Today in the legislature we debated Bill 9: The Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill updates the Workers Compensation Act for eligible occupations (correction officer, an emergency medical assistant, a firefighter, a police officer, a sheriff or other as prescribed by regulation) who are exposed to one or more traumatic events over the course of their employment and are subsequently diagnosed with a mental disorder. The disorder will be presumed to have been caused by the nature of their work rather than having to prove that it was work-related. British Columbia is one of the last such jurisdictions in Canada to have such legislation.

In speaking to this bill, I articulate why I’m convinced that it doesn’t go far enough. I provide examples as to why I believe teachers, social workers, nurses, office workers, construction workers and others need to be included in the presumptive language. I will be introducing an amendment at committee stage tomorrow to extend this presumptive clause to all workers. Doing so would bring us up to the standards already in place in Alberta and in Saskatchewan.

I conclude by reading into the record (with permission) a tragic, yet illustrative, story sent to me by a 911 call receiver. I cannot understand, nor accept, the fact that when NDP MLA Shane Simpson (Vancouver Hastings) was in opposition he included 9-1-1 communications officers in his Private Members Bill (both in 2016 and on February 16, 2017,  just prior to last year’s election) yet now, when the BC NDP have the chance to update the legislation, they have not included them. I can only assume it was an inadvertent oversight and I will be asking the Minister about this tomorrow.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for bringing this bill forward, Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 — a bill which I clearly strong in strong support of, with my colleagues in this House.

As was mentioned by my colleague from Chilliwack, this bill updates the Workers Compensation Act so that those working in eligible occupations — we’ll come to that in a minute — who are exposed to one or more traumatic events over the course of their employment and are subsequently diagnosed with a mental disorder…. We’ll come to that as well in a second. They will be presumed to have been caused by the nature of their work rather than having to prove that it was work-related.

Now, this particular bill is targeting the eligible occupations — namely a correction officer, an emergency medical assistant, a firefighter, a police officer, a sheriff or other as prescribed by regulation. Now, that’s important, that other as “prescribed by regulation,” and we’ll come to that as well.

The term, as I also mentioned in that introduction, “mental disorder” is actually a term that is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Right now that’s in its 5th edition. It’s termed DSM-V. That fifth edition was published in 2013 and is presently in the process of being updated.

I’ll start here, because it’s a very important interjection that I’d like to do right off the bat to highlight one particular difference between the present legislation and that legislation which was brought in by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the now the minister…. I’m having slight trouble with the title of the ministry. I do apologize. He brought in, in 2016, Bill M203, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2016. It was a private member’s bill.

I sat in the legislature as the member then read it in. We passed first reading, of course. It wasn’t brought for discussion. Why that’s important is…. I’ve mentioned the eligible occupations already. If we refer to this previous bill and we look at the eligible occupations in that case, we see a number of differences. We see here, when we look at first responder it means the following: an individual who is a emergency medical assistant, licensed by the emergency medical assistants licensing board, a full-time firefighter or part-time volunteer firefighter, an individual appointed as a peace officer, police officer, sheriff or corrections officer. All of those are covered.

But most importantly, section 5.2(e) of the private member’s bill brought in by member for Vancouver-Hastings says this: “(e) a 9-1-1 communications officer employed by any of the above organizations or by Emergency Communications for British Columbia Inc.” That’s important, because that one distinction is a difference between the private member’s bill that clearly his party was supporting back in 2016. It does not appear here in Bill 9. It’s specifically excluded.

I suspect that the minister, through the Lieutenant-Governor, orders-in-council, will prescribe this profession, coming into the future. But I will be, as we move forward, proposing a number of amendments to this bill, and one of those will be specifically to deal with 911 dispatchers for reasons and rationale that I’ll describe shortly.

Only Quebec, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia and the federal government, Canada, do not already have some form of presumptive language or legislation for mental health concerns.

In particular, at the federal level, recognizing some of the concern with respect to our military coming home — the preponderance of PTSD and the unacceptable and sad rise in suicide amongst our military personnel, people who put their lives on the line for all of us — the federal government last year — done, actually, by a British Columbian…. The MP for Cariboo–Prince George, Todd Doherty, introduced a private member’s bill called Bill C-211, an act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder. He was looking to create this federal framework to address PTSD in general.

Right now — it’s actually good news; I’m hoping it follows through — it’s passed through the House of Commons. It was passed through third reading on June 16, 2017. It’s presently sitting before the Senate at second reading and is being debated this year, in fact. If we come to some of the language from the government’s backgrounder in the press release….

I think it’s important to read this into the record, because it highlights some of the background for why I will be bringing forth some amendments for discussion at committee stage. The backgrounder for the Workers Compensation Amendment Act states as following. It states: “Currently the Workers Compensation Act provides any worker with workers’ compensation” — the term “worker” is actually defined under the act, and I encourage people to see how it’s defined — “for a mental disorder” — again, that’s described in terms of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistics Manual — “caused by their work, including PTSD.”

There are two recognized situation for work-related mental disorders. This is critical. “There are two recognized situations of work-related mental disorders: (1) a reaction to one or more traumatic events at work, or (2) one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying and harassment.” In both of these situations, I’ll cite some examples of why I think that we need to be a little more inclusive in this legislation.

It’s quite clear to me that this legislation is targeting professions that you might get a lot of 1 — that is, a reaction to one or more singular or multiple traumatic events — but less so to No. 2, even though it still would apply to No. 2, which is primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying and harassment. It would apply to those same professions.

It continues in the backgrounder and says: “In order for the claim to be accepted, medical and/or scientific evidence must be provided to establish that the condition arose out of their employment, in addition to a diagnosis by a psychiatrist or psychologist.”

That’s in the current one. That puts the onus of proof on the sufferer of the mental disorder. That, in and of itself, can be profoundly troubling and creates great mental anguish for the person who’s actually been exposed to the issue causing them a mental disorder.

In some cases, they might choose not to pursue it, because of having to relive the experience. In other cases, they might try to pursue it, to their frustration, and adding to the compounding of their mental disorder because of the fact they feel the system is not listening to them. Indeed, I have examples of that too.

A presumptive clause…. “A presumption under the act,” as here, “provides that, if a worker has been employed in certain occupations” — again, coming back, those are a correction officer, emergency medical assistant, firefighter, police officer, sheriff or others as prescribed by regulation — “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.”

So it switches the onus of burden. You still have to go through the process of meeting with doctors, qualified psychologists and psychiatrists, and having this condition professionally assessed and determined to be a result of a certain cause or causes or systemic problems in the work environment. Now, though ,with a presumptive condition, there is no longer a need to prove that a claimant’s disease or disorder is work-related.

“The proposed legislative amendments,” it further says, “will establish a new mental disorder presumption when the condition is a reaction to traumatic events at work.”

A secondary thing. I’ll very briefly touch upon another…. It’s a very welcome addition, and frankly, I think it’s an oversight to previous additions to this act. It’s not going to be the dominant discussion within this House, but it’s profoundly important, particularly for some of my friends who actually work on the Esquimalt DND firefighters. The amendments in this act will expand existing cancer presumptions to federal firefighters.

In our area, it’s very specific to DND. The DND firefighter comes in to help out, in Esquimalt, Victoria and elsewhere, when there are large calls, They are very active and, in fact, exposed to the same chemicals, particularly if they’re working side by side with Victoria or Esquimalt or View Royal or Colwood firefighters.

This new legislation is going to bring existing cancer presumptions to these federal firefighters employed on military. Federal firefighters currently who qualify for the heart disease and injury presumptions…. While they do already qualify for that that, they’re not qualified for the cancer presumption. So this is a good addition, because at present, it’s limited to local government firefighters under the provision.

This act, again, is a direct response, in my view, as was the previous private member’s bill, to a Union of B.C. Municipalities call for an amendment to the Workers Compensation Act to include a presumptive clause for first responders.

In 2015, the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which represents the local governments across British Columbia, specifically passed a resolution. I thank the good municipality of Central Saanich, embedded within the provincial riding of Saanich North and the Islands, where my friend who’s not here right now is from — my friend to my right here.

This is the motion that they put that was passed at UBCM. It says this. “Whereas first responders will include 911 operators….” Again, the motion specifically refers to 911 operators. They’re talking there about call receivers as well as call dispatchers. It says here, “Paramedics, firefighters, peace officers, police officers, sheriffs, correction officers and many first responders have been affected by mental health injury/disorder” — thus replacing “PTSD” with “mental health injury.” It says: “Whereas there is a need to change the Workers Compensation Act, under section 5.1, to add a presumptive clause as it is possible that within first responders’ duties, they will encounter horrific acts and develop a mental health injury.

“Therefore, be it resolved that a two-month maximum deadline be implemented when making a decision, at any decision point of the claim regarding a mental health injury claim, based on one psychologist’s and/or one psychiatrist’s report, and be it further resolved that upon receipt of a mental health injury claim, the worker should receive immediate financial benefits and treatment, with the understanding and agreement of the worker, their specialist and WorkSafe B.C., that if it is proven that the injury was not as a result of their duties of employment, there will be a repayment plan for the costs.

“Be it further resolved that when the worker is fit to return to work or retraining,” there will be a follow-up plan, to be agreed upon by WorkSafe B.C., the specialist and the worker.

“And be it resolved that under policy 97.34…” — Those of you who’ve been to UBCMs will realize that there are many, many policies. I challenge people to find this. They will, but there are a lot of them to go through. — “…a conflict of medical opinion, the probable difference of opinion shall be discussed with the physicians or referred to the treating physicians or specialists involved. If it is concluded that there is doubt on any issue, the board must follow the mandate of section 99 of the Workers Compensation Act and resolve that issue in a manner that favours the worker.

“And be it resolved that the province of British Columbia adds new legislative action to section 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act, adding a presumptive clause for mental health injuries as set forth in the resolution to ensure the well-being of all first responders who have sustained a mental health injury.” Coming back again to that specific motion passed at UBCM in 2015, the first one that was included, for 911 operators.

Continuing back to the motion, it says: “A motion duly moved and seconded to amend the resolution by replacing the five enactment clauses with one enactment clause, reading: ‘Therefore, be it resolved that the provincial government work with WorkSafe B.C., first responders and other stakeholders to review and amend the Workers Compensation Act with the goal of supporting the well-being of first responders who have sustained a mental health injury….'”

That’s just getting complicated. It says it was not endorsed there. But that was a bunch of sub-motions within it. Nevertheless, we have that coming out of UBCM. It’s good to see that the government has responded to that.

But what’s more important as well here, of course, is that we have to ask the question: why is it that B.C. took so long to actually deal with this issue? We are really, other than Quebec, one of the large, major provinces to move forward with it.

We have two shining examples in Canada, those being the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan — we’ll come back to that in a second — who actually recognized, coming earlier to the government’s backgrounder, that there are two situations of work-related mental disorders: a reaction to one or more traumatic events at work and one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors such as bullying and harassment.

Recognizing that, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan now cover all psychological injuries defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, and they do so for all professions. Why is that important? Most other provinces — Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Prince Edward Island, for example — largely cover PTSD, although in Ontario, there’s some new legislation coming forward adding nurses as well. But why is it that we have more progressive provinces actually going further?

Let’s go directly to the Workers Compensation Board fact sheets from both Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta has two such fact sheets that are relevant here — the traumatic psychological injury fact sheet and the post-traumatic stress disorder fact sheet. That’s the PTSD fact sheet. Let’s focus on what it says is the difference.

Effective December 2012, Alberta actually covered firefighters with PTSD presumptive clauses as well as emergency medical technicians and police officers appointed under provincial regulation. Also, effective April 1, they’ve added correctional officers and emergency dispatchers too.

If we look at the traumatic, psychological injury within Alberta, we see that that extends…. Effective 2018, it says “All workers covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act who have been: a) exposed to a traumatic event during the course of employment that could lead to PTSD, and b) diagnosed with a psychological injury by a physician or psychologist are eligible for presumptive coverage through WCB-Alberta, unless the contrary is proven.”

This in Alberta applies to every worker in Alberta — whether you be a teacher, a nurse, an emergency dispatcher, or whether you happen to be a social worker. Let’s imagine some cases. We see this legislation here as a direct response to very effective lobbying by police, by firefighters, and we thank them for their lobbying. But as legislators, we must not stop there and say that those who have lobbied are the only ones who have the issue.

I would argue that they are very efficient and effective lobbyers, and they are lobbying not only on behalf of their profession but for the broader society as a whole. I have a cousin who is a firefighter. I understand what it’s like to…. I don’t understand to be there, but I want to understand what it’s like to witness someone come home after they’ve scraped someone off the road following a significant car injury.

Over the years I have done some expert witnessing myself in forensic meteorology, and I’ve seen horrific pictures. But I’ve only seen them as pictures. I cannot imagine what people — firefighters, paramedics or first responders — would actually see when they go there, and having to scrape this off. Or in Oak Bay, those police who had to show up at the home of the two young children who were murdered by their father — can you imagine what they went through? I understand this.

But let’s also think about that social worker, that social worker who has to go into a home, and goes into a home and sees systemic child abuse happening in a home. Suppose that social worker who’s seeing systemic child abuse tries to get their superior to take steps to deal with it, and they’re not. That can be a problem. That can lead to profound problems down the road.

What about teachers? What about a teacher who is standing up and teaching the class for years, and then all of a sudden, they have a child in the class that’s clearly coming from a troubled home. The teacher has a duty to report a corresponding report, and teachers are professionals. They will and do all the time. But there are times, and I’m dealing with some in my own constituency, when nobody listens. The administration is not supportive. The system starts to protect itself. Yet the teacher is the one who has to deal with this on the front line. This can lead to down-the-road and ongoing systemic issues with respect to depression and anxiety.

Again, I come to a case that’s going on in my constituency right now, a very serious case that falls right in that definition. Where is WCB for them? Where is WCB for the person who now has to prove that their illness comes from the work environment?

When the system is trying to protect itself, that can be very hard, because your superiors are not going to be writers of letters saying “yes, we understand this person.” This is why it’s critical to include the….

What about nurses, who are front-line responders in many cases? Why are they not included in this? They would be in Alberta — I’ll come to Saskatchewan in a second. They would be in Alberta.

What about heavy truck drivers working on-site, where a major accident, a construction accident, occurs? It can have devastating effects on the workers on that construction site. It could have devastating psychological effects, which can be, through proper medical intervention, assessed and attributed to that accident. But they’re not covered under workmen’s compensation. Yet in Alberta, they would be.

What about somebody working in an office in downtown Kelowna, in an abusive work environment? But that person happens to be a single mother or a single father, and they’re earning just enough to make ends meet, because at home, they have an autistic child, and they have no family in town. They’ve got this one job, and they can’t quit this job, because if they quit this job, they’ll be on welfare.

Yet they’re in a systemically abusive environment that leads to depression and anxiety disorders or other such mental illness. They go to their psychiatrist, they go to their psychologist, and it’s very clear that it comes from the recommendations there. But again, they have to prove this. And as somebody going forward to workmen’s compensation has to prove it, they have to relive everything. They have to relive all of those experiences as they try to prove that their illness is a direct consequence of their work.

Progressive jurisdictions like Alberta — and let’s go to Saskatchewan — recognize this. They recognize that it doesn’t stop the due medical process from still occurring. It doesn’t stop workmen’s compensation from challenging an assessment, but it does provide a presumptive clause that would ensure that workers actually don’t have to relive every incident in order to prove it before workmen’s compensation.

Let’s go to Saskatchewan, another progressive jurisdiction. Now, Saskatchewan has a two-page fact sheet. If you go to page 2 on this fact sheet entitled Psychological Injuries, it says this: “Does the psychological injury presumptive clause guarantee that my WCB claim will be accepted?” It says this: “The WCB” — that’s Workmen’s Compensation Board — “will gather information to determine if you’ve been exposed to a traumatic event or series of traumatic events that occurred during work and if it is acceptable under the presumption.”

So they’re still able to gather evidence. They’re still able to make an assessment and a potential challenge if they don’t believe this was a result, but the presumptive language is there. The presumptive language is in the legislation that would protect the worker from actually having to relive that experience.

This doesn’t cost a lot at all.  I suspect that government will step forward and suggest that in the case of some of them…. WorkSafe B.C. undertook these projections, and they suggested that the total cost for the presumption of the group of workers considered here would be $6.3 million a year across all of B.C.

It’s not clear if that’s going to have any effect on actual premiums, because WorkSafe B.C. doesn’t actually spend all the money they’re bringing in at this stage. So that could just be zero cost. And of course, any increases in WCB would actually go down to the local government and the municipal level, and the impacts depend on the size or the payroll.

For example, Terrace. Terrace is a small municipality, and it’s estimated that the presumptive clause, for all included classes, would have cost about $4,000 a year. That’s $4,000 for the entire city of Terrace. I think it’s worth it. Kelowna is a medium-sized city. In Kelowna, it’s $32,000 a year to cover all of these in presumptive clauses — $32,000 a year alone. It’s not a lot. In Surrey, it would be $86,000 a year — a large metropolis city there. So we’re not talking about a lot of money in these.

However, it’s critical to also think about not only the upfront costs but also the costs avoided — again, not only with the specific case of the people who are eligible workers but also with broader society. If you can avoid long-term costs of health care, long-term costs associated with frustration compounding mental disorders because of a lack of ability, feeling out of control from an inability to actually advocate for yourself when no one’s listening to the job environment, you could save money in the long term.

Not only that, but with a presumptive clause it gives WCB a little bit of power — a little bit of power that’s absolutely critical, particularly in larger institutions. Why that is critical is that if we come back earlier, to the two classes that are covered now in the present Workers Compensation Act, the two classes of coverage…. The two classes — I want to get them exactly right for Hansard so that I’m not misquoting. Here we go. The two classes — two, three…. I seem to be filibustering my own time here. I don’t mean to do that. Here it is.

The first one is, of course, a reaction to one or more traumatic events at work. That’s the first class. The second is one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying or harassment.

I’m the designated speaker, Hon. Speaker.

Coming back to No. 2, No. 2 is critical — one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying or harassment. Now, why is that important? We all know about people who work in larger institutions. Whether they be government, hospitals or hospital boards, universities, school districts or colleges, or whether they be large places of work — we all know, and have many a story to tell, about workplace bullying and harassment that goes on. In these institutions, very often, people feel that nobody is listening. The reason why they feel that nobody is listening is because you have to prove that a mental health issue would be a direct consequence of your work.

With the presumptive clause, the onus then comes on the employer: rather than to cover something up, to actually deal with the systemic problem. Otherwise, their Workers Compensation Board fees are going to go up. There’s an incentive to actually deal with workplace bullying, if you actually include a presumptive clause for all types of workers covered under the act.

I find it odd that I am the leader of the B.C. Green Party and that I’m arguing better labour policy to the NDP. This is a very odd situation. I can only hope that they see the light and recognize what Alberta and Saskatchewan did — that this is about incentivizing safe work environments. Two years ago now I stood in this House and introduced a bill that would require university campuses to add sexualized violence policies, to insist that they have them. The culture on campuses, from small to big, was one of: “It’s not our problem.” It’s one of not dealing with the problem.

These universities and colleges and smaller institutions want to be perceived as safe places for students. So if there’s an issue of sexualized violence, it’s kept under the table. It’s quiet, and policies aren’t really implemented. The Premier at the time stood up and agreed that this was an important issue, and we saw that legislation pass. It’s led to good policy being put in at many, but not all, institutions. All institutions have it, but not all have that as good policy, as we’ll hear about in the weeks and months coming, ahead.

Nevertheless, it required institutions to recognize that a problem exists. The ultimate penalty that they would have would be the stick of advanced education funding, which could ensure that they actually dealt with it.

In the case of workmen’s compensation, they too have a stick. If you are in an unhealthy work environment, one that’s conducive to bullying and harassment…. We all know examples of this going on. If your management does not step in to deal with it and workers start to go on leave and, following the presumptive clause, that reason for leave is actually pinned on the work environment — without having to relive it and prove it — then there’s an incentive to actually stop, to intervene, because your premiums will go up. You can bet that when it starts to affect your bottom line, it will make a difference.

I will not accept arguments from government that somehow this is going to cost, oh, so much to everyone. In fact, it should not cost anything. If institutions step up to deal with the problem, they should actually not cause it to rise. It’s there to protect workers. It’s there to save the health care system. And it’s there to ensure that institutions step in to deal with systemic bullying and harassment that too often is ignored in larger institutions across our province.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan…. Again, one government, an NDP government, and another government — well, Saskatchewan Party — is, let’s call it, the Conservative government. Across the spectrum. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a recognition of good public policy that employers need to be responsible and not everybody has the ability to quit a job and go somewhere else.

I want to come back…. I’ve talked about nurses. I’ve talked about teachers. I’ve talked about construction workers. I’ve talked about 911 dispatchers. And I’ve talked about office workers, but there are many other professions. I want to focus right now, a little bit, on 911 operators. I’m going to focus that on a story, because I think a story says it all.

I cannot accept that government has any rationale not to have 911 operators named in this act. I cannot accept that. We know, according to the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, that public-safety personnel — including paramedics, police, firefighters, dispatchers and correction officers — are four times more likely than the general population to screen positive for clinically significant symptoms consistent with one or more of the mental disorders that we’ve been talking about.

If we need the research on that for 911 dispatchers, I have some right here. It’s not a prop. It’s just white paper. I have in my hands a document that I won’t read in its entirety into the record, but it’s a thesis that was from the University of the Fraser Valley. A fine institution from down in the valley.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. He recognizes it is a very fine institution.

It’s a master of arts in criminal justice. Actually, hon. Speaker, I suspect our Speaker might be aware of this particular article, because it was from his former department, there, at the University of the Fraser Valley.

Its title is “Prevalence of PTSD Symptoms in Canadian 911 Operators.” We have an entire study here — and it’s B.C. focused — that points out the obvious issues with respect to mental illness, particularly PTSD and others, that are associated with emergency dispatchers and call receivers.

Let me finish with a story that I’d like to read into the record. This is a story that I’ll read, and I’ve been given permission by the person who got it to read it. She or he has given me that permission. What I’ve done here is — I don’t want to give out any names — I’ve removed identifying markers in this. It’s a story that I can vouch to be true, from a very real person in a very real part of British Columbia that had very profound consequences. This person, now, has told me about how she or he has consulted at least six dispatchers from not committing suicide.

The stories I heard — not only from nurses, not only from teachers, but from emergency dispatchers. One of these stories was a caller, a caller who received a 911 call from a passenger who was in a car in motor vehicle accident, reporting that. That passenger sees a head rolling by, a dismembered head. Can you imagine that? The caller is on the phone, dealing with this passenger, as this passenger is in hysterics. That had a profound effect, because that person is the first responder.

I hope government listens to this story and reflects upon it, prior to us debating this in committee stage. The story goes like this:

“Mr. X was his name. He lived on the second floor of a four-storey apartment building, about a block or so away from ‘YYY.’ I don’t remember the street name anymore, although I do remember that it has exterior stairs that go up to each floor, because ERT used them” — that’s emergency response team — “and I remember hearing them stomp up them, clanging on the metal stairs outside his open window.

“I received a 911 call, where all I heard was a muffled sound of pain and then a hangup. When I called back, a male with a thick accent answered, and he didn’t want to talk to me, but clearly he was crying and/or in pain. I worked hard to establish a conversation with him to find out what was going on.

“Eventually, he trusted me and told me that he had already committed hara-kiri by stabbing himself in the stomach with a large knife and was currently sitting on his bed, with his entrails hanging out. He tried to kill himself and now was really scared and didn’t want to die alone — not that he didn’t want to die. He just didn’t want to die alone.”

“I created the priority-one call and advised the chief dispatcher, who then continued to listen, for a bit, off and on through the call.

“His apartment door was locked, and so this became a barricaded man with a weapon call, and ERT was called out. He refused to talk to the officer at the window, but when talking to me, he would go back and forth between wanting to live and wanting to die. I convinced him that I cared and that if he wanted to live, then he needed to come outside so the officers and the waiting ambulance could get him to hospital for help.

“He believed me and was going to come out. Then he heard the ERT officer ask for a member at the parking lot to bring him the spud gun. This set Mr. X off on a tangent of terror. He didn’t want to be shot. He wanted to live, but he refused to talk to the ERT member at the window.

“At this time, he was still bleeding, and the knife was still in his stomach. He kept telling me he was going to just pull out the knife and let himself bleed to death if the cop at the window wouldn’t leave.

“On my end, I had my team manager telling me to hang up — the chief dispatcher telling me to hang up. Common sense told me to hang up, but I couldn’t. I couldn’t be the person who caused this man’s death.

“I told Mr. X that he needed to talk to the cop at the window, that they were there to help him. He went really quiet and then wouldn’t answer me when I asked him if he was still there. So I clicked on my mute button so he would believe that I had hung up — and then just listened.

“All this time, I was typing as well, letting the officers know what was happening and the dispatcher was doing the same with their stuff. I saw, in the call, the request for the spud gun and that there wasn’t one on scene, but it was on the way. They were waiting and still trying to establish contact with Mr. X, trying to strike up a rapport with him. He kept crying and denying them, accusing them of trying to kill him and asking them to let him talk to me.”

Remember, at this juncture, she’s on the phone with the mute button, unable to speak.

“He blamed them for making me hang up and told them that he was going to die because of it. Car number, number” — I won’t say what number it was — “was there as well, and he asked the chief dispatcher where the call-taker was. He was advised that I was still on the line but was being silent on mute. They were also still waiting for a negotiator to arrive. He was at least another 30 minutes away at this point.”

Hon. Speaker, you’ve got the picture now. A man — knife in his stomach, entrails hanging out. Because he has a knife, we have an ERT team. We now have to wait 30 minutes for the ERT team to come because he’s an armed person in there.

And who’s on the phone? This one emergency dispatcher.

I continue with the story:

“I knew that Mr. X wasn’t going to live that long. If he was bleeding badly from his belly, then we didn’t have much time. I don’t know who it was, but I heard through my headset an officer yell at the dispatcher to tell me to hang the f… up.”

I’ll let Hansard fill that in if they choose to. I don’t think it’s parliamentary to do so, but I’m reading directly here from this thing:

“I do know, though, that it wasn’t car X because it wasn’t his voice. I know his voice. I felt the horror, the terror of impending death, the helplessness of having my hands tied, incapable of doing anything for this man, and I could not hang up. I was frozen. I was convinced that if I hung up, he was going to die. I also believed at that point that if I said anything more, I would be in big trouble. So I sat there for about ten minutes, listening, vibrating physically, and tears running down my face. I saw in the call that the spud gun had arrived, and I could hear the dispatcher’s comments that an ERT member was trying to get a clear shot from the window. They were going to shoot him.

“Now, common sense tells me that this won’t kill the average man” — it’s a spud gun, hon. Speaker — “but this man already had his guts hanging out of his belly, had already lost a lot of blood and was already traumatized by all this.” I’m quoting again: “F…!”

No need to fill it in. It’s in the text here. This is a direct quote that was given to a psychiatrist in terms of what happened.

“I looked over at the dispatcher, who was looking at me. She very slowly nodded her head at me in my tears. She knew that I could change this around if I was allowed to try. I think she was telling me to go ahead and do it anyways. At this point, I had created the call almost 40 minutes ago.”

That’s 40 minutes this woman, this call receiver, sat through this traumatic event. And there wasn’t much time left to get any help at all.

“I made the decision and typed into the call that I had established a trust with the man and that I was going to re-establish contact with him now. At this point, Mr. X was yelling at the cops to all go away and leave him alone to die, that he was going to die and it was their fault. I started saying his name over and over until he stopped yelling and he heard me. I started talking with him again, got him to listen to what I was saying and trust me again. I talked him into coming outside with his hands up and letting the officers get him the help he needed, and he did. I typed this into the call, and the chief dispatcher came back on the line. She coordinated it with the ERT while I talked to Mr. X. He was scared, but he did it. He unlocked the door. Then we counted to three, and he opened it and stepped outside.

“I heard the officers take him down and him screaming all the way through it. They got him into the ambulance and off to hospital. I then hung up and just about collapsed. I had to leave the room. But on my way out, I heard the chief dispatcher talking on the phone with someone that I could assume was car X. She was defending me, telling that person, ‘Well, she did, so it doesn’t matter….  Well, she did….’ as I walked past her out of the room.

“When I came back into the room about 20 minutes later, car X was there talking to my team manager. He was visibly angry and told me in a very stern voice: ‘I don’t ever want to hear of you doing that again. ‘ But then he stuck his hand out to shake mine and said: ‘Good job. You should take negotiator training.’ What? I was left with the feeling of not knowing whether I was in trouble or being congratulated, whether I was coming or going.

“I never found out whether or not Mr. X lived. I tried to find out a few months later. The officers didn’t know, and victim services was unable to confirm he survived — equals, he did not.

“I feel the guilt and responsibility for this young man’s death. It is a moral injury that I will likely never recover from. The kicker here: my employer and X inspectors wrote me an ‘attaboy’ for a job well done. They congratulated me for successfully causing a human being’s death. I didn’t sign up for that. I’m not a police officer. I was never prepared for this possibility.”

Now, that is just one of many, many such stories that I have received over the last few weeks. I’ve got stories like this from nurses, and I’ve got stories like this from teachers, and I’ve got stories like this from a diverse array of professions.

But one thing I cannot accept is that when in opposition, this government delivered a private member’s bill that included specifically 911 dispatchers and callers and now, when in government, they leave out 911 dispatchers and call receivers.

They are first responders. In many cases, they are the first responder and the last person to hear someone alive, the last person to be the first responder while someone’s alive. They listen to cases like this. There are many, many other examples.

I understand that some emergency dispatchers are paramedics and so would be covered and that some are police officers and so would be covered, but not all. Many are just civilians and need to be covered under this legislation.

So over the course of the estimates, I have a series of amendments to bring forward — one of which I hope is passed, which I’m putting in; it’s on the order paper — to extend this legislation across other jurisdictions, all other workers, as defined in the act, just like they’ve done in Alberta, just like they’ve done in Saskatchewan, to actually protect workers from abusive work environments as well as to provide presumptive clauses not only for systemic harassment and bullying but also for traumatic events.

That’s the first, and I hope government sees the wisdom in that. As people look at the order paper amendment that I’ll bring in at committee stage, you’ll note that I recognize that government may have done some back work. So royal assent with the amendment would remain the same now, as proposed here, but would be extended a year so that we would give government a time to have royal assent for all other workers not already defined in the amendment here.

That’s the first one. I have some subsequent ones, hoping it will not be necessary to raise, under the assumption that government recognizes that we can do better. We can do better, and at least, we’ve got to do as well as Alberta and Saskatchewan. We’re a western province.

We value our workplace. For the first time in a very long time, we have a progressive, democratic government here, a government that actually brought in private members’ bills to do this and, in my view, are timidly responding in a populist fashion only to those who have directly lobbied without thinking about the broader consequences and the broader opportunity that is sitting before us now.

I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to debating it further at committee stage.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Premier about his recent meeting in Ottawa with Rachel Notley, Premier of Alberta and Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister. I rose third in Question Period between internally inconsistent questions that the BC Liberals also posed to the Premier. It seemed to me that the BC Liberals were more concerned about the interests of Albertans than they were about the protection of the BC economy and environment.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my exchange with the Premier. I was very pleased with his clear responses to my two questions.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: I must admit, it’s galling for me to hear members of the Liberal Party of Alberta opposite wax eloquently about ocean protection — an area that I actually served as an intervenor on. I can assure you that when there’s an ocean protection plan that’s predicated on the existence of 20 hours of sunlight, nobody’s safety is being protected here in the province of British Columbia.

Yesterday the Premier met with the Prime Minister and the Alberta Premier to discuss the manufactured conflict over the Trans Mountain expansion that has the side opposite, the Liberal members from Alberta, all in a tizzy these days.

After the meeting, the Premier stated that he and the Prime Minister agreed to protect our coasts by working together to close gaps in the ocean protection plan. The federal ocean protection plan — let’s be clear, that’s Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific; it’s all three of them — doesn’t address the fundamental and unchanged fact that we cannot protect our coast. We can’t clean up the diluted bitumen if there we’re a spill. You don’t have to believe me, you can believe the Royal Society of Canada or the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. expert panel reports.

Will the Premier confirm that B.C.’s position is unchanged today and that he will use every tool available to him to stand up for our coast, for science and for our economy in the face of the proposed reckless federal intervention in the Trans Mountain expansion.

Mr. Speaker: Premier, before you answer the question….

Member, if I may ask you to retract your comment about the Liberals from Alberta.

A. Weaver: Sorry, I retract the comment about the Liberals from Alberta. I was trying to suggest that the members opposite are not putting the interests of British Columbians first, and are representing external interests.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, the Leader of the Third Party, for his question and, particularly, the reference to the Royal Society of Canada and the gaps there are in the science, which, again, brings me back, also, to the question from the previous member.

The government of British Columbia has been meeting regularly with the federal government on the ocean protection plan and discussing the gaps in knowledge, the gaps in science that have been acknowledged by the Royal Society. In fact, that was the foundation of our intervention to go to the public and talk about these issues in January.

I reaffirmed those points, hon. Member, to the Prime Minister and to the leader of the government of Alberta. I said very clearly and without reservation that the province of British Columbia is extremely concerned about the consequences of a catastrophic bitumen spill.

And I’ll remind the member for Skeena, who’s been silent in this House but active outside, of when he said, back in 2013: “There’s no real way to pick this product up out of the marine environment. If they can prove that, then they should show us where it’s being practised around the world. I’m just not willing to actually allow the Haisla people to take a position on that.”

So even some members on that side, hon. Member, agree with us that there is inexact science. We need to do more work on the subject.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: There’s growing evidence to suggest that Kinder Morgan set their outrageous ultimatum as either part of an exit strategy or in order to hand over the financial risk to Canadian taxpayers.

During the NEB hearings on Trans Mountain — I get that the people opposite don’t understand the economics of this — the company brought forward projections that the price of oil in the base-case scenario — if any of them had read the NEB process, they would understand this — would be $100 a barrel. Its best-case scenario saw prices reach $150 a barrel by 2040.

Since then, the development and discovery of new shale oil deposits, as well as OPEC policy changes, mean that oil has been trading at between $40 and $60 a barrel. Even the most optimistic forecast for 2020 is out around $70 a barrel. Despite this new reality, the federal and Alberta governments seem committed to transfer the economic risks onto Canadian taxpayers.

My question is to the Premier. Did he bring up with the Prime Minister the notion that subsidizing this project exposes B.C. taxpayers and Canadian taxpayers to massive risk at a time when there is growing uncertainty about Trans Mountain’s economic benefits, if any, and that it is not in line with the type of economic development needed to position Canada as a leader in the new economy?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. We did raise, with the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada, where the economics were in having the government of Canada intervene on behalf of an offshore company to invest B.C. and Canadian tax dollars in a pipeline, when there were other more constructive investments that they could make in the new economy, in the green economy. Or, at a minimum, even if they wanted to invest in diluted bitumen, to work with all parties…. I’m sure members on that side of the House would agree that if we could create more jobs in Canada by adding more value to our raw materials, whether it be diluted bitumen or logs, we should do that.

That was rejected by the government. They chose the course that I believe they’ll be laying out for the people of Canada in the days and weeks ahead, and it’ll be up to the Members of Parliament to debate those mechanisms, those tools, as they come forward. But it will be up to British Columbians and all Canadians to ask themselves if this is an appropriate investment of tax dollars.

Today I released a media statement in response to the meeting in Ottawa between Rachel Notley, Justin Trudeau and John Horgan concerning the future of the Transmountain pipeline project. It is reproduced below.

Media Release

Weaver: Prime Minister’s willingness to put federal dollars on the line in response to ultimatums should alarm all Canadians
For immediate release
April 15, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following statement following the meeting between Premiers John Horgan and Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Trudeau regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline.

“I am encouraged to see Premier Horgan continue to stand up for B.C.’s right to protect our economy, our environment and our people,” said Weaver.

“It is deeply troubling that the Prime Minister is considering using public funds to absorb investor risk in this project. The message this sends to investors is that if they issue ultimatums for projects based on fundamentally faulty economic rationale, the Prime Minister will put taxpayer dollars on the line to bail them out. Since Kinder Morgan made its case to the NEB predicated on oil prices being at least $100 per barrel, markets have shifted dramatically and oil price projections are between $40-70 per barrel.

“This should concern all Canadians who took the Prime Minister at his word when he said he would build a clean, forward-looking economy. That means providing targeted incentives and support programs for industries who are embracing low-carbon solutions. Instead, the Prime Minister is doubling down on a sunset industry whose expansion puts our climate targets out of reach. We need to be investing in our shared future, not subsidizing the wealth of Texas oil companies.

“Three years into his mandate, it appears the Trudeau Liberals have no actual plan for transitioning to the low-carbon economy. This is a massive missed opportunity to make Canada  a global leader in climate solutions. Worse, his insistence in pushing this project through despite significant Indigenous and community opposition risks everything that makes Canada great – our commitment to human rights, our beautiful natural environment and our international reputation as a peaceful nation of hard workers unafraid to tackle the challenges before us.

“B.C.’s world-leading climate policies introduced by Premier Gordon Campbell showed the world that climate action and a thriving economy are compatible. My caucus is working closely with Premier Horgan’s to develop a climate plan that will make B.C. a world leader once again. We will continue to provide this leadership in B.C. because we know it is the only way to secure a bright economic future for our province and for our country.”

-30-

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

Today I was afforded the opportunity to address delegates at the 69^th annual convention of the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities. As noted on their website:

“The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) is the longest established area association under the umbrella of the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). The area association was established in 1950. It now has a membership of 53 municipalities and regional districts that stretches from the North Coast Regional District down to the tip of Vancouver Island and includes Powell River, the Sunshine Coast, the Central Coast and the North Coast. The Association deals with issues and concerns that affect large urban areas to small rural communities.“

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

I am delighted to be here this morning with all of you – and I think we share an essential trait as politicians, even if we are not always aligned in policy or vision.

Each of you, I expect, can identify the issue or the passion that motivated you to run for local government. It may have been an environmental issue, as it was for my colleague Sonia Furstenau, or it may have been a desire to see a project in your community to move forward.

And it is passionate leadership at the local government level that sees so much positive change come forward in our province.

Look at the Town of Gibsons – the first in North America to pass a natural asset management policy, showing extraordinary leadership in recognizing the indisputable logic of including natural assets in financial planning.

In Cowichan there is the Cowichan Watershed Board, laying the foundation for watershed co-governance with First Nations, and taking tangible, necessary steps toward reconciliation in the process.

Recognizing that healthy and happy communities – as Charles Montgomery so eloquently points out – have social connection and collaboration in their fibre, Oceanside and Mt. Waddington’s Health Networks are models for bringing people together to create long-term positive health outcomes.

It was my own commitment to action on climate that motivated me to run for MLA in 2013, after I had seen our province go from a climate leader under Gordon Campbell to a climate laggard under Christy Clark.

As a climate scientist, I had long encouraged my students to engage with decision makers – or become decision-makers themselves – if they wanted to see politicians take action on climate. I realized that I too had a responsibility to participate in the building of political will to act on climate – not as a voice of doom, but as a voice for the extraordinary possibility and opportunities that lie before us in this challenging time.

So much of the conversation around climate and the transition away from a fossil-fuel economy is backward-looking, focusing on the economy of the 20th-century.

Look at the hysteria and rhetoric around the kinder morgan expansion – the shocking doubling-down on a pipeline that would export heavy oil – diluted bitumen – out of Vancouver. In every way, this is the wrong direction for our economy, our environment, our relationship with First Nations, and our climate.

Now take the potential that lies in new technology and innovation. Shell has recently announced that it has the technology to extract vanadium from bitumen, and use the vanadium to build steel that can be used to manufacture battery cells that have the capacity to store energy.

Consider that potential! Rather than dumping yet another raw resource as quickly as we can into foreign markets that reap the rewards of jobs and revenue as they process it into a usable and far more valuable commodity, we could be looking at using this resource to develop and support steel manufacturing, innovative energy storage technology, and the renewable energy sector.

We could massively increase the return to our citizens and our economy, and we could be actively building the future energy systems that will sustain our children and grandchildren.

We sell ourselves short by looking backwards – when transformation and innovation are happening more and more rapidly, it is the worst possible time for us as a province or a nation to double down on the ever decreasing returns in a race to the bottom of early 20th-century economics.

And it’s smaller communities – like the ones that many of you represent – that could benefit immensely from the emerging economy that’s rooted in education and driven by innovation and technology.

Consider the potential of Terrace as a centre for manufacturing – we as a province should be reaching out to Elon Musk and encouraging him to see the potential benefits of a Tesla plant or battery manufacturing plant in Terrace, where shipments to Asia are easily accessible through Prince Rupert’s port, and shipments to Chicago are at the end of a rail line that runs straight through Terrace.

Here on the island, Victoria has already earned the moniker “Techtoria” – and the Cowichan Valley is situated perfectly to be the next destination region for an industry that is growing by leaps and bounds.

BC’s own digital technology supercluster was recently awarded $1.4 billion in federal funding – an investment that is expected to produce 50,000 jobs and add $15 billion to BC’s economy over the next ten years.

And the work being done will make the lives of British Columbians better – including creating a health and genetic platform that will allow medical specialists to create custom, leading-edge cancer treatments that are personalized to the unique genetic makeup of each patient.

This work – hi-tech innovation, research, education – this work can happen anywhere in our increasingly connected world. It’s the connectivity highways that we should be investing in – these will allow all communities to reap the rewards of the 21st-century economy.
At a reception for the BC Tech Association last week, I met Stacie Wallin. Her job is to nurture tech companies that have hit the 1 million dollar level in revenue to scale up to the 25 million dollar level.

And she is so busy that she has nearly a dozen people working with her to keep up with the work that’s coming her way. When pipelines and LNG plants crowd out our conversations about BC’s and Canada’s economy, we miss what’s actually happening – the exciting, innovative, emerging economy that is reshaping our communities.

And there’s so much more. The film industry, tourism, education, professional services, value-added forestry, innovation in mining, renewable energy – our potential in this beautiful province is as boundless as our stunning scenery – and squandering time and energy to prop up sunset industries is the wrong place to be putting our precious efforts and money.
And if governments double down on 20th-century carbon-based economics, it’s your communities that feel the impacts and pay the prices.

Floods, droughts, wildfires, damage from increasingly punishing storms, sea level rise & storm sureges – all of these cost your communities, and your citizens, more and more money.

Communities are hit with the costs of building infrastructure to prevent flooding during the melt season, at the same time as having to determine how to deal with depleted aquifers that won’t be able to sustain the residents who depend on them for drinking water, and another drought this summer will once again put Vancouver Island at severe risk for wildfires.

The impacts of climate change will continue to put severe pressures on all our communities – which is why it’s utterly irresponsible for our provincial government to be considering a 6 billion dollar subsidy of the LNG industry – including letting LNG Canada off the hook for paying their fair share of carbon pricing.

Consider that fact alone – that the potential single greatest emitter of greenhouse gases in BC would only ever have to pay $30/tonne for its carbon pollution, while the rest of us, including industry, will see carbon pricing rise by $5/tonne each year.

This is an unacceptable logic, and one that we can’t possibly support – and I urge you, as the elected representatives who will be seeing the costs and consequences of climate change in your communities – I urge you to also encourage this government to recognize that giving massive tax breaks to the LNG industry because it isn’t economically viable is not the direction BC should be heading right now.

Consider an alternative. Why not invest in the Squamish Clean Technology Association (SCTA) created to seek out leading edge ventures that will help create an innovation hub focused on clean energy. We could attract the best and brightest minds to come to BC to figure out how to harness the renewable energy that abounds in our province while encouraging the innovation that our world needs most right now.

In response to a question from the audience on Friday about how to get municipal staff to think beyond their standard frames of reference, I understand that Charles Montgomery pointed to new models for civic design, and suggested that politicians may need to “drag them kicking and screaming” into the 21st century.

This also applies to many of our provincial and federal representatives, who may say that they recognize our need to transition to the new economy, but then try to convince us that the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions … is to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Doubling down with doublespeak – let’s not let this become a new Canadian tradition.

We need our provincial and federal politics to reflect the best of what we see at the local government level.
Informed discussion and debate, listening to people who present differing opinions, allowing for compromise as a path forward, working from a place of shared values and finding solutions that best reflect those values.

And while it may not always feel this way at your council and board tables, the reality is that your level of government is one that is generally far less driven by partisanship and ideology.

We have an extraordinary opportunity to bring our electoral system into the 21st century in BC with the referendum that is happening this fall. And while there will be many discussions on both sides of this debate over the next several months, it’s essential to begin with what are we trying to solve with electoral reform in BC.

Currently, under First Past the Post, elections are geared towards a “winner take all” outcome. And that winner almost never has the support of the majority of the voters.

40% is often the magic number.

40% of the popular vote in BC can generally deliver to one party a majority of seats in the legislature, and 100% of the power for 4 years.

Informed discussion and debate, listening to differing opinions, compromise, collaboration, finding common ground based on shared values – that’s completely unnecessary when your party has enough votes to ram through any legislation and any agenda you like.

Compare this to almost any other human endeavour, where collaboration, cooperation, and respect deliver the outcomes that have moved us forward throughout history.

Yes – let’s compete to bring forward the best ideas, the boldest visions – but let’s not make competition the only value that underpins politics.

Charles Montgomery points out that the infrastructure of our cities and our communities can be a source for unhappiness, through creating mistrust, a sense of disconnect, and a lack of sociability.

It seems that our political infrastructure – and in particular a first past the post system that delivers 100% of the power with a minority of the votes – can also create mistrust, lack of sociability, and unhappiness. In our winner take all system, inflicting knock out blows to the other side becomes a normal part of our politics – but how much does this damage our governance?
How many good ideas, brought forward by opposition MLAs or MPs have died sad deaths on the order papers under a majority government that can’t be seen to work across party lines?

Electoral reform – particularly electoral reform that would bring in a form of proportional representation – would deliver more minority governments to BC.

And some may try to convince you that’s a terrible thing – but I ask, is working across party lines a terrible thing? Is collaboration on policies and legislation a terrible thing? Is having more minds engaged on solving problems a terrible thing?
Or could this change in our electoral infrastructure actually bring us politics that contribute to more sociability – the one factor that Charles Montgomery said was paramount to our happiness.

Premier Horgan mentioned in his address that there has been conflict between our two parties.

There has indeed – and the media will always focus on these points of tension – but if you look at how much legislation was passed in the fall, how many initiatives have moved forward over the past nine months and then consider the ratio of collaboration to conflict, you’ll recognize that – much like at your own council tables – when you work from a place of shared values, it’s possible to almost always find a path forward.

Our current electoral model has its origins in the Middle Ages, and it has undergone significant change over the centuries.
It was only 100 years ago that women were given the right to vote in BC, and as we discuss and debate extending that right to 16 and 17 year olds, let us remember that the world around us changes continuously, and it’s up to us to ensure our institutions – particularly our democratic institutions – adapt to meet the needs of our society.

Happy cities, happy communities, happy politics. Let’s dream big.

Thank you.

Yesterday I had the distinct honour of addressing delegates at the British Columbia Wildlife Federation (BCWF) Annual General Meeting & Convention in Kamloops. Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Prior to my speech, I offered a brief explanation of what motivated me to get into politics. I then spent a few minutes discussing our Confidence and Supply Agreement with the BC NDP and our role as an opposition party.

Text of Speech

At the time of European contact, wildlife were so abundant in British Columbia that early explorers marveled at the richness of the land.

But, by the late 1800’s wildlife losses were so widespread, the public began demanding an end to the free-for-all.

In 1859 the first ordinances “providing for the protection of game” were passed in B.C.

In 1905 the government organized wildlife management, establishing the Department for the Protection of Game and Forests, although it didn’t get funding until 1908.

The annual budget: $10,000.

In 1933 Aldo Leopold, an American conservationist and writer, published Game Management, a book that has been credited with creating the discipline of wildlife management through the application of scientific principles. Indeed, his work planted the seeds of what would eventually become the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

One of the key tenets of the model, which is now widely applied across the continent, is that science – not the dictates of special interest groups – should guide wildlife policy.

I have dedicated my carreer to understanding our world and its problems through science and have been surprised at how difficult it is to convince governments to consistently follow scientific reasoning. While the concept of science-based wildlife management has generally been endorsed in B.C. it has not always been applied.

There have been some successes. But its selective use has led to more disasters.

Many wildlife populations are in jeopardy today. Mountain caribou are facing extirpation, wild salmon – a foundation species – are in shocking decline, spotted owls are virtually extinct, and moose populations, which many families rely on for sustenance, are in trouble across the province.

What we find in almost all of these instances is that there has been inadequate science, particularly concerning cumulative impacts, and that an unacceptable loss of vital habitat has occurred.

The management of wildlife, and the application, or not, of scientific principles, continues to stir great controversy and emotional debate in B.C. Understandably so.

Wildlife management conflicts in which species are pitted against one another are truly challenging, but I have always maintained that humans – elected representatives in particular – have a moral obligation to prevent endangered species from going extinct.

Often, extreme situations are created because government has failed to act. They are typically situations that – for a variety of industrial, social, or budgeting excuses – have been allowed to escalate far past a point of simpler intervention.

When you start rationalizing culling one species to protect another you also introduce an ethical element that needs to be considered alongside scientific findings. Let one – or both – of those species become threatened or endangered and your situation becomes immensely worse.

Some say that humans should not interfere with nature, but sadly, intervention is sometimes necessary. Simply put, many ecosystems have been altered so drastically that we can no longer just stand by and let nature take its course.

If we don’t continue to intervene with the mountain caribou crisis we are currently facing, for example, it will not be long before the remaining herds in the South Selkirk and Peace regions are extirpated.

Predator control, hunting closures, and restrictions that stop industries from undertaking resource developments are all difficult matters for governments to deal with.

But things aren’t going to get easier. The management of wildlife is becoming increasingly complex and fraught with risk.

Habitat loss is mounting.

The human population is growing.

Roads and pipelines have been spreading into the farthest reaches of the province, and researchers have discovered how such developments increase predation, shift wildlife distribution, and impact abundance.

Wolves, as many of you know, use road and pipeline clearings to get a good line of sight on caribou, expanding into new territory to more efficiently track down their prey.

Increased road densities and human activity in wilderness areas elevates human-caused mortality of grizzly bears and reduces the number of bears in the area, scientists at the University of Alberta have recently found.

I believe some of those scientists are here today – thank you for your work!

In a paper recently published in the journal Conservation Biology, scientists wrote about threats to biodiversity from cumulative human impacts in B.C., “one of North America’s last wildlife frontiers.”

“Land-use change is the largest proximate threat to biodiversity yet remains one of the most complex to manage,” they wrote.

“For ecosystems, we found that bunchgrass, coastal Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine have been subjected to over 50% land-use conversion, and over 85% of their spatial extent has undergone either direct or estimated indirect impacts.”

Adding to all these other stressors now is climate change. The full implications aren’t yet clear, but we cannot situate our wildlife strategies in the past. Our environment is changing and will continue to do so.

Government must be prudent and precautionary as we manage our changing landscape as the planet warms. The timing and abundance of food availability, for instance, will shift for some plants and animals. Species reliant on their stability will need space and additional resources if they are to adapt.

In many respects, Northern BC, the Interior, and the people who live off those lands are on the frontier of climate change. You will be the first to feel the effects of climate change.

You are the ones fighting forest fires and flooding.

You are the boots on the ground when government is slow to act.

A few years ago, with concerns growing about how B.C. was managing wildlife in the face of growing pressures, the Liberal B.C. government assigned an MLA to do a comprehensive review of its policies.

“There has never been a time in British Columbia’s history where balancing the cumulative impact of resource development and biodiversity has been so complex.” Liberal MLA Mike Morris wrote in his 2015 report, Getting the Balance Right: Improving Wildlife Habitat Management in British Columbia.

“There is an urgency and heightened concern amongst resident hunters, guide outfitters, trappers, the wildlife viewing industry and conservationists that the province is not acting quickly enough to address the decrease in wildlife populations and the degradation of wildlife habitat,” Morris wrote.

He called for more wildlife management staff and “better planning, better science and more timely and effective implementation of policies and programs.”

But the government never delivered.

“B.C. balks at changing law to protect wildlife and biodiversity” said The Vancouver Sun headline at the time.

“The B.C. government will not be changing laws or considering hiring more staff as recommended in a report by one of its own MLAs on how to protect wildlife and biodiversity from the effects of resource industries,” the story said.

For far too long government has shortchanged wildlife management in B.C.

It’s fine for Ministers to say they support science-based decisions – but where is the science? Where are the field researchers? Where are the basic boots on the ground that are needed to keep a close watch on our wildlife populations and habitat? I’d say many of them are in this room.

The necessary funding just isn’t there.

B.C. ranks behind its neighbours in the northwest when it comes to investment in wildlife management. Alberta, Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Utah – all spend more on managing less.

The shameful underfunding of wildlife management has taken place under successive Liberal regimes. Now we have a new NDP government, but it has yet to show if it will embrace – and fund – science-based management.

So far, things aren’t looking great. Recently, as you are all keenly aware, the government has struggled with its policy on grizzly hunting. The BC NDP campaigned on “banning the grizzly bear trophy hunt” without defining what that is or was. They came up with an initial cockamany idea of requiring people to surrender the head and coat and pack out the meat. Then they decided to ban all grizzly hunting.

I stood alone in the legislature for three years trying to get emotion out of the discussion of wildlife management but the Liberals and NDP wouldn’t budge from their divisive positions.

There is no doubt that the decision to ban the hunt was purely populist and was not informed by science. Unfortunately, by ignoring public opinion for so long, pent up opposition became overwhelming and rational discussion was thrown under the bus.

Government let that discord fester for so long – often putting people in this room in a challenging position, I would imagine – that it was really hard to find an appropriate balance between science and representing the views of people in my riding.

I am really worried that this populist approach to wildlife management will continue. I don’t think it serves anyone.

Not the people in this room, certainly, but I don’t think it serves the people advocating for it either, because it rarely helps protect animals in the long term.

To be blunt, I am willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the number of grizzlies that are shot on an annual basis will barely remain unchanged (after an initial short term drop). Conservation officer grizzly mortalities will go up as these officers deal with problem bears (as in the US); poaching will go up too.

B.C. is Canada’s most ecologically diverse province but if we are to maintain that rich biodiversity, we need to see a serious commitment to science-based, evidence-based wildlife management – and we need to have dedicated wildlife funding put in place, so managers have the budgets, and the staff, required to do the job.

As the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended in its Report on the Budget 2017 Consultations, license fees collected from natural resource users (hunters, anglers, ecotourists, etc.) should be directed into conservation and wildlife management services, rehabilitation, enforcement and education.

Effective natural resource management is reliant on funding, science, and social support. We seem to have consensus on this within the B.C. government, but it needs to be put into action.

Prior to the election, I campaigned on establishing a Natural Resource Commissioner who could lead a Natural Resources Board responsible for establishing sustainable harvest and extraction levels and reporting on the state of B.C.’s environment and natural assets. The NRB, I proposed, would conduct cumulative impact assessments, and oversee the application of the professional reliance model.

Since the election, the government has been working with us to improve the professional reliance model and B.C.’s environmental assessment process.

There is much we can do to advance the values of scientific monitoring, reporting, and cumulative assessment.

Managing wildlife has always been difficult, but never more so than now, in the face of climate change. According to data released by scientists at NASA, 2017 was the second warmest year since record-keeping began in 1880, second only to 2016. And Arctic sea ice is at record lows.

In the face of great challenges, it is clear to me that we need a comprehensive science- and ecosystem-based approach to wildlife management. We simply cannot continue to perpetuate the slow, methodical extirpation of native species in B.C.

Ecosystem-based management calls for natural resources, habitat, and species to be managed collectively, over a long time frame, rather than just looking at a single sector or single species.

Cumulative impacts are assessed – an approach which B.C. urgently must follow because of the sweep of industrial development now taking place in many sectors of the province.

Given the myriad challenges facing wildlife in our province, two of the most important things we can do to protect biodiversity is to leave key habitat areas intact and restore and improve funding to conservation, monitoring and scientific management efforts.

As British Columbia continues to warm and precipitation patterns continue to change,

as flooding and drought becomes more frequent and extreme,

as out of control wildfires become more common and more damaging,

as pest infestations become more diverse

and as between 20 and 30% of the world’s plants and animals becoming at risk of extinction by mid century,

we have a responsibility to take steps now.

It won’t be easy. But proactively protecting ecosystems to improve resiliency and adaptive capacity to the changes a warming climate will bring is vital.

And the continued good work of the BCWF will play a critical role in these conservation efforts.

Thank you.