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)

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 31, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have the pleasure to introduce two guests to the House.

[1005]

Dr. Carson Pue is a close personal friend of mine and a renowned author, speaker and executive mentor. He’s also joined today by Dr. Paul Pearce. Dr. Pearce is the co-director for the Centre for Healthy Aging Transitions, which many of us are facing in our lives, and he’s doing a great job. It is part of the Carey Institute on the campus of UBC. I’d ask the members of the House to make both of them very welcome.

Tributes

KIDSPORT COMMUNITY AWARD
RECIPIENT GORDON HOGG

Hon. P. Fassbender: If I may, I’d also like to take a moment to honour a fellow colleague here in the House. On Tuesday evening, the Surrey–White Rock branch of KidSport held their fourth annual Nite of Champions event in South Surrey. It was a well-attended event, and they raised over $95,000 to support over 500 youth in the coming year.

A special highlight of that evening was the presentation of the Greg Long community champion award. This award is presented annually by KidSport Surrey–White Rock to an individual who demonstrates a tireless commitment to youth sport and who provides leadership in promoting the values of fair play, fun, teamwork and the development of athletic life skills for youth. I don’t think they recognize the art of alliteration, but this individual does that with great passion.

This year’s recipient epitomizes the very essence of the spirit of the award. He created sport programs for at-risk youth at the Willingdon youth detention centre as a way of connecting youth offenders. He also founded the late night basketball program called Night Hoops for at-risk youth, a program that is widely recognized and emulated.

This year’s recipient of the Greg Long community champion award is none other than the member for Surrey–White Rock and the Parliamentary Secretary for Youth Sport. I would ask all the members to join me in congratulating him on this prestigious award.

MARY FORSTBAUER

L. Popham: I rise today to share the sad news of the passing of Mary Forstbauer.

Mary was both a successful and incredibly hard-working farmer in Chilliwack and a titan for the organic movement in this province. Mary was a driving force behind the Forstbauer Family Natural Food Farm. Her produce was well known and much enjoyed by thousands of people. She fed many of us with nutritious food grown with love and respect for the earth and in keeping with biodynamic and organic principles.

Outside of her farm work, Mary made many important contributions to the organic farming industry in British Columbia. She was a founder and past president of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. and the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets. She worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen the integrity of the organic farming industry. Because of that, she received the 2015 Organics Achievement Award.

She passed away on October 30, surrounded by her family. She’s survived by her husband, Hans, her 12 children and her 36 grandchildren. Her family is creating a memorial fund in her name to advocate for the labelling of genetically modified organisms.

A celebration of life for Mary is planned for November 9 at 3 p.m. at the Chilliwack Alliance Church.

Please join me in acknowledging this special person, her hard work and a life well lived.

PAUL AND TERRY NICHOLS

Hon. C. Oakes: Just over seven months ago, a significant journey began on the front steps of this House. Paul and Terry Nichols created a Communities for Veterans Foundation, the ride across Canada. They rode on horses across Canada to raise awareness for the changing face of our veterans.

On November 9, they complete their journey in St. John’s, Newfoundland. They have had the opportunity to work with over 320 veterans with their horses. They’ve connected with tens of thousands of civilians and serving members of the military along the way. Zoe, their 19-year-old horse who was a significant part of Paul’s transition back into the community, has made the journey with him — over 5,000 kilometres. Zoe has been able to participate.

It’s just an amazing story. They’re true Canadian heroes, and I would ask the House to please congratulate them on this very significant journey.

[1010]

Introductions by Members

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise and recognize a constituent of mine that’s on the premises — Dr. Charles Webb,
[ Page 10084 ] the president of Doctors of B.C., who is here for immunization day at the Legislature.

I understand that Dr. Webb had the option, as a young man, of choosing whether to go to law school or medical school. Four weeks before going to law school, he decided to go to medical school — a great advantage for the province of British Columbia, a loss for the Law Society of British Columbia, but I think we’re in net benefit.

Dr. Webb does a wonderful job for the province. I want to recognize him and his wonderful family for all their work in our constituency and for the province.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to join my colleague in welcoming Dr. Charles Webb for immunization day. Earlier today many of us, including our Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors and, also, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, had our flu vaccines.

Also with us in the precinct to do that this morning was Dr. Daniele Behn Smith, who is our aboriginal health adviser — really appreciate having her on board, on our team — and, of course, Dr. Perry Kendall, our provincial health officer, and David Pavan, a past president of the B.C. Pharmacy Association.

I just want to remind all members to ensure that their constituents know the importance of getting the flu vaccine.

R. Fleming: Not too long ago, the department of history at the University of Victoria celebrating its 50th anniversary. I’m delighted today that in the gallery is an individual who, for some of those decades, ruled over, administered that department, through many, many successes, with a velvet fist, I think, keeping those absent-minded professors on track and winning academic awards.

My constituent Karen McIvor, who was part of that faculty, is here today with her grandson, Jade Robichaud, and I would ask the House to make them feel most welcome here.

B. Routley: One of the things that we do share in this Legislature is the sacrifice of time away from the special people that we love. This Saturday my special love, my wife Charmaine, and I will celebrate being married for 45 years. I’m sure even the opposition will agree there should be a special award to my wife for that.

I do want to say, wow, what a wonderful, life-changing experience we’ve had. She was only 18 and I was 21 when we married. We’ve had the joy of a son and then a daughter and now five beautiful grandchildren and two golden retrievers.

We do try to pick each other up when we’re down, and we love to jump for joy together at the special times. After 45 years, we even just enjoy spending time in the same room together. I’m sure a lot of you know what that’s like. It’s wonderful.

So, Charmaine, you’re very special to me. I look forward to seeing you soon, honey, and I love you.

Please join me in wishing her a happy anniversary.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RECREATIONAL FISHING
IN NORTHERN B.C.

J. Rice: Whiz, bloop! That’s the sound of my favourite fishing lure, the Buzz Bomb, hitting the surface. The Buzz Bomb is an all around four-to-six ounce weighted lure with a treble hook. Its diamond shape comes in various bright colours and can be used for casting, trolling or jigging.

The contents of my tackle box is a tangled mess of monofilament, a leaky bottle of fish scent and a rainbow of various jig spoons purchased in an impulsive moment. But my old standby is a chartreuse yellow Buzz Bomb with orange ends. I also have a white one, a minty green one and steel blue one, but my chartreuse one never fails me, except for this year.

I reluctantly tell you that I was essentially skunked. I did catch one fish, a copper rockfish, on the old chartreuse, except I’m embarrassed to say that even though I thoroughly bonked the fish on the head to quickly end any suffering and ensure a tasty meal for supper, it spontaneously sprang to life and a nervous flickering and hopped out of my boat.

[1015]

Other than that fish, that was it, and I am now seeing the bottom of my deep freeze for the first time in a long while. Mind you, my fishing days were limited, so justifiably, my catch-per-effort ratio was low and by no means a reflection on my true fish-catching abilities.

Casting a line gives me an artificial sense of purpose — a need of catching a fish — when, in fact, breathing salty air, bobbing around in a boat, hanging my head over the gunwales and imagining what lies beneath is as valuable as catching a fish. It’s an experience I recommend to anyone. I want everyone in this House to know that the fishing is actually indeed lofty in the north. I saw with my own eyes the catches of the summer as I walked the docks empty-handed.

There is a plethora of successful fishing guides and fishing lodges worthy of your visit, and I assure you that the sound you will hear will be more like the whiz! of you hooking that big one.

FOREVER YOUNG FITNESS GROUP
FOR SENIORS IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: Lucille Ball once said: “The secret to staying young is to live honestly, eat slowly and lie about your age.” But in Richmond, one group is proving that the
[ Page 10085 ]
best way to stay forever young is through exercise with friends. The Forever Young Club was started seven years ago by Richmond residents and running enthusiasts John Young, his wife, Joan, and their friend, Gwen MacFarlan, now an octogenarian who also happens to be a prolific marathon runner and record-holder.

What began as a trio of runners has now evolved into a membership of about 150 people. Participants meet every Monday and Wednesday for a run-walk session followed by a visit to a local coffee shop.

Last month the group sponsored a one-of-a-kind race for seniors at Garry Point Park in my riding in Richmond. The Forever Young 8K celebrated active seniors in our community and set an example that will encourage all of those aged 55-plus to adopt a healthy lifestyle. They’ve been a great role model to me as I look for new ways to keep my heart healthy after my own medical reality check earlier this year. Kudos to John and Joan Young, Gwen MacFarlan and their group. They’re making life for seniors in Richmond a little more fun and a lot more healthful.

Mark your calendars, Members, for next year. The Forever Young 8K is on Sunday, September 11, 2016, at Garry Point Park in Steveston.

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS

M. Elmore: There are an estimated 230 million migrant workers now circulating around the world, and B.C., with over 70,000 temporary foreign workers in our communities, is second only to Ontario. Traditionally a country of permanent immigration, we are now a country and province where migrant workers are brought in on a temporary basis.

Many of them live and work in precarious conditions in our province. A number of factors open the door to the abuse of their rights. To address them, the Coalition for Migrant Workers Rights Canada, CMWRC, was formed last month. The CMWRC is a coalition of migrant worker community groups, academics, churches, unions and advocates from other sectors. It’s a unified voice of migrant workers in Canada, and its aim is to rebuild the immigration system to ensure basic dignity and fairness for everyone.

Among its first actions is to call for the end of the discriminatory practice of tying migrant workers to specific employers. They are the only workers in Canada whose jobs are tied to one specific employer, one specific address. They’re not free to circulate in the labour market, and their temporary immigration status makes them disposable. Addressing labour demands through a disposable work force creates a two-tier society and a secondary labour market, with the effect of driving down wages because these workers are compelled, for fear of deportation, to accept pay and conditions that citizens can refuse.

They also call for the transition towards a single-tier immigration system based on permanency and family reunification. These workers are vulnerable to exploitation because of the precariousness of their status, and these practices lower standards for everyone in the labour market.

The distortion of B.C.’s labour market also creates a secondary tier of TFWs with no labour mobility. These workers remain in the shadows of our society. In addition, temporary foreign workers are exposed to predatory practices and are paying thousands of dollars in illegal recruitment fees to work in minimum-wage jobs in B.C.

B.C. needs to put an end to these violations. We need to ensure there’s a registration regime for employee recruiters, ensure proactive enforcement of employment labour standards and ensure all workers in B.C. have access to justice and are free from exploitation.

[1020]

COMMEMORATION OF
WORLD WAR I VETERANS IN HEDLEY

L. Larson: On August 22, 1915, 17 men from the community of Hedley went to Penticton to enlist for the First World War. Exactly 100 years later, on August 22, 2015, the descendants of those 17 gathered at the memorial in Hedley to honour them, as well as 50 other men from Hedley who served in the First World War.

This event happened because Andy English, while participating in the usual Remembrance Day services in Hedley two years ago, noticed that the names on the cenotaph were so faded and worn, they were almost impossible to read. It was his curiosity about those names that led him to the research that discovered the photo of 17 men who had all enlisted on the same day.

With the help of fellow researcher Jennifer Douglas, they began to put the histories of each of those men together. They also discovered that the 17 were told they’d have to supply their own guns. So they had raised their own money from the community, only to discover later that the Canadian government would be supplying them with weapons. The money raised, though, was later used to build the cenotaph honouring all the First World War veterans from Hedley.

Most of the families that gathered at the cenotaph knew very little about their ancestors until Andy and Jennifer contacted them and shared their research with them. Funds are being raised to refurbish the old cenotaph, and Andy and Jennifer continue to research all of the Hedley men who participated in the Great War. They hope to publish a book on this unique piece of Hedley history so that all families will have a permanent record to share with the next generation.

A huge thank-you to Andy and Jennifer and the people of Hedley for saving this unique piece of history for all of us.
[ Page 10086 ]

ARENA IN HAZELTON

D. Donaldson: If you’ve had the joy of playing hockey on an outdoor rink in the middle of a northern winter, perhaps under the stars, then you know it is an iconic Canadian experience. Despite the fond memories, it isn’t the most practical way to provide season-long recreational opportunities in small-town B.C. — especially when it rains, with our now unpredictable winters.

But necessity is the mother of invention, and in the Hazeltons, the Ken Trombley Memorial Arena has been reinvented as an outdoor facility so that kids get a chance to join clubs and teams and skate locally this winter. The 44-year-old, volunteer-built arena was condemned by an engineer last spring, a major blow to the community. Fundraising for the new recreation centre has been phenomenal, with $4 million already raised by the communities in the Hazeltons.

Faced with potentially losing a season and all the healthy-living opportunities skating and gathering at the rink brings, the Ice Arena Association took the big step of using operating-budget funds to remove the roof of the arena in August at a cost of more than $200,000. The contract was awarded locally, the work proceeded on schedule, and the concrete surface, the boards, the ice plant and the existing change rooms were all saved. It was quite a job.

People are pulling together fundraising for operating money. The Gitksan Government Commission has kicked in. Then an engaged group of Hazelton Secondary students donated $1,500 from their bottle drives, car washes and barbecues.

Just this week, locals learned the rink has made it to the finals of the Aviva Community Fund, thanks to an amazing on-line voting campaign organized locally. They will know December 2 in this Canada-wide competition whether they win $100,000 towards the coming season so that the innovation is there for this year and perhaps next.

But make no mistake. This is a very short-term solution. Residents are not taking their eye off the ball of a new facility being in place by 2017. They look forward to hearing very soon on a matching financial commitment that it will take, from the provincial and federal governments.

FAMILY PHYSICIANS

Moira Stilwell: November 9 to 14 is Family Doctor Week in Canada. This is a great opportunity for Canadians, governments and health care organizations to recognize the important role family physicians play in improving the health and well-being of their patients.

Whether it’s at a clinic, a hospital or a university, family doctors provide a continuity of care, partnering with their patients to develop and maintain a complete health history, guide all their treatments and cultivate a lifestyle that promotes long-term health and wellness.

Here in B.C. we have close to 6,000 family doctors, many of whom were trained at the UBC family practice residency program. These doctors are the cornerstone of primary care in B.C. Unlike other physicians who specialize in treating a particular disease or organ, family doctors are uniquely trained to care for the entire body, cradle to grave. Family doctors work hard to develop strong relationships with their patients, which are crucial to building trust so that patients may feel comfortable bringing any health concern to their physician.

[1025]

These patients also help physicians maintain complete history so they are better able to understand the patient’s health and can tailor care plans to an individual’s needs or provide counselling on lifestyle changes that can mitigate symptoms and prevent illness before it develops.

At a time when our population is aging and prevention and lifestyle are becoming increasingly significant to our well-being, family doctors are helping British Columbians to take a proactive approach to their health. They provide the human side of medicine.

I ask the House to please join me in thanking them for everything they do to raise the quality of life and quality of care in British Columbia.

Oral Questions

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH
OVERPAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS
TO COMMERCIAL WINERIES

D. Eby: For years, the Premier and her government have been providing commercial wineries with a gift, courtesy of B.C. taxpayers. According to briefing materials prepared for the minister responsible for liquor policy, government overpaid commissions to large commercial wineries, costing taxpayers an amount in the “seven-figure range.”

It took government a week to do the math. We’re now told that they estimate the overpayment was $5.3 million.

A simple question: when will the minister get the money back?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, because it provides me the opportunity to clarify for the House that, in fact, the member is incorrect. This is a long-standing policy that we’ve had, dating back to the 1980s — a 7 percent commission that was based on retail prices from the 1980s until April 1 of this year.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: You can delete the briefing note, but you can’t delete history. The briefing note….

Interjections.
[ Page 10087 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

D. Eby: I understand why the minister would want to revise history on this one. Earlier, when she acknowledged there was an overpayment, I didn’t hear her say that she was even thinking about writing a letter to the wineries to get the overpayment back. I didn’t hear that she had an actual number on how much they overpaid the wineries.

This is a very troubling response today, because three of the recipients of this overpayment are the biggest political donors to the B.C. Liberal Party, to the Premier and to that minister — the Mark Anthony Group, Constellation Brands and Andrew Peller.

Why is the minister giving preferential treatment to donors to the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a policy that’s been consistent since the 1980s. I’d caution the member opposite. The members opposite had the same opportunity to change their policy. In fact, while the members opposite pretend otherwise, ministers responsible for this file used the exact same calculation…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. C. Oakes: …from Colin Gabelmann, the Attorney General in 1993 to 1995, Ujjal Dosanjh, the Attorney General from 1995 to 1997, to Ian Waddell, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, 1998 to 2000. It’s a consistent policy dating back to the 1980s. The members opposite used the exact same calculation.

We’re proud of the fact that we’re supporting a thriving, growing B.C. wine economy.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a further supplemental.

D. Eby: On October 15, the minister and the LDB issued separate statements to the media regarding the commercial winery overpayment. The LDB said the overpayment started in when? In 2008. They’re estimated at “$5.3 million.” The LDB statement affirmed the minister’s earlier statement: “It would cost government too much money to go to court to recover these overpayments.”

[1030]

Now $25,000 is how much Constellation Brands gave to the B.C. Liberals, $31,000 is how much Andrew Peller gave to the B.C. Liberals, $182,000 is how much the Mark Anthony Group gave the B.C. Liberals, and $5.3 million is how much this minister is telling us she wants to give to her political donors. Why is she doing this?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this is a policy consistent with the 1980s. There was an opportunity in 2008. Every time that we review policies, as we do with the liquor review policy, there’s the opportunity to look at the calculation. We chose, in 2008, as the briefing note noted, that there was the opportunity for us to look at the calculation. We decided to ensure that we continue our strong support of a growing, thriving wine economy and continue with the consistent policy that dated back to the 1980s.

S. Robinson: Well, it’s rather disappointing when this government refuses — refuses — to protect taxpayers and reclaim this money back. They don’t hesitate at all when there’s an overpayment of a welfare check or of any other entitlement where there’s an error. They claw it back as soon as they can.

Here we have a minister explain how she’s protecting taxpayers by not collecting a $5.3 million gift that she gave to the province’s largest commercial wineries. It’s rich, because it’s the second time this minister has had to stand in this House and explain to taxpayers why more than $5 million of their hard-earned money just goes up in smoke. After all, it was this minister who let the Auditor General for Local Government waste more than $5 million on a pair of audits.

My question to the minister is simple. When is the minister going to stop making excuses for how she lost millions of taxpayer dollars and start explaining how she’s going to recoup those tax dollars?

Hon. C. Oakes: I thank the member opposite for her question. But again, there wasn’t an overpayment. It was a consistent policy dating back to the 1980s. There was the opportunity to review the calculation. That’s what the briefing note talked about: “Do you want to look at what that calculation would look like?” We decided to remain with the consistent policy of supporting a 7 percent commission for shipping and handling that dated back to the 1980s. That includes the 1990s when the members opposite were in power.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Last March the minister defended the waste of over $5 million by arguing that the Auditor General for Local Government was saving local taxpayers money. Now she’s defending a decision to make a gift of over $5 million to the province’s biggest commercial wineries by saying: “It’s not worth our effort to collect it.” The minister has said that.

My question to the minister is: when will she please stop protecting taxpayers? Because with her track record, we just can’t afford it anymore.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we had the opportunity in 2008 to look at a calculation of 7 percent that we provide for shipping and handling to support our wine sector, a consistent policy dating back to the 1980s, a consistent policy
[ Page 10088 ]
back from the 1990s that the members opposite chose to use — the exact same calculation to provide support on shipping and handling.

I am extremely proud of the work that we are doing to support a thriving, growing wine economy. When we support a thriving wine economy…. We had a spectacular day in which both the members of the House talked about agriculture — the importance of agriculture to the economy of British Columbia. The wine economy creates more than 10,000 jobs for our agricultural sector, and we think that’s positive. We know that the wine economy also supports a thriving tourism economy, and again, we support tourism as well.

[1035]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON SAFE
TRANSPORTATION ON HIGHWAY 16

M. Karagianis: It’s very interesting. On the one hand, we have the government overpaying B.C. commercial wineries, and they can’t be bothered to get that money back — over $5 million. On the other hand, we have a government that refuses to make aboriginal women and girls safer along the Highway of Tears by providing a bus service there. There couldn’t be a sharper contrast.

To the Minister of Transportation: if your government can afford to give money away to commercial wineries, why can’t you afford to put a bus system in place on the Highway of Tears?

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, I have said many times that the tragedies that have taken place along Highway 16 weigh very heavily on the hearts of all members in this House. That is why, as a government, we have endeavoured for years now to work with First Nations and communities throughout the corridor to identify strategies and initiatives that will contribute to increase safety through that corridor.

I have to say that the member opposite needs to be challenged here on the consistent misrepresentation of the facts with respect to Highway 16. She and her colleagues have…. First, they said that there were no records relating to Highway 16. We know that not to be true. Almost 600 pages of records have been released in the last three years.

Then her message shifted to: “There have been no meetings between the ministry and folks along the corridor.” We know that not to be true either, as you can see in the records.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. T. Stone: Then her message shifted to: “There have been no meaningful discussions.” We know that not to be true, when you read these records. Then the message shifted to: “Well, there are no viable solutions being worked on and identified by the minister.” We know that not to be true as well.

The member opposite may wish to continue to engage in unnecessary rhetoric related to Highway 16. We’re going to continue the hard work, working with communities to identify solutions to make this corridor safer.

Madame Speaker: The member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Despite the fact that that minister’s office deleted e-mails around the Highway of Tears and perpetrated what has now become the “delete, delete, delete” scandal in this province, as we saw time after time this government deleting important information…. I don’t think he should stand up and be quite so smug about this story.

We know for a fact, because the government just released documents here several days ago, on Monday morning, publicly…. We can see that the transportation discussions along the connection between these communities have taken place — a revelation three days ago. I would hardly call that something the government should be bragging about.

Listen to this. Far from being impractical, as this minister has continued to tell us, the government’s own estimates show that it would cost approximately $1 million a year to operate a bus system along the highway. Compare that to — what? — $5 million given away to commercial wineries that is not being brought back for taxpayers.

My question is to the minister. If he wants to be so smug about this…. When are you going to put a bus along the transportation corridor on the Highway of Tears? Take the money back from commercial wineries, and put it where it should go — to protecting women and young girls along that route.

Hon. T. Stone: As I’ve said, the member opposite can continue to engage in unhelpful, inaccurate, frankly outrageous claims with respect to the hard work that has been taking place between ministry and government officials and First Nations and communities along the corridor. But we’re going to continue to do the hard work.

We’ve implemented a number of strategies to this point to make the corridor safer. I have mentioned those specifics on many occasions. We’re going to continue that work. There is a symposium that will be held in Smithers in a matter of days where representatives from all 23 First Nations will be, along with members of local governments and government.

[1040]

There is a commitment amongst everyone, including government, to continue to roll up our sleeves and identify further strategies that will make the corridor even safer.
[ Page 10089 ]

J. Rice: After three years, we have a symposium. Let’s remember, this was an urgent recommendation made by the Missing Women Commission — a recommendation that intended to prevent the abduction and murder of aboriginal women and girls. After speaking to bereaved family members and listening to community leaders, the commissioner urged the government to act immediately to improve public transportation on the Highway of Tears.

The B.C. Liberals could afford to give commercial wineries $5 million, no strings attached. Why do they plead poverty when it comes to saving the lives of aboriginal women and girls?

Hon. T. Stone: Folks throughout the corridor, whether they’re First Nations or community leaders or local government leaders, have acknowledged that there is more work to do. They have made that very clear. We have made that very clear. That is why we are continuing to do the hard work.

But there’s also an acknowledgment amongst folks along Highway 16 that there has been some progress to date. There is a B.C. Transit service — a $1.5 million investment per year — that connects a number of communities along Highway 16 between, for example, Smithers and Telkwa, the Hazeltons, both Smithers and Kispiox, Terrace and Kitimat, as well as Prince Rupert and Port Edward. There’s the Northern Health bus, a $2 million investment per year, which operates and provides a vital service along Highway 16.

We’ve seen a significant expansion of cellular service. We’ve invested in driver education and training with First Nations. We are doing the work to make this corridor safer, and that work will continue in the months ahead.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: After three years we have a symposium, and that’s considered hard work? In 2006, community leaders, First Nations and the families of those murdered along the Highway of Tears called for enhanced public transportation along Highway 16. This call was echoed by the murdered and missing women inquiry. After nearly a decade of waiting for real action, the only thing the Minister of Transportation is offering is more meetings.

We know community leaders want public transportation. We know it’s affordable, and we know it’s practical. We know it will save lives. So why isn’t it being done?

Hon. T. Stone: The member opposite may choose to talk down to this concept of a symposium. The First Nations community leaders, those who will be participating, have said to us that they actually welcome the opportunity. This is an opportunity that’s being provided in partnership between the ministry and the First Nations Health Authority. There will be two representatives of each of the 23 First Nations there. There will be local government leaders and other stakeholders from throughout the corridor. They will be focused on specific, tangible, practical solutions, leveraging best practices which are being employed in various communities along the corridor.

Instead of calling into question the worthiness of this exercise, the member should support it and should wish all of the participants well as we continue to work together to identify further solutions that will make the corridor safer.

APPOINTMENTS BY BOARD RESOURCING
OFFICE AND GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING

M. Elmore: While the Information and Privacy Commissioner exposed how three ministerial offices avoided producing records, it appears that almost every ministerial office has been doing the same thing. We were curious about communications between the Minister of Advanced Education and his deputy minister responsible for the board resourcing office over appointments to various high-profile boards and commissions. We wanted to know who he considered for which posts and what qualifications he sought.

[1045]

But when we FOI’d e-mails and correspondence exchanged between the minister and his deputy over a nine-month period, guess what we got back. No records. Big surprise. Can the minister explain exactly how he communicates his directions to the deputy minister responsible for the board resourcing office?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m sure the members opposite will be most relieved and satisfied and pleased to hear that board resourcing is done on its merits, without political interference. One can only wonder at the fire and brimstone that would arise from the opposite ranks if, God forbid, I had communicated with the deputy minister responsible. Then I would be accused of political interference. Instead, we have high-quality, capable boards that are building the economy of this province.

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

M. Elmore: Well, who do we see appointed to these positions? None other than former B.C. Liberal MLAs and candidates — including Patty Sahota, Brenda Locke, Sheila Orr, Donny van Dyk and Herb Pond — to high-profile jobs. It certainly refutes the claim by the minister.

Yet another example of a government determined to keep everything secret. We FOI’d the minister’s calendar over the same period. Guess what. He met with the board resourcing office for exactly an hour and a half over nine months. So they didn’t share a lot of information in person. Over the same nine months, the office recruited,
[ Page 10090 ]
vetted and appointed more than 200 people to a series of high-profile jobs.

My question to the minister is: if he wasn’t providing direction to the board resourcing office, who was?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, this is a dark day in British Columbia when the former government, which had a ministry for cooperatives and volunteers, when these members take…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: …this opportunity…. They come into this public space where we’re attempting to do our best to govern the province, and they rubbish volunteers. They dump on people who give their time to make this a better place. Let’s go through a few examples of the people who volunteer to try and make this a better place: Gwen O’Mahony, Laurie Page, Dan Miller. Perhaps they’ve forgotten that being a volunteer and having the best interests of the province in hand is our goal.

REFIT AND SALE OF
Queen of Chilliwack

C. Trevena: In 2013, the Queen of Chilliwack was pulled off the Discovery circle route in favour of the MV Nimpkish. This September 2015 it was sold for an undisclosed price. But the Queen of Chilliwack had recently been refitted at the cost of $15 million, if you listen to B.C. Ferries, or $28 million, if you listen to the excited new owners in Fiji, who are thrilled to have a refitted state-of-the-art ferry.

I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation how much the Queen of Chilliwack was sold for.

Hon. T. Stone: Let me say this. My understanding is that B.C. Ferries is now in the process of procuring two other vessels. They are going to be selling the Queen of Nanaimo and the Queen of Burnaby. So as not to compromise that procurement process, the details related to the Queen of Chilliwack will not be released at this time.

However, I have asked for and received assurances from B.C. Ferries…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: …that once the procurement is concluded with respect to the replacement of these additional two vessels, all of the details pertaining to the procurement will be made available.

[1050]

Let us also remind the member opposite that the decisions that were made related to the Queen of Chilliwack and route 40 are critical. They were critically important to assist in getting B.C. Ferries to a place of sustainability and affordability today. We see volume is up almost 5 percent year to date. We see fares tied to inflation four years ahead of schedule, and government investment continues to be at record levels.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: If the minister is so confident that this has helped B.C. Ferries, he should have no hesitation in reassuring the public that they’ve got their money’s worth and that $28 million has come back to the public purse.

The new owners of the Queen of Chilliwack also said in September that the sale had been two years in the making. But the announcement that the Chilliwack would be taken off the Discovery coast circle route was not made until November 2013, after negotiations with the buyers were clearly already underway. There was no meaningful consultation with tourism providers along the route, no consultation with local governments, with communities. And worse, this government had already had the boat for sale before they told British Columbians that they were eliminating the route.

To the Minister of Transportation, can he at least, surely, reassure the B.C. public that the $28 million invested in this vessel’s refit was recouped?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, we heard some lecturing earlier in question period today about protecting taxpayers. The tough decisions that B.C. Ferries has made and that the government has made to get B.C. Ferries to a place of sustainability and affordability is in part about protecting taxpayers.

I am also not….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: I am certainly not going to take any advice and be lectured to on ferry procurement from members opposite. When they were in government, all they were able to show for investment at B.C. Ferries was a fast ferry program that they spent half a billion dollars building for ferries that were never used.

LICENCE FOR RURAL AGENCY
LIQUOR STORE ON SALTSPRING ISLAND

G. Holman: A small general store in Fulford Harbour on Saltspring has been trying for months to acquire a
[ Page 10091 ]
rural liquor licence. The licence for the nearby neighbourhood pub has been sold off. In fact, the neighbourhood pub has been torn down. There would appear to be no policy impediment to issuing a new rural store licence.

The store and my office have been attempting to get some action on this request or application for over a year, with no success. Will the minister instruct her staff to immediately resolve this situation?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We have responded to your request with a letter. We continue to work closely when we look at our rural agency stores. We have policies that are put in place to protect the interests of public safety and interests like that. We would be happy to sit down and have a conversation with you, and we look forward to working closely with you.

INCLUSION OF HONEY IN
FARMERS MARKET COUPON PROGRAM

L. Popham: The Minister of Agriculture claims to support agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture claims he knows the importance of the B.C. honey producers in this province. Can the minister tell me why the B.C. farmers market coupon program specifically excludes honey?

[1055]

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, thank you very much for the question. It must be Thursday at two minutes to the end of QP. We finally get an agricultural question this week. Thank you very much for that.

And what a great week it’s been. We had a great reception by farmers and ranchers and producers on Ag Day this week, right here in the Legislature and across B.C. They were here because we’re celebrating a milestone in B.C. agriculture — $12.3 billion in agrifood sales right here in British Columbia and almost $3 billion in exports throughout the world. Not only that, we continue to have a strong economy in British Columbia thanks to the policies of this side of the government. I look forward to continuing to grow agriculture and aquaculture throughout British Columbia for years to come.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, An Audit of the Education of Aboriginal Students in the B.C. Public School System; and from the Office of the Merit Commissioner, Merit Performance Audit 2014-15: Upholding Fair Hiring in the B.C. Public Service.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued committee stage debate on Bill 35.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On section 7 (continued).

Amendment negatived.

S. Simpson: I understand that we’ve had a difference on this amendment, and the amendment has failed. However, I do want to just take a moment to be very clear about the conversation, the exchange, with the minister that was had around the amendment as it relates to section 174.

What I heard the minister clearly lay out was her commitment that the changes that have been put forward in Bill 35 are intended in no way to reduce the participation of committees or workers. That is not the intention. In fact, she’s looking for this section to enhance the role of workers and committees in the investigatory process.

I heard the minister say her concern with the amendment was that it may have been too broad but that she is still very committed to, in fact, enhancing the role of joint occupational health and safety committees and their members in this process.

I heard the minister, I believe, talking about the importance that she puts on this, the emphasis she puts on this, and that she will be writing to the board in relation to this. She will be providing direction to the board to engage the regulatory process, including a public hearing, under the conditions of the act, and she will be looking for that process to, in fact, be driven by the intent to improve the situation and participation at the committee level for workers in the investigatory process.

To the minister. Can the minister confirm that my interpretation of what her intention is, is correct, or correct me if it’s not, and will she commit that the letter that she will be writing to the board in regard to this matter will be made public at the time she provides it to the board?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member opposite’s summary of our discussion yesterday, and I think it’s accurate.
[ Page 10092 ]

I do, though, want to reiterate why these changes are being made and that the attempt to react to, in the legislation specifically, is directly to the recommendations of the coroner’s jury. The language that the coroner’s jury brought down, of course, is what has driven our work here. The issue for the coroner’s jury was that there must be full and meaningful participation. That’s exactly what we hope and anticipate will happen as a result of the legislation.

[1105]

I think it is important to note that while there are two specific subsections, those relate directly to the concerns expressed by the jury. There is a section (c) which notes “other activities, as prescribed by the Board.”

This is absolutely not about narrowing the scope. I know the member was very concerned about that yesterday. I do want to make it clear on the record that that is not at all the intention. It is to meet the requirements that were recommended by the coroner’s jury to bring full and meaningful participation.

I will be sending a letter. I do have the purview in some areas to provide direction to the board — obviously not in terms of decision-making around claims, things like that. It’s an independent organization. I will be providing direction, as the member opposite suggests, to the board that immediately upon the coming into force of section 7, they begin a consultation process that will lead to a public hearing. The end result of that would be an amendment to the occupational health and safety regulation.

I will be very clear that consultation with the board must include employer and worker communities on what other activities should be prescribed by the board and that the overall framework for that discussion should be the words that the coroner’s jury included, which are “full and meaningful participation.”

I’ve made that commitment to the member. I will be happy to share the letter. I think that while we had a great deal of agreement, as the member points out, it was the use of a particular phrase that was a concern to me. However, I think we are working toward the same end with the concerns that the member has expressed and my view of where this needs to go.

Section 7 approved.

S. Simpson: I want to propose a further amendment to Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, to amend as follows:

[Section 7.1, by adding the following section:

7.1 Section 175 (2) is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “, and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following paragraph:

(d) as soon as practicable after the report is completed, either

(i) provided to the joint committee or worker health and safety representative, as applicable, or

(ii) if there is no joint committee or worker health and safety representative, posted at the workplace.]

I believe that’s been made available to the table and to the minister.

On the amendment.

S. Simpson: There were two critical factors in the discussion of this bill with the minister. One was the section that we’ve just addressed and dealt with. The second was this issue.

We know, when we get to section 176 here, which is the complete report that will be provided in any investigation, that those reports are made available to the committee as they’re made available to the board. That process is certainly fairly complete.

What we didn’t have in this legislation, in 135, was any direction that the preliminary report be made available. The requirements under the act are that an employer, when there is a significant incident or an accident, must complete a preliminary report within 48 hours. That report can be provided to the board upon their request, but where that report went other than that was somewhat unclear.

This will require that the joint occupational health and safety committee be provided that report in a fairly expeditious way. That creates, I believe, an opportunity for that committee and for other workers in the workplace to be able to pretty quickly ascertain whether, in their view, the preliminary report — which is preliminary in nature and certainly doesn’t dig as deeply as the complete report will — fairly reflects what the workers and the people in the industry and the shop believe has occurred — and at least to determine if the parameters of the report fairly reflect what has occurred.

[1110]

If the report has indications that the committee believes need further work, the committee has the ability, obviously, to respond to the employer in that way or to respond to the board as well. So the committee has a lot of tools in place.

The important thing. It goes back and reflects on the discussion we’ve had in previous sections about the real intent of much of Bill 35, which is: enhancing the role of joint occupational health and safety committees; giving them more tools; giving them more ability to be successful at their job as kind of the front-line entity, organization, to help make workplaces as safe as they can make them. And that’s part of their role.

When you have incidences…. In industrial shops and other shops, there will be incidents that will require these preliminary reports. I think what we do here, with this amendment, is ensure that the people who have a responsibility under the act, as members of the committee, have as much information as they can possibly have to understand what occurred and to be able to express a view on that, if they have a view, or to be able to, maybe, provide some assistance or some advice that will help with the framing of the overall report — the larger report, which will come in the next 30 days following that.

I do believe that if we want to enhance the role, then it becomes very important that in doing that, we have the
[ Page 10093 ]
ability to ensure that this committee has as many tools and resources as possible. One of those is the preliminary report. This amendment will ensure that report is there.

The other thing. We know that there are certainly workplaces of under 20 persons where there’s not going to necessarily be a committee and other workplaces where, if this occurs and if the employer has an obligation to produce a preliminary report after an incident, that report will get posted so that any worker in that workplace has the opportunity to peruse that report and to determine for themselves whether they believe it fairly reflects what might have occurred in any situation.

When we go back and we look at the Babines and the Lakelands, I think one of the things we know, and I know it’s the work the minister has done with Bill 9 and with this bill…. We know that critical aspects of the procedure have not met the test, and one of them has been the role of these committees. This, I think, helps the committee to do its work.

I think it provides an additional obligation to the employer that’s a pretty achievable one but opens up other means of communications to make sure that we can move ahead and, hopefully, catch some challenges or difficult situations in the workplace very early and ensure that everybody is being as transparent and accountable as they need to be when they’re reporting out circumstances or situations that would have led to an incident report and a preliminary report here.

I am hopeful. I’ve had the discussion with the minister, and I know the minister is very sympathetic to this issue. I’m very hopeful that we’ll have some success with this amendment.

The Chair: Just to clarify in the last section. Section 7 was carried by the committee.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member’s comments.

One of the things that I think is important about issues like this is that we find ways to work together to improve worker safety in British Columbia. I have believed from the beginning of, certainly, my tenure in this ministry that this is one of those issues that should not be partisan in nature. People lost their lives. It was a horrible tragedy, and communities and families’ lives are altered forever.

From the beginning of the member’s comments when he spoke at second reading, I considered his request on the two issues. Obviously, while we couldn’t agree to the language for the first amendment that he made, I think there is a process that will get to the outcome that he is looking for.

[1115]

I have no opposition to this amendment. I think that in thinking through the wisdom of making sure that the sooner information is available to workers and employers, the better off we are. It is a chance for us, potentially, to take corrective action, if that’s possible. We have to remember that it is a preliminary report, so one of the things we don’t want to do is have people rushing off on an assumption. But I think that it is wise to permit the sharing of that information as soon as possible.

The practice will continue to be the same in that the reports will be available by request for WorkSafe, but in this case, the amendment that the member opposite has recommended would mean that there would be a requirement to disclose the preliminary report to make sure that workers are informed about important safety issues and concerns that may be identified even as early as through the preliminary report.

I appreciate the comments of the member opposite, and I support the amendment that he has tabled.

Amendment approved.

Section 7.1 approved.

On section 8.

S. Simpson: In this section, essentially, the language here is very much like the language of the amendment that we just passed, only in this case, it references the final report and the writing of that report.

With this final report, could the minister explain — and this is more for the record than anything else — when the final report is done, what is the process? How does it go? It goes to the board. It goes to the committee. Where does it go, and how does it get addressed?

We know that this is not a report…. Whereas the preliminary report is one where the board has discretion as to whether it wants to receive it or not. I assume that probably would be determined, to some degree, by the significance of the incident, the accident, whatever, and particularly whether there were any injuries related to that. But when the final report is done, could the minister maybe explain how that report then makes it through the different processes: who gets it, what happens to it and what happens next, after that report is completed?

[1120]

Hon. S. Bond: We did deal with the issue of the preliminary report. It probably is helpful to just articulate how we, first of all, get to a final report and then what happens with it. An employer, after an incident, must, obviously, immediately complete a preliminary investigation. They do that under section 175, which we just discussed. Then, as soon as possible, they have to do a full investigation. As you can imagine, depending upon the complexity, it can take a bit longer. First the preliminary, and then they move on to a full investigation.

That investigation must look at determining what “the cause or causes of the incident investigated under section 175” are, and immediately “identify any unsafe conditions, acts or procedures” that might have contributed to
[ Page 10094 ]
the accident. There is also a requirement to take action as they are developing the report. If “unsafe conditions, acts or procedures are identified under paragraph (b) of this subsection,” they must “determine the corrective action necessary to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.” So there is a series of expectations in order to get to the final report.

That report must then be prepared — there are policies that are used and provided — and “submitted to the Board within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident.” They do the preliminary report quickly. They take on a full investigation, including identifying any corrective action, and then they need to get it to the board of WorkSafe within 30 days. Now, I should say that if there are very complicated circumstances — you know, in the horrific circumstances that we saw in both Babine and Lakeland — the board does have the ability to extend the time period, depending upon complexity.

Once the full investigation has been completed, the employer must — the language in the act is “without undue delay” — “undertake any corrective action determined to be necessary.” They provide the report, also, to WorkSafe. When it gets to WorkSafe, the job there is for the senior staff and the team at WorkSafe to review every report.

I should say that after I introduced Bill 9, previous to this one, WorkSafe did hire additional staff to actually ensure that when reports come in, they are read thoroughly. After that is done, the action plan is put into place. They would go through and look at all of the steps that they think are necessary. Those would then be assigned to prevention officers. They may include things like safety bulletins, if there are implications for the entire sector, and a variety of things. Once received, the report is read, an action plan is created, and then there is ongoing monitoring to ensure that the work that’s necessary is completed.

S. Simpson: I understand where there could be situations where this would occur. The minister says that if it was a complex situation, the board could put an extension in place, allow the company an extension. Are there limits on those extensions? Or is the timeline for extensions entirely at the discretion of the board?

Hon. S. Bond: There is some discretion. There is not a timeline that says: “This is the maximum time frame.” We certainly saw that with the complexity of investigations like the ones that we’re responding to today. But I think the board is very clear. When you look at the language in section 176, it is consistently, “without undue delay,” undertake corrective action. I think there is a sense that any extension is an exception rather than the rule. The 30-day rule applies. There would have to be quite extraordinary circumstances for WorkSafe to consider an extension.

[1125]

S. Simpson: Are there incidents here where…? It may be like a Babine or a Lakeland, and we hope we don’t have to experience something that significant again and that catastrophic again.

But in a major incident, are there times when it becomes very clear very quickly that we’re dealing with something that is large, where people have potentially been hurt, and that this process just goes by the wayside and the board just steps in and takes over the whole investigatory process themselves, without having an employer’s response, and just says: “We’re in. We’re bringing our investigators in. We are taking control of this investigation from the outset”?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. WorkSafe does quite routinely, and certainly, in the case of something as…. I can’t agree more passionately with the member opposite. We can only pray that things like this do not happen again. Part of the reason we’re here today is to try to ensure that. But there’s no perfect way to ensure that, sadly.

But yes, WorkSafe will come in, and it is not an either-or circumstance. WorkSafe will come in and, for example, secure the scene and begin their own investigation quite quickly. And they will also, in essence, secure that scene for…. It could be for a significant period of time.

It does not relieve the employer of the responsibility of doing an investigation. It’s not either-or. They both occur. But the timing may be impacted depending upon WorkSafe’s need to lock down a site or deal with something on a more urgent basis.

Yes, they do step in and begin their investigations immediately, but it does not alleviate the responsibility of the employer to do an investigation.

S. Simpson: There’s a bit of legality to this that I don’t entirely understand. We’ll see if maybe we can understand it.

We know that when we dealt with Bill 9, one of the significant features of Bill 9 was the firewall, the separation of the two investigatory processes. If, at some point, it triggers consideration that there may be a criminal negligence aspect to this or something else that may require this, at some point, to end up with Crown counsel and potential charges, then, all of a sudden, the rules change around the investigation and how that proceeds.

We know, and we’ve talked about this before, that the employer’s investigation is — I believe this is true — not seen to create any risk for that potential criminal investigation, should it happen. It’s a piece of work done by the employer. For any evidence there, the investigation may or may not choose to use it, if it becomes a criminal matter. And I understand that.

Does it change at all if WorkSafe comes in and essentially takes control of the investigation? We’re now saying that doesn’t preclude the employer from proceeding,
[ Page 10095 ]
but they now are proceeding pretty much directly under WorkSafe, who have locked down the site, secured the site and made any kind of decisions they need to make about how that site does or doesn’t change.

Does that change the role of that report and potentially make it a situation that might compromise….? It’s no longer just the employer being independent. Once WorkSafe steps in and says, “This is serious. We’ve got somebody on the site now. We’re going to tell you what you can and can’t do. It’s not up to you anymore…,” does that change the role of that report and create a potential implication that the employer’s process could compromise that?

[1130]

Hon. S. Bond: We know that what unfolded in both the case of Babine and Lakeland…. Jurisdiction was an issue, in terms of the site. We know that we had lots of what I think was constructive discussion about workers reps and their role in that. One of the direct recommendations about that investigation process was that worker reps did not have access to the site. We are obviously working to fix that in this legislation.

There is a hierarchy, and I’m trying to think of a better way to say it other than that. There is obviously an order to which these things happen. First and foremost, in a very serious incident, the RCMP actually have control of the site. That means that even WorkSafe is secondary to that. The RCMP, in essence, take the site and, at some point, turn it over to WorkSafe.

It really, in a very, very significant circumstance, works its way down so that it would be the RCMP. They would then, if WorkSafe is involved, turn the site over to WorkSafe. Ultimately, WorkSafe then has jurisdiction, eventually turning it over to the employer. So it does mean that in circumstances…. While the report, the investigation, is still required by the employer, it can be quite a distant time from when the actual incident happened.

Two things I do want to comment on. One of the things that we proceeded with was a memorandum of understanding to help clarify this very circumstance between the RCMP and WorkSafe. That was a significant issue. There need to be clearly outlined protocols and an understanding of those by all of the parties involved here so that we do not compromise the investigation site. That MOU is now in place, I’m happy to say.

As we look at the other piece the member referenced, we did, very clearly, separate the investigative teams at WorkSafe. There is a firewall in place that if the preliminary…. When the first investigation team comes in from WorkSafe, if there is any sense that there is the potential for regulatory charges, that team now steps aside and the body, the group, that has been trained in case management skills and all of those things would then take over the site and basically begin that investigation from a different perspective.

I do believe there are very different processes in place at WorkSafe. And the member is right to ask these questions. Jurisdiction in an investigation of this magnitude is critical. It had a role to play in the outcomes in the aftermath of these tragedies. And I think, now, by clarifying this, making sure preliminary reports are going to worker reps and employers and clarifying the timelines, we will find a much more straightforward and, hopefully, clearly understood process.

[1135]

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that. That’s helpful.

Just one last question on this matter, so I understand it. I know that the more conventional WorkSafe approach of coming in and doing an investigation kind of takes it to one level. The minister talked about hierarchy. We know that if there’s a determination fairly quickly that there may be something significantly wrong here — there may be negligence; there may be other conduct that requires a different kind of investigation — then it’s kicked up the ladder to this other investigatory group within WorkSafe. If they get it and take charge, then I’m sure they take a much….

I don’t want to suggest that the first group doesn’t do their job. But they take a much more strident or stringent view of the investigation, because they know they have to meet standards of criminal justice and not compromise evidence, which was the problem we saw in the Lakeland-Babine situation.

They are going to investigate under very strict parameters so that they don’t compromise the potential for a Crown prosecutor maybe to receive a file and be able to act on it if they see fit and not say: “Evidence was compromised and we can’t move forward.”

If it goes there, does that change at all what happens? That would happen pretty quickly, I expect. The first investigators come in. They’re going to determine pretty quickly if there’s any inkling that there’s something significant here, or that we think there may be, and move it over to the folks who will do that.

Does that change the responsibilities around the final report? I know the minister said that that could get put off. You’ve got the RCMP. You’ve got all kinds of stuff going on before you may even allow the employer to start an investigation of their own, because there are a lot of other people in there who have priority.

Does that change the rules, if it goes off to that second body in the investigative process, in terms of the employer responsibilities or what happens with any of the other investigative processes with the committees?

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to respond to the question about the differences in the investigation. They are different, because as we would all painfully recall, when the investigations were done here, there were issues around the need for warrants, the way people were interviewed — all of those things.
[ Page 10096 ]

The trigger for the second investigative team is whether or not there is a potential for charges to be laid. That is critical to me, and I know the member opposite shares that, because we came through this process. As we would recall, WorkSafe did make recommendations, and Crown counsel rejected them. We needed to fix that.

There is a different framework for the investigation that takes place if there’s any reason to believe that charges could be laid, because you’ve got to deal with warrants and all of those things appropriately. That does change the framework for the investigation.

What doesn’t change is the employer’s obligation. It may take time, and it will take longer. Ultimately, they will, at some point, access the site. Thankfully, in most of the circumstances, it’s the employer, and it’s quickly, because they’re not of the magnitude of this kind of loss of life and devastation.

The more — I put it carefully in quotations — “usual” practice is that there’s an incident. The employer, potentially, even the same day, begins that investigation. Certainly, in these cases, because of the loss of life and all of the circumstances that unfolded, it would take a long time to get to the employer aspect. But the obligation to report and investigate does not change for the employer.

I don’t think I’ve said this in the course of our discussion and probably should. While WorkSafe has a very important role to play with worker safety in the province, the ultimate group that is responsible for worker safety are the employers in this province. They need to do the investigation. They need to look at best practice and what’s safe for workers. The obligation doesn’t change. The time period may be extended.

[1140]

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

S. Simpson: Just a couple of quick questions on this. Section 9 is the commencement section. It says that sections 4 to 8 will come into force on January 1.

Those are the sections that deal substantively with changes around committees and investigation. Could the minister indicate what her thinking or hopes are around the timeline? Presumably, we get to January 1, and this comes into force. I’m sure preliminary work will be done by WorkSafe preceding that, but does the minister have any expectations about how that timeline or process rolls out — to kind of flesh out the meat on the bones of this?

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to reflect on that date. That is a very aggressive timeline. What it means is that between now and then, WorkSafe has their work cut out for them in terms of the agreements that we’ve made in this House and talked about — the need to have consultation.

When I walked through my proposed legislative changes with WorkSafe, I asked directly if the date, January 2016, was doable, and the answer was yes. So I expect that to take place. It does mean a very aggressive timeline between now and then to get the work done. Obviously, with them knowing that this was my intention, they — I am assuming — have a lot of that groundwork done, stakeholders ready. I fully expect that we will see this come into force on January 1. WorkSafe has told me that they can make that work, and I expect that to happen.

S. Simpson: In closing off committee stage, I do hope that one of the things that we’ll see in the regulation — and I would hope the minister might include this in the letter that she will send — is that at some place, because there are…. Some of this are areas where we’re heading for different kinds of ground. There have been some questions around this and around other things, around pieces of this legislation.

Within the regulatory review, there will be a review process, whether it’s a year from now or two years from now — whatever is kind of settled on as appropriate. A review process to allow WorkSafe to go back and take a look at how the legislation worked, how the regulatory regime worked, get back with stakeholders and say: “Okay, we had some objectives to achieve here. How did we do in terms of achieving the objectives?”

Get the input of everybody who should have say in that so that we can have some evaluation about whether the work, which I think has been meaningful, on the legislation is getting to where the minister and, I believe, we all want to get to. Are we accomplishing the objectives? I do hope that that will happen.

Finally, I want to say that I’m hopeful. As the minister said, I think, at the opening of second reading, these are a couple of steps. These are incremental steps along the way to dealing with an array of challenges that I believe we have around worker health and safety. These are steps in the right direction, I believe. I think they will make things better, and that’s always a good thing. I’m hopeful, moving forward around that.

I want to thank the minister for the approach. She certainly was prepared to engage, to have a conversation about the bill. I think that’s reflected. While we couldn’t agree on both, I think that’s reflected in the agreement of the government and the minister on one of the two amendments that we were looking for, which we think makes the bill a little better.

With that, I’m done.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to, first of all, thank the staff of the ministry and, particularly on this bill, from the Labour side of our portfolio. There was a great deal of work done. When I asked for there to be, in essence, a rapid response team to the coroner’s jury recommendations, this team worked incredibly hard.
[ Page 10097 ]

I want to assure the member opposite that we are happy to share ongoing progress on the recommendations that have been directed to government and government agencies. As I said, I have taken on the role of coordinating government’s response.

[1145]

We anticipate very soon being able to send the second letter to the coroner outlining our progress on the second set of recommendations.

I do want to say thank you to my deputy minister and her team for the good work.

I want to thank the coroner’s juries. I hope that they have a sense from the debate that the member and I have engaged in and the discussions we had outside this chamber that all of us are committed to improving worker safety. While we do our best to capture the intent of the recommendations and to make sure that this bill reflects those recommendations, I agree with the member that there is a need for ongoing monitoring of our success, not just of this bill but other recommendations, and that we continue to be vigilant about changes that have been made and look for areas where change still needs to be made. I certainly commit to that process of ongoing review.

Just in closing, I do want to thank the member. There are times, certainly as a long-time cabinet minister, when there are important bills that come before this House. And I think that the opportunity for us to look for areas of agreement to make the bill better is important. I do want to point out that while we didn’t come to agreement on the first amendment, we’re far closer than simply a yes or no on that. I think we are going to get to where the member opposite would like us to — just, perhaps, with a different mechanism.

With that, I conclude my remarks as well.

Section 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

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

Bill 35, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When should the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

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

Bill 35, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.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