Today in the Legislature I rose during Members’ Statements to speak for two minutes about the scientific literature clearly demonstrating the efficacy of using face masks to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Following that I asked the Minister of Health if his government has any intention to implement a law or public health order making masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces, outside of people’s homes, and if not, why not? I further asked the Minister if government does so choose to take this public mandate to require masks, how do they plan to implement and enforce said rules in the province of British Columbia?

Below I reproduce the video and text of both my Members’ Statement and Question Period exchange.

To demonstrate how easy it is to make a mask that has the potential to stop >95% of aerosol born virus transmission, I shot a quick video with how-to instructions below.

Video of Statement

Video of Question Period Exchange

Text of Statement

A. Weaver: I rise today to speak about some of the evidence concerning the efficacy of face masks as a mechanism to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and from this research, considerable evidence has emerged that mandating the use of masks in all indoor and crowded spaces outside people’s homes is a low-cost, high-reward measure that policy-makers could and should be pursuing.

To begin with, even though it is difficult to prove causation, we know that almost every nation that has seen widespread usage of face masks has fared better at limiting the spread of COVID-19 than those that haven’t. In many ways, this shouldn’t be surprising. Research conducted well before the current pandemic began — published in 2009 by Ben Cowling and others in the Annals of Internal Medicine — found that the combination of masks and hand hygiene significantly helped reduced the spread of influenza within households.

More recently a March 2020 study, published in the Journal of Medical Virology, showed that homemade masks made of simple four-layer kitchen paper and one layer of cloth can stop the transmission of more than 95 percent of the virus contained within aerosols.

Research directed by Cristopher Leffler from Virginia Commonwealth University — which is, admittedly, still undergoing peer review — has found that “social norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public as well as international travel controls are independently associated with lower per capita mortality from COVID-19.”

A comprehensive modelling study led by researchers at the University of Cambridge, in the U.K., published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, in June, concluded masks help to dramatically slow the transmission of the virus.

When taken together, mounting evidence is accumulating that the universal use of face masks is one of the most effective tools we have at our disposal to prevent the spread of novel coronavirus. While we await the holy grail of COVID-19 vaccine, it appears that making masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces outside people’s homes can only aid British Columbia’s ongoing pandemic response.

To quote from the summary of the Proceedings of the Royal Society article: “My mask protects you. Your mask protects me.”

Question

A. Weaver: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. I must say I’ve been here seven years, almost eight years, and this has set a new record. We’ve just finished three questions, and there are only four minutes left in question period. I’m not so sure this is the way this place is suppose to function, and I’m a little disappointed in my colleagues for taking that up and shoving me to the last couple of minutes of question period here. It’s unfortunate. The answers were not targeted, and the questions were rambling, in my view.

Anyway, as more and more evidence about the role that masks can play in reducing the spread of COVID-19 has emerged, growing numbers of jurisdictions have adopted laws making face masks mandatory in all scenarios where it will be difficult for people to remain physically distant. Just last week France introduced measures mandating masks in all enclosed public spaces. Across the pond, the U.K. began implementing a law that makes masks mandatory in grocery stores, shopping malls, post offices, banks and other busy establishments. Here in Canada, Quebec has made masks mandatory in indoor public spaces, while Toronto has established similar rules. And masks will be mandatory in indoor spaces in Nova Scotia, starting this Friday.

A recent poll from Angus Reid has found that there is broad provincial support for rules that would make masks mandatory in public spaces, with over 70 percent of British Columbians in favour of the changes. And although not all members of the public would be able to adhere to these rules, due to underlying physical or mental health conditions, the vast majority of the public would be able to follow them with relatively few personal costs.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Given the evidence in favour of universal wearing of masks and the broad public support for such a measure, will this government implement a law or public health order that makes masks mandatory in all indoor and crowded spaces, outside of people’s homes, and if not, why not?

Answer

Hon. A. Dix: I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his consistent and thoughtful support for public health measures during this pandemic. It is much appreciated, and I thank him for his questions. He will know that Dr. Henry has answered this specific question a number of times in the past few weeks. Let’s see how I do, hon. Speaker.

You’ll know that, in July, we understand right now quite a bit about community transmission of COVID-19. That’s why we’ve taken specific public health measures — for example, public health measures to deal with houseboats, to deal with temporary accommodations, to deal with rental accommodations and resorts, to deal indeed with bars and with nightclubs and even with strip joints, and specific steps to deal with what is a significant issue in the agricultural industry.

Dr. Henry doesn’t believe, and I don’t believe at this time, that community transmission in B.C. justifies a mandatory mask mandate — not at this time. We think that it would not be justified in light of the significant challenges in both putting it into place and the very significant exemptions, which I know the member would understand, that would be required to do so.

He also knows — I know we have a little bit of time, he and I, for these questions, so I’ll just give him a little bit more information — that masks are, well, very important in terms of the hierarchy of measures we can take. It’s less effective than physical distancing and barriers and administrative measures. That said, Dr. Henry recommends, and I recommend, wearing a non-medical mask in circumstances where physical distancing cannot be maintained. I wear a mask in stores. I wear a mask in grocery stores. I wear a mask on public transit. I think, in these times, in particular in these times, wearing a mask is a reflection of good COVID sense but also a reflection of community respect. Many businesses, in fact, which have small spaces, are mandating masks within their businesses, within their COVID-19 plan.

I want to assure the member that this is our view for the moment, that we consistently have adapted based on the evidence, and we will continue to do so. The efforts of Dr. Henry, of public health, of the government and, indeed, of all the people of B.C. will continue to be founded on evidence and on science, and I know he appreciates that fact.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do note that the member opposite said my question was one minute and 30 seconds long. I just will say that, indeed, it was, and that we should have been able to have 20 such questions in this period, but we’re not getting to it.

I’d like to thank the minister for his response. I do appreciate government’s reservations about imposing a law that would make masks compulsory, and government should be commended for the job done so far in limiting the spread of COVID-19. But lurking in the background of discussions about masks and COVID-19 are concerns around the potential for government overreach. I understand that there’s a slow pace. However, we’re sitting in a once-in-a-century pandemic. Measures will need to be taken that will temporarily restrict some of our normal freedoms in order to preserve our collective safety.

One study, for example, that I referred to earlier in statements today, shows that even with a 50 percent efficiency, instead of a 95 percent type efficiency of most masks, you still get a lower R-rate number than you would without wearing masks. Since enforcing regulations around mandatory masks is frankly impossible for any government to handle by itself, many jurisdictions have appealed to the private sector to help with these rules, like in Quebec, for example, where periodic inspections happen in place, and in instances where individuals or businesses are caught, authorities have typically been empowered to apply fines.

My question is once more to the Minister of Health. If the government does so choose to take this public mandate to require masks, how do they plan to implement and enforce said rules in the province of British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. A. Dix: As noted, and this is the strong view of public health, with Dr. Henry, and it’s my strong view, at the moment, a mandatory mandate for masks is not required, is not desirable in British Columbia for some of the reasons that we have discussed at length and I’m happy to continue to discuss, because I think it’s an issue of public interest and debate. I applaud people who take the steps, because I think it’s an act of respect to wear non-medical masks, especially in areas where physical distancing can’t be maintained. That is of vital importance, and it is part of our collective response to COVID-19.

What we’re going to continue to do in B.C. is follow the science and follow the evidence in our pandemic. Yes, what happens in Quebec and what happens in France and what happens in Alberta is important, but one of the reasons we have been successful in B.C. is a determination also to follow our own B.C. course to deal with our own B.C. pandemic. That led to our response and our single-site order in long-term care. It led to our action, different from other jurisdictions, in dealing with temporary foreign workers in agriculture. I think these sorts of steps, which demonstrate a commitment to public health and to breaking the chains of transmission have been what have made us successful.

But I want to say this. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the House, as people have consistently made positive suggestions, been supportive.

This has been our response, our collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it has been successful so far, I think, with extraordinary challenges and with some considerable losses. But we need to continue to do this together. There are weeks and months and maybe years to come. That will require generosity and positive spirit
Draft Segment 014

response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it has been successful so far, I think, with extraordinary challenges and with some considerable losses.

We need to continue to do this together. There are weeks and months and maybe years to come, and that will require generosity and positive spirit together to continue to do that. So I encourage people to make suggestions, to engage in public debate on these issues, but mostly to be respectful of one another and for all of us to take our responsibility, as the government is, as we as a Legislature are, in breaking the chains of transmission of COVID-19 in B.C.

In recent weeks, the strain of the COVID-19 pandemic on our healthcare and economic systems has received no shortage of commentary. Slightly less remarked, on but no less important, are the social and psychological effects of the novel coronavirus outbreak. Most acutely, workers on the front lines of the pandemic have been put in a position that is bound to strain both their mental and physical health. Healthcare providers have been selflessly risking their lives to save others and have directly witnessed the human costs of the pandemic. Those with a family member or friend battling COVID-19 in hospital have been forced to deal with a tremendous amount of stress and uncertainty. Others are in the process of grieving after losing a loved one to the disease.

On a societal level, there are very real psychological costs to the social distancing measures needed to flatten the curve. It is commonly said that humans are a social species by nature, meaning we evolved to live in close contact with others in tight knit social groups. Physical distancing measures work directly against our ingrained sociability by disrupting the meaningful in-person social interactions that form an invaluable part of our lives. Over the past six weeks many Canadians will have likely spent more time alone than at any time during the past six years. While some may find the solitude and isolation to be rejuvenating, others may find that these same situations give rise to feelings of loneliness.

Like many other highly developed countries, the structure of Canadian society poses an unprecedented challenge to our ability to collectively navigate the social consequences of the novel coronavirus. More Canadians now live alone than ever before, making thousands of people vulnerable to feelings of isolation and loneliness. Elderly Canadians and those without the tools to connect with others virtually will find it particularly difficult to combat these emotions.

Of course, physical isolation is not the only source of stress that will challenge people’s mental health throughout the pandemic. For many, reduced income will be a source of profound anxiety and stress as they worry about how they are going to make ends meet. Beyond merely providing people with economic security, work also brings meaning to people’s lives and is a critical part our identities. Without the constant of steady employment, millions of Canadians will likely be experiencing a sense of dislocation and aimlessness.

And although the physical symptoms of coronavirus may discriminate by age, its effects on people’s mental health effects do not. Children and young adults are also vulnerable to depression and anxiety brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. For youth already dealing with mental health issues, the closure of schools has meant the loss of an important coping mechanism. Grade 12 students are likely wondering how the pandemic will impact their senior year while thousands of young adults are worried about the job market they will be graduating into.

Given the widespread impact of the pandemic on our mental and physical health, this moment demands unprecedented levels of social solidarity from all of us. Many have already risen to the challenge in what some have called the care-mongering movement. Facebook groups allowing people to arrange to deliver groceries to seniors or those in self-isolation were formed just days after the announcement of social distancing measures. Island medical students were quick to offer childcare services to health care workers battling the pandemic on the frontlines. Zoom , Skype or Facetime calls to check in on friends and family have become a regular occurrence. But as the pandemic drags on and more of us get accustomed to our new social reality, we need to ensure that we remain unwavering in our commitment to others. We need to continue to keep the elderly and those living alone emotionally connected to the outside world. We must to continue to respond to requests from charities and community-based organizations when they are made. And we need to continue to check in on vulnerable friends and family members to give them the support they need.

Nonetheless, despite the inspiring levels of social solidarity shown throughout the pandemic, local communities cannot be expected to bear the burden of COVID-19’s social ramifications on their own. It is the responsibility of the government to provide people with the mental health resources they need for the duration of this crisis. To date, governments across Canada and organizations focused on delivering healthcare have stepped up to migrate existing services online and to provide new services where required. If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health issues as a result of the pandemic numerous external supports are available. No one is alone – we are all in this together.

Mental Health Supports During Covid-19

1) Resources Available for anyone

Bc211

Bc211 is a province-wide information and referral service that receives calls from those interested in helping seniors with basic needs such as grocery shopping, pharmacy drop-offs and check-ins. To register for the program, please visit the BC211 website.

BounceBack

Bounceback is a free program which assists adults and youth 15+ dealing with anxiety and depression by giving them the skills and strategies to manage these issues. British Columbians can register for free by visiting the BounceBack website.

Child and Youth Teams

The Ministry of Children and Family development is offering intake services and mental health counselling online and through the phone. To access these services please call your closest Child and Youth Mental Health clinic.

Foundry Virtual Clinic

Foundry is providing youth aged 12-24 with counselling, peer support, primary care, and family support through voice calls, video, and chat. Those interested in accessing these services should visit the Foundry website.

Free Online Mental Health First Aid

The BC Psychological Association is offering mental health support to any BC resident who is experiencing stress, anxiety, or uncertainty as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization will provide 30 minute telephone consultations to equip people with skills and strategies needed to manage mental stress induced by the crisis.

Here2Talk

Here2Talk provides all students currently registered in a BC post-secondary institution with access to free, confidential counselling and community referral services. These resources are available via app, phone, and the web, and can be accessed by visiting the Here2Talk website.

Living Life to the Full

Living Life to the Full is a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy based course designed to give people the skills needed to cope with stress, anxiety, and depression. The 8-week course is led by a trained facilitator and can be accessed through the Living Life to the Full webpage.

VictimLink BC

VictimLink BC provides immediate 24/7 support to victims of family or sexual violence through the phone. You can call 1-800-563-0808 or email VictimLinkBC@bc211.ca. VictimLinkBC@bc211.ca to get help.

Virtual Counselling Services

Virtual community counselling is available for individuals or groups at low or no cost through the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Y Mind

Offered through the YMCA, Y mind is a seven-week mindfulness program targeted at young adults aged 18-30 experiencing depression and anxiety. Those interested in learning more should visit the BC YMCA website.

Youthspace

Youthspace offers online crisis & emotional support chat for those under 30 years old. They’re open every night from 18:00 to 24:00 PST. For more information, please visit the Youthspace website.

Wellness Together Canada

The federal government has launched Wellness Together Canada to provide Canadians with mental health support throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The tool gives users access to free online resources, tools, apps, and connections to trained volunteers and qualified mental health professionals. Please visit the Wellness Together Canada website to find out more. 

2) Support for Indigenous Peoples

To find out how to access the numerous support services available to indigenous peoples throughout the COVID-19 pandemic please consult the information provided by the First Nations Health Authority.

3) Supports available to Frontline Healthcare Workers

Mobile Response Team

Frontline healthcare workers dealing with mental health challenges as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are able to get support through the mobile response team (MRT). To access these supports healthcare workers can dial 1-888-686-3032 or email MRT@phsa.ca.

Canadian Mental Health Association Online Resource Hub

The BC Division of the CMHA is planning to provide healthcare workers with an expanded online resource hub which will give them strategies and techniques to improve their mental health and well-being. This resource will be launched April 20, 2020.

Virtual Peer Support Service

The CMHA is planning to launch a phone and text-based peer support service in May 2020 to provide emotional support to healthcare workers. The service will be staffed by former long-term care and home support workers.

3) A List of Useful Articles and Other Resources

• Advice from Anxiety Canada on what to do if you’re anxious or worried about COVID-19
• Advice from BC Mental Health and Substance Use Services on how to support your mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Article from Psychology Today on how to stay emotionally healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic
• A Guide on how to live with worry and anxiety amidst global uncertainty
• Apps to support mental well-being
  • Headspace, Ten Percent Happier, Waking Up, Insight Timer, Prana Breath, Healthy Minds

If you are experiencing thoughts of distress, despair, or suicide call the CrisisCentre hotline at 1-800-SUICIDE (1-800-784-2433). If you need emotional support or information about other mental health related resources you can call 310-6789. Indigenous peoples can phone 1-800-588-8717 to access culturally safe crisis support.

Today in the legislature I had the pleasure of introducing Jackie Powell along with Sister Patricia Donovan, Sister Judi Morin, Cherry Lynn Brown, Bruce Sanders, Joe Devison, Naomi Beck, Owen Jones, Mike Mori, Tula Rivera, Peter Fitzpatrick and Sonia Garza, who have been instrumental in setting up Connections Place. As noted on their website:

“Connections Place is a Greater Victoria, BC-based community that helps people with mental illness achieve self-reliance, and use their skills and talents to get their lives back on track.“

I first met Jackie Powell in 2014 when she came to me as a constituent with a vision. She wanted to realize a goal of providing a day program for people with mental health challenges. I was incredibly impressed with her presentation on the need for a program modelled on the Clubhouse International program. Jackie has persevered and built support for her initiative and kept me informed of her progress for the last five years.

Connections Place opened up its doors in March of 2019 and now has about 100 members, with more coming onboard every week. I’m absolutely thrilled to see her vision become a reality today.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the Statement I gave celebrating the importance of Connections Place in our community.

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

Today is World Mental Health Day. There are many individuals and organizations doing incredible work in this field across our beautiful province. But today I want to speak about just one that I had the pleasure of visiting this past summer. Connections Place is a recently opened Clubhouse International in the greater Victoria area. The Clubhouse model is an evidence-based model of psychosocial rehabilitation for people who are struggling with a mental illness.

Isolation is a major factor in mental illness, and a clubhouse gives a people a reason to wake up in the morning, a place to come to, to have a purpose, to be welcomed, needed and wanted, to be part of a community of caring people. I witnessed that firsthand and put behind those words my experience to say that they are exactly as I read. A small group of trained staff work alongside members to guide them to full social inclusion.

Connections Place is not alone in B.C. Their mentor clubhouse, Pathways in Richmond, has been operating for over 30 years successfully and helping the lives of many. It’s been named as one of Canada’s top 10 impact charities. This is clearly a model that works.

One in four people struggle with a mental illness in the greater Victoria area. That’s about 95,000 people. Almost a quarter of that number will have a serious and permanent mental illness — almost 25,000 people — which can cut life expectancy by up to 20 years. Families, employers and emergency services are all impacted.

Connections Place opened up its doors in March of 2019 and now has about 100 members, with more coming onboard every week. I welcome the addition of Connections Place to our community. This was Jackie Powell’s vision when I first met her in 2014. I’m absolutely thrilled to see her vision become a reality today.

Today in the legislature we also debated at second reading Bill 18, Workers Compensation Amendment Act. This bill aims to expand the presumptive conditions that currently exist under the act to wildfire and indigenous firefighters and to fire investigators by broadening the definition of firefighter. Previously, these workers were not able to claim presumptive causes for illnesses (cancer, heart disease, mental health disorders associated with their work). A presumption under the act provides that, if a worker has been employed in certain occupations and develops a disease or disorder that is recognized as being associated with that occupation, then the condition is presumed to have been due to the nature of their work, unless the contrary is proved. With a presumptive condition, there is no longer a need to prove that a claimant’s diagnosis is work-related.

I took the opportunity at second reading to talk about what is not in the act. In particular, I argued that the presumptive clause for mental disorders needs to be extended to other workers in British Columbia. While two weeks ago the government extended the presumptive clause to include 911 dispatchers, nurses and some health care workers (an issue that I have been pestering government about in numerous meetings and in Question Period on May 31, 2018 and on October 25, 2018), I firmly believe we need to follow the lead of Saskatchewan and Alberta and extend it to all workers.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 18, Workers Compensation Amendment Act. While this bill is relatively without controversy, the lead-up to the implementation of the bill is not. I’ll come to that in a minute.

The bill before us expands presumptive conditions for forest fire fighters, Indigenous firefighters and fire inspectors, allowing them to more easily claim coverage for work-related illnesses like cancer, heart disease and mental health disorders that, already, a traditional municipal firefighter would be eligible for.

This was really an oversight in definition. I understand the rationale for bringing forward the amendments that we’re discussing and debating today, and of course, I support those amendments. The groups were previously exempt from the ability to claim presumptive clause for the listed illnesses for no other reason than oversight, frankly. The bill expands coverage by changing the definition of “firefighter” to include a person whose main job is to investigate or to suppress fires. It puts some context into the bill.

Let’s go back to 2017. The member opposite from Chilliwack articulated the B.C. Liberal government added presumptions for breast cancer, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma as occupational diseases for firefighters. This was back in 2017. This added onto several other diseases that fell under presumptive clauses for firefighters. However, forest fire fighters were not included in the definition of “firefighter” and did not receive the presumption.

Now, one might suggest or say that in fact fires in, say, a city, where you might have a chemical plant or a Home Depot, might be slightly more dangerous than forest fires, which are just traditional wood, etc. However, a carcinogen is a carcinogen, and the forest fires in rural areas are going far beyond rural areas these days.

We only need talk about the citizens of some of our rural B.C. communities and what they’ve had to deal with — and sadly, I suspect this summer, as well, in light of the fact that the seasonal forecasts are for much above normal temperatures and drier than normal conditions in British Columbia, both of which are setting the stage for yet another forest fire season. Let’s hope not, but sadly, it looks that from the seasonal forecast.

In 2018, the NDP government introduced changes to the Workers Compensation Act that would designate PTSD and certain other mental disorders as presumptive conditions that are linked to specific kinds of jobs. The changes applied to firefighters, police officers, paramedics, sheriffs and correctional officers. It did not include forest fire fighters or, more importantly, nurses, dispatch operators, teachers and others. Let me say why that was unacceptable in my view.

We know that there are traditional jobs that are male-dominated jobs: police officers, firefighters — strong lobbyists who come here and meet with us year after year, and they’ve been very effective at lobbying. However, jobs like nursing, teaching, 911 responders — which traditionally or historically have larger numbers of females — have not had the same success in having their working conditions dealt with through changes in law. To me, that’s unconscionable in 2019 that we still consider professions that are predominantly male-dominated as preferential in terms of the offering of amendments or support in legislation than those that are traditionally female.

Unacceptable. In fact, I conveyed as much to the deputy minister of the minister’s file over the last several weeks, suggesting to him that we may not support this bill if the government did not fix the error from the previous bill. And they did. For that, I am very, very grateful. On April 16 of this year, an order-in-council was signed that extended the mental disorder presumptive clause to emergency response dispatchers, which means a worker whose duties include one or both of the following: dispatching ambulance services, firefighters or police officers, receiving emergency calls, etc. It also included health care assistant and including the term “nurse.”

Now, this is really important, because when we talk about workplace trauma, particularly with the issue of mental health disorders, I frankly see very little difference between a first responder who happens to be a nurse in pediatric intensive care watching a child go through the trauma that it’s going through, than, say, perhaps a police officer who sees the same thing in the street. These are traumas.

I go to the teaching profession, and I look at the number of teachers. I know we have very high dropouts in the first five years of teachers because of the overbearing stress that new teachers are put into, the conditions, where they’re not given the support. And if they don’t have support of administration, this can lead to mental health disorders. Even today, the teacher has to go forward and actually argue that it is caused by work as opposed to have it presumed to be caused by work, if they have the appropriate designation from a professional, and workers compensation could still do that.

You know, I understand the importance of this bill. I understand the importance of fixing the errors that were created, but we must not forget that the errors that were created are not just in the context of the historical context of the bill but are in the historical context of society more generally. We often fixate on errors in a piece of paper, but there are systemic errors in our society that we need to address. This bill, while going a small way to fixing the errors in the previous bill, and the order-in-council going a longer way to actually bring into the fold nurses, emergency responders, health care assistants…. I still think that in the province of British Columbia, we have an awful long way to go to ensure that labour laws, workers laws, employment standards, are actually the same for women and men.

They may be the same for women and men who are forest fire fighters. They may be the same for women and men who are police officers. But where they’re not the same is in historically male-dominated professions compared to female-dominated professions. That’s a problem, and that problem has yet to be addressed in its entirety here in the province of British Columbia.

In April 2019, the NDP government introduced legislation, this bill, that expands cancer, heart disease and mental disorder presumptions to include wildfire and Indigenous firefighters as well as fire investigators who deal with the aftermath of often traumatic fire. I have no problem with the extension there. I have no problem with the correction of the error that occurred in the previous bill. Through regulation, as I said, nurses, emergency dispatchers and health care assistants were added. That’s also to be lauded, but as I said, there’s been no change or movement towards changes in teachers.

Social workers are yet another example of a profession that historically has been dominated by women, so we don’t have the squeaky wheels coming into the Legislature, lobbying us daily and so nothing gets done. But as legislators, it behooves us to think beyond what is lobbied and think about broader societal change that needs to occur.

I’ve said in the past that what’s wrong with this legislation is we’re not talking about teachers in this province, teachers who work in environments of bullying and harassment with unsupportive administrators, who struggle and take leave but are not covered by the WCB because they have to prove that their mental illness or disorder directly came from their workplace. Imagine that, working in an environment, an abusive environment, one where going to work each day requires you to build up the courage to get out of bed., to show your face in that class knowing that you have no support from your administrators, knowing that you have children who you’re seeing in conditions that you cannot control. You know what they’re going through when they go home. You know they may be coming from an abusive family. You know you have a duty to respond. But you know you feel frustrated by an inability to actually get a solution there.

That can lead to stress. That can lead to systemic stress that can lead to mental disorders. Now you have to start to recant this and prove it. It’s devastating for people. I hope that we can move forward as we go on.

Again, last October, this is what I said: “While I’m pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out. In particular, I’m profoundly troubled that professions such as teaching and social work, professions that employ disproportionate numbers of women compared to men, are being left out.”

I’d suggest that, perhaps, a number of us in this Legislature should actually think a little beyond the immediate and start thinking about gender-based analysis with some of the legislation we’re bringing forward. Is the legislation we’re bringing forward to deal with this problem really creating other problems because it’s not dealing with systemic other issues, or is it just dealing with this one here? I think there’s some work that needs to be done.

There’s absolutely no question, as I said, in my mind that we need to have presumptive clauses in place for police, firefighters, correction officers and sheriffs. But there’s also no question in my mind that we need to include more workers. We need to include teachers. I’ve said it probably three or four times. Social workers. Even on construction sites, the Speaker, you yourself — or was it the minister? One of you two were on a construction site. Was it construction site union leader? One of you two. I’m not sure. Perhaps it was the Speaker or perhaps….

Can you imagine if you’re on a construction site and you’re a crane operator. The crane falls over, and it’s your best friend. That crane operator falls over, and you’re the first responder there on the ground to scrape the person out of the crane cabin on the ground. Now you have to prove if you have PTSD from that result. You have to prove that that’s a direct consequence of your accident, as opposed to being presumed that it would be coming from that accident. I don’t see much difference there.

During the debate on the Workers Compensation Act last year, I moved to grant the presumptive clause for work to all workers. I actually didn’t get a chance to move the amendment because games were being played by members of the official opposition who, despite an agreement before lunch that they still had further questions to go, decided not to ask any questions after lunch and so shut down debate, which I thought was quite deplorable at the time. I still do. I would hope that we wouldn’t stoop to such levels as we move forward.

I like to think that we could at least bring ourselves to the standards already in place in Alberta or in Saskatchewan. These are provinces where all employees are covered. It’s likely that had my amendment gone forward, it would have been ruled out of order. Nevertheless, the point of doing it was trying to raise it to debate. Why is it we are picking winners and losers in society? Why don’t we recognize that mental illness is an issue that recanting and trying to prove, on the work-related side, that it’s because of your work can actually be a very troubling process to go through.

We know the WCB, the Workers Compensation Board, can, at any time, challenge anything that is brought forward, but at least the presumption clause is there. In fact, by actually requiring a presumptive clause for all workers, the premium that is based on your claims will ensure that bad-apple employers get their act together to start dealing with some of these issues, particularly in office work, where systemic bullying and harassment can lead to stress, anxiety, mental illness and mental disorders that are not dealt with by the institutions because they’re afraid to create waste. If they start seeing their WCB premiums go up, oh, boy, they’ll have to start dealing with it.

In 2018, the government did not include 911 dispatchers in their Workers Compensation Act. Again, I pleaded with the Minister of Labour, both in question period as well as in the third reading of the bill — the previous Workers Compensation Amendment Act — that they actually be included. I am pleased to see that they have been, through order-in-council.

I read a compelling testimony about a nurse who no longer practised because she couldn’t after the horror she experienced — she was in the audience there as I read her story — being a front-line nurse. Again, a traditional woman’s occupation that we have now included through order-in-council. But surely, as a province that claims to have progressive leadership, we should be taking a card from Alberta. Can you imagine thinking of Alberta as the progressive? Or Saskatchewan? These are the progressive examples of labour presumptive clauses that we’re seeking to bring to B.C. Saskatchewan and Alberta, for heaven’s sake. Surely, progressive government here in B.C. could extend the presumptive clause beyond what it is now.

While, obviously, my second reading remarks have extended more broadly beyond the actual content of this bill which I speak in support of, I think it’s important to caveat our support in the broader context that we still have a lot of work to do. While this bill is a very fine step in the right direction for those workers it is affecting, there are so many other workers in our economy, so many others that I believe should be considered through an extension of those professions included.

I have no intention of not continuing for it. I intend to continue advocating for those workers to be treated with the same fairness as we treat our firefighters and our police officers. I agree that we need to look after the well-being of our firefighters and our police officers, but we also need to look after the well-being of our teachers, our social workers, our nurses — which we are, to some extent —  and so many other professions that often go unrecognized because they’re not squeaky wheels. They’re not here en masse lobbying us, because they’re not organized. I think that’s a shame.

I and my colleagues, I’ll note in conclusion, will be supporting this legislation, clearly. We’ll continue to advocate, hoping we’ll extent the presumptive clause, moving forward, to other professions

Shortly after reading a Member Statement outlining Bonnie Christie’s story about the trauma she experienced as an ICU nurse at BC Children’s hospital, I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Labour when he will ensure that the presumptive clause for work-related mental health disorders will be applied to nursing.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Mental disorders incurred from job-related trauma are serious injuries that can be debilitating. Last spring this government introduced protections by adding a presumptive clause for this kind of workplace injury. Now certain first responders are supported for injuries that can arise from the important work they do.

While I’m pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out. In particular, I’m profoundly troubled that professions, such as nursing, teaching, social work, 911 responders, that employ disproportionate numbers of women when compared to men are being left out.

When I raised this issue this past spring, the minister stated that he shared my concern and was committed to every worker getting the help and safety they need. What has the minister done — to the Minister of Labour — to deliver on this commitment?

Answer

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for the question, and I really want to thank him for his passion about workers’ health and safety, because I do share that passion.

I must say that I’m proud to say in this House that as one of the first actions as a minister, I changed the WCB act to make it easier for the first responders to access benefits for those who are suffering from mental health injuries, because first responders have been asking for these changes for a long time.

They were ignored by the previous government. We couldn’t ask them to wait any longer.

Bill 9 also, as the member mentioned, enabled me to add other groups of workers and provide them with better protection. That’s why I am meeting with all those groups of people that the member had mentioned, including CUPE, the nurses and dispatchers, about how to add them onto the list.

But I also understand that workers suffering from mental health injuries need help now. That’s why changes are being made at the WCB right now. With additional staff, more mental health claims are accepted now, in a timely fashion. Support is provided to them as and when they need it because this is in view that health and safety is my number one priority. I will continue to work to make all workplaces in B.C. the safest in the country, and those who are injured at workplaces are treated with respect and dignity.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I might suggest to the minister when he asks how to make such changes, it’s quite easy. It’s through order-in-council. So I would encourage the minister to direct that passion that he talked about to actually ensuring that the workers are given the protection that they need.

For example, a few moments ago, I read the story of registered nurse Bonnie Christie. Her doctor filed a WorkSafe BC claim and referred her to a psychiatrist who confirmed the diagnosis. But the WorkSafeBC process to evaluate her claim took four months and made her relive the traumas time and time again.

This is what Bonnie says:

“The core problem I had with WorkSafeBC is that nursing isn’t one of the occupations that presume mental disability because of work trauma. To get my claim accepted, I had to retell my story over and over to WorkSafeBC” — a story that I told you a few minutes ago. “Every time I retold it, I relived what I went through. During that time, I was crying all day long and had so much anxiety I couldn’t leave the house.“

My question is to the Minister of Labour, when will he ensure that the presumptive clause for work-related mental health disorders is applied to nursing? The trauma Bonnie has experienced is no different — no different — from the trauma that is experienced by firefighters and police officers, professions that are dominated by men, not women. The Nurses Union has provided the evidence to the minister. It’s time for the minister to act. When will he act?

Answer

Hon. H. Bains: I must say that, unlike the previous government, health and safety of workers is my number one priority. That’s why we made the changes. I’m so proud of those changes, and we realize more needs to be done.

The legislation was our first step. It allows me to add other groups of workers onto the list. That’s why we are actively working with those, and I will be meeting with nurses later on today who will be providing me with more evidence of why they should be added onto that list.

So we are actively working with those groups. But WorkSafe is working with those groups right now by adding more staff and helping those people suffering from mental health injuries. I just want to say to the House here as well, that every worker in this province is entitled to mental health coverage through WorkSafe. We are adding more resources to help them as we go forward.

But I am working with nurses. I am working with other groups so that we can add them onto that list to provide them better protection. I want to ensure that all workers go home after the end of their shift safe and healthy.