Over the last week, I have been following the news that Ontario has decided to cancel its basic income pilot, only one year into what was supposed to be a 3-year project.

I am saddened by the decision made by the government of Ontario, for a number of reasons.

I was, of course, looking forward to learning from Ontario’s pilot project, which would have provided a wealth of evidence about the effects of basic income. Ontario was leading the country in assessing the impacts of this policy, and their project was being watched around the world. They were tracking changes in employment, health, education, food security and housing, as well as community-level effects in Lindsay, with independent assessment by university researchers.

Before Ontario, the last pilot in Canada took place in Dauphin, Manitoba, over 40 years ago. This pilot illustrated some very promising results: in just 3 years, hospital visits were reduced by 8.5%.
Researchers attributed this marked decrease to lower levels of stress in low income families, which resulted in lower rates of alcohol and drug use, lower levels of domestic abuse, fewer car accidents, and lower levels of hospitalization for mental health issues.

In deciding to cancel the pilot, Ontario, and our whole country, has lost a significant opportunity to learn about the effects of basic income and to be on the leading edge of exploring this policy.

But what has struck me the most in the last week since the news of cancellation are the individual stories coming out of Ontario, from those enrolled in the pilot, whose lives are deeply affected by this decision.

So many stories have highlighted how people’s lives changed once they began receiving basic income. These stories have highlighted, too, the substantial human cost to cancelling this pilot part way through, when thousands of people had made plans and decisions on what they thought was stable ground.

Some participants in the pilot decided to attend college for the first time, or returned to school, to pick up the skills needed for meaningful employment or to start a new career. Others began living independently, or found secure accommodation for the first time. For some, it was the newfound ability to afford healthy food and other small things to improve the quality of their lives, and the lives of their children. Others used the income to pay down long-standing debts.

Many spoke about the reduced stress they felt, the ability to plan into the future instead of worrying only about the day-to-day, and a feeling of greater independence and dignity.

Many participants in the program were working, but still couldn’t afford the necessities of life and make ends meet.

One individual who was part of the pilot wrote to me highlighting the impact that basic income had on him and his family. Despite both working, he and his wife had amassed a significant amount of debt, which they struggled to pay off as they tried to provide for their children. The program, he said, was allowing them to pay down their debt and do more with their children. Most importantly, he said, he could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel to better days, for him and his children.

In his words, “this program … gave people that really needed hope a lot of hope for a brighter future.”

These individual stories speak to the promise I believe basic income holds – as a better way to support people as they navigate the economic challenges of the 21st century. Recent years have seen disproportionate increases in part-time and contract work. Wages have stagnated while the cost of living in our cities has spiralled out of control. Meanwhile, studies estimate that half of Canadian jobs could be impacted by automation in the next decade alone. We proposed exploring basic income in B.C. because we believe that government needs to have a plan for the changes on the horizon.

The experiences of people in Ontario has made me see even more strongly the need to do serious work exploring this policy. I have previously written a four part series (Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV) outlining why I think basic income is an idea that we need to explore in BC. Establishing a pilot project formed a key aspect of the Income Security component of our BC Green 2017 election platform.

We’re forging ahead in BC with our expert committee, an expert panel comprising three distinguished researcher that launched last month and is studying how basic income could work in BC. This committee is the first step towards fulfilling a government commitment under CASA to pilot basic income in BC.  I am hopeful that the committee’s work will provide the evidence that governments need to decide how to proceed – not only here in BC, but across Canada.

In this time of change, as we grapple with the challenges we face today and on the horizon, policymakers have a responsibility to plan for the future, and to make decisions that will give their citizens the best possible chance to pursue their dreams and to achieve success. In a country as wealthy and as compassionate as ours, that’s the goal our leaders should be working towards.

Back in 2016, I published a series of four blog posts exploring the notion of Basic Income.

In the first I provided an overview of the concept, the issues that we are facing today in BC, and the potential implications of a basic income policy. This was followed by a second post that examined the state of poverty in BC, including the social assistance programs available and how they can fail to help those most in need. It also explored how basic income could help to alleviate poverty in our province. The third post outlined the shift we are experiencing as a population away from long-term, full-time work with benefits, toward short-term, part-time, and contract-based work.

The series culminated in a final post that provided recommendations and a commitment to British Columbians. That commitment was that a BC Green government would introduce pilot projects that explored the costs and benefits of basic income. And so the promised establishment of such pilot projects formed a key aspect of the Income Security component of our BC Green 2017 election platform.

The Confidence and Supply Agreement that we signed with the BC NDP noted the following in Section 4a:

a. Design and implement a province-wide poverty reduction strategy that includes addressing the real causes of homelessness, including affordable accommodation, support for mental health and addictions and income security.

The BC Government yesterday announced its first step towards fulfilling this commitment. With dedicated funding in the last budget, an expert panel comprising three distinguished researchers has been established to lead a B.C.-focused exploration of basic income.

In the government press release I note:

“Amidst trends like automation, part-time and contract work, the nature of our economy and the jobs within it are rapidly shifting. There is strong evidence that basic income can provide greater income security, while saving costs in other areas. We proposed exploring how basic income could work in B.C., because government should have a plan for the changes on the horizon. The panelists are highly qualified, knowledgeable and creative thinkers. I am excited to work with them on this innovative project.“

Below is the release the BC Green caucus issued in response to the government’s announcement.

Media Release

Weaver welcomes basic income expert committee
For immediate release
July 3, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, says that the government’s newly convened Basic Income Expert Panel is a significant step forward for the province’s 21st century economic strategy. The committee was announced at a press conference today in Vancouver and is related to the B.C. Greens’ Confidence and Supply Agreement with the B.C. NDP.

“At this moment, on the verge of fundamental economic change and with the old
model of work already faltering for so many, we have an opportunity to create policy that sets
the stage for a better future for British Columbians,” said Weaver.

Weaver has advocated for exploring basic income in B.C. since 2016. In the 2017 election, the B.C. Greens campaigned to conduct a basic income pilot and implement basic income for youth transitioning out of care. The expert committee members are David Green, Vancouver School of Economics at UBC; Jonathan Rhys Kesselman, School of Public Policy at SFU; and Lindsay Tedds, School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.

“Recent years have seen disproportionate increases in part-time and contract work. Wages have stagnated while the cost of living in our cities has spiralled out of control. Meanwhile, studies estimate that half of Canadian jobs could be impacted by automation in the next decade alone. We proposed exploring basic income in B.C. because we believe that government needs to have a plan for the changes on the horizon.

“When people are secure, they are more likely to feel confident starting a new business or returning to school. Investing in British Columbians’ success is the best way we can ensure a thriving local economy for generations to come. Further, research shows that basic income can provide income security while reducing the costs of other supports. For instance, when basic income was introduced in Dauphin, Manitoba, hospital visits declined by 8.5%.

“The committee members are all highly qualified researchers and creative thinkers. I am delighted they will be exploring this innovative policy idea for government so that we can best position our province to succeed in a changing world.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today in the Legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction why the government had yet to increase the $375 shelter allowance for income assistance. This rate hasn’t increased in a decade yet housing costs have risen dramatically.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In September, government raised social assistance rates by $100 per month. Not only, of course, do I support the move, but I also commend government for implementing this increase. Rates had been frozen for a decade, leaving people worse off year after year, as their buying power eroded with inflation and the affordability crisis exploded.

Nevertheless, while support payments have gone up, the shelter allowances have remained the same, at only $375 a month. This is far, far below what it actually costs to find shelter.

For example, the organization Raise the Rates found that in Vancouver, even a single-room-occupancy hotel, known as an SRO — the cheapest form of housing available — cost $548 a month. And a number of advocates and journalists have documented the appalling and unsafe living conditions that people are forced to endure in many SROs in Vancouver.

My question to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is this: do you agree that $375 does not come close to reflecting the true cost of finding shelter in B.C., let alone shelter that is safe and secure?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the Leader of the Third Party, though I did lose the bet on getting a question-free session.

I agree with the Leader of the Third Party. Persons on income assistance, persons with disabilities and hundreds of thousands of other people who are living vulnerable and living poor are struggling immensely in this province today. I’m proud of the $100 increase that we put in place, the first increase in over a decade for people on income assistance.

As I said, there are significant numbers of working poor in this province who are struggling as well, and I’m excited that at the end of this week, we’re going to have a $1.30 increase in the minimum wage, the first step on the way to a $15.20 minimum wage.

On the issue of housing, the member is correct: it is challenging, as we move forward, but we have many steps that we’re taking. I’m excited about the biggest investment in housing in the history of British Columbia in the February budget. I’m excited about the increases around rental assistance programs and SAFER grants. I’m really excited about the 2,000 modular units that are out there being built today, that are being occupied today, that are helping the most vulnerable people in the province, people living homeless, and giving them a place to live. That’s progress, and that’s leadership.

The last thing I would say is: we’ll bring in the poverty reduction plan, and yes, we’re going to deal with housing.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: There certainly was a lot of pent-up answer waiting for a question there.

A substantial gap remains between social assistance rates and what is required to maintain a dignified standard of living. That’s why during the election the B.C. Greens committed to transitioning people to livable incomes, starting with an increase in social assistance rates by 50 percent above 2017 levels by 2020.

The previous critic on this file said last year: “Every year I ask the minister how on earth they come up with $375 as the shelter allowance for income assistance, because there’s nowhere in B.C. that’s available for $375.” I would agree with her, but unfortunately, this remains true today, and the average rent of a bachelor apartment in Vancouver is over $1,000 a month.

My question, again, to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is this: will you increase the shelter allowance as part of the forthcoming poverty reduction program and strategy?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: We have 557,000 people living in poverty in this province. We’ve had the highest rates of poverty for over a decade and a half, pretty much every year, and certainly the highest rates around child poverty.

We have challenges. We need to deal with the affordability questions that the member’s talking about. We need to create opportunities for people to break the cycle of poverty. We need to deal with the issues of social isolation and social inclusion for people struggling in poverty, whether they be the 100,000 children living in poverty, the Indigenous and the disabled who are living in poverty.

We’re going to do that. We’re going to bring legislation this fall that will legislate the poverty reduction plan, and British Columbia will no longer be the only province in this country without a poverty plan. We will end that this fall. We will bring the plan shortly after, and we will address those issues of improving the lives of people in this province, including on the housing issue.

In the Ministry of Finance budget estimates yesterday I had the opportunity to question the Finance Minister on a number of topics concerning the recently proposed speculation tax.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchanges.

Text of exchange

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions, just to follow up on this theme. I thank the members for Prince George–Valemount and Surrey–White Rock for canvassing this issue. A couple of these questions have been addressed, but I’d like to develop the narrative just very briefly.

I’ll start off by saying I understand the issue that the minister is addressing. The housing market has got out of control through wanton speculation. I do understand that it is the government’s prerogative to choose the means and ways to deal with it.

The approach the government has taken is not the approach we would have taken. Nevertheless, we agree to disagree on this, and we do support government’s effort. I will say that our approach would have been to actually address taxation after sale of a property, when people had the ability to pay, as opposed to upfront with respect to a paper value.

With that said, I also want to thank and commend the minister for listening to the concerns that we’ve brought to her from a number of areas and issues. I just want to canvass two more of these areas and see what she says.

The first question to the minister is this. With respect to the intention of the speculation tax, is the intention of the speculation tax to reduce the number of homes being left empty by encouraging people to sell or rent, or is it to generate revenue?

Hon. C. James: I think the member has hit on a very important point. I would be thrilled if we saw all of these properties become rental properties and some people not having to pay the tax, because that would be, in fact, the achievement of providing more housing in these communities that have an almost zero vacancy rate.

I think, as I said earlier, we have been conservative in our numbers when it comes to the tax revenue coming in, because we don’t expect that everyone will look at renting their places out. But we have been conservative in those numbers for precisely that reason, because the hope and the encouragement is that people will actually utilize their empty, vacant properties to be able to increase the supply of housing in communities.

A. Weaver: The follow-up question, then, is with respect to the budget. The question is: why is the government anticipating flat revenues, then, from the speculation tax? Shouldn’t they be expecting a diminishing amount over time if the speculation tax were to take the effects that the government is hoping it would take?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question.

I think it’s important to note, and we’ve talked about this on other taxes, that it’s important to be able to see behavioral change to be able to build into the budget. I expect that there will be adjustments after the tax is in place and after we start seeing behaviour.

If adjustments need to be made in the budget, the adjustments will be made in the budget. But we certainly expect that there are more vacant homes that are going to be not rented out that will continue to bring in tax revenue. But adjustments that need to occur can occur, and that’s why we build improvements in the budget, as we go along.

A. Weaver: I’d like to switch, then, to land that’s proposed to be under development.

Now, I’ve heard a number of concern. I’ve met with a number of developers, both here in Victoria and Vancouver and other areas, with respect to the problem that could arise if the speculation tax is applied to undeveloped land. The scenario you might imagine is a builder acquires some land, is now waiting — in some cases, a couple of years — for a permitting process to go through with the local municipality. The speculation tax starts to get involved.

The actual builder or developer has to face one of two choices. Do they pay this up front, and then that, ultimately, would be passed along to the buyer — which actually goes against government’s mission and mandate to try to create affordable housing — or do they walk away from the project because it’s just not worth the hassle.

My question with this is: will the speculation tax, as implemented, be dealt with in a way similar to the way that Vancouver has addressed the vacancy tax, by ensuring that developers aren’t liable to pay the tax in specific cases where land is being collected and put in a process for development?

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member.

We certainly have been engaged in those discussions. I think the member points out the Vancouver model. I think one of the discussions…. We’ve been working with UDI, we’ve been working with the Canadian Home Builders Association, the urban land initiative — there are a number of groups that we’ve been working with — to look at exactly the kinds of challenges that the member raised.

There are different development timelines in different communities. Some require an upfront consultation with the community before the development permit is even issued. Others require the development permit and then out to do the consultation. So we’re looking at all of that as part of the implementation. There will be an answer shortly.

We’re working with those groups to make sure that we capture all of those kinds of examples that the member raised.

A. Weaver: I have two final questions. The last one on this topic is that one of the key things, of course, in the industry is uncertainty. Uncertainty creates turmoil in businesses. I know some examples of projects that are on hold because of this uncertainty.

My question is: when can developers expect certainty on whether or not they will be subject to this tax?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question.

We certainly recognize that. People are eager to know all of the final details. We want to make sure we finish up these consultations and take into account all of the examples. So “soon” is what I would say. I certainly hope before the summer that we’ll have all of this wrapped up and have the details out.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My final question is with respect to secondary suites. Now, I’m not sure whether these are covered or not, so my question is: if the intention of the speculation tax is to actually reduce the number of homes being left empty, are these situations included now, or is there a way of exempting them from the speculation tax?

Let us suppose that I am somebody who lives in Victoria or Vancouver and I have a secondary home in Kelowna and that secondary home stands vacant. But now I put a secondary suite in that secondary home, and I recognize there’s an opportunity — an opportunity for income, safety for my house because I’ve got now somebody living in that secondary suite, and also I might perhaps eliminate the speculation tax.

Would a person who is subject to the speculation tax be exempt from the speculation tax if they were to create a secondary suite in their house that would not otherwise have existed were there not the speculation tax in place?

Hon. C. James: Certainly, it’s consistent with the intent, which is to make sure that people are renting their places out, so that would apply. They would be renting their place out.

Video of Exchange

Yesterday in the Legislature we debated Bill 9: The Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018  at Committee Stage and at third reading.

It was a sad day in the BC Legislature as the BC Liberals played yet more petty games. Committee stage of the Bill began in the morning shortly before lunch. The member from Chilliwack was the critic for the bill and I was the BC Green critic for the bill.

Committee stage is when members get the opportunity to rise and ask questions of the minister pertaining to specific sections of the bill. The bill is debated and approved section by section.

To avoid confusion for the speaker with multiple MLAs standing all at once and he or she having to pick and choose who is to speak next, the tradition and longstanding practice is that the MLAs arrange to slot in when they will speak with the official opposition critic.

The BC Green Caucus respect this tradition and have worked to ensure we respect the process in the legislature.  As such, the critic and I chatted before lunch and he was to let me know when he was finished with his questions on Section 1 (he told me that his questions were all on section 1). In addition, shortly before lunch, I had a conversation with the BC Liberal member from Prince George Valemont about the amendments that I had prepared and I outlined to her the sequence of these amendments. I let her know that it was possible that Amendments 1 and 2 would be ruled out of order as they might be perceived to have additional cost implications for the province that were not included in the provincial budget. I was unsure about amendment 3. All three amendments had been given to the BC Liberal critic last week and the first one was published on the order papers for all to see.

My first Amendment would have granted the presumptive clause for work related mental health disorders to all workers covered under Workers Compensation. This would bring us up to the standards already in place in Alberta and in Saskatchewan. Given that all provincial employees would have been covered, it is likely that this would have been ruled out of order. But in speaking to it, government could have signaled on the record a direction it was going and the BC Liberals could have indicated whether or not they support this direction.

If this Amendment was ruled out of order, I had a second amendment that I would have put forward. This Amendment would have only extended the presumptive clause to Nurses, Social Workers and 911 call receivers and dispatchers. Again, this would likely have been ruled out of order as there may be a perceived cost to the province which funds social workers and nurses. Once more, in speaking to the amendment, the minister would have signaled on the record any intention he had with these professions and the BC Liberals could have indicated whether or not they support his approach.

If this second Amendment was ruled out of order, I had a third amendment ready to go. That amendment would only have applied to 911 call receivers and dispatchers. I am unsure whether or not this would have been ruled out of order. Some of these workers would already be covered (as they are already police officers or paramedics), many others would not (as they are paid by local governments). I am unsure whether or not a very small potential cost to local governments would have been ruled out of order.

Both the BC Liberal critic and the BC Liberal member from Prince George Valemont never got back to me about whether or not they supported the amendment or wanted changes. What’s worse, the BC Liberal critic was to inform me when he had concluded his questions on section 1 so that I could proceed. He didn’t. As such, it was clear that he had at least one more question to go.

Over lunch, I had arranged several meetings including one with a number of very experienced developers who are profoundly troubled about the uncertainty created by the speculation tax. I arrived in the house 23 seconds after the Committee had been called to order (in the text and video below I say 3 minutes, but from closer inspection of the Hansard video I know it was 23 seconds as I came in just as the Title was approved). It was impossible for the BC Liberal critic (the MLA from Chilliwack) to stand and ask a single question that had to be answered by the minister in 23 seconds. Instead, he sat in place and let it pass.

A number of the BC Liberal MLAs thought this was hilarious. I understand that for many of them, this is all a big game. But the reality is that what happened was sad since once more, rather than having a substantive debate about the issues, the BC Liberals opted for cynical political games over trying to advance good public policy.

Most of the BC Liberal MLAs clearly don’t know the rules of the legislature and they were surprised when immediately thereafter I rose to speak at third reading (I have never heard a BC Liberal MLA rise at third reading before). I hadn’t intended to but in the end, I spent over an hour outlining why I felt the bill didn’t go far enough and why British Columbians should view the behaviour of the the BC Liberals as objectionable.

Politics and BC Liberal games aside, I also had extensive conversations with the Minister of Labour about the amendments. I feel very confident that 911 call dispatchers and receivers, as well as a couple of other professions, will be added imminently through regulation (Order in Council) as we work to protect all workers in British Columbia.Yesterday, the BC Liberals made it clear that they will be irrelevant in this further debate.

Going forward, this incident has indicated to the BC Green Caucus that the BC Liberals have no interest in cooperation with anyone. As such, we will no longer coordinate our intent to stand and be recognized with them in estimates or in committee stage debates. We’ll let the speaker decide.

In advance, I apologize to the speaker’s office for any uncertainty that this creates but unfortunately, we cannot trust the BC Liberals to follow through with their commitments.

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

Text of Speech

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in third reading to address the bill before the House at this particular juncture. I do rise with a great deal of dismay, knowing that this bill went through committee stage in but five minutes at a time….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’ll wait for the Clerk to pass the message on.

As it’s known, I had motions on the order paper. I had given notice to the minister. I gave notice to opposition. The opposition informed me that they had numerous questions to raise on this bill. I was in a meeting downstairs. I’m three minutes late for the start. Now, I understand parliamentary rules. I understand parliamentary rules are such that I missed approval of the title. But at third reading, I’d like to provide more reasons why I have profound troubles with this bill as put forward to us now.

Those troubles are the fact that this bill does not include 911 dispatchers. Hon. Speaker, I tell you, after the member from Vancouver, the minister now from Vancouver-Hastings, rose and spoke yesterday, I received an email from one of the people he mentioned, who he had consulted in developing his private member’s bill. That person had a panic attack when he thanked her for input. The government ignored, in this legislation, 911 dispatchers, despite the fact that they’ve actually included the 911 dispatchers in the private member’s bill that the member for Vancouver-Hastings, now minister, brought to this in 2016 and in 2017 as well.

Now, I get the B.C. Liberals are playing games. I get the fact that they don’t actually want to have this debated. I get the fact that they say one thing and do an absolute other. I get the fact that the member from Chilliwack, the critic for this file, who had told me that he had a number of questions to ask, would but ask five minutes of questions while I’m meeting with developers — who are profoundly troubled about the direction this government is taking on the speculation tax.

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

It is unacceptable for members of that party opposite to not stand in this House and take to task the minister for a bill that he has introduced, which they had had time to explore when it was a private member’s bill introduced earlier — and after being told that they were going to do this. That’s shameful.

I get that they can play games. But the message I want people to take home here today is that in this place, it’s not about doing what’s right for the people of British Columbia; it’s about doing what’s right for petty, political game, for the B.C. Liberals, and frankly, I think the B.C. NDP owes some responsibility here, too, because they knew I had these amendments on the order paper.

I struggle right now with whether or not I’m going to support this bill, whether or not I’m going to support this bill and call division to have a standing vote on this bill because of the fact of what’s not included, because what just transpired in this House is reprehensible — reprehensible to nurses in the province of British Columbia, nurses struggling with PTSD, nurses struggling with systemic mental health issues from their job.

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

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

There were a number of things that I had put on the order paper. I put two orders. One is to have a presumptive clause for all workers. Now, I fortunately am here to say to those listening that I’ve had very, very good conversations and follow-up with the minister about the importance of this issue, and I truly believe that the minister understands this issue. I truly believe that we will see action in a timely fashion, particularly with the 911 responders. That, to me, is critical.

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

These are the people that have to deal with PTSD, and this government — and opposition through their silly, petty games — have actually put them, thrown them under the bus.

You can tell I’m passionate about this, Hon. Speaker, because this is wrong. This is not right. This is not how this place should function. Frankly, I think the member from Chilliwack should resign as the critic, resign his chair, as he did not put the people of British Columbia front and centre here.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: They think that this is funny, Hon. Speaker, and that’s what’s wrong with that party. This isn’t a game. This is about good policy for people. This is about when you say something to someone…. This place only functions if you can trust your colleagues, that when they say they’re going to do something, they will actually do something. But no, no. That’s not the case for the B.C. Liberals.

Let’s go to the province of Nova Scotia, which, on September 27 of this last year, passed a bill to expand presumptive PTSD to 911 operators and continuing-care workers — two different groups. Why? I come back to the story, the compelling story that I read yesterday about a first responder.

I get that some first responders, the 911 dispatchers, are already paramedics or already police officers and so will be covered under the presumptive clauses. So not only have we got a problem here; we have an equity problem. If you happen to be an RCMP dispatcher, you’re likely covered. But if you’re in a local government, you’re not.

If you’re the dispatcher who actually is dealing with the Parkland shooter, in Florida you’d be covered but not in the province of British Columbia, for two reasons. This government forgot, frankly, in my view, to put it in the legislation, but more importantly, is the fact that the members opposite, the B.C. Liberals, who should be hanging their heads in shame today, saw fit to end debate on this because of the fact that I’m about three minutes late, despite the fact I’m told that there were many questions to come.

That’s clever. That’s clever politics. Got to give it to the B.C. Liberals. That’s what they’re good at. It’s all about politics for them. It was all about politics in the election, the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the five conditions — all about politics. They have no credibility.

And hon. Speaker, I must say, I used the word “honourable,” and I mean that dearly and sincerely when I say hon. Speaker here, because I see a man of honour in the Speaker’s chair, and I don’t know how he ever could have sat on that side of the House with those members opposite.

Coming back to the bill, we have a problem. We have a problem with the fact that right now this bill is oiling the squeaky wheel. It’s oiling the squeaky wheel of those who lobby the best. There’s no question we need to have presumptive clauses for police, firefighters, corrections officers, sheriffs. But there’s also no question in my mind that we need to include emergency dispatchers. We need to include teachers, include nurses and include workers on the construction sites.

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

Saskatchewan understands that that’s wrong. Alberta understands that that’s wrong. In both of those provinces, as defined under the acts, their respective workers compensation acts, all workers are covered under the presumptive clause.

I understand that there was a possibility that one or two of my amendments would have been ruled out of order, because there might have been fiscal consequences associated with it. I understand that. The minister has missed an opportunity, though, to be able to put onto the record what his views are on this issue. It’s a very good opportunity that he’s missed.

The members opposite have missed an opportunity to actually let British Columbians know what they think. Their actions have told British Columbians what they think about this bill. Their actions have said they’re not willing to do their job as opposition.

For heaven’s sake. Why don’t half of you guys quit? Let’s have an election. Let’s get some more B.C. Greens down here, and we’ll do their job for them if they’re not willing to do it themselves — to actually hold government to account, not to ask stupid questions about stuff to try to score political gain but actually hold government to account for their actions as seen in the bill, not act as apologists but actually hold government to account.

It’s shameful — what we just witnessed there, from the B.C. Liberals today.

I come back to the teachers in British Columbia, none of whom now are either afforded the opportunity, who haven’t been able to hear the minister’s response, the debate, members opposite discuss what they thought about their views.

Given that you’ve missed the opportunity to hear what the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP believe to be their views, I’ll tell you what the B.C. Green views are. The B.C. Green views are this. No teacher should have to stand in front of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and argue that the fact that they have depression and anxiety issues from working in an intolerant workplace, where their school administrator doesn’t support them, and their school board, school administration and district administration doesn’t support them.

No person should have to relive that experience in front of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Instead, just like in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the presumptive clause should be applied to them.

I don’t know how many teachers I know who have had to deal with this. In fact, if you look at statistics in British Columbia, something is pushing…. Almost 50 percent of new teachers actually quit the teaching profession in the first five years. Why do they do that? Because of the situation they’ve been put in. In many cases, it’s overwhelming, but they have no place to go now.

They can go on LTD and get a fraction of their wage, but if they actually had a presumptive clause within their contracts, it would force school districts’ administration to actually ensure that the working environment that these teachers participate in is one that’s conducive, friendly, safe, free of bullying, free of harassment. But that’s not going to happen here in the province of British Columbia, because members opposite saw so fit as to play silly political games to try to avoid discussion on the amendments before us.

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

Let’s go to nurses. I can take a particular…. I don’t know how half the nurses do their job, but let me tell you a story about my daughter. Let me tell you a story that, to me, tells me the type of environment nurses have to work in.

My daughter had a very, very serious heart issue, and she was misdiagnosed by the pediatrician — a young pediatrician, straight out of med school, who had diagnosed it as something different. The nurse was there. The nurse says: “I know what this is. I’ve worked here for 30 years. This doctor is not listening to me. He won’t do anything, but this is what it is.”

Fortunately, I have some experience in research. So I went down to the medical library, and I started researching this disease. I went down, and I phoned one of my colleagues who happened to be in Scripps Institute in California. They are one of the leading research areas on this disease. I was able to find out about this disease. I was able to find out about the cure for this disease.

With the help of that nurse, I was able to follow as I was told — to advocate on behalf of my child and demand a second opinion in the hospital. Because the treatment that was being offered was not going to help her and, actually, was going to make her worse.

That ended up in a happy place. My daughter got better. But I can imagine that nurse having to go through that day in, day out with other patients — watching children suffer because a doctor, who happens to think that they know everything and the nurse knows nothing, won’t listen to them.

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

The whole purpose of having these nurses included was to ensure that when systemic issues like that are in play, which can lead clearly to long-term mental disorders, clearly they should not have to relive these experiences before the WCB to prove that this is a direct consequence of this.

Now, I suspect that the member opposite….

Are you hoping to introduce? I don’t believe that that is allowed under rules, because one side….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Well, what I can ask, hon. Speaker, is to seek leave to pause briefly to allow the member to introduce the guests, and then let’s continue.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if we may. Thank you.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: It’s just an opportunity to give the hon. member a moment to catch his breath as I introduce one of three classes that are coming today from a school in my district. They are from Surrey Christian School, grade 5 students with their parents and teacher. I ask that the House would please make them feel welcome here as they enjoy the debate.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: We’ve got a full two hours to work with on this bill. I’m looking forward to using as much of that as possible as I try to…. Yes, at third reading, I believe I get, as the designated speaker, a full two hours to address this. I would seek clarification from the Clerk, with reference to standing orders please, to actually ensure and let me know how much time I actually have.

We talked about nurses. Let me talk about some others. Can you imagine the tragedy that happened at Burns Lake — the explosion of a mill. I’m pretty sure that there are a number of workers at this mill who, after the mill exploded and living in the community, actually are suffering from issues, with respect to PTSD, mental health issues, depression and anxiety, as a direct consequence of that mill explosion. But what they have to do….

Two? What does the two mean? Exactly. I have two hours. Take your seat, Liberals opposite. You had the opportunity to have a short debate. I’d love to inform you of this issue in much more detail, seeing as you’re willing to abdicate your responsibility to serve as opposition and quiz government on a critical bill that’s before us here in the House today, one that adds a presumptive clause for mental health issues to all workers in the province. Sorry, to firefighters, paramedics, police officers, correction officers and sheriffs but not all workers in the province. I’m laying the case as to why that has to happen.

I will tell people listening on TV now or checking the Hansard later that, again, I come back to this, and I’ll come back to this periodically over the next two hours as we enjoy this debate — that I have had good discussions with the minister, good discussions with the minister about the fact that this is only a beginning. I wish he’d had the opportunity to say that to himself. This is only the beginning of moving this bill forward.

Rest assured, people reading this, I’m not going to give this one up. I’m going to be like a dog with a bone, more like a pit bull with a bone, on this issue, because it is wrong. It is wrong not to have emergency dispatchers included. It is wrong not to have other workers included. It is wrong not to follow the leadership of Alberta and Saskatchewan and actually have a presumptive clause for all workers.

Let’s go back to the issue in Nova Scotia, or Florida. Again, these issues are front and centre in their legislation, recent legislation. Most provinces in the country have the same thing for 911 dispatchers. It makes no sense to me, when you talk about emergency responders…. This is what I find remarkable. I’m going to focus on the 911 dispatchers exclusively right now.

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

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

Remember the story. I do apologize to the children in the crowd here about the story that I’m about to tell, the story I told yesterday about a man who phoned in a 911 as he had tried to commit suicide, as his entrails were hanging out. And this woman had to keep him alive, yet she wasn’t covered. But her colleague, sitting next to her, in the RCMP would be covered. It’s just wrong. It’s just wrong at a very fundamental level.

We talked about office workers. What about office workers? The whole purpose of including office workers, bank tellers, employees in universities, in colleges, in schools, custodians, whatever…. The whole point of including them is there are many, many environments in the province of British Columbia that are not safe places to work, not safe places because of systemic workplace bullying, workplace harassment. It’s systemic issues with dysfunctional governance, dysfunctional administration, power over, conflicts….

I could go on and on, and the litany of examples would make most people’s faces drop over here. Unfortunately, half of the members opposite spent their entire time in politics, and they probably don’t actually have any experience other than politics.

I could actually provide members, from their own staff who came to me because they’ve experienced this in their MLA offices…. This is a problem. But those staff, if they were covered under workmen’s compensation, would actually be able to go and make a claim without having to prove it. They’d still have to go to a psychiatrist or a qualified psychologist. They still have to get the medical evidence, but they’d have benefits right on the get-go.

Now let’s suppose you’re working…. I come back to an example that I alluded to at second reading. You’re a single mother. You could be a single father, but let’s just suppose, for clarity, you’re a single mother.

You’re a single mother living in, say, Kamloops–South Thompson riding. You’re a single mother living there, and you’re working in an office. You’re a receptionist in an office. You’ve got two kids at home. You had a deadbeat dad involved. Deadbeat dad got in a car and took off, ran away somewhere. You’re stuck paying the bills. You’ve got two children. You don’t want to go on welfare, because you’re a worker. You’re somebody who actually believes in the importance of actually working hard, earning a living.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Then you go and you realize that your skills are limited. You’ve got a job that gives you the right number of hours with the appropriate wage. There are very few of these jobs. You might be working and have developed expertise, in terms of as a receptionist, in, let’s say, an auto mechanic shop, for lack of a better example. There are probably a lot of those in Kamloops. Let’s think of something that’s not…. Maybe a college department where you need specific skills. Thompson Rivers University — I love the university. Let’s just find a department there where they need your skills.

Now you get into an environment where you need this job, you’ve got kids at home, and the environment is abusive. You’ve got a boss who’s abusive. You’ve got a boss who’s demeaning. You’ve got a boss with unrealistic expectations. You’ve got a boss who basically has an insecurity complex because they know they shouldn’t actually be in their position of authority, but they’re your boss. And they try to exert their power, because bad bosses lack self-confidence and feel the appropriate way to overcome that is to belittle their employees or harass their employees or put unnecessary expectations or demands on their employees.

But you need this job, hon. Speaker. You need this job because there is no other job that you can have. You are a single mom. You’ve got two children at home. You’re working that job to provide food for your children, and you don’t want to go on welfare and the stigma of that. If we had basic income, it would be different, but you don’t want to go on welfare.

What do you do? Well, right now, what you do is you can go on disability leave if you happen to be a unionized employee that has a long-term disability plan negotiated with your employer. That’s fine. You’ll get some reduced salary. Typically, there’s a short period of time. Typically there’s an approach to getting you back to work.

But if you wanted to go to workmen’s compensation — as you’re not even a union employee, and you don’t have LTD — you have to take the risk, when you expose yourself to make a claim, that they will agree, even if you have professionals. You have to prove that that is happening in the workforce. You have to relive everything, with all the risk of you recounting that story as to whether or not your boss will actually be worse than he or she was before. You take on that risk with no certainty as to what the outcome will be.

We had an opportunity here to actually have a presumptive clause which would give certainty to allow that person to have coverage while they went to make a claim. If WCB…. No one has taken away their rights to challenge a claim. That’s what the amendment, which I didn’t get a chance to put…. We’ve all had a chance to read it on the order papers, because it’s been there two days. Members opposite knew full well that I was going to raise it.

Members opposite actually told me — the member from Chilliwack — that he had a couple more questions to go and he’ll be going for a while. That’s good leadership from the B.C. Liberals.

We had an opportunity to help that person. I don’t know how many examples I’ve heard from professions across British Columbia, not only firefighters and police officers. There’s no question about them requiring presumptive clauses. There’s just no question.

What about tow truck drivers? You know, prior to getting elected, I had a couple hangover — last term…. I’m done now. But I’ve done a lot of expert witnessing in forensic meteorology, which is an area where we use meteorological conditions to reconstruct weather conditions, road conditions, at the time of the accident.

Now, in that time — some of these go to court; some don’t — I get to see a lot of pictures. Let me tell you, most people in this room would not want to see those pictures. What you see in these pictures are bits of people splayed across the street, entrails hanging here, decapitation hanging there, missing limb over there. These are not pleasant pictures to see, but I just see pictures. They’re not real to me.

Now, imagine you’re a tow truck driver, and you’ve been called because they’ve blocked the main highway on the Coquihalla. You’ve been called to move some cars, but because they’re doing an investigation, you’ve still got some body parts on the scene and you show up there. What is the difference between that tow truck driver going there and a first responder who goes there? They see the same thing.

In the one case, we’re going to give presumptive clause. In the other, we say: “No. No, we’re not consider you,” because you didn’t have a lobby group come to the Legislature and actually push this forward. You didn’t have a lobby group to do that.

This is a lack of courage in leadership, where we could have followed the lead of both Saskatchewan and Alberta and done what they have done and introduced presumptive clauses for all workers covered under the workmen compensation act.

But, no, we didn’t do that. Games were played in the Legislature here today. Games were played in a desperate attempt…. Even after I was asked by one member opposite — a member opposite who I actually have a lot of respect for…. That member was going to contemplate the merits of one of the amendments and get back to me, but never got back to me because the member from Chilliwack — their critic — decided to shut down debate, despite the fact of saying he had a number of questions.

I was five minutes late — not even five minutes. I was three minutes late, because I had developers in my office who are at wit’s end because the B.C. Liberals, for years, ignored the crisis in affordability and the B.C. NDP have brought in issues with respect to taxation that have led to a crisis that they have to deal with. They see us as the only opportunity.

Let’s get back to this bill, which we should have canvassed much more extensively at committee stage, but the member from Chilliwack abdicated his responsibility to do his due diligence. Frankly, British Columbians should be quite upset about that.

Coming back to the bill, I’ve talked about Florida — PTSD responders there. I’ve talked about Nova Scotia. I’ve talked about other provinces — like Ontario, like Manitoba, like the maritime provinces — that all have presumptive clauses. But we somehow think that in B.C., we’re not going to actually consider 911 responders as emergency responders, as first responders, as those that this legislation should be brought to.

I’ve given examples of nurses. I’ve given examples of teachers. I’ve given examples of office workers. I’ve given examples of construction workers. Let’s find other examples. What about a manufacturer?

I used to work — one of my first jobs that I had as a youngster — in Edinburgh, on the Leith docks. Now, any of you who know Edinburgh and the Leith docks there will know that that is the roughest part of Edinburgh. My first day to work, I showed up and a guy had his arm covered in stitches because his wife had stabbed him with an umbrella. The other guy I had to work with had scars around his face, because he recently had a beer glass put in his face.

I know that there was a student in that environment that was working there. I was a big guy. I played rugby. I got on with these guys. But there was a student there who they didn’t like. They didn’t like this guy because he was nippy. Then two things could have happened. I’ll tell you what did happen, and I’ll tell you what could have happened.

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

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

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

We had an opportunity to do something different here, to recognize that it’s pretty clear that that kid, who’s living in an abusive environment…. There’s no way that guy would want to risk his life and go and challenge a ruling about where he is. It literally would have been risking his life. Or in the other case, to have to relive going through that ice shredder — I can’t imagine it.

There’s another example from another one of my jobs in Edinburgh. I worked flipping burgers, again on the north side of Edinburgh. That’s a tough side of Edinburgh. There was a young guy there who was a cook. Management didn’t like the cook, so they were a very abusive to the cook. The cook took a lot of grief there.

He was a short-order cook trying to make ends meet. If that short-order cook leaned on the stove and burnt his hand, we don’t need to worry about presumption there. He burnt his hand in work. But there’s a stigma in our society that this government promised that they would take steps to mitigate. It’s a stigma about mental disorders, anxiety, depression.

For the first time in history we have a ministry here dedicated to this — dedicated to mental health and addictions. Yet why we are not actually standing up and standing for what we believe in when we’ve put in place the mechanisms, the support, and campaigned in elections on destigmatizing mental health illness and treating it as a disease like any physical disease….

We come back to that cook who would get presumption for a burn, but presumption for an abusive, bullying workplace? No way. He’d have to prove it. Good luck trying to prove it in the north side of Edinburgh. If the word gets out that you’re trying to prove it, publicly, that’s not going to be a good situation. I could go on with other examples, but I did want to come back to the reason why this is critical to have it to all clauses.

I come back to the last government and the Premier, at the time, who actually saw an opportunity to do something different here. That was with respect to sexualized violence in post-secondary institutions. What she recognized was that the right thing to do was to force public institutions to develop policies to actually ensure that they had sexualized violence policies to deal with it. The reason why — as I introduced the bill when the last government was in, and what passed eventually in a slightly different form — of course, is that public institutions have a vested interest in trying to ensure that actually they are deemed to be safe places for students to come.

What was happening, as I was getting told story after story from institution after institution…. There was no one that was particularly bad over another. They all had the problems, and it was systemic. The issues were kept below the surface, and nothing was done. But by forcing policy measures and a process to be in place, these issues now must be dealt with.

That comes to the issue of WCB and the presumptive clause for mental illness. If you are in an abusive work environment and you actually now report it and go on LTD, nothing gets done because there’s no incentive for the institution to do anything. There’s a fear that there might be: “Oh, if we react here, they might get mad at us” or “Oh, we might do this.” But if we had a presumptive clause for mental health disorders, their WCB rates would start to go up for that institution if they started to see an awful lot of claims emerging from it.

I would have thought these supposed free marketers on the other side would have liked to see this financial measure to ensure that you are creating a process that actually incentivizes safe workplaces. I would have thought that members here, the so-called labour party, would have seen the importance of doing this — the importance of creating a stick and a carrot, the stick being in the workmen’s compensation board premiums that every employer has to pay for covered workers.

Those go up in an unhealthy work environment. If you start to have a lot of accidents, a lot of people tripping and falling, breaking legs, on a lumber mill site, you know your premiums are going to go up. So there’s an incentive to make that workplace safe.

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

Indigenous communities are sick and tired…. Hon. Speaker, there’s a direct parallel between this analogy….

Deputy Speaker: Relevance to the bill, Member?

A. Weaver: There is. There’s a direct parallel between politicians saying they want to do truth and reconciliation and their actions, or not thereof. In fact, Indigenous people are sick and tired of words. They want to see action. And it’s exactly the same — and therein lies the analogy — with mental health and addiction.

It’s really easy to say we’re destigmatizing mental health and addictions. So where’s the beef? Where’s the Alberta beef? Why aren’t you actually doing it? You have a ministry to do this. You have an opportunity to do it. You issued a private member’s bill, for heaven’s sake, in 2016 and 2017 that included 911 dispatchers. But we didn’t do it. We didn’t do this opportunity because of petty games by the B.C. Liberals, which actually didn’t follow through with what they said.

You know, this place doesn’t work. This place doesn’t work if we can’t trust that when we say we’re going to be up on something, that we will be up on something.

I took the opportunity immediately before lunch to show the member for Chilliwack, who actually had the amendments. He knew exactly what I was going to do. I told him the three amendments, the three phases. I was going to start with the “include all workers.” The second phase…. I mean I could read it in, because this is what I had planned to do, and this is relevant to the bill.

The second thing I was going to do, assuming that there was some objection for including all workers…. I would have given the opportunity for the minister to actually outline the direction he was going to take this legislation in the months ahead. I would have then talked about: “Okay, we’ll understand that. Let’s include nurses, social workers and 911 dispatchers right off the bat.” We know we’ve got so many examples. You’ve all received emails. Let’s put them in with the other first responders.

Then I would have seen how that debate goes. If that didn’t work, I would have come back with the 911 dispatchers, because there is no reason why this bill does not include 911 dispatchers — or, more formally, 911 emergency communications operators and dispatchers — today. There’s no reason why it’s not there today. But they didn’t want to have a vote, because they are just playing politics.

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

I do see another school group here. I’d like to look to the member, my friend, here. I will understand that…. I’ll just pause briefly, with leave, to allow him to introduce them.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to give the member a break in the midst of his two-hour speech that he is giving. Again, it’s my pleasure to introduce to you the second of three classes that are here today from Surrey Christian School. They’re here with their teachers, their parents, who are chaperones, and others. I would ask the House to please make these wonderful students from Surrey Christian School very welcome to the House.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I will proceed. I believe there’s a third class coming. I look forward to the value provided to the introduction, at the start of the introduction, as well. Perhaps the member might want to tone that down; otherwise, leave may not be granted him a third time.

I do continue. I was talking about the importance of having a carrot and a stick, knowing full well that there are organizations where nothing is done. Nothing is done because there’s no incentive to do anything about abusive work environments with systemic harassment, system bullying.

I see another few teachers in the audience. Let me talk to them who are here and talk to the relevance of this case, so the children in the audience and their parents know what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about here — to the gallery — is the bill that’s called Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act . We’re now at third reading of that bill. We went from first reading, where it’s introduced, to second reading, where we made our points known.

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

The thing is, obviously, the member didn’t realize that at third reading, I get a full two hours to explain these amendments and what I was hoping to do and why this bill is on dodgy grounds for approval without these other bills.

One of the things I’ve been putting forward here is that in this bill is a presumptive clause. Right now if you suffer mental illness as a direct consequence of your workplace and you are covered under workers compensation, you must go to Workers Compensation and prove that your mental disorder is a direct consequence of your work.

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

What is done in Alberta and Saskatchewan — to the gallery there — is that they have presumptive clauses for all workers. The examples I’ve been giving here…. I’ll give one that’s relevant to teachers. Teachers, for example…. The Speaker….

I don’t think you heard my example. You weren’t in the chair at the time.

My wife’s a teacher. Most of my family are teachers. Teachers have an amazing job. They get to instil knowledge in youth, particularly at that age when you guys are sponges for knowledge and it’s so exciting to actually try to get you to talk about what inspires you and to ask questions. You’re all scientists. Kids are born scientists. They always ask why, why, why? They’re always asking questions.

Not all teachers have the best working environment. I know some who work in environments that one might argue are actually abusive. I know some who feel that they don’t get the support they need. In fact, I know some very specifically where duties to report under the act are such that when they report inappropriate issues that they must report, it falls upon the deaf ears of the administrators, the senior administration and the school boards. In one particular case, they start to get attacked for having the gall to raise this issue.

Can you imagine being a teacher when you know something wrong is happening to a child, or you know that a child is in a abusive family, and you’ve reported it, and nobody’s listening. You have to go into that classroom every day, every day, every day. You know as a teacher that you’re the first responder, because you’re the only voice that that child has — the only safe voice that that child has. But you feel powerless as a teacher to do anything because nobody’s listening to you. These are true stories, true stories I know about.

I’m sure other teachers know teachers like that, too. What happens? Systemic — time after time after time…. You develop anxiety and depression issues. There’s no doubt. If you had broken your hand in the workplace because there was something inappropriate or there was some slippery soap on the floor, and you broke it on the job, you’d be covered by workers compensation. But if you happen to suffer depression and anxiety as a direct consequence of your workforce, you would have to stand before the workers compensation and prove it. You would have to prove it, even if you had psychological assessments and doctors notes saying it was. You’d have to relive these stories. You’d have to argue. You’d have to argue against the tribunal.

As the minister knows, that’s not the easiest thing to do, even with a broken arm, if there’s a challenge, because there’s no presumptive clause. Were there a presumptive clause, you’d be covered. You’d be covered and presumed that your illness was from your work, assuming you had the appropriate medical backup. But WCB could still challenge it down the road.

We had the opportunity in this bill to have a debate at committee stage about the amendments that these members opposite knew I was going to bring forward because I gave it to them. I was told: “We’re going to actually get back to you about them.” They never got back.

I was told that the member opposite had quite a number of questions on section 1 and that he knew I was going to come up. I was three minutes late. What an opportunity for him to play games, to shut down debate. That’s shameful. That’s shameful because it’s not doing what this place is supposed to do.

We here in British Columbia are supposed to debate the issues brought to us. We’re supposed to put our constituents front and centre. We’re supposed to challenge government when we see a bill, such an important bill, like this. When you’ve sat for three days with amendments before you, and you know what they’re going to be, we have a duty and responsibility to debate these, not to play games.

It’s a sad day. I don’t know what professions the parents are up there, but I suspect…. Maybe there’s an office worker up there. Maybe they know somebody in another job that works in an abusive environment, where the boss has no accountability to upper management and creates an environment purely out of insecurity that is abusive or harassing to an employee. But that employee can’t leave because they need the job. Here we had an opportunity in this bill to not only include police and fire and correction officers and sheriffs, but also to include, as did the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, all workers covered under the act.

Again, if the government truly believed in its commitment to dealing with the issues of mental health and addiction through the creation of a separate ministry, it would stop stigmatizing the difference between physical illness and mental illness, which is exactly what’s done here. It is only the physical response that we think is creating the mental illness. It is only the case of first responders who might have to respond to a car accident or police officers who might have to go into a home and see some horrific scene. Those senses are your eyes. This is only responding to those people who are actually experiencing things through their eyes — not through their ears, but only their eyes. Only horrific sights. But we know that mental health disorders in the workplace come far beyond just the traumatic events.

In fact, our own workers compensation legislation recognizes that there are two types of mental health disorders that can occur in the workplace. Some are traumatic, leading often to PTSD, and others are systemic, like harassment and bullying. It has recognized it right there. We’re saying that, okay, we recognize that there are two types. We recognize that. We recognize also that police officers and firefighters and paramedics — I can’t imagine what they have to go through — see a lot of the first type, the traumatic event. I’ll say it again. They see a lot of the first type, but there are others who experience the other first type daily.

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

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

Her PTSD was so profound that when the minister, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, in his speech yesterday thanked her…. He thanked her for informing him over the years about this issue of presumptive clause, that she wasn’t covered by a 911 dispatcher. She had a panic attack last night, watching this, because she was pleased to hear that the government was potentially going forward.

You know, it’s good to see that we’re going to get some more debate from other members here. We can get a rip-roaring third reading debate here. I see some other members will be joining me, coming up in the debate. I look forward to my friend from Peace River South. He might be able to do the job that the member from Chilliwack never did, which is to actually raise issues and challenge government on this particular…. The member for Peace River South, a member who….

The Chair: Relevance to the bill, Member.

A. Weaver: Right. The member for Peace River South, as you know, hon. Speaker, is from the city of Dawson Creek, a wonderful part of town right in the centre of gas country. The question I hope he will address, in raising this, is those gas field workers. You can get physical accidents in the gas field. It happens all the time. You can get physical…. We have, you know, accidents on the construction site. If you break an arm, you’re covered. There are no presumptive issues, because it’s a physical injury.

What about if you’re the person who’s standing by as your co-worker gets run over by a truck? Your best friend’s daughter gets run over by a truck on the field. Or your best friend or your partner falls down and has a horrible accident on the other site. There’s no presumptive clause.

You have to prove…. Even though this could have happened…. This physically debilitating, if not fatal, injury that happened on the workplace would be covered if that person survived. You would be covered if you broke your arm trying to help them, but you wouldn’t be covered unless you could prove that your subsequent PTSD or mental disorder was a direct consequence of your workplace.

That’s wrong, hon. Speaker. That’s completely wrong. The province of Alberta recognized it was wrong. The province of Saskatchewan recognized it was wrong. In the case of 911 dispatchers, other provinces, including very recently the province of Nova Scotia, recognized it was wrong.

It was wrong to actually only have a presumptive clause for professions that are first responders that see, as opposed to also hear or witness as bystanders or second responders.

I hope…. Again, I do have some confidence, with that said — and I come back to it again. The Minister of Labour — it is Labour, I believe. I’ve had many discussions with him about this issue. I do understand, particularly from his union background, that he recognizes the issue is far broader than just police, fire, paramedics, first responders. I recognize that he realizes that emergency dispatchers are critical, and I’m hoping he will rise at third reading and afford me the opportunity of the words I was hoping to extract from him during committee stage to outline a pathway that he sees forward in terms of this bill.

I would like to give him that opportunity, and I’d like to give him that opportunity while I sit here and listen. With that, I hope that the minister is able to stand next, and I will sit and take my place at third reading and listen to the other debates.

Video of Speech

Media Release

Protection for workers suffering mental disorders should be extended: Weaver
For immediate release
April 17, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, says the government’s proposed amendments to the Workers Compensation Act should be extended to all workers. The government’s amendment, which was introduced last week, further extends workers compensation benefits to first responders, sheriffs and correctional officers who suffer from job-related mental disorders by presuming the mental trauma was caused by the nature of an individual’s work, rather than having to prove it was work related.

“While I’m glad that B.C. is extending these protections to some workers, I am concerned that other British Columbians who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out,” said Weaver.

Weaver has been contacted by representatives from other professions, such as nurses and 911 emergency communications officers and dispatchers, who experience high rates of job-related trauma. Furthermore, he noted that any worker is at risk from suffering psychological trauma at work due to issues like workplace bullying and harassment.

Weaver rose at Third Reading of the bill to highlight the gaps in the government’s legislation, noting that extending the changes to all workers would bring British Columbia in line with standards already in place in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

“Mental disorders incurred from job-related trauma are serious injuries that can be incredibly debilitating. I am glad that the government has recognized this and taken this important step towards supporting British Columbians who suffer from such incidents. I hope they will be willing to engage in a debate in the legislature so that we can determine the best way forward to ensure all British Columbians are receiving adequate protection and support.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca