to WorkSafe. I’m sure they pay close attention to that. Do they engage the public or the stakeholders in the development of the service plan?

[1615]

Hon. S. Bond: I think, to the member opposite’s question, there is not a formal consultation process around the service plan, but because it’s a board-approved document, there are board members that are representative of important stakeholders. For example, there’s a worker representative. There are people with occupational health and safety expertise. At least, that is certainly one of the recommendations that we’re addressing here in the bill.

I would expect that…. No, not a formal consultation process that I’m aware of. It’s not: “We welcome your input.” But I would suggest that, with the board approving that document, there would need to be a sense that representative stakeholders have had an informal opportunity to understand where WorkSafe was headed. Again, no formal consultation, but certainly, the board is representative and would have the opportunity to shape where that service plan goes.

S. Simpson: The board, obviously, is a critical body here. But as the minister will know, when I think about the composition of the board, I think there’s one member of the board who could openly be called the workers’ representative on the board — one member who certainly fits that profile — whereas, I think, if you looked at the backgrounds and the professional roles of many of the members of the board, including the new chair of the board, they could be put in the category of the employers’ side.

The voices are all there. The challenge, of course, is the level of balance on that board is not what it might have been in previous incarnations, when the structure of the board was different. We could debate whether this structure is better or worse than the last structure, when it was by law, by the act, a more balanced board. Whether that worked better or not is a point of debate that we could have, but it would be hard to say that there’s much balance on the board in terms of those two key views — the employers’ view and the workers’ view.

You hope that everybody comes to the board not wearing those hats and that they’re all there to look to advance the interests of worker safety and the governance of this entity as the tool to do that. But I think the reality is that it’s also hard for people to take their hats off, wherever they are, entirely when they look at the perspective, they look at what they know and they look at where they come from on this.

I do worry a little bit about that balance, particularly if there’s not a little more engagement around that. We’ll come to this discussion about how that happens, I think, on other sections of the report as we move forward.

At this point, I think I’m happy to leave section 2 alone.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Simpson: Section 3 deals with matters related to the superannuation fund. I’m really just kind of curious as to what it does. I don’t entirely understand what this section actually accomplishes and what it’s aimed at dealing with.

Hon. S. Bond: The current section of the act, subsection 86(3) of the Workers Compensation Act, requires that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approve all changes to WorkSafe’s superannuation plan.

The requirement for this approval has been in place since 1939, when authority for the plan was established. Since that time, when I took a look at what had happened since 1939, the B.C. Pension Corporation was established, and it actually now administers WorkSafe B.C.’s superannuation plan through an agency relationship. That is set up, looking at and based on modern pension standards legislation. As such, having the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council oversight of the WorkSafe B.C. superannuation plan is simply not necessary.

[1620]

When we think about it from a modern context — it was set up in 1939 — it has become, in essence, what is an additional step of, from our view, red tape. Candidly, it takes up ministry time, leg. counsel time and cabinet resources to look at the proposed changes to the plan and prepare and process the orders that are necessary.

I am very confident that the B.C. Pension Corporation…. It actually manages, obviously, a significant portfolio. I think that they are completely capable, with the expertise and legal obligations that they have, to comply with law and can actually manage this without having the Lieutenant-Governor in the position of having oversight.

S. Simpson: I know a little bit about that. Back in a previous life, I sat on what was then the advisory board of the municipal superannuation, so I had a pretty good idea, kind of, of how investments worked and how things were administered. And it is a pretty good job. People do a pretty good job there around that.

So does this mean, then, that the workers compensation will be dealt with in a similar way to the municipal fund or the provincial fund or police and fire that all have their own authorities and set their own advisers to the board?

Does that happen? How does that change from what goes on now? I’m still trying to understand. I certainly don’t have a problem with the idea that it goes there, but I’m trying to figure out: what does this mean in a more material way as to what happens differently with the administration of WorkSafe investments in the fund?

Hon. S. Bond: In essence, nothing changes other than the role of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to basically sign off the final plan, any changes to the plan.

So there would be the same trustees, and the WorkSafe board would obviously have responsibility for making changes in relationship with the B.C. Pension Corporation. So in essence, nothing changes other than removing one layer which we believe is duplicative and unnecessary.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Simpson: With section 4, we now move to what I would say are the more substantive pieces of Bill 35. For the next four or five sections, they deal with really, I think, what is the body of this work. What section 4 does is amend section 130 around the duties and functions of the joint committee, and this really starts to lay out what we see here.

This relates to, as the minister has said in second reading…. The motivation for Bill 35 was the half a dozen or so specific recommendations to her ministry and to her, as they related to the coroner’s inquest.

This particular recommendation says to “amend section 130 of the Workers Compensation Act to ensure that the joint occupational health and safety committee reviews any changes to equipment, machinery or process to assess impacts on workers’ health and safety.”

[1625]

The coroner’s comment to that was: “The inquest heard that regular evaluation of process hazards is important to ensure that potential risks to workers are identified, particularly when process or equipment is changed.”

Maybe the minister could then tell us how she sees this working and what she is hopeful the result of this particular aspect will be.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciated the member’s comments, and I think that some general commentary about these next sections is in order here.

These recommendations. We received the recommendations from both coroners’ inquests and considered the recommendations very seriously. I believed that the most appropriate way to ensure that the recommendations had weight and longevity and consistency was to make sure that they were included in legislation. That’s why you see them here today. They respond directly to the requests of the coroner.

To the best of our ability, we believe that the language that’s been included in each of the sections reflects the coroners’ recommendations. I know that there will be some discussion later on about whether, in essence, we went far enough. What we did is exactly what the coroner asked us asked us to do — the coroners’ recommendations.

In this particular amendment to the bill, it directly responds to recommendation 7 in the Lakeland mill circumstance, tragedy. It means that there is an explicit reference to significant machinery and equipment. The jury was concerned that machinery and equipment changes, along with process changes, need to be reviewed by the joint occupational health and safety committee.

The key point here is if it has the ability to affect the health and safety of workers. So it’s really related to the risk that it poses.

The reason that language is important here is because we’re not suggesting for a moment that it is a new photocopier, and there does need to be differentiation. The coroner was very clear about it. The recommendation was clear in noting that it needed to identify potential risks to workers related to health and safety. The language includes “significant proposed changes.” Obviously, WorkSafe, through its process, would then be required to define the word “significant.”

S. Simpson: I think that the minister is correct that these next few sections are going to be our conversation for the next period of time.

[1630]

We agree on a number of things. I think that we do, as the minister points out, have some areas where we don’t entirely agree that the legislation, regardless of intent, takes us quite where we need to be. But we’ll get a chance to talk about that in the coming couple of hours.

With this section…. I’m curious. Can the minister tell us…? It says in the act that the “committee has the following duties and functions in relation to its workplace.” It lists an array of different functions and duties, all of which are quite important, including one here that’s quite specific. What it does is it removes a reference to the workplace or the work and, in its place, essentially puts in: “…including significant proposed changes to equipment and machinery.”

What is the expectation of the minister as to how the committee deals with that? Is there an expectation about what kind of information the company will be obliged to provide to the committee about the equipment, about any challenges with the equipment? Things aren’t perfect, and some of this equipment may have results that are less than favourable and will need to particularly be watched and precautions put in place.

What does this oblige the company to do, in terms of providing information to the committee about new equipment, other than giving them a list that says: “We bought three new machines, and here’s what they are”? But saying: “Here’s what these machines do, and here may be the positives, or negatives, of what these machines do?”

Hon. S. Bond: I do think that’s a valid question, because it’s important for me to…. As we develop the record around this debate, it will also help inform what happens. We should be very clear that the intent would not at all be for the employer to just provide a list.

What will happen here is…. Because there is no definition in the statute regarding “significant,” there will be a policy process. Guidelines will be developed for employers and for occupational health and safety committees, the joint committees — but, importantly, for employers — to outline and articulate the type of information, the format of that information. It will place the parameters around how this works.

The intent is clear — that there needs to be a discussion about potential risks to health and safety. That would be the focus of the discussion. I think the other intent is that it gives the joint committee a chance to hear advice, input and feedback before the changes take place. It was very critical to the coroner and the jury that this particular step be put in place, that there is an opportunity now for occupational health and safety, the joint committee, to talk about changes.

I do want to make sure the member opposite recognizes we did not take out “work.” When we did the drafting, “or the work” is actually just further along. It’s not attached to “workplace.” We’re not taking out “the work.” This does include both workplace and work processes.

S. Simpson: With that, could the minister explain a little bit…? I accept that it’s not prescriptive here as to what the expectation is. I wouldn’t necessarily expect it to be prescriptive in legislation as to what the expectation is around the kinds of information that will be provided to the committee to allow the committee to both understand the equipment and to be able to move forward. Maybe the minister could tell us a little bit about how that works and how that process works at WorkSafe.

I’m going to follow with a question about…. Can the minister give me the distinction between policy and regulation? They do differ. That’ll be the next question, so I’ll leave it at that.

[1635]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it’s important to articulate it, but I know the member would know the practice well. Actually, WorkSafe is well known for this process, and it does work well. WorkSafe drafts the policy. They give notice about that policy, and then they send it to a group called the policy practice consultation committee, which is reflective of important stakeholders. It basically is the chance for there to be open dialogue and input.

The draft is then responded to. Changes are made, if necessary. Ultimately, the board has a responsibility to approve the policy. So it goes through a very formalized, rigorous process which is well known, certainly, to the participants of that process. It happens on a fairly regular basis.

I will answer the question that the member was going to ask next. He sort of foreshadowed it. The difference between regulation and policy is that in regulation you have a legal requirement to consult. There is a legal requirement to have consultation. Policy is, in essence, a useful set of guidelines. It has more flexibility. You can make adjustments more quickly. You can look at whether or not the policy and practice line up and whether there need to be adjustments. That is the basic difference.

S. Simpson: I think the distinction, the difference, obviously is an important one. My inclination, certainly for much of the work that I believe Bill 35 looks to target…. It is more an issue of regulation than it is policy to implement that. I look forward to talking about that a little further.

Going back to section 130, which is what this amendment in section 4 deals with, there’s a long list of ten or so areas of specific responsibility that a committee has around its duties and functions. Were there any other areas here? They’re pretty extensive, in many ways.

[1640]

They identify situations that may be unhealthy or unsafe for workers. Advise on effective systems. Expeditiously deal with complaints related to health and safety of workers. Consult with workers and the employer on issues related to health and safety or occupational environment.
[ Page 10068 ]
Make recommendations to the employer and the workers for the improvement of health and safety and the occupational environment.

Make recommendations, again, around health and safety in compliance with this part and the regulations and monitor their effectiveness. Advise the employer on programs and policies required under the regulations for the workplace and monitor their effectiveness. Advise the employer on proposed changes to the workplace, etc., that may affect health and safety. Ensure accident investigations and regular inspections are carried out. Participate in inspections, investigations. Carry out other duties and functions prescribed by regulation. A pretty effective list of duties.

We know that one of the critiques we heard in the inquest was around the function, or dysfunction, of the health and safety committee. I attended the Lakeland inquest. Certainly, that was what I heard. That was a committee that, to the extent that it functioned, didn’t seem to deal with a whole lot of these matters. I respect the fact that the legislation is intended to help to correct some of that.

Could the minister tell us, though…. What assessments have been done, if any, about the practicality of this list of functions in section 130 and how well they work or what the shortcomings are — whether committees are actually able to accomplish this and whether they’re actually getting this long list, a pretty important list, of things done? What assessments have been done by WorkSafe, who would, obviously, be the agency that would probably do that assessment?

Had they looked at that, maybe post being in Lakeland, which motivated this? Maybe Mr. Macatee looked at it. I’m not sure. What has been learned by that that led to being satisfied with the one change in relation to this?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that as we work our way through the bill and the amendments, we’ll see that certainly the effectiveness of occupational health and safety committees was a theme that was noted by the coroners’ inquests in both cases. I share the member’s skepticism and concern about the need for them to work more effectively — hence, the direct response to the coroner in this section.

[1645]

There is further work being done. I think that while it doesn’t need to be reflected in this particular act, the coroner and jury in the case of the Lakeland inquest actually made a recommendation to WorkSafe. It’s recommendation 17, which is directed at WorkSafe. I will read it because it directly answers the question that the member asked. I support this. WorkSafe has agreed and obviously is working to implement all of the recommendations, as we would expect they would.

Recommendation 17 in the Lakeland inquest says that WorkSafe B.C. “implement an audit tool to measure the effectiveness of joint health and safety committees and ensure inspection officers audit an employer’s joint health and safety committee when WorkSafe inspections are conducted.”

WorkSafe is working through that particular requirement or recommendation from the coroner. They’ve accepted it. The work on the audit tool has already begun. I think we do need to see an improved…. We need to see a more effective process taking place there. I think the audit tool will help identify where there are weaknesses and challenges. And I think it’s essential that it work effectively.

One of the challenges, and it was reflected in conversation at the inquests as well, was that at times it’s hard to get people to participate. My view of that is that when things are not effective, not necessarily working well and you don’t feel that there’s a lot of value, it will be difficult to have people, at times, participate.

Yes, they need to be more effective. Yes, there needs to be a tool to look at which ones are working. How do we help ensure that the appropriate information, that the dialogue that takes place there, is appropriate? I think the audit tool that WorkSafe B.C. is working on is a key step in making that happen.

S. Simpson: Just following up on that, I thank the minister for the answer, and I’m glad that WorkSafe is moving forward on that recommendation. Just a question in relation to that and the connection.

That process they’re going through in the development of the tool — I’m assuming that they’re going through some form of consultation with existing committee members or health and safety representatives for organized labour and, hopefully, for employers’ groups that deal with these matters, to try to determine how you measure, how that tool will reasonably be able to measure.

We know these committees are going to be very different things in different workplaces, and we’ll talk about that a little bit. I have a couple of questions in relation to that. But for this, it’s specifically: is WorkSafe, in undertaking the work on the audit tool, engaging with the appropriate stakeholders on both the employer and the worker side?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. That is an unequivocal yes. Certainly, that is essential. WorkSafe has…. I have met with them on several occasions because, as the member would know, I am coordinating government’s response and, of course, the agencies that are related to me — one of them is WorkSafe — in terms of making sure that the recommendations are followed up on and that that’s done expeditiously and thoroughly.

WorkSafe has published — it is public — their response to the coroner’s recommendations, and this item is noted there. It includes…. Unfortunately, I don’t have it right in front of me. I will attempt to get it in the next few minutes, and then I can read it into the record for
[ Page 10069 ]
the member. But yes, consultation — and the steps have been quite explicit in terms of how WorkSafe will pursue developing the audit tool.

S. Simpson: In relation to that…. I’m going to pursue this a little bit because I think, certainly, the roles and responsibilities of the committee are pretty fundamental. While there are specifics in some future sections that we’ll want to talk about, this is pretty important.

[1650]

The question I want to put to the minister now is…. It is a concern that I have. When I look at larger industrial sites that are unionized sites where you have a union — in the case of the mills, it was the Steelworkers — you do have some infrastructure there. You have staff representatives for the union, who have expertise. You have health and safety specialists. You have a steward system in the workplace that allows, certainly, some significant support for health and safety committee members in their work and their efforts. They have significant support.

But as the minister knows, as we all know, certainly in the private sector in particular, the vast majority of worksites are not union worksites. The vast majority of sites are non-union worksites, and the workers don’t necessarily have that infrastructure that comes with having a trade union be supportive of your work and a place to make the phone call about: “Am I doing this right or wrong?”

Could the minister talk a little bit about how she sees this work going on in the non-union sites — maybe in companies with 40 or 50 employees, not hundreds of employees — to make sure these committees are effective or to be as effective as possible in those sites where the workers don’t have that support behind them that a union can offer?

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things that it’s important to state is that I have absolutely no disagreement with the member’s view that we need to ensure that there are effective, well-functioning occupational health and safety committees. That’s critical. What is not a differentiating matter is whether it’s union or non-union. It does not matter. It is the law that if you have 20 or more employees, you must have an occupational health and safety committee. In fact, if you don’t, you are subject to enforcement by WorkSafe.

[1655]

I will just go back and make sure that the member opposite…. In terms of the letter that has been posted by WorkSafe and the recommendations from the Lakeland inquest regarding implementing an audit tool, there is a response noted for each of the recommendations: “Response is accepted.” The key point to note in it would be: “In consultation with the stakeholders, WorkSafe B.C. will also develop an audit tool.”

Ironically, the commentary that follows that is that “Non-compliance with joint health and safety committee requirements of the act may be subject to employer citations….” In fact, there are mechanisms of enforcement.

It is important, and I think that both the language that has been added and the audit tool that the jury recommended will help improve the quality of those committees.

S. Simpson: I have no question or doubt about the minister’s desire and intent to have these committees work effectively and that that’s what she aspires to do with the legislation.

In theory, I would agree with the minister that it shouldn’t make any difference whether it’s a unionized workplace or a non-union workplace. In terms of worker safety, they should be treated the same, and the standards should be the same for both.

But what we know is in practice…. This, of course, comes back to some of the challenges that we saw at Babine and Lakeland. There, there was a union, and a union that understands that workplace pretty well, and still there were failures — significant failures — around the operation of that committee. If the committee had functioned better and if the committee had been working more effectively, maybe there would have been flags raised that might have made a difference. We will never know, and we can’t speculate about that.

What we do know that is in a workplace…. The question about union or non-union just becomes a question of capacity and whether the resources and the capacity for the workers is greater in a unionized workplace. I would argue it is, if the union is doing their job.

I guess what I’m trying to do is determine what the thinking is, on the minister’s part, about how to ensure that these committees do what I believe she wants them to do. And it has got to be more than a citation. I don’t know what it is, but it’s probably more than a citation to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Again, I guess my question is: has there been thought, a conversation — I’m sure an awful lot of thought has gone into this bill — about how you get at smaller workplaces — 25 workers, 30 workers? It’s maybe a dangerous situation that creates risks, where you don’t have that committee functioning in the way it should? How do you get at that?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the way you begin to get at that is exactly responding to what the coroner’s juries requested, which is an audit tool. It’s basically an ability to use that tool to assess the effectiveness of occupational health and safety committees.

While I appreciate the member’s view that unions have more capacity, for me, union or non-union is irrelevant when it comes to meeting the requirements of the law. Whether you are union or non-union…. If you’re non-union, you’d better develop the capacity that’s necessary. It is a requirement of the law.
[ Page 10070 ]

I think every one of us expects that, if you are a union or non-union worksite, when there are expectations about this particular committee, it needs to work. Clearly, there is improvement needed, and I think that the audit tool will be designed to do exactly that.

I know that WorkSafe will be consulting with stakeholders to think about how we measure effectiveness and then what we do about…. What do we do, and how do we make those changes that are essential?

[1700]

I think it is a theme throughout the recommendations of both inquests — that occupational health and safety committees are critical. They need to work, and they need to work well. I think, first of all, assessing their effectiveness is a pretty important step into ensuring there is improvement.

S. Simpson: Does the minister — and the ministry may know this — have an estimate from WorkSafe or whatever now of what percentage of employers today who have over 20 employees don’t have a health and safety committee?

Hon. S. Bond: We are not aware of a non-compliance rate. I mean, obviously, WorkSafe would have a better sense of that. But my expectation is that it is the law, and if you have 20 or more employees, you need to have an occupational health and safety committee. So my answer to your question would be: my expectation is that it would be 100 percent compliance.

Now, I’m realistic enough to know that there are over 200,000 worksites in British Columbia, and WorkSafe doesn’t inspect every one of them. But as they inspect, if there isn’t an occupational health and safety committee, there would be a citation and they would be told to get one. The expectation is that the answer should be 100 percent in accordance with the law.

[1705]

S. Simpson: I’m sure we would all like it to be 100 percent. But I suspect the minister — I certainly don’t — isn’t entirely certain that it’s 100 percent in many of these businesses.

Do we know how many citations got filed in any given period of time just to workplaces because they didn’t fulfil the current obligation — not the future obligation — around committees? What kind of citation rate are we seeing?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, we don’t have that data here because, in essence, that’s outside the scope of the legislative change we’re making.

What we’re adding is simply a requirement to deal with…. Not simply. We’re adding a response in terms of changes to equipment and machinery. Obviously, WorkSafe is not here, and we don’t have that data.

S. Simpson: When I look at the section around duties and functions…. The minister talked about wanting to make sure — and WorkSafe wanting to make sure — that the committees are well-prepared to deal with all of the matters in section 130, including the new clause that will be added by Bill 35.

When I look through the act, the place that I see where there might be some capacity-building for people who are members of the committee is 135, around educational leave. Now, that’s not part of the act. But it does state in 135 that there could be annual leave of up to eight hours or “a longer period if prescribed by regulation,” for the purposes of health and safety training, etc.

In order to be able to get at this increased or enhanced role, is the minister confident that that time frame — one day, essentially, a year — of educational leave and supports is adequate for members of the committee to be able to do their jobs, particularly if the expectation is that now they are going to need to learn and maybe understand things about equipment and machinery that they may not grasp entirely?

We know that the people who are members of this committee are as likely as not to not be the people who will necessarily use that machine. They may be people who do something else at the worksite and to understand that.

Is there expectation around that? Is that part of the audit consideration for WorkSafe, with the audit tool, to look at questions about whether educational leave, capacity-building — whatever you want to call it — for members of the committee will need to be enhanced so they have a better capacity to do their job?

[1710]

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly, at this point…. At least, we understand that WorkSafe believes that this will be manageable within the current time provisions. Having said that, WorkSafe is committed to having a thorough dialogue about what the audit tool looks like, what the language around this amended section will look like. It may well be that that’s a point of discussion. I mean, we do want there to be a reasonable approach to this. But it is not contemplated, at this point in time, that there would be a need for additional time.

S. Simpson: My apologies. I was looking at this, and I might have missed the minister’s comments. Did she say that on part of the work, while it is not contemplated at this time, the expectation is that — maybe as part of the audit function or development of that tool — some consideration will be given to that enhanced time?

I do note that section 135 does allow for longer periods, if prescribed by regulation, for the purposes of attending training, etc. Presumably, there is some regulation available today that would allow for WorkSafe to be able to direct that there needs to be more time. Is that going to be part of that assessment and the audit? Is that expected by the minister?
[ Page 10071 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Not necessarily related to the audit tool, but certainly, as the dialogue around what the proposed changes require. I’m certainly not today suggesting or endorsing whether or not it’s necessary to increase the time. I think there needs to be a complete dialogue, a discussion around how significant the impacts of the amendment are to those particular committees — and the training time allocations.

I certainly am not committing and suggesting that we have, at this point, contemplated an addition to that time. I think it would be a natural part of a discussion, when you are adding another requirement, that that will be part of the discussion that takes place. I am not saying today that I believe it’s necessary. In fact, WorkSafe believes, I think, that it is manageable within the existing framework. As that dialogue occurs, I’m sure that stakeholders will make their views clear.

S. Simpson: I don’t know, either, whether it’s necessary. I don’t have the expertise, certainly, to have any idea. I’m sure it will be different in different circumstances. There may be cases where it makes absolute sense and other cases where the current act meets the needs just fine and the current regulation meets the needs just fine.

The minister talks about the dialogue. Just so I’m clear on that, is that the dialogue that the minister expects that WorkSafe is having around any regulatory or policy change — certainly the regulatory change, because we know the obligation there? Is that the dialogue that the minister is referencing, or is there another dialogue?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I’m talking about the consultation that will take place directly related to the implementation of this amendment.

S. Simpson: I think the last question I have in relation to this. Is it the expectation…? It goes back to this dialogue, and I think a good conversation with the appropriate people at the table will be helpful in doing this. The minister, I think, in her last answer or the one previous, said that there’ll be a dialogue that will look at how the amendment — in this case, it will be “including significant proposed changes to equipment and machinery,” which is the amendment here — might affect requirements or obligations around training and whether the eight hours, or whatever else the employer has on the table, meets that need.

Is the minister expecting that conversation to be kind of limited to that amendment? Or does she anticipate that to be a conversation — particularly after the discussion we’ve had about whether committees have always functioned the way that they should? Or is she expecting that to be a dialogue about the much bigger question of section 130 overall?

[1715]

Hon. S. Bond: No, I think what I expect would happen is that it would be a natural outcome of a discussion about adding a new requirement for an occupational health and safety committee. There is a new requirement here. I think part of the natural discussion around the specific amendment that’s being made is: is the time allocation adequate when we’re adding a new expectation? I would assume that would be a natural part of a discussion.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

S. Simpson: Section 5 is a dispute resolution section of sorts. Essentially, what it says is that…. It puts a new section (2) in, or a renumbered section (2), that says: “If the Board considers that a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace, the Board, on its own initiative, may investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the matter.”

I guess the first question I have here is…. I find it interesting that it uses the word “may” in this, rather than “shall.” If you have a deadlock — if you come to some loggerheads at the committee around a significant matter — it suggests that the board could intervene if they chose to at the request of a co-chair of the committee.

We know there’s an employer and a worker co-chair. If one of the co-chairs broached the matter with WorkSafe, they could choose to intervene.

Could the minister tell us why the word “may” was used rather than “shall”?

[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I do want to point out that, again, this amendment directly responds to a recommendation made by the coroner’s jury in the case of Babine, in this case. It is recommendation No. 29, and it responds very directly to the request to allow WorkSafe this option. It didn’t say that they must have it.

Our concern, when you look at the two sections…. Section 132(1): “If a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace, a co-chair of the committee may report this to the Board….”

There is not a requirement. It is not “shall” report this to the board. There is a degree of discretion there. Our view was that that needs to be balanced, that this does give WorkSafe another opportunity to be engaged in a matter, but it is not required.

There still needs to be some degree of discretion. One of the things, in our thinking about this…. There are often interrelated matters here. Some of them are occupational health and safety, and some are not. WorkSafe needs to have the discretion as to whether or not they engage at a particular time or on a particular issue.
[ Page 10072 ]

What it does do is introduce a new power for WorkSafe, which is exactly what the coroner’s recommendation asked us to provide.

S. Simpson: I’m assuming here…. As the minister says, it adds a second power. The clause itself, in 132, just suggests that the board could investigate and attempt to resolve the matter but not be obliged to resolve the matter.

What the new section says is that the board, “on its own initiative, may investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the matter.” So it’s saying here that the board doesn’t really need to consult with the committee if it decides that it’s a matter that needs to be addressed. They can proceed and do this on their own — that’s my interpretation of the addition — versus what the current language says, which is that they could investigate and resolve at the request of the co-chair.

I’m sure there are other matters, whether they be disagreements about other things or personality matters, that could lead to difficulties in a committee making decisions.

The question I had is probably not so much…. I understand, actually, the “may” in the first section, the existing section, more than I do in the second section — as to the need to actually step up and deal with this. That’s an issue that I have there. The question, though, that I want to ask goes a little further than that.

I want to be clear that in the minister’s view, this is really an addition to the potential interaction between a joint health and safety committee and the board. There are other places in the act, or there are other steps that a health and safety committee or a co-chair could take to engage the board if they felt it was necessary to do that. Just to be clear, for the record, this is an additional tool that’s provided here, and it’s not to be seen in any way to dilute the purview or the capacity of the health and safety committee to request assistance from the board to resolve matters in other ways.

[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: It’s absolutely incremental. The amendment means that while a co-chair can still report a disagreement to WorkSafe B.C., WorkSafe may also choose to be engaged as a result of hearing about that dispute from somewhere else, on its own initiative — for example, other than being informed by a co-chair. That is incremental. It means that if WorkSafe becomes aware that there is an issue where there is no agreement and it is not necessarily sent from the co-chair, on its own initiative, WorkSafe may choose….

I think “may” is important. It doesn’t say they “shall.” They would, obviously…. And this isn’t about a formal dispute mechanism. It probably means that the WorkSafe officer is likely to work with the parties and try to bring them to some sort of agreed-upon outcome. So it is incremental.

S. Simpson: When the minister talks about it being incremental and those choices in front of it, just to be clear here, then, again we have a situation where there shouldn’t be any concern here that the committee or committee members, if they feel the need to do this, can still, obviously, contact WorkSafe in other ways and engage them.

Obviously, it’s up to WorkSafe to decide whether that’s appropriate or not and whether they’re going to act, but WorkSafe, by its current practice, by regulation, will engage in those processes when they’re contacted in other ways.

We know that we’ve seen everything from…. We can go to the Lakeland situation, where it was an anonymous phone call that brought investigators out. Sadly, they didn’t take that investigation where I think they should have, but that’s what brought them to the Lakeland site.

It is about adding these powers, whether they’re called incremental or not, and certainly not looking to dilute any of the other powers on the part of anybody working at a given workplace to be able to engage WorkSafe if they really feel it’s necessary, and then WorkSafe to make their own judgments about whether this requires action.

Hon. S. Bond: This does not dilute. When you look at the literal interpretation of the existing act, the way that WorkSafe would be engaged is at the request of the co-chair. This says that WorkSafe doesn’t need that anymore. What they can do is that if they were to become aware of a disagreement that has potential impacts for workers, they can — not they shall — on their own initiative get engaged.

It doesn’t take away at all from the request or the ability for the co-chair, for example, to ask for WorkSafe’s participation. What this says is that WorkSafe now…. Whether there’s an ask or not, if there is an issue and there is a potential risk to workers and they need to resolve the issue, WorkSafe can be engaged in that.

G. Heyman: I understand the purpose of the suggested amendment and the minister’s statement that there are attempts to ensure that the committees are more empowered and that measures are taken to resolve disagreements in the committee.

Partly, my question relates to how we give more life to the words on the page. This relates, in part, to my lengthy experience both on joint occupational health and safety committees and training joint occupational health and safety committee members and hearing from them some of their frustrations in how the committees functioned or failed to function in the workplace — their experience with officers of the Workers Compensation Board who didn’t appear to very actively engage in ensuring that the role and function of the committee was adequately respected.

[1730]

There are litanies of stories about employers who take over the appointment of committee members rather than ensure that they are selected by workers, as they should be, and who don’t adequately, frankly, deal with concerns that are brought forward by workers to the committee or concerns raised by committee members.

This section addresses what happens, what the board should do, if “a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace” and that “the Board, on its own initiative, may investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the matter.” On its face, that appears to be an important amendment. But my question goes to….

As we discuss and debate this bill, and as we examine the sections in the bill, I have to turn my mind to workers who come to me and talk about their inability to actually get significant safety issues, some of them very serious hazards, addressed when they raise them with supervisors or when they attempt to have them addressed in a meaningful way by committees. This language would say that the board can step in and do more.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

My question to the minister is: what steps does the minister believe need to be taken at the board, or what steps would she be willing to take in directing the board, through the board of directors, to ensure that WorkSafe officers are clear about their responsibility to intervene proactively to take significant action if they hear complaints from workers about inadequate addressing of health and safety concerns that are raised to the employer or raised to the committee or committees that just simply aren’t functioning the way they should?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, I certainly don’t have the past life experience that he does, and I appreciate the comments. I think that our conversation this afternoon has been very much…. And I think that the inquests, the coroners, the juries agreed that there needs to be significant work done with occupational health and safety committees. I think that the direct response to that is that WorkSafe is in the process of implementing an audit tool where WorkSafe officers will actually now audit an employer’s health and safety committee.

As I said, WorkSafe’s response to the coroner’s requests is public. It was a request of the coroner that in fact there be an audit tool. I think there is an ongoing theme throughout the recommendations. I think we start with auditing and making sure that the appropriate practices are in place and that there is also the potential for enforcement and consequences if that is not in place.

I certainly understand and respect the views that are being shared. This is an important step to improving what happens at those committees, and we need to look at how they work. Can we can improve them? If they’re not working, there need to be consequences for that. This will become part of the regular work that is done by WorkSafe officers to ensure that the audit tool is being used, and they will be asking that question as part of the inspections that they do.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for her comments.

I’ll preface my further remarks and questions by stating that I’m well aware that it’s almost impossible to craft language, whether in legislation, policy or regulation, that is absolutely perfect and that some people won’t attempt to find a way to get around. That underlies the premise of my question, which is: what do we do when good language in an act or in regulation is ineffective in certain instances?

I want to ask the minister a bit more about the audit tool. Is this meant to be a self-audit, an audit performed by board staff?

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: The audit tool is expected to be used by WorkSafe as a tool. Currently, when we look at the response to the Lakeland recommendations, when it comes to…. The specific request of the coroner was to “implement an audit tool to measure the effectiveness of joint health and safety committees and ensure that inspection officers audit the employer’s joint health and safety committee when WorkSafe inspections are conducted.”

It was a clear and very specific recommendation. In fact, the presiding coroner’s comments, when I read them, also pointed out that the inquest heard “that there is currently no oversight by WorkSafe B.C. of whether a joint occupational health and safety committee is effective or active.” So the audit tool is intended to be used by WorkSafe officers as part of their regular inspection regime.

WorkSafe’s response to this, as I have pointed out earlier, was that this recommendation, as with the others, is accepted, and that in consultation with stakeholders, WorkSafe will also develop an audit tool. Non-compliance with the joint health and safety committee requirements of the act may be subject to employer citations. So WorkSafe is developing the audit tool. It will be used by WorkSafe officers.

G. Heyman: For further clarity, the tool will be used by WorkSafe officers in the course of their regular inspections? Or is it possible that the audit tool will be used separately under other circumstances, which the minister may be able to outline, if that might, in fact, be the case?

Hon. S. Bond: While I appreciate the questions, we were just sort of grappling with how to answer them. The answer is this. This is a speculative conversation at the moment, because WorkSafe is busy designing the tool. To
[ Page 10074 ]
go back, I do want to be clear in the answer. As I envision it, there will be a combination of self-audit and officers using the tool, because there are thousands of worksites. You would expect there to be a combination of…. Yes, you all need to audit yourself — use the tool. And then there would be a combination of having WorkSafe officers review that and also use it.

Again, I am speculating, because WorkSafe is in the process of developing that. It will be developed with stakeholders. I very much look forward to the input from worker representatives about how effective or ineffective occupational health and safety committees are and what function, form and use of the audit tool would be effective.

We have to remember that the piece of the act that I’m adding is the ability for WorkSafe to actually deal with a health and safety matter that is contentious or that there’s no resolution to. WorkSafe actually has to respond to the coroner, and has, on the audit tool. That is not my responsibility. It is theirs to develop.

[1740]

I want to be sure that there’s enough room here for there to be input in terms of the utilization, the form and how it works. But the bottom line is that the audit tool was a request of the coroner’s jury to say: “There’s no oversight. There needs to be some oversight.” So we’re in the process — WorkSafe is in the process — of determining the form and function of that audit tool.

G. Heyman: To the minister: thank you for the clarification. I agree. There are thousands of worksites, and I can’t imagine that there would ever be enough inspectors to get to all of them in a decade, let alone in a reasonable period of time.

But if there is going to be a process that involves self-auditing, should I assume that there will also be surprise audits, just as there are surprise inspections? Should I also assume, if workers believe something is seriously going awry with the health and safety process, the structure of establishing committees or the functioning of the committees, that to some extent, the audit will be complaint driven?

Hon. S. Bond: I think those are all important questions. They’re not questions that I can answer today, because the process is unfolding.

I do believe that the basic premise of surprise visits, inspections and, potentially, audits is critical to ensuring that there’s actually change in the workplace. So I don’t think that that principle, which is embedded in WorkSafe’s practice, is going to change. But I think these are all important questions that will undoubtedly be considered by WorkSafe as it develops the audit tool.

I think what’s important is that this was identified as an issue, as it has been here today, but the coroner’s jury identified it as well. It is thematic. It’s in a number of recommendations and places, and I think the message today, clearly, is that the lack of oversight is about to change. I think that is an important step, and I’m positive we will have further discussions, as the process unfolds, about what the audit looks like and how it will be utilized.

I’m a very firm believer that this does need to be an additional tool for WorkSafe inspectors, for officers — that they need to be able, when they visit unannounced, to say, “I want to see the results of your audit and what is being done about that,” in addition to them being able to initiate those discussions themselves.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I think it’s important to have a discussion around culture at the Workers Compensation Board. When I served four years as a member of the then panel of public administrators, which is analogous to the current board of directors, we had some very frank discussions between the board and senior management about what happens when a culture of a certain type of approach to workplaces gets entrenched. There had been a period of time that could perhaps be characterized as sympathetic administration prior to the mid ’90s.

I have the greatest respect for people who work at the compensation board. I’ve worked with many of them. I’ve seen some diligent and hard-working hygiene officers and prevention officers.

But I also know that sometimes, when people are told that the best thing to do is to take an educational approach and to keep taking an educational approach and don’t write orders and don’t make fines, it’s one thing to say that you have a different expectation. It takes some time to entrench the belief in people who have worked in a certain way for a period of time that something else is now expected of them and, in fact, encouraged.

[1745]

My question to the minister and the minister’s staff is: how are you communicating this expectation of a stronger emphasis on proactive action, enforcement, citations and other measures that will back that up to the Workers Compensation Board, and your expectation that that will be conveyed deep into the organization to ensure that the culture gets it?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that we very clearly indicated to WorkSafe the intention that there be change. That was, in particular, in Bill 9. We made very significant changes based on the recommendations of Gord Macatee. I have stood in this House and will continue to…. I believe he did a very good job. He understood the circumstances and the culture very quickly and brought to us what I thought was an excellent report. I think it was 43 recommendations. I can’t remember, but I think it was 43.

We immediately moved to change things like timelines. We added the ability to bring consequences more quickly. In fact, we have the ability to involve the courts
[ Page 10075 ]
now when there are egregious cases where employers refuse to comply.

I think we’ve been very clear in our expectations that there be a very rigorous enforcement regime in British Columbia and that the number one priority of WorkSafe is worker safety. It does require rigorous attention. I think when you bring legislation, including the amendments today, but a series of things….

We’ve also changed the actual form and function of WorkSafe. When it comes to inspections, for example, we now have a divided inspection team — all of the things that we would have hoped that had actually occurred under the previous situation. It didn’t, and we needed to fix it. I do think it is about legislative change that is very significant.

G. Heyman: I know my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings wants to continue with his questions, so I have two questions I’m going to combine into one.

I appreciate the minister’s remarks — that it’s important that employers get the message and that the Workers Compensation Board takes this direction seriously and that penalties are effective.

My first question is: has the minister given thought to what appropriate penalties and escalating penalties would be for wilful frustration of the functioning of a joint health and safety committee or the bringing by workers of significant concerns that go unaddressed?

My preamble to my second question is…. Over the years, I’ve worked for and observed really good employers, and I have also worked for and observed employers who, frankly, worked hard to find ways around regulations, whatever they were.

There’s been a long-established right of workers in British Columbia and in Canada, and that’s the right to refuse unsafe work. There’s a process that is outlined about how that is to proceed. The joint health and safety committee is part of that.

My question to the minister with respect to this…. I have heard stories, anecdotally, and I have also met with workers who claim that they have been dismissed for raising serious safety concerns. They have worked hard to try to have those safety concerns addressed as well as to get their jobs back.

I’ve observed this over a long period of time. More recently, I’ve met with some workers who raised some very serious concerns with me, which, unfortunately, I have not yet had the time to fully investigate to be sure that I could bring them forward to the minister or the Workers Compensation Board or anyone else with full confidence. But I have no doubt that there are serious incidents that occur.

My question in this regard is: does the minister intend, through this amendment or other directions, to make it absolutely clear to WorkSafe that this kind of behaviour, if they were to come across it, is so fundamental to the belief in workers that they can raise serious safety issues without suffering personal repercussions? Will this be a priority for the board?

[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: There’s no disagreement on this side of the House. Workers in British Columbia have the right to a safe workplace. They have the right to not work in an environment that is unsafe, and they have the right to tell their employer that. In the event that an employer takes action that is inappropriate, that takes discriminatory action, that worker has the right, in the case that the member opposite pointed out, to have their job back. That should not occur.

One of the things we did…. After the horrible circumstances with both Babine and Lakeland, I brought together industry, organized labour and government. We had a conversation about how we can better support employees in ensuring that they, first of all, know their rights and are able to exercise them. We asked that WorkSafe work with industry and organized labour to create better information for workers.

So we actually did bring people together to say that, first of all, in this province it is unacceptable that a worker feels that they cannot say that this is an unsafe workplace. All of us would agree on that principle. We have had work done to ensure that workers know their rights and have the ability to exercise their rights, and in the event that those are discriminated against, that there is action taken in regard to those employers.

The Chair: The House will be recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:53 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

H. Bains: I understand that these changes to the act are brought upon by the two very tragic incidents at Lakeland and Babine — and therefore, the coroner’s recommendations, and they’re being incorporated here.

But my question is a bit more in general terms. It has been mentioned before, in sections that we have discussed before — and even after — and this one here. In every section and the changes in the amendment that we have spoken about so far, there’s a health and safety committee component to it — not everywhere, but most places — how the health and safety work is strengthened, how they work with the joint committee in working together.

[1800]

My question is — the minister, perhaps, will correct me — that that would cover only about 20 percent of the employers in B.C. because health and safety committees are required where there are 20 or more employees. My question would be: how do you deal with and implement
[ Page 10076 ]
these changes? The health and safety committee is mentioned, but 80 percent of the employers do not have — because they’re not required to under the act — a health and safety committee.

How do you implement these changes, whether it’s the current act or these changes in this bill? How do you anticipate having all these changes and the intent of this bill work with employers, about 80 percent, who don’t have a health and safety committee? Maybe the minister will correct me if my numbers are wrong.

[1805]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, sorry for the delay there. I wanted to clarify something.

There are different mechanisms. Depending upon the number of employees in the group, there are different ways of getting the information and ensuring that workers are aware of the risk. But make no mistake about it. All employers must ensure that workers are aware of health or potential health or safety hazards, and that includes the amendments that we’re making today.

Twenty and over employees, there is an occupational health and safety committee. Between ten and 19 employees, there is a worker representative. Below that, you rely on the general duties of employers.

I will read section 115(2)(a). If I take the general principle: “Every employer must….” Then (2) says: “Without limiting…an employer must (a) remedy any workplace conditions that are hazardous…, (b) ensure that the employer’s workers (i) are made aware of all known or reasonably foreseeable health or safety hazards to which they are likely to be exposed by their work.”

In the case of smaller workplaces, that’s the employer’s responsibility directly. As you move to a larger workforce, there’s a worker rep that’s engaged. Up to 20 plus, it is the occupational health and safety committee.

H. Bains: I appreciate the answer that the minister gave, but I think my question still remains.

When you’re looking at the changes to the act under this bill, whether you’re talking about section 4 or even section 5 here right now…. It says: “A joint committee has the following duties.” That’s under section 4. And here it says: “If a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace….”

My question is…. This is emanating from those two explosions, and we are trying to deal with those issues through these changes. In reality, if you look at the cabinet-making industry — mostly under 20 employees. But none of that is mentioned here. How do they deal with similar dangers and the risk of explosions? My information is that that industry, actually, is much riskier than the larger sawmills because of the pine sawdust involved.

My question is: is it an oversight that that part is not included, so that the potential fire and explosion hazards in operations that are under 20 are left out? Or, where you mention the health and safety committee here, is it that the worker rep will have the same powers in those operations?

[1810]

Hon. S. Bond: The changes here allow for WorkSafe to engage on their own initiative if there’s a dispute. The principle still applies to worksites where there is not an occupational health and safety committee. For example, if you have only a worker rep, you can’t really have a dispute, because you don’t have the committee. But are they able to call WorkSafe and say: “We have a concern here, and we would like you to be engaged”? Of course.

When you look at section 139, “Worker health and safety representative,” if you go to subsection 139(3), it’s: “To the extent practicable, a worker health and safety representative has the same duties and functions as a joint committee.” In essence, what applies here to the joint committee applies also to the worker representative. In a workplace where there isn’t a worker representative and there are individual employees, they also have the ability to still engage with WorkSafe.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

S. Simpson: Section 6 deals with the question of immediate notice of certain types of accidents, and this is related mostly to fires.

The jury recommendation, recommendation No. 11 in the review, said to review section 172 of the Workers Compensation Act to ensure that “an employer must immediately notify the board of any fire or explosion that causes a business interruption.” The coroner’s comment in relation to that was: “The inquest heard that there were two significant explosions/fires at Lakeland mill in January 2012, neither of which was reported to WorkSafe B.C. or fire officials. Evidence indicated that near misses should be treated as important opportunities to consider and alleviate risks.” That’s what the jury recommended.

What the amendment does to section 172 is that it requires an employer to immediately notify the board in the event of a fire or explosion that had a potential for causing serious injury to a worker. It has changed the language “fire or explosion that causes business interruption,” which was the recommendation of the jury, to “potential for causing serious injury to a worker.”

The difficulty I have with this, and the question I have, is that a business interruption is pretty easy to understand. When we listened at the Lakeland inquest to the two incidents…. We’ve all heard the story of the fireball 30 feet in the air the day before the Babine explosion, which did cause the mill to be shut down at Lakeland while the fire was extinguished. There was a cleanup, an
[ Page 10077 ]
extensive piece of work before the mill was able to ramp back up and go back to work.

Yet the situation here, of course, is that there were no injuries there. There was discretion there for the employer to determine whether there was risk of a serious injury. That’s a question of interpretation. Yet what the jury recommended, which I think is sound, was a significant business interruption — which is what would have occurred. While Lakeland could have argued that they did not think there was a legitimate risk to people in that fire — at least made an argument for it — they could not have made the case that there wasn’t a business interruption.

Could the minister tell us why the decision was made to have the language that is included in the amendment, rather than the language that was recommended by the jury?

[1815]

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the question. There was a lot of thought given to the choice of the language and the approach that we took here. We do believe that it not only meets but, in essence, exceeds the expectations of the coroner’s jury. Let me give the member opposite an example.

There could be a fire that poses potential harm and risk to employees but does not cause a business interruption. In other words, work proceeds. There’s a fire. In essence, we believe that this expands the scope to suggest that whenever there’s a risk to worker health and safety, there must be notification to WorkSafe. And because of the language that we chose, because of the use of the phrase “a potential for causing serious injury to a worker,” it also triggers a process.

It means that that must be investigated by the employer, and the investigation must be submitted to WorkSafe within 30 days of the incident. When we contemplated the intent of the coroner’s jury, it was to ensure that if there is a fire that occurs that brings risk to the health and safety of a worker, WorkSafe has to know about it. The inverse of that would not be true. If you based it on a business interruption, in essence, you could have a circumstance where a fire occurs, business continues on, and there would be no requirement for them at that point to report the incident because business continued.

What’s most important is if there’s risk to health and safety. It also brings this into line and makes it a consistent approach so that if there is any incident that has the potential — if it’s a fire or explosion — for causing serious injury to a worker, it must be reported, and it will then trigger an investigation.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister’s answer. We know that part of the challenge is that if you have a fire, in most instances, I think you’re going to determine that it will disrupt business, particularly if the fire has to be extinguished.

We know that was the instance, the testimony, that we heard about two fires, both of which would have met the standard of disrupting business — the two significant ones that came in the period prior to the Lakeland explosion. In both cases, they required a significant business interruption in order to get the fire under control, extinguish the fire, go back…. You know, they shut equipment down, obviously, when it occurred. They shut everything down, fight the fire, put the fires out, start the business back up again. So you get a business interruption on any fire that’s significant.

[1820]

We know, I believe, the investigation at Lakeland…. The report suggested that there were as many as five fires that occurred prior to the actual explosion, all of which weren’t reported, it’s my understanding. That was part of the problem.

In my discussions with people about the issue, part of the concern that gets raised — maybe this gets addressed by the amendment…. It becomes a bit of a judgment call, and the judgment call, of course, is in: were people at risk, or was it regular business?

We’ve heard many occasions…. I believe it was in the Babine testimony — I certainly heard it in the Lakeland testimony — that it started to normalize, that some degree of fires is a normal state of affairs, and they kind of normalize it and take it for that. The question is: would those be determined to actually be a risk to health and safety, or are they just seen as part of doing business? You get the fire extinguishers and put them out, even though they might trigger something else, versus a fire that, at least if it’s significant enough, you shut the business down — that it does do that.

I just think that this is a matter…. I support the amendment that’s there, but I do worry — as we’ll talk about in the next section, which we’ll get to in a minute — about whether there’s some narrowing here that creates problems by putting that narrow of a focus on it. It is my sense that actually the jury had a broader interpretation than what exists in the section.

This may not be a question, but I hope that in the writing of regulation that supports the changes to 172, there may be room to expand on this through the regulatory process. So maybe I will make that the question. Does the board, through the regulatory process, have the ability to expand the section, based on the jury’s recommendation, or are they obliged to kind of stay within the parameters as identified in the legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: For the record, I will say that I disagree with the interpretation that it’s narrowing. In fact, we believe that this is a more prudent process in terms of ensuring that because…. I’m no expert. Tragically, the circumstances at Lakeland and Babine were not reported, and business interruption may have occurred. But there’s nothing to guarantee that a fire explosion would occur that would always result in business interruption. We don’t know that.
[ Page 10078 ]

My job is to provide the best possible way to protect worker health and safety in whatever those circumstances are. So to reassure the member, yes, the next step, once the bill…. Should it pass, the next step would be for WorkSafe to look at: what are the guidelines for employers in terms of the actual reporting?

The principle here, though, is that whether there’s a business interruption or not…. I’m not expert enough to know that that happens in every case, but I’m going to make sure that whether business stops or not, if there is something that places workers at risk, that is reported. Not only that, but because of the consistency of the use of the language “potential for causing serious injury” — we were very intentional about that — it triggers an investigation.

It means there has to be follow-up work. They don’t just call in and say, “We had an explosion this afternoon,” and then carry on. There would need to be an investigation. It would then need to be reported out to WorkSafe. We think that building it into the structure that exists around serious injury is very important.

Specifically to the point the member opposite makes, there will be specific guidelines developed in the same processed way that other work is undertaken by WorkSafe to develop the guidelines and the process for the reporting.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

S. Simpson: Section 7 deals with amendments to 174 around the investigation process.

[1825]

This is the section, along with the next section, where I will be proposing amendments to the two sections. I want to say at the outset that the minister and I had an opportunity to have a very good and a positive discussion, and a positive discussion with the minister’s staff, around these issues and around the concerns that I have around the issues. We don’t entirely agree here, but the discussion was worthwhile, and I’m hopeful it will prove fruitful over the next little while.

I’m counting on us getting through this section. We may end up at 175 tomorrow, when we finalize the bill tomorrow.

What section 174 does is lay out the investigation process that will move forward. The amendment lays out very specific things. It says:

“An investigation required under this Division must be carried out by persons knowledgeable about the type of work involved and, if they are reasonably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative.”

Then it goes on to say, very specifically, what will occur here, which is the amendment.

“(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: (a) viewing the scene of the incident with the persons carrying out the investigation; (b) providing advice to the persons carrying out the investigation respecting the methods used to carry out the investigation, the scope of the investigation, or any other aspect of the investigation; (c) other activities, as prescribed by the Board.”

There are issues here, issues that are raised, certainly have been raised to me by workers’ representatives, about whether this constitutes — I would say everybody that I’ve talked to says it does, as they believe, inadvertently — some narrowing of the role of workers’ representatives. I want to be clear here that nobody has suggested to me for a minute that the intention was to consciously do that, but the belief is that the result may well do that.

Also, the discussion is whether it becomes somewhat of a challenge, with the language in section 130, about the role that workers have in investigations. I’ve had this discussion with the minister prior to today, and I know the minister has been pretty clear with me about what her intent is.

I guess maybe, at this point, my question is: could the minister tell me what the rationale is for including a couple of very specific items that are mostly around consultation or observation, (a) and (b), largely, rather than something that is broader around the question of active involvement in the investigation?

[1830]

Hon. S. Bond: I do also want to, on the record, talk a bit about the process here. I do think that when we are introducing amendments…. It might sound like they’re insignificant at times. I’m sure that I’ve heard comments from other members across that “this isn’t enough” and a number of things.

These are important and significant amendments. I do appreciate the fact that the member opposite, the critic, and I have had what I believe is a very constructive discussion about this bill, because we want it to be the best it can possibly be. We do want it to meet the intent of what we believe the coroner’s jury recommendations were.

Yes, this has been a point where we have been unable to reach agreement in terms…. I think we agree on the intent. I think it’s the language that’s an issue.

I want to be clear at the beginning. This is not at all about limiting or narrowing the role of worker representatives in this process. In fact, it’s intended to do, probably, exactly the opposite.

When the coroner’s jury made the recommendations, the language I think they used was “full and meaningful participation,” and I support that. What I can’t support is language that says that a workers’ representative must be involved in every aspect of an investigation. I’ll give the member an example. Does every aspect include the interviewing of a witness? Because there are circumstances where there may well be interview witnesses.

I’m sure the member opposite, nor I…. Neither of us
[ Page 10079 ]
wants to undermine an investigation. So while I absolutely support the full and meaningful participation, I do believe that there are places, whether it’s an employer rep or a worker rep, where we need to be thoughtful about the role of either of those representatives.

What matters to me most, after thinking about what happened in the case of Babine and Lakeland, is the preservation and the importance of doing an investigation correctly. We’ve all seen the consequences when that doesn’t happen.

For me, it’s not about narrowing. It is absolutely not about full and meaningful participation. It is about ensuring that there is also appropriate participation. I believe that by including language like “every aspect,” we couldn’t possibly live up to that. Why would we include that language in law when in fact there will be times when it would potentially undermine an investigation?

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer.

When I got to looking at this, I thought about the minister’s comments about that and comments that were reflected by staff about whether you were creating challenges. I went looking for examples. Probably the one that jumped out at me the most was the Canadian Standards Association’s examples. They’re, in effect, the CSA national standard for occupational health and safety management. They have a section on worker participation, and this was adopted in 2014.

What it says is:

“Worker participation is an essential aspect of the occupational health and safety management system in the organization.

“The organization shall ensure active participation by workers and worker representatives, where they exist, at all levels of the organization, including those exposed to the hazards, by providing workers and worker representatives with the mechanisms, time and resources necessary to participate in, at a minimum, the processes of planning, implementation, evaluation, corrective action and preventative action; provide workers and the worker representatives with timely access to information relevant to the occupational health and safety management system and processes for ensuring participation in that OH-and-S system.

[1835]

“Encourage worker participation by providing mechanisms that support worker participation, such as identifying and removing barriers to participation; engage existing workplace health and safety committees or worker representatives; and ensure that workers and worker representatives are informed, consulted and given the opportunity to participate in all aspects of the OH-and-S.”

That talked about how workers should engage in the committee. But they’ve gone on now — and this is a draft piece of work, but it’s an important piece of work — and the CSA has drafted a national standard for incident investigation language and for worker participation in incident investigations.

What they say is workers or worker representatives or both represent an essential aspect of the incident investigation prevention program, and the organization shall provide workers or worker representatives the time and resources to participate effectively in the planning, incident response, investigation, analysis, recommendation, implementation, validation and continual improvement.

Encourage workers or worker representative participation by providing mechanisms that identify and remove barriers to participation; ensure workers or worker representatives or both are informed, consulted on and given the opportunity to participate in all aspects of the incident investigation and prevention program associated with their work or the workplace they represent.

My question is: was there a review of these standards? If not, what standards were reviewed to come up with the language for 174?

Hon. S. Bond: I guess the candid answer to who we consulted with is we’re responding to the direct request of the coroner’s jury. Their request to us was that there be full and meaningful participation of worker representatives. We agree with that.

[1840]

I can’t speak to the applicability of the Canadian Standards Association relating to health and safety and WorkSafe B.C. What I can say is that we believe that the language that we are providing here, while specific in some points, also includes the opportunity for WorkSafe to work with stakeholders, worker representatives and others to develop what, in its totality, this looks like for worker representatives.

I don’t think it is unreasonable for us to believe that by adding language that uses the phrase “every aspect of an investigation”, that is…. First of all, is it possible? I believe that there are places in an investigation where it is potential that neither employer reps nor worker reps would be involved.

It is not meant to demean or diminish the role for worker representatives. We want it to be full and meaningful. But we do believe that it is reasonable to allow WorkSafe — and if the bill does pass, I will be providing direction to WorkSafe about the development of 174(1.1)(c): “other activities, as prescribed by the Board.”

This list is not finite. There will be other areas. I’m also a believer that lists in legislation that span pages are not helpful. There is a way for us to broaden the scope, and that will be a direction that I provide to WorkSafe, but I do believe that the use of “every aspect….” I am not sure that that is actually deliverable, and that’s why I don’t support including that language.

S. Simpson: I’ll move the amendment in a bit. We’re debating the amendment that we’ve both seen, but we’ll get there in a minute.

I go back again to the CSA standard, and I am assuming they’ve done a lot of work on this. It’s an organization that has an excellent reputation in terms of the work that they do.

The clause that jumps out at me around incident investigation language is: “To provide workers or worker
[ Page 10080 ]
representatives the time and the resources to participate effectively in the planning, incident response, investigation, analysis, recommendation, implementation, validation and continual improvement of the workplace.” That’s the one that jumps out at me as kind of being right there.

The minister talks about lists, and I’m the first one to agree. I cringe at lists, because when you put lists in, you inevitably leave something out, or you do things that might prove contradictory sometimes.

That’s why my inclination is to go with something that provides a broad direction to WorkSafe, because at the end of the day, they will use their regulatory process, I’m assuming, under (c) in this bill to, in fact, write that regulation that talks about the parameters of involvement. Because it’s a regulatory process and it’s directed under that process, there will be significant opportunity for engagement from everybody who wants to be part of that discussion.

I think that’s a good thing, and I think that’s a pretty good place to do this work. I think it’s probably a better place to do the work than in the legislation itself. That’s why it’s my belief that the legislation should simply direct the breadth of that.

The question I guess I want, to the minister, is…. The minister made reference, in her last response, to writing to WorkSafe and providing them her thoughts and direction around how to proceed with 174 and what she means by that when she looks at clause (c). Could the minister talk a little bit more about what she envisions being the substance of that letter that she will send to WorkSafe to provide them guidance or direction around what should happen with 174?

[1845]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to reflect on why the two specific items are highlighted in the amendment, and then we’ve included the phrase that talks about….

Let me just read it for the people who are listening and don’t have the copy: “For the purposes of subsection (1), the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative includes, but is not limited to….”

Yes, there are two very specific items noted here, and it came directly as a result of the presiding coroner’s comments. The reason that those are highlighted is to reflect what happened. This came about as a result of the Lakeland inquest, and the presiding coroner’s comment was: “The inquest heard that the access to the Lakeland mill site by the employer’s representative and a worker representative was denied or limited, hampering the employer’s ability to comply with section 175 of the Workers Compensation Act.”

The reason I chose to include, very specifically, “viewing the scene,” “providing advice” and “other activities” was to respond directly to the presiding coroner’s comments.

In terms of the letter, I have given a great deal of thought to, in direction to WorkSafe, because I do understand how important this is. It is not about limiting scope. It’s about finding a way to provide full and meaningful representation. My intent would be to direct WorkSafe to begin, once — obviously, hopefully — this moves forward, a section 7 consultation process, and that actually leads to a public hearing, with a view to amending the occupational health and safety regulation.

What I would expect is that consultation with the employer and worker communities on what other activities should be prescribed by the board. What I want to do is direct WorkSafe to bring life to sub (c) here in consultation, resulting in a public hearing so that worker reps, employers and others can actually come through that process and have that list that we’ve talked about be developed.

It would not narrow. It would, in fact, increase that scope. What I am prepared to say is that in conducting these consultations and considering any potential activities, the board should consider every aspect of the investigation process so, at least, there will be a thorough discussion, a public process, that would look at what exactly and where exactly there would be that important full and meaningful participation.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister’s comments about what her expectations are going to be about how WorkSafe will proceed with preparation of a new regulation.

I would note that the minister talked about the coroner’s comments under recommendation 9. To be clear, the recommendation was to clarify the meaning of the term “participation” in section 174 of the Workers Compensation Act to ensure full and meaningful participation in the investigative process by both the employer and the worker’s representative.

Of course, the challenge is whether, when you look at the recommendation, or when you look at the section, it talks about “viewing of the scene,” “providing advice to the persons carrying out the investigation….” The pieces that are specifically identified here, the two clauses that are identified, certainly are ones more of observing, of oversight, rather than being engaged, necessarily, in the investigation and the recommendations, writing and those things.

I think that’s where we have a difference here, as we move forward.

At this point, I want to move the following amendment. The amendment is to replace section 7(1.1) with the following. It would be to exclude section (1.1), as written here, and replace it with this:

[For the purposes of subsection (1) the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative shall be included in every aspect of the investigation.]

I will move that amendment.
[ Page 10081 ]

[1850]

I can provide a copy. She has a copy, but I have tweaked it a little bit since before, and I will make that change here so that the minister knows exactly what I’ve done.

On the amendment.

S. Simpson: On the amendment, what I’ve decided to do…. I’ve been compelled, actually, by reading the CSA standard, to shift the amendment a little bit. I had initially thought about putting in the active involvement and leaving the clauses in that the minister references, but I think, at this point, I want to just close the amendment with, in fact, the language that is there, which just simply says that a worker representative shall be included in every aspect of the investigation.

I believe that leaves the parameters open. I believe it opens the door for exactly what the minister says that she wants to accomplish, which is to engage a full and active discussion of what that investigative process should be and what in fact every aspect of the investigation should include. I think that the minister’s suggestion that a public hearing and a full, open and transparent regulatory process by WorkSafe is a good way to go to get to these solutions, and I’m supportive of that.

I just believe that the important thing here is that there has to be a clear message. I’m confident the minister is going to deliver that message in the letter that she will send to WorkSafe, but I think it’s more important that it be delivered in the legislation. I think it’s more important that it be in the law.

While this minister, I certainly believe, has the desire to do that and believes that, I am of the view that we could have a new minister next month — it’s not, hopefully, going to happen, but we could — and that new minister could take an entirely different view. I would hope that wouldn’t occur, because I think this minister is very sincere on this topic. But I believe that that could happen.

So I think it has to be entrenched, and I’m absolutely certain that the language that’s there does not do that. I’m hopeful that we will get through this process. This amendment will end as it will, but this discussion will allow the participation, will encourage WorkSafe and allow a discussion to happen in the regulatory process that will in fact ensure that we get the kind of language here around the role of workers that we’re all, I hope, looking for and that, unfortunately, I don’t think section 174, as it’s currently written, takes us to. I think it is a flaw. I don’t think it was intended, but I think it is flawed.

Hon. S. Bond: I know that we’ve had a lot of really productive discussion, and I had honestly hoped that we would find a place of mutual ground here. I think that in many ways we are heatedly agreeing with one another but coming from a different perspective.

I am sad to say, in many ways — because I think we worked hard to find some resolution here — that I won’t be supporting this amendment. My rationale is relatively straightforward, I hope. The specific clauses that are noted in the legislation are meant to directly respond to the coroner’s comments about what happened in the case that was so tragic.

While I very much agree with the member opposite about full and meaningful inclusion — and that is important to me, and it is critical — I’m also not prepared to support an amendment that has the potential to lead to unintended consequences. I believe there needs to be full and meaningful roles for worker reps and employer reps, but my number one job, especially after what happened, is to preserve the integrity of investigations in British Columbia. If there is even a chance…. I see the member opposite shaking his head.

[1855]

For me, this is about ensuring that yes, worker reps have involvement, and it does need to be full and meaningful. I think that engaging WorkSafe in a public process that defines what that role looks like is a reasonable approach to take.

What I can’t say today is that there would not be potential consequences of engaging either worker or employer reps in some aspect of an investigation. Whether that’s the interview of a witness…. I don’t know what other circumstances, and that’s the problem. We can’t identify whether or not there may be unintended consequences.

I would like to come at this from a different perspective, with the same goal as the member opposite. That’s full and meaningful participation, directing WorkSafe to engage in a public process, with the intent…. I’ve already worked on the draft language that I’ve thought about. It would include the board looking at the objectives that the participation of worker and employer representatives must be full and meaningful.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 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 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:57 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