Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued second reading, Bill 36.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND
OCCUPATIONS ACT

(continued)

D. Clovechok: I’m glad to be back after being unceremoniously interrupted because of biological requirements and food needs. We’re glad to be back.

I was talking, as you recall, about rural health care and the broader context of the bill in what has been said to be a crumbling health care system — and keeping that in mind. Through these different colleges…. Each of the provinces have these colleges. One of the things that I hope that’s in this bill is a way to work with other ministries in other provinces.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

For the record, Madam Speaker, I’d just like to read into the record a letter from the office of the Minister of Health from Alberta that I received about transborder health care, and just a few of the words that he said. I’m not going to read the whole letter out.

“There is a strong relationship across our Rocky Mountain border for travel, trade and tourism, and I recognize this is an important matter for our two provinces. Please be assured that the Alberta government is committed to providing quality and accessible health care in accordance with the Canada Health Act.

“Alberta Health Services has continued to provide care to out-of-province patients requiring emergency procedures, especially procedures that are not available in their home province. Additionally, we have continued to accept children from programs where Alberta health care is the western Canadian referral centre, and adults and children in cases where transfer conditions would preclude safe and time-sensitive transfer within their same provinces.

[1:05 p.m.]

“Supporting access to primary care, including physicians, particularly in the area close to provincial borders in rural Alberta” — which, of course, is my riding — “is an important priority for the government of Alberta. Alberta’s government, Alberta Health Services, recognizes the need to provide health care to those beyond Alberta.

“Given the concerns that you have raised, and recognizing the opportunity to build from previous discussions, I’ve asked Alberta health care officials to connect with their British Columbian counterparts to re-engage in this important matter. I look forward to joint efforts, ensuring clear and consistent processes across health authorities to help residents in our border areas, your constituency, access the primary care that they need.”

I’m very appreciative of that letter from Minister Copping.

Again, I hope that inside this act there might be a way to see if there are any cooperative, collaborative initiatives between the two provinces. There’s lots of work to do in rural British Columbia, but there are also lots of opportunities as well.

What we found in rural health care is that it’s not a cookie cutter. One shoe doesn’t fit all. I know the minister knows that very, very well. I think also, when dealing with this bill, it’s important to establish from the beginning that it’s a bill completely to redesign the Health Professions Act. That’s a big job, and what we’ve got to make sure happens in that job is — again, there are key performance indicators, and there are measurement tools: how do we know that this is going to work?

Now, this is one that was interesting. The Health Professions Act deals with, currently, 26 regulated health professions, of which 25 are governed by 15 regulatory colleges. I hope that inside this bill, there’s a way to explain, outline and measure how these colleges will not work in silos. I think it’s critically important that they work side by side, cross-partnership, so that all needs are understood and that each college understands how they affect other colleges. I’m looking forward to seeing that in the bill.

These colleges have legal obligations to protect the public through the regulation of their restraints. At present, the college reviews all complaints about professionals they regulate, including both current and former registrants. I think that the director of discipline — and the creation of that position — is very important. I referenced that prior, too.

We get a lot of complaints in my constituency offices on a variety of things, whether it’s how people are treated, the inability to access service, the ability to access a doctor. I think the director of discipline having a position that kind of acts as an ombudsman, so to speak — as I understand it, anyway — might be there.

Of course, on the principles that I alluded to before — I go back to the UNDRIP position — I think this is critical. We’ve got to find ways to make sure that our health care system does not discriminate against anyone or any person. I look forward to seeing what that’s in, in that act.

Extrajurisdictional practices. Now, I know that some of my colleagues have already mentioned this in their speeches, and I’m going to re-mention that, because I think it’s really important. One out of five people in our province doesn’t have a doctor. Doctors are retiring. There’s certainly a sense, in our constituents, of: “What do we do now? We’ve got prescription drugs and….” I know that there was a woman in Victoria, I believe, that actually took out an ad in the newspaper to find a doctor. I think it’s really important that we address that issue.

As many of my colleagues have referenced before, we do ride in vehicles, and they happen to be taxis. I, too, had an experience with a gentleman who was incredibly articulate. You could tell how educated he was. I just straight up asked him. I said: “Give me your story. We’ve got time to get to the airport. Give me your story.”

[1:10 p.m.]

He was a thoracic surgeon where he had come from. Not only that; his wife was an anaesthesiologist, and neither one of them could get a job in this country or in this province. That’s a travesty; we’ve got to fix that. Whether that goes through the colleges, or how that’s going to work…. I know that the member for Stikine talked about his experience in the federal parliament and how nobody was willing to take that on there.

I’m really hopeful this bill will show how the bill itself is working with the federal government. I hope the federal government is involved in this in some way, because this is a Canadian health care system, and it needs to work that way.

We’ve got people, even Canadian students…. I know that one of my colleagues referenced that just the other day. We have Canadian students who are going to Harvard school of medicine. They’re going anywhere in France and in the U.K.

When they graduate, they can’t get back to Canada. It’s ridiculous. Guess where they’re going. They’re going to the United States. We’re losing mental capacity. The brain drain is going into the United States, where they can make more money. They want to come home, but they can’t, and that just doesn’t make any sense. I really hope that Bill 36 will address that component.

One of the things that I think really resonates for me in this bill…. I hope that, as I say, the credential recognition process and licensing is addressed in this after six years. But I think one of the other things that is really important is the impact of our health care system on public safety.

I just want to talk a little bit, and I know I’m running out of time, unless the Speaker gives me a little bit more. We’re running out of time, but I do want to make reference very quickly to some outcomes because of the system. Hopefully, this will be addressed.

I get emails just about weekly from people who have had really bad experiences with ambulance care. This one…. A 62-year-old woman with a severely dislocated hip was on the ground for two hours in the rain, with people, strangers, just milling around her, in incredible pain — and two hours before the ambulance arrived.

Another gentleman was working on a split rim. It blew up. Fractured leg, compound fracture, bleeding and deformity, as well as penetrating injuries to the arm for metal fragments, and 34 minutes on the ground before his family transported him. The ambulance never did show up, ever.

These are things that are affecting British Columbians. These are my constituents. These are people that I work for, people that hired me, who are having a bad time with the health care system. We cannot have a conversation without considering the border challenges occurring, putting health care staff under increasing pressure.

I really hope in my heart that this bill and the clauses that we’re going to go through in committee will address all of these things that I’ve talked about, and we’ll find some solutions.

I appreciate the opportunity.

I. Paton: It’s my pleasure to get up today and speak to Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act. It’s been a while since I’ve been able to get up and speak, since back in the throne era of early 2022. So this afternoon, I’d like to pay tribute and thank a few people, not only in my family, but people involved with my family, very involved with the medical profession in our hospital here in Delta.

Bill 36 attempts to “improve health outcomes and the lives of British Columbians with respect to their interactions with the health care system.” That’s a direct quote from government, and many of the things I’ll be talking about today, including examples of many people that come into our office and files we have in our office about people very frustrated with the diagnostic wait times, with access to a general practitioner, to a family doctor, etc.

As I said, I’d really like to pay tribute to some people in my family very involved in the health care industry. My mother, Marge, who turned 95 this summer, graduated as a registered nurse from Royal Columbian Hospital nursing school in 1948. She carried on for many years as a nurse. My sister, Glenda, was a registered nurse at Delta Hospital, and we’re all very proud of our Delta Hospital.

[1:15 p.m.]

My dad, by the same name, was one of the original businessmen — farmers, local businessman — that said: “We need to have a hospital in Delta.” He was part of the groundbreaking crew that helped raise money and moved forward to government to get a hospital built in 1975 in my hometown of Ladner.

I also want to pay tribute to my wife, Pam, who has gotten involved with the Delta Hospital Foundation over the years. Proudly, she just, as of two weeks ago, is the new chair of our Delta Hospital Foundation. They do tremendous work raising funds for diagnostic equipment and all the different things we need at our Delta Hospital. Of course, our hospital gala, which is an annual event, is coming up in just a few weeks, and the MLA for Delta South, once again, will be the auctioneer there. Over the years, I think I’ve raised probably close to $1 million with my auctioneering services for the Delta Hospital.

We do have lots of involvement with the health care industry in my family. As far as colleges go, I can even say that at one time, way back in my university days, or just out of university, I was a member of the B.C. College of Teachers, and my brother Dave, who’s a veterinarian, is currently a member of the B.C. College of Veterinarians.

I am glad to have the opportunity today to stand and speak to the bill before the House, one that significantly impacts our health care industry at a very critical moment in time. At my office in downtown Ladner, in the riding of Delta South, probably the number one visit, phone calls, files, emails that come in to us in our office, to the two wonderful young ladies that work for me, are health care–related.

Certainly, people are there all the time, especially, unfortunately, elderly — knocking on our door, coming in and telling us the story of how they do not have a family physician. They don’t know what to do to try and find one. Many, many even younger people have come in. Their family physician has recently retired, and they just don’t know what to do to go to find a family physician.

However, being a non-partisan office, we’re more than happy to speak with these people and try and put them in touch with the Delta Division of Family Practice and get them on the Fetch Program, get them in the queue.

I can say that, thankfully, I have a general practitioner, myself, and I’ll just call him, for now, Dr. Brad. Dr. Brad runs a great facility, and he’s one of the rare doctors that continues to actually own a facility, the bricks and mortar, where he has to do renovations and upkeep of his equipment and fix the roof if it’s leaking and hire staff. That’s what a lot of doctors now don’t want to do. They want to come out of medical school and have the nine-to-five job and just simply work at a walk-in clinic. So kudos to the general practitioners that still have the bricks-and-mortar offices, that continue to practise in that way.

I go to my own doctor, Dr. Brad, and on the q.t., I say: “Look, is there any chance you could take a few more clients? I’ve certainly got people in my office who would love to move on to find a new GP.” Unfortunately, it’s usually the same old answer, that they need to get on the list with the Delta Division of Family Practice.

We know that we’re in the middle of a deadly health care crisis, and something certainly needs to change in this province. The legislation before us today does not seek to solve the health care crisis. In fact, it has been in the works for quite some time and deals mainly with the regulation of health professionals. That does not necessarily mean that it won’t have any impact on the system as a whole. Therefore, we must be extremely careful, as we make changes, to ensure that we do not exacerbate existing problems.

The goal of the Health Professions and Occupations Act is to streamline the process and the path of the number of regulatory colleges. Looking at the bill, I’ve never seen such a thing: 276 pages in length, over 600 sections. I send out my condolences to some of our folks that are going to be going through this section in committee stage, bill by bill, with over 600 sections to the bill.

Now, as already alluded to, this legislation has been a work in progress for quite a long time — multiple years, actually. It is based on the recommendations of the steering committee as co-chaired by the MLA for Kelowna–Lake Country, the Leader of the Third Party and, of course, the Minister of Health.

[1:20 p.m.]

The committee’s work began prior to the pandemic and before our system was showing the explicit outward signs of crisis that we see right now. The main purpose of the committee was to make a series of recommendations to modernize the health profession regulatory framework.

After a long period of discussion and consultation, significant recommendations were made by the committee to include cultural safety and humility, improve governance of regulatory college bans and establish an independent discipline process while also revising the complaints process with the aim to make it more transparent and focused on patient safety. I read from the health regulations in B.C.: “The regulation of health professionals in British Columbia enables patients and clients to have confidence in receiving care from regulated practitioners who have the appropriate training and skills to provide qualified, safe and ethical care.”

Regulatory colleges protect the public through regulation of their registrants, and they do this by eight different things: “Determining entry-to-practice requirements, recognizing education programs, setting standards of practice, maintaining a searchable public register of registrants, administering quality assurance programs, administering annual registration renewal of registrants, managing a public complaints and professional discipline process and,” No. 8, “conducting other regulatory practices.”

The bill as written includes many of these changes. Its main intent is to protect the public and streamline the way we currently regulate health professions, both goals we are in support of. Having an oversight body will promote accountability, transparency and consistency across all different colleges. We agree that these are very important matters to consider.

However, we also have to recognize that our health care system looks very different today than it did when these recommendations were first made. Every discussion that we have about this legislation over the next few days and weeks, both here in second reading and later in committee, must be done with the broader context of our now crumbling health care system in mind.

I’d like to now point out a few things about our crumbling health care system in British Columbia. One million British Columbians wait-listed to see specialists. Worst walk-in clinic wait times in the country. Hundreds of thousands unable to get timely medical imaging. One in five people in this province are without a family doctor. Hospitals are in chaos and the ERs closed across the province. I have a sheet, I think eight or ten pages long, of examples of ERs that have been closed in the last ten months in this province. People are dying after two days on the stretcher in waiting rooms, and ambulance delays that are costing people their lives.

I’d like to just quickly point out an example of one million British Columbians waiting to see specialists, an example very close to my office in Ladner. My own constituency assistant, who has a long-time family doctor, has an undiagnosed pain condition. She has waited for six months to see a peripheral neurologist, another four months to see a central neurologist, another five months to see a rheumatologist and another three months to see an endocrinologist. After another month to see a specialist at the Centre for Disease Control, another three months just for an electromyography, EMG test. These wait lines are certainly too long.

Hundreds of thousands are unable to get timely medical imaging. Relating to Bill 36, I’d also like to read out an example of people that have come into my office. A pair of married seniors entered my office this week who are concerned about the wait times to find a doctor. She has Parkinson’s disease, and she is concerned that her doctor has retired and she cannot find a replacement.

The ongoing management and specialist referrals she requires to manage her condition require a general practitioner to refer her to them, yet she is unable to get referrals for diagnostic scans, blood work and other specialty appointments in order for her to manage her Parkinson’s and live with dignity and care. They are active members of the community, volunteering with various organizations in the community. They certainly deserve better.

[1:25 p.m.]

Another example here, if I could. One in five people in this province without a family doctor. A constituent contacted me, a resident of Ladner, to express their deep frustration and concern about the ongoing shortage of family doctors in our community. He moved to B.C. seven years ago and still has yet to secure a family doctor. He recently attempted to consult with a physician via telehealth. After he ordered and received the blood work, the telehealth doctor recommended that the constituent see his family doctor, because his concerns warranted a physical exam.

What type of system is this where someone can’t find a doctor, goes to a telehealth appointment, only to say that he needs a family doctor to check the results of the telehealth appointment?

Another example of the exact same thing, very much relating to Bill 36. An 85-year-old constituent came in who does not have a computer and was confused on how to sign up to get on a wait-list for a family doctor. She has gone to a number of medical clinics in Tsawwassen to inquire about if a doctor is taking new patients, and she has been repeatedly told that she needs to sign up online, but this elderly lady doesn’t have a computer.

Once online, she became very confused, when she found a computer, with where to sign up, given that there are so many portals and non-profits offering to match people to doctors. She could not access the Delta Division of Family Practice website in order to get on a wait-list, and she didn’t know about the Fetch B.C. program, which also offers matching services. Given South Delta has such a high number of seniors, she was upset that the system is so hard for seniors to access and how complicated it is.

As I have alluded to already, we are supportive of many of the goals and efforts in this bill, but it is long and it is complex, and it needs to see serious scrutiny before we can fully be supportive of Bill 36.

It’s important to establish from the beginning that this bill is a complete redesign of the Health Professions Act. The Health Professions Act deals with the currently 26 regulated health professions, of which 25 are governed by 15 regulatory colleges. The number of regular colleges are many — very, very many. The College of Nurses, the college of dentists, dental assistants, hygienists, surgeons, therapists and massage therapists, only to name a few.

Having dealt with a gentleman involved with the B.C. lab technicians…. He’s come to me on several occasions, hoping that there will be a college created to cover the regulation of lab technicians, because, of course, lab technicians are a very, very important part of what we do. They’re the ones that take the samples, take our blood tests and send those in. It’s very important that we have them properly trained and updated with education to handle all the lab results that we look for when we go for testing.

These colleges have the legal obligation to protect the public through the regulation of their registrants. At present, colleges review all complaints about the professionals they regulate, including both current and former registrants.

Bill 36 significantly expands on the previous duties of a college and establishes a series of guiding principles that will be applied to all under the act. A college’s office of the superintendent, director of discipline, etc. These principles include acting in accordance with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. This is an important piece of legislation, and something I know that my colleagues and I will discuss in greater detail later in debate.

Getting back to my comments a moment ago about the different colleges in this province, it’s very interesting to see that the College of Nurses and Midwives, oral health professions, social workers, chiropractors, dietitians, massage therapists, the College of Naturopathic Physicians, the College of Occupational Therapists, opticians, optometrists, pharmacists, physical therapists, physicians and surgeons, psychologists, speech and hearing health professionals and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners are all part of the college program.

[1:30 p.m.]

Other principles include procedural fairness, respect for privacy, promotion of holistic health care system and identifying and removing barriers for extrajurisdictional practitioners. The latter speaks to those who are internationally trained and educated. The bill also seeks to make a clear path for an unregulated health profession to apply and receive designation.

Bill 36 would create a new office of the superintendent as an oversight body. The superintendent would be appointed by cabinet and would have a number of duties, including the ability to conduct an assessment of the unregulated health profession or occupation if regulation is needed or different regulation is needed of an already designated profession or occupation, if required by the minister or the superintendent determines an assessment would be in the public interest — and would be required to notify the minister, if so. The bill sets this process for how an assessment would be conducted; however, much of the parameters, scope, conduct, timeline, etc. are left to the minister to decide.

As per section 440, the superintendent may require colleges to pay a general admission fee, to be set by the superintendent, subject to regulations. This would pass on the cost of funding the superintendent’s office to the regulators. While the office of the superintendent is an independent body, there is a provision in this bill that requires the superintendent to comply with any orders the minister makes.

In addition to creating the office of the superintendent, this bill also creates a new independent discipline tribunal. The tribunal brings discipline out from the jurisdiction of the regulatory colleges to this independent body; however, the investigation stage remains at the college.

It’s also important to highlight the impacts this bill could have on internationally trained and educated health professionals, a large part of Bill 36. This would appear to respond to the minister’s mandate letter that required him to improve “the province’s credential recognition process and licensing.” The expediting of approvals for internationally trained health professionals is something that the official opposition has been calling for, for months. So if this bill can quicken the process, it will certainly be beneficial.

We need our doctors, the people sitting within those colleges, to be able to verify the talents and skills and the training that somebody has when coming into British Columbia will meet our standards and, if not, how they can achieve those standards now that they are in the country.

We have all these demands and needs within our health care system. We know we need more workers. We have an available talent pool that have actually immigrated now, and there’s a barrier that remains. Some of the colleges are sending somebody who is a qualified surgeon in their home country, asking them to go back to medical school in order to qualify to be a general practitioner in B.C. In the meantime, how does a new immigrant in Canada afford going back to college, back to medical school, while they’re just trying to simply make ends meet and become a physician in this province?

I’d like to read one more story from walk-ins to my office in Ladner that very much so relates to Bill 36. A mother entered my office requesting information about how to get her son back to Canada to practice medicine, given the shortage of doctors here in British Columbia. Her son is a Canadian but trained in Australia due to the lack of physician training spots and ridiculously competitive nature of medical school schools in British Columbia. He is now a fully trained and practising doctor in Perth, Australia, who would like to come home.

But the arduous paperwork and lottery-like system for converting licences is hard and complicated. They are having trouble understanding the process and the paperwork he needs to do to convert his licence, and they are wondering why this is so difficult here in British Columbia.

As we go through this bill, we also need to keep in mind that it is largely enabling legislation. Much of what this bill seeks to accomplish is not done in the text of the legislation but through regulation at a later date, at the discretion of the minister. This allows government to be more nimble in situations where flexibility is necessary, but it also raises questions.

[1:35 p.m.]

While some regulation-making powers make sense, it means that there is still so much we don’t know about what this bill will do and how it will impact our health care system. As such, we will be examining the bill closely and thoroughly in committee, particularly as to what this will look like in practice with our health care system in its current state.

We cannot forget that we are still in the middle of a crisis. We are dealing with hospital closures in every corner of the province, difficulties with specialist access, nearly one million British Columbians on waiting lists, long wait times for access to medical imaging, paramedics under significant stress, the ambulance delays, and one in five people in this province without a family doctor.

I believe the minister understands this situation. I’ve dealt with this group of young mothers in my riding with an illness or configuration that I, frankly, was not very familiar with. But it’s rather common, and it’s called club foot, in newly born children. We have constituents in South Delta whose children suffer from club foot and hip dysplasia. They have been sending letters to the Ministry of Health and the hon. Health Minister in efforts to reduce wait times for children needing orthopedic surgery in Fraser Health.

These young mothers have been in my office. I’ve sat with them, and they’ve brought their children and showed me the incredible work and braces and different things they put on these children’s feet to correct what’s called club foot in newborns.

Currently there is only one pediatric orthopedic surgeon for all of Fraser Health to deal with club foot in children, according to its own website, which serves 1.9 million people in Fraser Health. Parents are concerned that the new surgeon, who recently replaced the retired elderly Dr. Pirani, is only working at 50 percent capacity, even though they were hired to work a full-time schedule. Dr. Pirani has expressed concern over this as well.

There has been no planning or forward movement on the comprehensive pediatric program, promised by the NDP government, in the nearly seven months since she was hired. Children in South Delta have been waiting over a year and a half for surgeries. According to parents in my riding, the wait-list for surgery is over 200 children long.

These children are in pain and unable to participate in childhood activities while they wait for surgery for their club foot issues. These parents have been talking to Fraser Health for over a year and still no answers from the Ministry of Health. With only one letter back in March from the Minister of Health, with unfulfilled promises of developing the pediatric surgical program and services, we are actually seeing reduced capacity and longer wait times than ever.

One other quick example that certainly fits in with the sections and pages of Bill 36 — another example, if you will give me that opportunity: a 38-year-old American resident, who is here on a Canadian work visa for a professional white-collar engineering job at the port of Delta cannot find a doctor — shocker — and didn’t know how to sign up for a doctor. Once we gave him the information — this is from my staff at my office in Ladner — he said that the wait-list for a doctor was going to be months.

He has chronic sciatica in his back, along with a torn muscle in his leg that requires constant care. He has been going to Delta Hospital emergency to be able to get a referral by a doctor for Botox injections into his back and physiotherapy for his leg, but he is wondering why it’s taking so long to get a family doctor.

He half-joked that our health care system is worse than it is in Florida, where he’s from. He is in a very specialized industry of marine engineering and is often asked by other professionals in the United States if they should try to come up and work in Canada. He has recently advised them not to bother, due to the poor state of our health care system.

We are dealing with hospital closures in every corner of the province, difficulties with specialist access and nearly one million British Columbians on waiting lists. Long wait times to access medical imaging, paramedics under significant stress and ambulance delays are a common occurrence even in my riding of Delta South. One in five people in this province is without a family doctor. On top of that, we recently saw the announcement of a fairly lacklustre health HR strategy that was missing important metrics and timelines.

[1:40 p.m.]

This legislation before us today is simply one piece in the issue of patient safety. It is not, by any means, going to cure what currently ails our health care system. Although, to be fair to the minister, I don’t think he’s presented it as such. However, as I have mentioned numerous times, we cannot have a conversation about health without considering the broader challenges currently putting health care staff under increasing pressure and patients at greater and serious risk.

As I close, I want to say…. As mentioned by some of my colleagues, as we went through the pandemic in the last 2½ years, I want a shout-out to all the people that worked in the health care industry in my riding of Delta South, the wonderful doctors and nurses and staff that all worked at our wonderful Delta Hospital — by the way, the only hospital in British, Columbia, I believe, to this day, that does not charge for parking. We’re so proud of that in Delta, at our Delta Hospital — free parking for anybody that comes.

A wonderful thank you to everybody that got us through this pandemic at Delta Hospital, all our local physicians in Delta, Ladner, Tsawwassen, North Delta. Like many ridings, we had so many wonderful nights, during the pandemic, where the fire department, the police department, the ambulances….

We all got in our pickup trucks and we went around that hospital every night at 7 p.m., banging our pots and pans to say thank you to all the health care workers in my riding.

D. Ashton: It’s my honour and my pleasure today to stand up and talk about Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act.

Before I do speak, I, too, just want to be able to thank not only the people that I have the great opportunity to be associated with in the riding that I represent, which is from Peachland and surrounding area, Summerland and surrounding area, Penticton and surrounding area, and Naramata and surrounding area — a wonderful group of people that open their arms at all times of the year to welcome the tourists that come to our area, who make our hospital quite busy at some times, quite often during the summer. It’s a wonderful place to live and a wonderful place to have the opportunity to be an MLA and to represent that particular area.

I also would like to thank, from the bottom of my heart, the physicians, the nurses, all the hospital staff and any of those that are associated with looking after people that have had to attend the hospital or are having to attend the hospital — i.e., ambulance drivers and paramedics. They do an incredible job in our area, an absolutely incredible job.

You can’t say enough. You cannot say enough about the challenges that they are facing themselves these days, that the health care system is facing, but they are there all the time. Yes, we know that there are waits and there are unfortunate incidents, some of which I’ll bring up to people’s attention today, that transpire, but these individuals just do an incredibly remarkable job for the people of Penticton and area, the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen and then, plus, the Peachland area.

The Health Minister…. I’m probably not supposed to say this, but the Health Minister was here a few minutes ago. I wanted to thank him personally. I wanted to thank his staff, because, in Penticton, we’ve just been awarded a $22 million oncology addition to the Penticton Regional Hospital. That is going to make an awful huge difference to the people of the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, which is the catchment area, the draw area for Penticton Regional Hospital. Hopefully, so many of them are not going to have to travel to Kelowna for treatment.

[1:45 p.m.]

One other thing, while I think of it, in case I forget. It was mentioned by many of my peers today. There are 645 sections in Bill 36. I wish there were 646, and the 646th one would be that those of us that live outside of the Lower Mainland didn’t have to pay 40 percent of the ongoing costs for new construction or for hospitals.

You know, it doesn’t sound much. You can say it quick, and there are all kinds of explanations that have been given to me over the years of why this is happening.

But I’ll tell you. Penticton got a brand new hospital. The minister was up there to open the first part of it. Just over $300 million — I think it was $330, if I remember correctly. Approximately $140 million — I’ll say that real quick again; $140 million — was raised by the people of the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen for that new hospital.

Nobody — nobody — wants to deny anybody the opportunity of having the best medical care and the best facilities in it. But a lot of us are pretty envious about the people in the Lower Mainland who get their hospitals paid for. I would just hope that at some point in time, with another bill that might come forward, that government will say, “We’re going to put everybody on the same even keel throughout the entire province,” because it would make a difference.

The other part, and probably one of the most important parts of that, is the thousands of people and families that have made contributions. I’m only using Penticton Regional Hospital as an example. But there are many hospitals outside of the Lower Mainland that have these people that have made massive contributions towards hospitals in their specific areas, to make a difference, to help buy that equipment that just isn’t in the budget of the government at that point in time, or to help provide transportation costs or to help provide better rooms and make bright and airy hospital corridors. They’ve done an exemplary job.

Then you get individuals…. There’s a gentleman who never ever wanted to have his name mentioned. But at the end of his life, he dedicated a massive amount of money — over $8 million — to the Penticton Regional Hospital. It’s called the David Kampe Tower, the new addition to the hospital. Along with that donation in the latter part of his life…. And I was actually going to phone today and reconfirm it. It was either a CAT scanner or MRI scanner, in the last day of his life, that he donated to the Penticton Hospital. It made a huge difference.

We’ve heard the Minister of Health talk about the additional MRIs and CAT scans that are being done. Here’s a gentleman that stepped out of the boundaries of government and paid for one himself so that the people of that area could have that.

Bill 36. Like I said, if there could have been one more addition or another bill in the future, it would make a big difference. Yes, those people are still going to be there. Those incredible volunteers at the hospital, those incredible contributors to the hospitals that make those donations — usually at the loss of a loved one or after the wonderful care and compassion that they got while in the hospital — and they turn around and make a donation. That makes a big difference.

So thank you on that, hon. Speaker, for allowing that little bit of latitude. But I think it’s very important that the people of British Columbia hear that it isn’t an even keel all across the province. I just wish the minister was still in in the room. But if his staff are listening, and I’m quite sure that they are, please pass along not only my thanks but all the thanks of the Okanagan regional district and Similkameen areas for the addition of that new oncology centre. It’s going to make a big difference in our area.

Bill 36. I’m just going to go down really quickly some of the things that the Health Professions and Occupations Act does. Then I’m just going to jump back on it and some of the explanations that we on this side of the House…. And as the previous speaker said, some of the information that has come to us over our tenure of being elected — some of the issues that are being faced by the citizens that we represent. I will start, just quickly, and go through these.

[1:50 p.m.]

Bill 36 gives regulatory powers. These are broad regulatory-making powers affecting the designation of the assessments of health professions and occupations, including the criteria to be used when deciding whether a health profession or an occupation should be regulated and what regulatory model should be used and the powers and duties of the health occupation director when governing a designated occupation. Big words for big oversight. I think it’s incredibly important that is there.

There are further regulation-making powers regarding hearings that are conducted by a disciplinary panel and a director of discipline; regulatory complaints, restorative processes, monetary penalties; as well as setting the rates and the tariffs, and so forth, to recover costs or expenses.

Supporting the programs of the administrators, of the regulators. Broadly defined in general matters, restructuring of the regulators, the appointment of disciplinary panels and the superintendent’s office and matters related to that for setting the fees and application, etc. Hopefully, it never happens — going to court. But see, there are just some of the regulatory powers that are going to be brought forward in this bill.

Under it are also mandatory immunizations for those…. Under part 3, division 3, section 49(3)(f), a board may make a bylaw “respecting mandatory vaccinations, required under the bylaws, against transmittable illnesses.” This section provides a college with the clear authority and the power to do so, so that they ensure that those working through the college are vaccinated.

Again, this is a part of the umbrella of oversight. There will be those that have the opportunity, as we’ve all had in our offices, to speak to what they feel is right or wrong. This now is putting it right into the colleges, and the colleges are going to have to make those decisions.

Public health emergencies. The provisions in part 7 regarding public health emergencies and emergency orders, specifically the duration of emergency orders, the end dates and the consultations required for emergency orders…. This will require further canvassing at the committee stage.

I would like to thank all the individuals that were involved in the creation and the oversight of this bill, through the health portion of it, the members of this House. I would especially like to thank the member from — I’m going to catch myself here — Kelowna, the north part of Kelowna, for taking this on over the last period of time, also, now, the…

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Kelowna–Lake Country. Thank you very much.

…very diligent and very hard-working member for Prince George–Valemount.

There’s a lot to go through on this. We all know…. During committee stage, there are going to be a lot of questions. I know that the team that’s involved in this on our side of the House is going to be diligent and ensure that all the parts of Bill 36 are as they should be as this goes forward for the passing of it.

Licensee duties in the bill. Among the duties established in this bill, there’s a requirement for a designated health profession licensee to practise ethically, which includes a requirement for a licensee to practise a designated health profession in an ethical manner and in accordance with ethical standards, as well as for a board to make the bylaws respecting the ethical standards.

The latter includes a requirement for the board with respect the providing of false or misleading information to patients or the public. It appears to be the response to issues, during the pandemic, in which health professions spread false or misleading information to patients or the public regarding vaccine misinformation, in particular.

There is no corresponding duty under the licensees of a designated health occupation. There are now duties to practise in accordance with the principles of protecting the public from harm and discrimination, to take anti-discrimination measures, and so forth. This is common through the bill and probably long in oversight and should be part and parcel of what transpires.

There is an independent disciplinary tribunal in here. Current discipline matters are under the jurisdiction of the regulatory colleges. This legislation introduces a new discipline process separate from the regulatory colleges. However, the investigation stage will remain with the colleges. That was recommended by the steering committee.

[1:55 p.m.]

A discipline tribunal would be established with the superintendent’s office and would include the director of discipline and disciplinary panel members. The director of discipline may be appointed by the minister, and they must be a lawyer currently or formerly in British Columbia or elsewhere, in another province. So they are looking at having somebody that has the legal experience to be able to conduct these disciplinary actions.

The director of discipline may also retain experts outside of the health authority, I’m assuming, and is responsible for selecting tribunal members with specific and diverse expertise and the standards to be published on it. Again, this just gives that broad oversight, and it gives fairness and equity, the way I look at it. I think that’s incredibly important.

There are going to be changes to the board appointment process. Under the current act, boards are set up…. Under this bill, one of the superintendent’s office’s purposes is “to develop and implement a merit-based selection process for the appointment of members to boards of regulatory colleges.” I think that’s very important.

Ultimately, it’s the minister who will make the board appointments. The superintendent will make the recommendations. I just hope, and I say this with the utmost respect, that it is non-political. I hope that it is a broad base and it takes a look for the best people to go in there, no matter who’s in government.

The bill also establishes an oversight body. The office of superintendent of health professions and occupational oversight there consists of the superintendent, a disciplinary tribunal and other employees as required. The superintendent is to be appointed by cabinet. The purpose…. Again, I just hope that the best person, the most qualified person, is picked. That’s what we want in these functions.

The purposes of the office are outlined in section 435. They include the providing of advice, recommendations to the minister on the administration and the amendments to this act and the regulations; the performance improvement of the regulators and other matters as requested by the minister; to promote awareness and adherence to the guiding principles, to develop guidelines for the regulatory college board’s appointments and to promote regulatory consistency and to report on regulatory performance; and make recommendations for improvements, to publish information and records that are deemed to be of public interest; and other duties as set by the minister.

Again, I think that’s an important part of it. If there are issues, very unfortunate issues, with somebody in one of these colleges that is not conducting themselves in the proper way, I really think the public needs to know. I think it’s incredibly important that that does come forward under this bill.

Being an avid motorcyclist and driving around on a big black motorcycle, it’s always the 1 percenters that give us a bad name, and the same thing in here. It’s always that little, tiny, tiny fraction that, unfortunately, people dwell on that does give some of the people in these colleges and in these hospitals…. It’s not fair that they get tarred and feathered by the actions of an individual, which is not the way it should be. So I really, really hope that as this is set up and set up properly, there can be public disclosure on this, and they can rectify the situations as quickly as possible.

As we all know, during the pandemic, our health care was challenged. It was challenged because, as we’ve heard here today, of circumstances where doctors from other countries, other areas in the country, that want to come in to British Columbia have a lot of hoops to drill through. I hope Bill 36 expediates that process.

The previous speaker — actually, the two previous speakers — talked about specific instances, and I think every MLA in here has come across that, or someone has come to them and said: “Listen, I’ve been a practising physician for this many years. When I come to British Columbia, I have to go through the board, and the board doesn’t make a decision quickly.”

[2:00 p.m.]

It can take months and months, because, apparently, they only sit several times or once a quarter. I’m not exactly sure of the time, but they don’t sit all the time. I would hope that would be looked at, because British Columbia is a wonderful place to live. British Columbia has a growing population, and we need more health care professionals.

I hope this bill will address that so that it makes it a little bit easier for people to get into the province and practise what they probably dedicated their life to, and bring their experiences into a working facility here in the province.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Just a quick story. The minister is back in, and I hope he will hear my comments from the very thankful people of Penticton and the regional district area for that wonderful new oncology centre.

Minister, thank you.

We’ve all probably had experiences, but…. I went to school in Summerland, and a lot of my good friends are from Penticton, about seven miles south. One of them was kind of like me, didn’t quite know what he wanted to do right away. He ended up finally going to medical school, but it was in Grenada. He became a doctor in Grenada, with a bit of a break in the interim, when the United States went into Grenada because of some issues. He had to take a pause in his medical training there.

I’m dating myself, but he couldn’t come back to British Columbia to practise without — long and arduous — literally going back to medical school again. That is funny because he was always a brilliant kid, still is a brilliant kid. He ended up in Florida. You can look him up. I won’t mention his name here, but he is one of the top pediatric surgeons in Florida.

We, British Columbia, lost out. There was an opportunity. I just use that gentleman as an example. There could have been something maybe a little bit more. I know he wanted to come home. His family is still in Penticton, and he would have loved to come back. Once you get settled and have a wife and have a family and have a big practice and that, you don’t pick up your roots and move on.

I just hope that through the hard work of all the people that have probably spent several years bringing this Bill 36 forward, they can take a look at this and they can have some oversight on some of these colleges and some of these things that could make a difference for us in the future.

I touched on a lot of the areas that this bill has. It is a very, very thick bill. Every word, literally, in each one of these sections is going to have to be looked at. I trust the people that have composed this bill, but that secondary set of eyes that comes from the opposition during committee stage….

If there are issues that are discussed during the committee stage and are relevant issues, I sure hope that the government will take a second look at some of these, if they do come forward, and just think that we’re doing this and we’re acting in the best interests of all the people of British Columbia.

I mentioned a little bit earlier…. It’s the 1 percenters sometimes. Unfortunately, there have been a couple of incidents as of late in Summerland. The biggest one for Summerland, and most recently, was the closure of our lab. The lab did open. Again, I would like to thank the minister. I know that not only I brought it to him, but there was some accommodation made through Interior Health where, if I remember correctly, they were able to actually move employees around so that they could open it on a part-time basis.

[2:05 p.m.]

But it was very difficult for a lot of the people in Summerland. Summerland has a bus that goes down in the morning and comes back late in the afternoon, so for people to make their appointments, it was difficult to spend a whole day. A lot of people don’t drive. The average age in Penticton now, if I remember correctly, is 64, and I’m going to have to give Summerland a couple more years on that.

Again, I hope that some of this will be covered as we go forward. And again, my compliments to those in Interior Health that were active in trying to get the lab up and running again, and also to the minister for — I’m not going to say intervening — facilitating that.

Unfortunately, we had another terrible incident in Penticton Hospital just recently, in the last couple of weeks. It involved the psychiatric ward. I hope, through Interior Health and through the ministry…. Again, I’m going to hope that this bill will cover some of this. A person lost his life in there, self-inflicted. It caused havoc inside that psychiatric ward.

I really hope there’s going to be some oversight, because four years before that, a psychiatrist, who was an orchardist also…. I knew him quite well. The gentleman is actually here in Victoria now. He couldn’t work anymore because of an unfortunate incident that happened, for protection. People do need protection while in the hospital. That includes doctors and nurses and hospital staff. We just have to ensure that there will be oversight on that.

As we go forward with this bill, I really think that it needs to be said that the opposition members…. I know that we’re supportive of changes. I know that we’re going to look at it literally every minute. I know that there’s going to be an incredible amount of hard work through this in this committee stage that’s coming up.

I just hope — through yourself, Mr. Speaker, and through Madam Speaker and anybody else that sits in the esteemed chair — that there will be the opportunity for some very, very good discussion in this. I know nothing is perfect, and I hope that the ministry and the Health Minister and those involved in writing Bill 36 will listen to what is being brought forward by the opposition and some of their questions.

One of the things, too, that I think is incredibly important with this bill is the indoctrination of the principles to include an accordance with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We all know it as UNDRIP. It’s a very important piece of legislation, and I know that my colleagues are going to want to ensure that all the sections that relate to that….

Yesterday we had a wonderful presentation by members on another bill, from the surrounding area of the lands…. The original occupiers of the land and their representatives were here. We heard long and hard and straight from them about some of the issues that another bill is addressing, but it is going to be very important that Bill 36 does address a lot of the issues that we, unanimously in this House, passed underneath the UNDRIP. I think it’s incredibly important and long overdue.

I know that there’s an awful lot…. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have heard a lot of it — and, again, those that have been in the esteemed chair. But for everybody on this side of the House literally to stand up and to talk about this, you know that there are some concerns and there are some things that are going to have to be brought forward and have to be discussed.

For those in the public, this is a very thick bill. It’s going to be something that we’re going to have to go through literally word by word. So I’m hoping that there will be the flexibility of individuals like yourself and, also, the ministry and staff to maybe hear some good ideas on our side of the House that are probably going to be brought forward.

[2:10 p.m.]

To go back and to close, out of all the jobs today and the professions today that people partake in, probably one of the toughest is to be a health care provider. People have got shorter and shorter, and they see where things on TV are fictitiously shown how quick you can get served when you come running into a hospital and that. We know there are lineups, and we know you get triaged as you come into a hospital, and those that need care quicker are put forward. But unfortunately, due to some of the circumstances because of changes in health care and changes how doctors/physicians want to live, how nurses and other practitioners….

Their lifestyles have changed. We don’t have doctors coming to our homes anymore. I’m old enough to remember when the doctor came. If my dad was sick or my kid sisters were sick or even if I was sick, the doctor would stop by on his way home. In his little black bag, he usually had some pills for you. That’s all changed.

I can’t say enough about those individuals that work in the hospital. I know they’re challenged. I know there are challenges for government, but we are all collectively going to have to work together to make it better for all the citizens of British Columbia, and I say collectively.

We’re going to have to look at different ways of getting people educated and into the system, getting people wanting to get into the system, maybe starting earlier in the school system and ensuring that kids want to take a direction into health care. My son graduated with a degree of biology and is still flipping around if he’s going to go into health care or not. I hope he does, but that will be his decision.

Again, thank you for the opportunity today. Thank you to everybody for hearing me out. It’s an incredibly important bill. It’s incredibly important to the people of British Columbia. We can never forget those are the people that we are here to serve, and we are here to serve as the best of our ability.

P. Milobar: I rise today to speak on the Health Professions and Occupations Act bill. It’s important. We have 12 days of debate left after today in this chamber. We have the health professions overhaul, a 645-page bill. We have incredible, important work to do around….It’s important. We have 12 days of debate left after today in this chamber. We have the health professions overhaul, a 645-page bill. We have incredible, important work to do around….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Clauses, soon to be sections. But it’s serious — 645….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Actually, clauses until they’re passed — to the minister. I wouldn’t want to be offside of the Chair right at the beginning of my comments.

We have a 645-clause bill that will totally restructure the colleges and the professional services and people that work in those professions. It’s going to take a lot of time to actually thoroughly canvass and question and probe and make sure everyone understands what’s in that bill, because future court cases, future challenges and future rural challenges will all be based on the government’s intention and their explanation of the intention of that bill, much like what we saw when UNDRIP came forward in this House. UNDRIP is in this bill as well.

Layer that with the bill for Indigenous child welfare changes — very important, very critically important changes that are needed. But again, very serious questions that need to be asked. An oil and gas regulation bill that will change the functions of the regulators on industry. That’s very important and top of mind when we think of climate change and things of that.

We have 12 days of debate. But no, we don’t have 12 days of debate anymore. We have eight days, because about an hour ago, the government decided to remove a third of the days’ worth of debate to do the people’s business in this House, unilaterally, so that the incoming Premier can have a week-long coronation party before he gets sworn in on a Friday.

It’s quite shocking when I look at Bill 36 and I think of the critical work that needs to get done on this bill and the bill that will be coming up after this, the opioid bill, and the critical work that needs to get done on that.

[2:15 p.m.]

Instead of debating and thoroughly being able to dive into Bill 36 and give it the proper due that the public deserves to have, the proper light the public deserves to have shone on this, we have the most secretive government in Canada deciding to remove a third of the days of debate in this Legislature, unilaterally, with a two-line press release, for no apparent reason.

The swearing-in of the new Premier is going to be on a Friday. Last I checked, this House does not sit on a Friday. We didn’t need to change a debate day for that to happen. Why do we not have the Monday, the Tuesday, the Wednesday or the Thursday of that week to be able to discuss Bill 36 in this chamber?

King Charles isn’t going to have that long of a coronation process. The new Premier of Alberta didn’t have that long of a process. The new Prime Minister in Britain — they figured that out in three days. He was sworn in and standing up in their Parliament taking questions. But no, no, no.

Bill 36 — that is going to require a lot of time. I know people at home are probably thinking: well, then, why don’t I just sit down and get to the questions? That’s not quite how this place works. The questions will start on Monday. That’s the earliest they could start. We do have some other work to get at before we get to this. But it’s shocking to me that time and again….

The arrogance that is being exhibited by this government, the arrogance towards the health professionals that are impacted by this bill, who will not have the benefit of proper questions put to the government by the opposition to get those answers on the record so that they and their colleges and the health professionals within those colleges know exactly what to expect from a bill is shocking. It does matter.

B.C. Housing is a complete train wreck right now. B.C. Housing is so bad that the handpicked, appointed board by this government had to be fired. I know people at home are probably thinking: “What does that have to do with the health professionals bill?” It has a lot to do with it because ministers handpicked that B.C. Housing board.

This bill has provisions in it that enable the minister to handpick members of the boards. We saw how that has played out with B.C. Housing. We saw just how badly that group has done with the housing file, where we only have 6 percent of a ten-year plan delivered after six years, despite billions of dollars going into it. Those dollars are much less than what we see in the health care system.

Again, we won’t have the requisite, needed time to properly dive into this bill and find out exactly what this minister has in mind for those types of appointments and the timelines associated with those types of appointments, because the government has unilaterally decided to remove one-third of debate time out of the calendar. People can say: “Well, you didn’t used to have a fall session all the time either.” They’re absolutely right. We didn’t. That’s the government’s purview. But once it’s actually in the calendar, once you’ve actually committed to those weeks….

To remove a week in the middle of it, too…. It’s not even like the last week, where they’ve just said: “We’re going to end early because we’re out of legislation.” No, no. Let’s just cut one of the three weeks left, the one in the middle. We’ll arbitrarily get rid of that so that our tainted incoming Premier can have a five-day celebration for his coronation after the tainted leadership race, a leadership race that…. The incoming Premier was frustrated that there was even an opponent in it because he wanted to get on with work, and now we’ve removed a third of the debate time for Bill 36.

Deputy Speaker: If I might draw the member back to the bill. We’re on Bill 36. Thank you. Member.

P. Milobar: A third of the debate time for Bill 36 has just been removed today. A third of the debate time for an Indigenous child welfare bill has been removed unilaterally. That’s the level of transparency that health professionals can expect out of this government, moving forward, as Bill 36 gets enacted, apparently.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s shocking. It’s shocking that the 26 different colleges can expect a government that will just do as they please and that college board shall be happy with it. It’s shocking that they will not be given the courtesy of a proper understanding of every clause in this bill with the proper and investigative rigour that it’s supposed to have when legislation comes forward.

I remember when we wound up debating two forestry bills at the same time in two different rooms in this building, fundamentally changing forestry in our prov­ince. I thought that was the height of arrogance out of this government. But apparently, Bill 36 takes it to a whole new level.

It’s absolutely shameful — the complete arrogance, the disdain being shown by this government to the health professionals — that they would remove a third of the remaining debate time from the legislative calendar mid-session, right when we’re getting ready to put a critical eye on a piece of legislation as important as this.

At a time when we have crumbling health care in our province, at a time when we’re struggling to recruit people to our province not just from the rest of Canada but from the rest of the world, a bill like this could go a long way to helping those recruitment efforts. It could also do the exact opposite, and it could drive people away from British Columbia. That’s why Bill 36 deserves to have the proper scrutiny and not have a third of the debate time ripped away by an arrogant and out-of-touch incoming Premier simply so he can have a vanity party for four extra days before he gets sworn in.

When you look at all the clauses, the 645 clauses in this bill, and how they interconnect and how they are meant to modernize and update how colleges operate, it gets very complex very quickly. It is not a bill that you can simply spend an hour or two on at committee stage and say good enough. Nurses, doctors, all the other health professionals in this bill deserve the respect of this chamber to fully investigate Bill 36 and how it will impact their livelihoods, their working conditions, their licensing regimes, what control over their own professional standards they’ll have or won’t have.

They didn’t deserve the slap in the face by the incoming Premier of a removal of a third of the time left to try to actually get those answers for them. These are a group of people that we’ve relied on through the pandemic, through the opioid crisis, through every type of health emergency you can imagine either on a personal level or on a community level — fires, floods, you name it. They deserve better.

This is a group of people who, by their very nature, dig into the topic and subject matter and investigate. I would be shocked if they don’t actually have a ton of questions they would like to see asked — if not word for word, at least where their headspace is at. They are science-based, fact-based, data-driven people, because if you’re not wired that way, good luck trying to get through your medical training. They’re naturally inclined to fully investigate things and want things well explained and want to understand what end points are going to be, the cause and effect of things. That’s how they’re wired.

[2:25 p.m.]

The incoming Premier doesn’t seem to care. Remove one-third of the debate time left — full stop — because there’s apparently a need to have an extra four days of celebrations before an actual swearing in. It would almost be more understandable if the swearing in was happening on a Monday, and they cancelled the rest of the week. It still wouldn’t make it right, but it would be understandable.

Instead of debating Bill 36 on that week, the incoming Premier, I guess, wants to have a party on Monday, a party on Tuesday, a party on Wednesday, a party on Thursday. He can go and do that. We can stay in this chamber and do the work. We just need the Health Minister. Frankly, I could care less if the rest of the government caucus is even here. We could stay here and properly debate, properly investigate Bill 36. I’ll guarantee my colleague from Prince George–Valemount, our Health critic, would love to be here working on behalf of the public, working on behalf of the health professionals that are going to be greatly impacted by this bill.

If the health professionals are greatly impacted by Bill 36, that means every British Columbian — especially that million that don’t have a family doctor right now — is going to be impacted by this bill. The people that don’t have access to a walk-in clinic are going to be impacted by this bill. The people who, the radiologists are warning us, are going to have a tsunami of stage 4 cancer because of delays for diagnostic tests, are going to be greatly impacted by this bill.

I get that the Premier-designate doesn’t want to be in this building for that four days. I don’t understand why everyone else had to be told to stay home too. What the heck are the taxpayers of this province paying everyone in this building to do? They’re not paying us to take an extra four days off when you have critical legislation like Bill 36 or Indigenous child welfare protection bills on the docket to discuss. But that’s the priority of this government, of this incoming Premier — zero accountability to make sure that the colleges impacted by this bill, in Bill 36, actually know what is going on.

Let’s not forget that there’s a whole whack of other business we could be tackling as well as Bill 36. We could deal with the private member’s bill about pay raises for MLAs being suspended for a year. Not a great shock that the government doesn’t want to talk about that, I guess.

Deputy Speaker: If I might, member….

P. Milobar: There’s all sorts of business, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: We speak about the bill in front of us as opposed to other bills at this time.

P. Milobar: Yes. Thank you. I’m simply trying to draw a parallel that Bill 36 is critically important to the province. We’ve heard that from speaker after speaker after speaker. In fact, we’ve heard that from government speakers, the few of them that did actually speak to this, and I agree with them.

Part of our legislative process, the scrutiny piece that’s so important…. We call this second reading bill debate, but I think it’s safe to say that this is second reading bill speeches. There is no typical back-and-forth debate, like one would expect when you hear the word debate. The real meat of Bill 36, the real work that the public needs to see happen on Bill 36, is the next phase. It’s committee stage.

Now, again, people at home are probably thinking: “Well then why did we put up so many speakers? Why didn’t we just jump into committee stage?” Well, because you have to have a little bit of faith and trust in a government when they bring forward their legislative schedule.

[2:30 p.m.]

When the Government House Leader tells us and tells the media and tells the public that there are 17 to 20 pieces of legislation, and we find ourselves with only two pieces of legislation left before today, you start to get worried that they’re actually just doing what they can to get out of here early. Frankly, we had to put up a bunch of speakers to Bill 36 because the government didn’t have any legislation for us to work on up until just recently, shameful when you consider how long they’ve had to get the bills ready.

As we’re in mid Bill 36 debate, the other shoe finally dropped. The government finally acknowledged what we had suspected was going to happen for a little while here. They’re just going to remove debate hours. “Nothing to see here, folks. Don’t worry about it.” We’ll go from 12 debate days down to eight days worth of debate to try to actually dig into a 645 clause bill on health professions.

I don’t know how many days that’s going to leave us to dig into bills like the one for Indigenous child welfare protection. We’ll get to the Indigenous child protection bill in future days.

It’s shameful how little time we’ll actually have on behalf of nurses and doctors and all those in health care that are protected by their colleges, operate under their colleges. Their practices are guided by the colleges. It’s a complete disservice to all those women and men that work, to all their patients, to the million British Columbians that don’t have a family doctor that were hoping that maybe this bill would provide some insight on how we would get foreign-trained doctors into the system quicker.

Instead of that, our incoming Premier would rather talk about what type of curtains he’s going to have or which type of pastries and tea he might share with the Lieutenant-Governor. Again, if that’s what the Premier wants to spend his time talking about, that’s fine. This House can still operate. This House could still be sitting with the Health Minister talking about Bill 36 in that week. We could dive into those 645 clauses and not have to rush past big sections of them.

I know this might come as a shock to some on the government side, but there have been many bills that have come forward that have had flaws in them. Some are minor amendments. Some have been major amendments that have been caught by the opposition over the years, and the bills had to be adjusted.

With a bill this size, it would not shock anyone if there were a few of those such errors, honest mistakes, honest errors, especially in a day of cut and paste and drag. An older version of a clause gets left in the final edit instead of the updated one. As we’re questioning, it becomes apparent that an honest mistake has been made. It gets corrected then. It doesn’t get corrected after the fact.

We’re not going to have the benefit of that time on Bill 36. As much as we say there are eight days of debate left now instead of 12, the reality is…. That eighth day is the day, after lunch, that the Lieutenant-Governor comes and gives royal assent to the rest of the bills. That’s a partial day, at best. That’s a couple of hours, if we’re lucky. So it’s really seven days left. It was 11 until one o’clock today, when it magically became seven.

It’s shameful that the government caucus seems to be more celebratory of the fact that they got an extra four days off…

[2:35 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: If I might bring the member back to the bill.

P. Milobar: …than worrying that we lost four extra days on Bill 36. Those four extra days, those four days of legislative calendar time for Bill 36, which the taxpayers are paying us all for, which this cabinet gave themselves a retroactive pay raise to do the work of the public for, not to have tea and pastries with the incoming Premier for an extra four days.

The taxpayers are paying us to debate Bill 36, to dig into the questions on Bill 36 on several key areas. It’s a complete redesign of the Health Professions Act. It has been worked on for a couple of years now, multiparty work. That gets blown away, and its debate time shrunk, for an incoming Premier’s vanity project. The last vanity project, the museum, didn’t go over so well either. We’ll see how well the extra days for celebration go over with the public, when we could be discussing this bill.

I know the Health Minister is a very hard working minister. That is of no dispute. I’m willing to bet, in his heart of hearts, if he had a choice of standing in this House and answering meaningful questions for an extra four days from our Health critic on a piece of legislation that he and his staff and others in this chamber have worked on for years, to make sure that the professionals impacted by this have a full understanding of it…. I’m pretty confident, in his heart of hearts, the Health Minister would rather have that happen than stand around making small talk, with tea and pastries, with the incoming Premier for four days.

That’s not going to happen. It’s shameful. It shows what happens when a government loses touch so badly with the public, the public where 20 percent of them don’t have a family doctor, the public where a great many are going to wind up with stage 4 cancer because of a lack of diagnostic services.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, please, if you need to have…. Whatever you’re doing, please take it outside. We have a member who has the floor. Thank you.

P. Milobar: Well, I would say, based on the laughing and the entertainment the government members are having right now…. That says all we need to know about the drive and the work ethic by the vast majority of their caucus, as it comes to Bill 36 and the seriousness that this actually represents.

There’s a complaint process that’s revised in this. How will that all work?

Yes, we’ll have time to ask a couple of questions. We’re not going to have time to fully dive into it. I guess the one saving grace is, again, that the Health Minister is not known to be wanting to take forever to wait to turn around. There are some ministers where you’re lucky if you get in four questions an hour. At least we’ve got that going for us. It’s still not good enough, though.

As I say, I’ll guarantee…. Well, I can’t guarantee. I’m not going to presume what the Health Minister truly thinks. Based on his track record, it would shock me that he would not rather spend more time on this bill answering questions, educating the public and educating the health professionals on how Bill 36 is going to impact their daily lives and whether or not it will truly help what ails our health care system.

Our health care system isn’t heading towards a crisis. It’s not starting to crumble. Our health care system has crumbled. Our health care system is in a full-blown crisis. Our health care system has a shortage of doctors, of nurses, of every other health professional that’s covered by this act. This act, implemented properly, could very easily help us attract those very same professionals to our province.

[2:40 p.m.]

If those interpretations of the various clauses are just left up for each individual reader to guess what the government was thinking and their intention when they drafted it, that’s not a good thing. You want them to be able to go into Hansard. You want them to be able to view the video or read or listen to the exchange back and forth between the minister and our side of what those clauses actually mean, what their intention is, how they are seen to be rolled out, how things like discipline or appeals will be handled, whether or not people’s names will be made public after misconduct has happened and proven or not.

All of those things are important to get a good understanding of. All of those things are touched on in Bill 36. All of those things are in those 645 clauses, and all of those things just had over a third of their debate time ripped away by the incoming Premier for absolutely no logical reason.

As we get into committee stage on Bill 36 — I’m assuming it will be next week — it will be important to dig in to how Bill 36 overlaps with UNDRIP. UNDRIP, I will remind this House, took over a week’s worth of debate — that bill. So I’m still trying to understand how a bill that complex, overlayed with this bill…. It’s going to take a lot of time.

And it’s important to understand how it overlaps. It’s important for First Nations Health Authority and people within the First Nations health provision side of the equation get a good understanding of how this bill will impact them and the provision of health care for them and their members — how it will help, how it will change cultural practices within certain professions.

Those are all valid, important questions we need to get on the record and dive into. A lot of them won’t just be solved with one quick answer. They’ll require multiple ones. But the incoming Premier has removed a third of the debate time. It’s unfortunate that we will not be able to dive into this bill properly.

I thank you for the time on Bill 36.

T. Stone: I am pleased to take my place in this second reading debate on Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act. I want to first start off by acknowledging the contributions to this debate that have been made by many members of this House, certainly on the opposition side. Save the Leader of the Opposition and the Assistant Deputy Speaker, once I’m finished, every member of the official opposition will have weighed in on this piece of legislation.

We’ve done that because we recognized, as a caucus and, I think, as individual MLAs, the significance from a policy shift that Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act actually represents.

[2:45 p.m.]

I want to, however, in following my good friend and colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson — who just completed his remarks, eloquent as always — build on, I think, an important theme that he went to great length to articulate and put on the record. That is that Bill 36 is one of a number of pieces of legislation that are on the order paper that the government, as is the government’s prerogative, has brought forward as a piece of the government’s legislative agenda and, obviously, their policy priorities.

Government has introduced this Bill 36 and these other pieces of legislation that, in several cases, have not even gone to second reading yet and, in many cases, haven’t gone into committee stage yet. And there are supposed to be three weeks left in this legislative session after today.

Next week, the week of October 31, we’re here for four days. We then go back to our constituencies for four days, during the Remembrance Day period — very important to do that. Then we were to be back here for two weeks, taking us from the 14th of November to the 24th of November. So eight session days after the Remembrance Day break and four session days next week — that’s a total of 12 days beyond today in this session.

That was the time that was mapped out by government. That’s the time that’s mapped out in the parliamentary calendar. That’s, presumably, the time with which the government made the decision to bring forth the bills that are in front of us, including this Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act.

You can imagine our surprise and our shock to learn today, at one o’clock, that it is the government’s intention to shut this place down for an extra week in the middle of November, leaving eight days for debate on all of the legislation that’s still in front of this House, not the 12 days that are provided for in the parliamentary calendar.

Bill 36 is not your typical piece of legislation, most notably because…. Well, there are two things, but most notably, it’s a bill that contains 645 sections. This is a huge piece of legislation that has very significant implications. It represents a very dramatic shift in the regulatory environment — within which a range of different colleges, whether it be the Doctors of B.C. or dentists or occupational therapists, respiratory therapists, opticians and optometrists; on and on the list goes — and how these different bodies are to be regulated, moving forward.

The bill provides a roadmap of change that I think, from a principles perspective, is pretty sound, in that at the heart of these changes, as I understand them, the overriding value — that is, the desired outcome of these changes — is to improve patient safety — to ensure that the British Columbian who needs eye care or who needs to go and spend some time with a respiratory therapist or their doctor or their dentist…. That British Columbian can better rest assured, with this new regulatory environment that’s being proposed in Bill 36, that patient safety and their well-being, their best interests are at the centre of what these changes are all about.

So 645 sections. This is the largest piece of legislation that I’ve dealt with in my near-ten years in this place, but it’s also one of the most complicated. I should note that this body of work, which represents a complete redesign of the Health Professions Act, is preceded by recommendations that were made in August of 2020 by the Steering Committee on Modernization of Health Professional Regulation, as well as a 2018 report by Harry Cayton that considered changes to the health regulations act.

[2:50 p.m.]

It was all of that heavy lifting that was done by, frankly, representatives of each of the different parties in this place. I take my hat off to the Minister of Health, to the Leader of the Third Party and, very notably as well, my colleague the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who, on behalf of the official opposition, participated in a very lengthy but thoughtful and respectful process.

Not just talking amongst the three of them, but really approached it from a place of collaboration and reaching out to all of the different health professions, reaching out to all of the related stakeholders, engaging with British Columbians, taking all of that feedback and incorporating it into a set of draft recommendations, which then were tested again and again with the professions and with stakeholders and with British Columbians and were refined into another set of recommendations, and eventually made their way into this Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act.

It’s a bill that introduces two distinctions, health professions and health occupations, as provided for in clause 6. As I said, it’s a large bill. It’s an ambitious bill. It’s a bill that provides for a completely modernized approach to how these professions will be regulated, with patient safety at the heart of doing that. It’s a piece of legislation that represents a significant departure from the status quo.

Just because I stand here and I applaud the efforts that went into arriving at this place with this massive 645 section bill, that must not be confused with any suggestion — or any assumption, is probably the better word — that this bill is necessarily a done deal. It’s not a done deal until we come into this place and we actually debate it, like we’re doing here. It’s not a done deal until we go through a very rigorous scrutiny in committee stage, section by section, 645 sections.

In the opposition, our very able Health critic, the former Leader of the Opposition; the member for Kelowna–Lake Country; and a number of other members of our caucus…. I know I speak for our Green colleagues as well. There is a high degree of intentionality here to do good by British Columbians with this piece of legislation. We do that in the opposition by asking the right questions, by asking tough questions, by seeking clarification, by understanding the intent behind specific sections. The devil’s always in the details. We do that by ensuring that the government’s stated objectives actually are matched from an implementation perspective by how the piece of legislation is actually drafted.

I think my good friend from Kamloops–North Thomp­son, who spoke before me here, made the point — and it’s a very valid one — that in that moment of scrutiny in committee stage, we have often identified issues with how a section is drafted and what the unintended consequences might be if it’s not fixed. And it has been the case where government has accepted, frankly, amendments on the floor from the opposition. Sometimes the government, because the opposition highlights a deficiency in a piece of legislation, which may or may not be the case with this Bill 36….

[2:55 p.m.]

In past experience, occasionally, we’ll identify something as an opposition and the government will take it upon themselves to actually check the ego at the door and say: “You know what? You’re right about that.” And the government will bring forward an amendment to their own piece of legislation.

The whole process is intended to strengthen a bill, to make a bill as good as it possibly can be before it actually becomes law. I mean, that’s a pretty foundational obligation that I think we all have as legislators in this place.

It is beyond frustrating to realize that with a bill that will be heading into committee stage presumably at some point — I’m assuming next week, but it could be in the final week of the legislative calendar…. I’m sure that the Health Minister is just champing at the bit to get on with it in section by section.

You can imagine how frustrating I think British Columbians will feel when they realize that with such a significant piece of legislation as Bill 36 — the Health Professions and Occupations Act — significant not just in in size, significant in implication and impact, significant in the change it represents…. And the incoming Premier has decided to, essentially with the stroke of a pen, just cancel four days of session that we’re supposed to have between now and the end of November — four entire days.

We were supposed to be sitting for another 12 days after today. At one o’clock today, we find out that because the incoming Premier is to be sworn in on Friday, November 18, and that there needs to be a swearing-in ceremony at Government House, an extra week of not being here is required. It’s absolutely absurd.

It’s 645 sections, Bill 36. Part 1 is all the interpretations and guiding principles. Some very significant changes provided for there around sexual misconduct and sexual abuse and discrimination, applications if reference to health profession corporations. On and on it goes. There are 15 sections of this bill provided for in part 1. Part 2, designation and the model of regulation. All kinds of sections there that take you up to section 35 inclusive. Those two parts are going to require significant time and scrutiny in this place.

Part 3 deals with the practice of designated health professions. The authority to practise, making licence or permit applications, licences generally, health profession corporation permits. Division 5 is “Duties of licensees.” “Duties to report licensees,” “Prohibition against adverse actions,” “Quality assurance programs,” “Discipline for administrative matters.” I’m now up to section 106. Division 10, “Discipline of health professions corporation.” Division 11 is “Complaints and initiating investigations.”

I mean, all of this is going to require time to ask the right questions. Time to clarify intent. How about division 12, “Investigations of fitness and misconduct”? That sounds pretty important to me. “Capacity evaluations” in division 13. “Summary action or disposition during investigation” — that’s division 14. That’s about ten sections of the bill. “Citations for discipline hearings.” “Discipline hearings” is a big chunk of this bill, rightfully so — protection of persons in vulnerable circumstances, considerations for protection orders.

These are the different section headings, which denote the significance of the content. Division 17, “Orders after discipline hearings.” That takes us to the end of part 3. We’re up to section 197 at this point.

[3:00 p.m.]

But no, it’s more important to take an extra week not being here, to take four days out of the legislative calendar so that the incoming Premier can be sworn in on November 18, over two weeks from now.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

What makes this truly offensive is that the outgoing Premier has tendered his resignation as Premier of British Columbia. He’s tendered it. He went and saw the Lieutenant-Governor yesterday. His resignation takes effect upon the new Premier-designate being sworn in as Premier. The Premier-designate sets the schedule for that. The Premier-designate could have been sworn in yesterday. That’s often how it happens.

One Premier drives up and goes in and says, “Thank you for the opportunity to serve as the President of the Executive Council; I tender my resignation,” gets back in the car and drives away as a private citizen. The next Premier drives up, and the Lieutenant-Governor asks him or her to form a government. We saw the charade of the Premier-designate going up to Government House to have the Lieutenant-Governor ask him to form a government and presumably have some pastries and some tea or whatever.

This is a 645-page bill. We have Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, which actually transfers responsibility to First Nations for Indigenous child services, part of the commitments made through the reconciliation process driven by DRIPA. A bunch of other bills. But we’re going to cut four days out of the legislative calendar because the Premier-designate wants to make this big huge show of this transfer of power instead of just strapping in and doing his job.

He should be sitting here in his seat. He should be here on Monday, as the Premier of British Columbia, answering the tough questions. He’s been in government for 5½ years. Why is a delay to November 18 for a swearing-in required at all?

We have a health care system collapsing all around us. We have crime completely out of control when it comes to random assaults. We have very important legislation like Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, in front of us, 645 sections. We have the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act. We’ve got a passenger transportation amendment act. We’ve got energy statutes amendments. We’ve got the Income Tax Amendment Act.

We’ve got all this legislation in front of us, including Bill 36, and the incoming Premier of British Columbia is choosing to delay being sworn in by over two weeks and to yank four days out of the legislative calendar. It’s absolutely absurd.

This is also against the backdrop of a government that hasn’t joined with the opposition to forgo pay increases for the forthcoming year. Could see increases of 7 percent to 10 percent, each of us as MLAs, if the government doesn’t do the right thing there.

Secondly, this is a government that gave themselves retroactive pay increases for cabinet, like 10,000 bucks a person. “But we’re going to work less,” is really the message that they’re sending. “We’re going to take four days out of the calendar.”

The ability of the opposition to do its job as effectively as it possibly can on behalf of British Columbians, especially on a huge and complicated piece of legislation like the bill in front of us today, Bill 36, depends first and foremost on our ability as an opposition to have the time in this place to actually ask the tough questions. Now, we know that that’s not necessarily the default of this government. In the last session, they brought down the guillotine and time allocation on a critical piece of forestry legislation.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Minister of Health is smiling. He knows what…. I can tell through your eyes, to the minister. I can tell by your eyes. Now you’re definitely smiling. It’s not funny.

Interjection.

T. Stone: It doesn’t matter if you have smiley eyes. You’re smiling.

The fact of the matter is we need time. I know that the Minister of Health wants to get into it with us. On this bill, I fully expect, when I say, “get into it with us,” that he wants to get into a thoughtful discussion and debate about the contents of this legislation, which… As the sponsor of the bill, I’m certain that the Minister of Health is proud of this piece of legislation. I know that the Leader of the Third Party is proud of this legislation. I know that the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who collaborated closely with the minister, is proud of this legislation.

It doesn’t mean that you just come in here, and what are we going to do? We’re going to go: “Oh yeah. Well, we’ve only got half an hour left in the day, so we’re going to go with sections 17 to 151. All in favour?” If only it was that easy. That’s not the way this place works.

It’s not too late for the government to change its course on this. It’s not too late for the incoming Premier to recognize that it doesn’t need a two- to three-week buildup. I mean, the fix was in. He’s the leader of the so-called race. He’s the Premier-designate. He’s met with the Lieutenant-Governor. She’s asked him to form a government. She’s had tea with him. He’s been in transition discussions for weeks. The current Premier has actually tendered his resignation, effective upon the new Premier being sworn in.

There is absolutely no reason that passes the smell test with the public that the new Premier shouldn’t be in this chamber on Monday morning in his seat, answering the tough questions in question period and being accountable for his record, talking about his vision for the future, his 100 days of action, and allowing for the space in the schedule to actually go through this piece of legislation with the scrutiny that it requires.

Part 4 of this bill deals with the authority to practice, duties of regulated health service providers, complaints and investigations. If the minister thinks that we’re just going to skim over these things or that that would be our ideal intent…. I know he doesn’t think that, but if anyone were to think that, they don’t have much of a clue as to the significance of this legislation in sections like that — the decision after investigation. Disclosure of information — that’s pretty important. That’s division 2 of Bill 36.

The Health Professions Review Board is actually brand-new, pretty darn important. We’re going to have a few questions about that. The way it’s structured is new. We’re going to have questions about that. All of the regulators in part 8. There’s a whole bunch of stuff there, literally dozens and dozens of sections of this bill. I won’t go through all 645 sections, which I’m sure the minister will be happy to hear. I’m running out of time, as well, which I know he’s happy about.

This bill does change things dramatically in terms of how these colleges, these professions, are regulated. The appointment process is a significant departure. What’s provided for in this bill — significant departure from what the status quo is. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying that it maybe isn’t the right place to be, but it’s a significant departure. It requires scrutiny. It requires us to ask those questions, and we certainly will.

[3:10 p.m.]

There is, for the first time ever, the separation, this con­cept of two distinctions — right? — between health professions and health occupations. That’s significant.

There are a bunch of new provisions in this bill that deal with credentialing. We hear it from members on all sides of the House, the frustration that we often hear back in our constituencies. I’ll give you an example, from a doctor’s perspective in primary care. We all know the shortage of doctors we have — one in five.

Well, one of the barriers is a more seamless and expedited process of recognizing credentials of doctors, family physicians that are trained outside of British Columbia. Maybe they’re trained somewhere else in Canada. Maybe they’re trained internationally somewhere.

I had a constituent who called me one day and said: “It’s too late for you to do anything about this, but I just thought you should know that my son, who was born and raised in the village of Chase….” And Chase has a population of 2,500. He wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps and become a family doctor. Chase, like many communities around the province, is underserved when it comes to family doctors. Well, good news — a local kid, local boy, a local young man wants to become a doctor.

He’s top of his class, but we all know how competitive and difficult it is to get into the University of British Columbia — so few seats, so many that are trying to get in. He couldn’t get in, but he did get accepted to go to university in Dublin, Ireland, an internationally recognized and acclaimed place, a university that trains a lot of doctors. So he goes there, and he goes through the training, and he becomes a doctor.

Double benefit — he meets an amazing young woman, an Irish woman, who is also in the same program as him. She becomes a doctor at the same time. She decides she wants to move with him. They get married. They go back to Chase. Chase is going to get two doctors. They want to live in a small town.

Could they get the credentials dealt with in a timely fashion? Could they get a residency in British Columbia? No. And where are they practising today? They are both practising in Florida. I mean, what a shame.

That whole credentialing process…. I’m not saying there’s a silver bullet in here, but it certainly contemplates making some improvements around that. It needs the discussion and the debate, the time.

The incoming Premier should just dispense with this notion of ripping four days out of the legislative calendar. He should get sworn in today or tomorrow, show up on Monday to do his job.

With that, I will take my spot.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I want to start by expressing my appreciation to all the members who took part in this debate on what is, indeed, an important piece of legislation.

I want to talk about a few of the themes. There was a wide range of themes discussed, and some of them even related to the legislation. That’s a good thing. I wanted to talk and respond to some of those questions.

I want to express my appreciation to the opposition Health critic, the member for Prince George–Valemount; and the Green Party Health critic, also the Green Party Leader, the member for Cowichan Valley.

The excellent speeches done, in particular, by my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country, who took people, I think, through the process, in detail, of how we arrived at the conclusions and the directions that were provided by this legislation, by other members of the House, who talked about health care in their communities and its significance, by the member for Richmond-Queensborough who gave a very thoughtful presentation on the value of the legislation, and all the members who took part in the debate.

It is, indeed, important legislation and, in the context, I think unusual legislation in the way in which it was developed.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would say the genesis for part of that legislation came, indeed, even prior to my becoming Minister of Health in the sense that a process was developed by nursing professionals to merge the four nursing colleges into one, to recognize that people who work together in health care teams and who have the same profession broadly have common interests and can become a better regulatory organization — provide better service to the public, better response by patients — by coming together. One of the first pieces of legislation that I introduced in this Legislature was legislation that merged those four nursing professional colleges together.

Subsequent to that, we had concerns that were related to the College of Dental Surgeons. We asked internationally recognized expert Harry Cayton and, indeed, our team in the Ministry of Health that deals with the regulation of health care professionals and with the public that addresses those issues…. We had Mr. Cayton do a report both on the College of Dental Surgeons, all of whose recommendations were accepted and implemented, but also do a broader look at the manner in which we regulate health professions in B.C.

That manner and that act hadn’t been changed in 30 years and is hugely dependent on regulation — in fact, much more, proportionately, than this piece of legislation. I’ll come back to that theme because it’s one of the themes that was put forward by the opposition.

So we decided and developed, as members will know — members referred to this in the debate — a steering committee that involved members of all sides of the House — the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and the member from Cowichan. I think anyone who witnessed that, including in the public service, as we worked together on the legislation, know they contributed enormously to the result we have.

It’s unusual. It’s a process that I give them a lot of credit for, because it’s a process of people coming together and saying we were going to work together in a way that hadn’t really happened in that way before. There had been, of course, work done across the floor at various points. There was the Select Standing Committee on Aquaculture in about 2005, 2006, that was chaired by the opposition and that was set up by the government. There had been other processes. There’s currently a legislative standing committee process around recommendations. But those processes tend to result in reports and then action, presumably, but not in legislation.

We developed this process together, and I think that it’s a real credit to them. You can see from the speeches of both the member from Cowichan and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country how thoughtfully they contri­buted to that.

The goal of the exercise is to say that, indeed, in the 30 years since the Health Professions Act was in place, there had been significant changes in the way professions practise. Indeed, there had been some significant differences in health professions. There were many health professions that had not been regulated up to that point which were now regulated. There was also a certain inequality in that, such that some of the professions that had the least risk to the public had the highest fees, for example, and had to set the highest processes.

We have the College of Physicians and Surgeons that dates from the 19th century in B.C., and then we have others that are more recent. We had one college that had 87 members. They had to tax their members to set up a regulatory college to function — not the best approach. And we had a process that was opaque to the public, to the very people who might make a complaint about a health profession.

Another thing that the Cayton report shows…. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke talked about silos and being concerned that the legislation may create silos. The legislation knocks down silos. We had four dental colleges that, according to the Cayton report, had never met. They’re all working in the same area. They hadn’t met together for years prior to the review conducted by Mr. Cayton. So you had dental hygienists, dental surgeons, dental technicians and denturists who were doing the same work in the same field and not connecting.

Now, in advance of the legislation being passed, they’ve come together as one college. Encouraged by, perhaps, the direction of the members from Cowichan and Kelowna–Lake Country and myself and our intention to proceed, they’ve already proceeded. Equally, the College of Midwives joined the nursing college, and that’s a positive thing. The College of Podiatric Surgeons already joined the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Because of this direction, they are preparing and anticipating the introduction of this legislation. I think that’s a positive thing.

[3:20 p.m.]

There were 22 colleges when I became Minister of Health. There are now 15. That’s breaking down barriers and creating efficiencies and also, I think, a better response from the public that requires its role be heard as well.

We had the recommendations and then, obviously, people in the public service — working, of course, with the health colleges. We had more than 6,000 presentations to our steering committee from members of the public. We gave direction as to the legislation, and you see the result of that extraordinary work by the public service.

I think there’s lots of talk about the size of the bill. Typically, bills in this House are smaller because the original act is not being changed. In this case, the changes are significant enough that we have a new act. So whole provisions of the current Health Professions Act and the health professions regulations are now subsumed in this legislation. Some of them, parts of this bill, have in fact been in place for a long time and are a continuation of that act. We’re replacing the act, so they have to be taken up again in this legislation, which is an important thing.

What the bill does — I want to get to some of the comments and concerns of members of the opposition — I would say, is that it deals, as I’ve discussed, with efficiency. It deals with patient safety, patient voice, patient choice and patient accountability in a health care system that needs to respond to those things, that needs to have people and, for individuals who interact with the system at some of the most important moments in their lives, to have those things recognized.

It needs to have transparency, fairness and complaint processes — this improves that transparency, and it improves that complaint process in ways consistent with the recommendations of the members of this Legislature — and it has to deal with cultural safety.

A number of members suggested that — because all of this didn’t solve all the problems in health care — this wasn’t the right time for it. Well, it is exactly the right time for it. We just had a major report, in addition to the work done by the steering committee, called In Plain Sight. It was written by a distinguished scholar in B.C., Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. That report talked about the urgent issues in dealing with Indigenous, targeted and specific racism in B.C.

This legislation, which governs 122,000 health professionals, deals specifically with that. We probably should have dealt with that 30 years ago, when we dealt with the Health Professions Act, but we didn’t. That’s not a criticism of people who have acted before. That’s just to say it is urgent. Anyone who has read In Plain Sight understands its urgency. It’s why incorporating those provisions into the act is so important.

These are the changes: better for patients, better for health professionals, a more efficient process — a more efficient process for us to regulate new health professions, and a more efficient process for people who want to have their credentials recognized. Those are important issues, they’re taken up in this act, and they reflect years of work that we’ve done in important ways.

Members of this Legislature of all parties, current health colleges, health professions, members of the public and of course the outstanding staff of the Ministry of Health and the outstanding staff of the Ministry of Attorney General have worked on these provisions. Now with this legislation, which has occupied the last several days of debate in this Legislature, I have been honoured to be part of that in my presentations at second reading.

I want to deal with a couple of the issues that were raised by different members. Some of these, of course, we’ll deal with at committee stage. The member for Kelowna–Lake Country asked about clarity, about issues around health occupations and the duties of directors in that regard. Section 6 of the act outlines the differences between occupation and professional. This is intended to be a lighter-touch way of regulating health occupations that have not been trained as professionals. The goal is to regulate, in this case, proportionate to the risk.

The member for Vancouver-Langara spoke about issues around Bill 36 and how it deals with issues around UNDRIP and around cultural safety. I would say that this act, this legislation, has some of the most comprehensive changes, to date, in legislation for cultural safety.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s hard-wired into every aspect of the new HPOA, the new health professions and occupations regulatory framework, through guiding principles at section 14; anti-discrimination measures at section 15, making it clear that discrimination is misconduct and actionable conduct; and revamping the complaints process by enabling restorative processes that could be influenced by Indigenous practice — that’s sections 157 and 268; as well as enabling support workers and access to counsellors for people that have experienced discrimination. This is necessary. If people are saying, “why now?” they need to read In Plain Sight.

Clear expectations for regulated health professionals for providing services ethically, in compliance with anti-discrimination standards, are set here in collaboration with one or more persons nominated by an Indigenous governing body and our representative bodies. Those are section 70 and section 384, requiring the superintendent to collaborate with one or more persons previously nominated by Indigenous governing bodies when conducting an oversight process that relates to Indigenous matters.

In terms of some of the issues raised by the member for Vancouver-Langara, these are redresses that I look forward to talking to him about at committee stage. The member also asked how Bill 36 enhanced collaboration with Indigenous people when they’re in health crises. It requires consultation with Indigenous people whenever the changes being proposed affect them. The member asked how Bill 36 grants access to the right to traditional medicine. The investigation committee cannot investigate a person solely for practicing Indigenous medicine in place of mainstream health care, unless that service is intentionally misleading or causing harm.

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country went through a great deal of the consultation that has been put in place. Members asked about the costs of amalgamation of health services. Well, we’ve already done a significant number of those amalgamations. For example, the amalgamation that has already taken place between the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the College of Podiatric Surgeons cost about $130,000, all in. Obviously, we’ve gone from two colleges to one. That has benefits into the long term.

The integration, in 2020, of the College of Midwives cost, in total, $1.3 million. The amalgamation of all the nursing colleges — and this came from the nursing colleges — from four to one, which started under the previous government, continued under this government and was passed unanimously by all of us in this Legislature in a bill introduced by myself, at that time, cost a total of $4.5 million. That question was asked during the legislative debate.

I want to say, finally, that there were a lot of questions and concern about the bill being enabling. It replaces the current bill. Again, one of the reasons the legislation is big is that it replaces the current bill, and the elements of that bill that are still active have to be taken up, of course, in this bill. There were also 30 years of regulations pursuant to the existing Health Professions Act. The previous Health Professions Act had, generally, three types of regulations. This was an issue that’s taken up. There’s always this concern, and it’s a concern that I share.

One of the reasons why the bill is long is that we do less by regulation. This was an issue raised by a number of members — including the member for Peace River South, in his initial comments in this longer phase of debate — pointing out this concern that all of us have: should things be explicit in legislation, or should you create regulatory power? One of the reasons the legislation is this long is because it’s my general preference to do the former, but it makes the legislation longer.

The one way to make the legislation shorter — and the member will be familiar with that through legislation introduced by his government and other governments — is to create regulation-making powers. That shortens your legislation, to do that. We wanted as much as possible of this legislation to be explicit, so that health professionals and the public who see the act can see the provisions and see how they apply, and not see that in regulation. That’s an important issue that was a theme taken up by a number of members in second reading, and I wanted to address that.

The Health Professions Act currently has three types of regulations. There are profession-specific regulations, which outline a professional scope of practice and the restricted activities they can do; designation regulations, outlining which professions are regulated and what criteria are needed to regulate them; and lastly, general regulations, which speak to timelines and emergency provisions. The new act will have similar regulations to this, maintaining those. We leave these to regulations for an important purpose. They change often, and they should.

[3:30 p.m.]

As a member of the official opposition has stated, many have stated, the legislation doesn’t change often. It has been 30 years for this act. It may well be that long before we do this kind of amendment again to this act — of this magnitude — but you cannot simply create scope of practice and restricted activities on a particular profession, or who is considered a designated health profession, just in legislation.

You would have no ability, without changing legislation, to change scope of practice or to regulate a new profession, such as clinical counsellors, which many members on both sides of the House expressed a desire to do. If this were the case, LPNs would still have no restricted activities, and the speech and hearing professions would not be professions. That’s why we have a combination, especially at the end of the bill, of regulations, but a bill that is overwhelmingly in the legislation.

We have, in fact, moved — for this very precise reason raised by members such as the member for Richmond-Queensborough, the member for Peace River South, the member for Prince George–Valemount — what were regulations under the existing Health Professions Act to legislation in this act. A good example is Part 7 of the act.

Public health emergencies were a regulation under the Health Professions Act. That entire part is in this legislation. Moving it from regulation to the legislation, of course, makes the legislation longer, but it also gives a different view of what…. It gives clarity on that section. Why is that important? We’ve just been through a public health emergency, of course. It makes sense to be explicit about that and move those provisions from regulation to legislation.

There will, of course, be aspects of the legislative scheme that will need to be made in regulation. That is, as all members of the House know, standard practice.

I want to thank members of the House. I know we’ll look forward to voting on this in a few minutes. But I want to finish by acknowledging the extraordinary staff of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Attorney General, who have been dedicated to this major reform. I want to thank all those members of the public who participated in the process. I want to thank my colleagues, members of the House who participated in this debate — in particular, my colleagues the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and the member from Cowichan, who took a leap of faith with us, I think, in going and starting this process, which is an important change.

It’s my hope and my belief that we need to do more of this. I’ve sat in this Legislature for quite a long time — not quite as long as the member for Abbotsford West, but I remember when he started. I was vaguely nearby, I think, when he started, possibly nearby. And it seems to me….

What I’ve always tried to do — and what I believe — is to value the debate at the Legislature, to value the participation of all members. When members come to me with cases, I take those cases seriously and respond to them, because they are our eyes and ears in the community. Especially as the person who is responsible for the Ministry of Health, I take that very seriously. I am very appreciative of the comments, the questions, the debate and the participation of members of the opposition and members of the government side, of course, and I’m going to continue to do that.

We have, sometimes, fierce debates in this House, but this effort, what we’ve done here, is the consequence of a different sort of process, not as fierce but as hard-working, as determined, as dedicated. I think here we have a bill that will be a legacy to hundreds of thousands of people who work in health professions and the millions of people that they serve.

I look forward to the debate at committee stage. Members know I can’t wait for that debate. I love that debate. I think that debate is of value and importance, and I recognize everyone’s role in participating in it.

With that, I move second reading.

[3:35 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 36.

Second reading of Bill 36 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 58
Alexis	Anderson	Ashton
Bailey	Bains	Banman
Beare	Begg	Bernier
Bond	Brar	Chandra Herbert
Chant	Chen	Chow
Clovechok	Conroy	Cullen
Davies	de Jong	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Doerkson
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Kirkpatrick	Leonard	Letnick
Malcolmson	Merrifield	Morris
Oakes	Olsen	Paddon
Paton	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Sharma
Simons	Sims	A. Singh
R. Singh	Starchuk	Stewart
Stone	Tegart	Walker
	Yao
NAYS — 1
	Wat

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36, Health Professions and Occupations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Dix: Mr. Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 34.

[3:55 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND
HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:57 p.m.

The Chair: We are addressing Bill 34, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2022.

I will recognize the minister, perhaps to introduce his staff.

On clause 1.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m happy to introduce our staff.

Katherine Thiessen-Wale is the executive director of legislation at the Ministry of Health. We’ve got two pieces of legislation this session. They’re pretty good. So thank you to Katherine, who is to my right. Ira Tee is behind me, the legal counsel who works at the Ministry of Attorney General. To my left is the Associate Deputy Minister of Health, Jonathan Dube.

M. de Jong: A bit of the challenge, I think, one encounters in the discussion we are going to have about the bill before us relates to the fact that it amends a piece of legislation that is directly tied to, as I understand it, not one but two specific pieces of litigation. One of the time-honoured traditions of this place, of course, is that one is reluctant from discussing matters that are presently before the courts. I am alive to that, although I’m not certain that we can have a meaningful conversation about the amendments that are being proposed here without being cognizant of and at least referencing the actions that have been commenced with respect to the original legislation.

With that by way of a preamble, and hopefully signaling to the committee and to the minister that I understand that in the conduct of litigation, there will be matters that there will be a hesitation — and at times, an understandable hesitation — to disclose or discuss in this chamber, what I’d like to do at the outset is just confirm with the minister the chronology that brings us to this stage and the decision by the government and the minister to proceed with Bill 34, which amends the original Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

[4:00 p.m.]

That chronology, as I understand it, goes like this. It will present as a statement; it is really a question to ensure that I have the chronology correct. My understanding, therefore, is that on August 29, 2018, the government commenced an action by filing a notice of civil claim. I’ll frequently refer to that as the original action.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

For accuracy’s sake, it is an action that was filed in the Vancouver registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. S189395.

Shortly thereafter, in the fall session of 2018, the government then tabled Bill 38, which, in effect, created a statutory right of action. I won’t try to summarize everything that was in the original bill, but a statutory right of action against wholesalers and manufacturers of pharmaceutical products.

Not quite a year later, in the summer of 2019, the government filed an amended notice of civil claim that included, amongst other things…. It deleted one of the named defendants, Gamma Wholesale Drugs Ltd., and a series of other amendments to the original notice of claim.

I’m going to ask if the minister can summarize, and I do mean summarize, the key amendment to that subsequent June 20, 2019 notice of civil claim, in particular the degree to which they related to the tabling and passage of Bill 38, the bill we are amending today.

Hon. A. Dix: To be specific…. I appreciate the member’s summary, and these are important parts, even though we’re talking about clause 1, to frame the debate. So I appreciate that.

What occurred in 2019 were amendments that reflected the passage of the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. So the passage of that bill in the fall of 2018, obviously, given the intention of that bill, which was debated at the time, in our view, would have strengthened that claim. Really, the amendment in 2019 reflected the passage of the legislation in 2018.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Is the minister, with the assistance of his able staff, able to be just a little bit more specific in pointing to the correlation between the amended notice of civil claim and the passage of Bill 38 and how the passage of Bill 38 provided additional tools or strengthened the claim that the government has brought? I ask the question cognizant of the fact that, in August of 2018, the action was commenced against the defendants.

The advice, I’m sure, that the government received from its counsel was that a sufficient cause of action existed to commence that action, either in the common law and/or under existing legislation. So perhaps a slightly fuller explanation for how the passage of Bill 38 enhanced the prospects of success in the litigation commenced by the government.

Hon. A. Dix: Really specifically, many lawyers — I’m not one of them — in this discussion. But the opioid-related wrong which was created as part of the legislative framework, the legislation that we passed, is the statutory cause of action.

Prior to that, in August 2018, prior to the passage of the legislation, it was based on the common law, essentially — to summarize it a little more than it was summarized for me. So this created that cause of action. That is the cause of action, and that was in the legislation, and that was part of the amendment.

There were also further amendments subsequent to that, which reflected the actions of other provinces. But I’m anticipating the member’s next question.

M. de Jong: Fair to say that both with the passage of the original Bill 38 and now the amendments that we’re dealing with today, the government was purposely choosing to…. I want to choose the right word. I’m not meaning to be argumentative on this point, at least.

[4:10 p.m.]

The government was choosing to strengthen its legal hand beyond that which existed under the general Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s fair to say — again, choosing our words, as the member was doing — that the passage of the original bill strengthened the cause of action, which I think is his question.

M. de Jong: In April of this year, April 25, counsel for the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia filed an additional amendment — the notice of claim in the action that we have been discussing. That amendment — again, the date stamp on that from the court registry is April 25, 2022 — refers to this being the third amended notice of civil claim.

The first thing I want to confirm…. I have records of the original notice of claim on August 29, 2018, the amended notice of claim of June 20, 2019, and then what is labeled the third amended notice of civil claim on April 25, 2022. Is that the extent of the amended pleadings, or am I missing one?

Hon. A. Dix: I think all of the activity is contained in those three. So 2018-2019, and then the one that the member refers to on April 25. We will, as we go through the debate, double-check that to make sure, but I think that’s the three. I think we’re talking about three orders of claim. They’re all online, and those are all of them. Yes. There’s not another one.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful. Dealing, then, with the amended notice of civil claim that was filed on April 25, 2022, what are the significant changes between that pleading and the amended notice of civil claim that was filed on June 20, 2019? Really, two questions. What are the changes reflected in the pleadings, and what prompted the need for those for those amendments?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: They’re principally minor changes consistent with an order by Justice Brundrett in the court. There had been applications by some of the defendants to be struck from the claim. Those were not upheld by the court, but some minor changes were required, including, I believe, the addition of new defendants as a result of the court order that was put in place by Justice Brundrett.

So that was the process, but those were relatively minor amendments.

M. de Jong: Just to maybe be of a bit of assistance to the Chair, what I’m going to try and do is ask some fairly general questions and lump them into clause 1. Then we’ll get a little more specific about the provisions of clause 1. So if I’m slow getting to my feet, check twice, because I’m getting old, you know.

Just to confirm, then, the document that we should be relying upon to understand the nature of the claim the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia is advancing against these defendants is the amended notice of claim of April 25, 2022. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

M. de Jong: Is the minister able to advise the committee…? In the event that the amendment to the original bill that we are discussing today were to pass, and given both the alignment of the House and the position the opposition took back in 2018, there would seem some reasonable prospect of that occurring, will that necessitate further amendments to the pleadings and, in particular, the notice of civil claim of April 25, 2022?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The member will also know that there’s a separate action, with respect to McKinsey, that’s dated December 30, 2021. If the member doesn’t have it, we’d be happy to provide that to him as well.

We’re getting, I think, into the realm of litigation strategy, what might happen next. Clearly, there is a potential, possible option of joining that action to the main action because of these changes and because of some of the provisions of the act, which we’ll be discussing in the next little while. Beyond that…. I don’t think I’ll say more than that, except that that potential exists. I just wanted to lay that out for the member, given his interest in that question.

M. de Jong: It strikes me, again, without seeking to divulge more than a litigant would want…. Although it’s a unique circumstance, where the House has been asked to amend a statutory right of action…. That’s where it gets a bit tricky.

Where I would see the possibility of amendments is around additional defendants, for reasons that we’ll get to further in the act, additional plaintiffs as it relates to the federal government. There are different ways that that might occur. It might occur with respect to the existing action or by a separate action. The minister has referred to a separate action that predates the passage of the amendments we’re talking about today.

Amendments to the parties to the action could flow from the passage of these amendments. Is there any other manner in which the passage of these amendments impacts the litigation? I suppose the third way is when we get to the section dealing with the calculation of market share in the claim. That’s a third way this legislation….

There are three that I can think of. If I’m correct, the minister can perhaps confirm that. And if there are others, I’m keen to know what they are.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Again, without getting into the litigation strategy, which we wouldn’t want to do in this House…. There’s a place for that, and that place would be in the court.

I think it’s fair to say that all of the changes here can, obviously, affect different aspects of the action, including one not mentioned by the member: the definition of “active ingredient” and the idea that there might be a manufacturer of ingredients that might not currently be included. That would be another aspect of it.

I think it’s fair to say that all of the changes potentially affect the action without getting into the litigation strategy that’s being presented and pursued by the Ministry of Attorney General.

M. de Jong: Fair to say, on my part, that one overall impact of the amendments would be to broaden — I’ll use the subjective word “significantly,” and the minister may not want to — fairly significantly the possible range of defendants in this action.

Hon. A. Dix: I won’t debate “significantly” with the member. I think the potential inclusion of officers and directors potentially does broaden the action to others. So in that sense, I think the member is correct.

M. de Jong: We’ll actually get to that. I’m going to spend a bit of time on that when we get to clause 10 of the bill.

I wonder if this might be an appropriate time to ask the minister to provide the committee with a general update on the state of the litigation that this legislation pertains to. By that…. Maybe I can help by suggesting that it would be appropriate for the committee to know whether or not all of the named defendants in the last amended notice of civil claim have either filed statements of defence or indicated their intention to do so.

I understand that there is a pending application to certify as a class action. I think I learned from a member of the Attorney General ministry’s staff or the Health Minister’s staff that that application is pending in the next calendar year. But a little bit of a general update on where the litigation stands, again, on the basis that we are debating amendments to legislation that pertain directly to that litigation.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: In general, we’re working towards certification. That’s one place where we’re at. Most of the defendants, I want to say, have filed a defence. There are some of the rulings that…. The ruling I referred to earlier is the subject of an appeal, and that appeal has been heard, I understand, by the Court of Appeal but a decision not rendered. So that’s kind of where we’re at right now.

M. de Jong: I didn’t quite get the last part of what the minister said, but maybe he can clarify when I pose the next question. What I did hear is that most of the named defendants have filed a statement of defence. For those that haven’t, have any default proceedings been launched against them?

I also asked the minister to confirm…. I thought there was a specific date for the class certification application. If that’s not the case, the minister can simply confirm that.

Hon. A. Dix: I think the part maybe that I didn’t…. I’ll speak up for the member. There were appeals filed to the ruling of Justice Brundrett that I referred to earlier. Those have been heard in the Court of Appeal, but a decision has not been rendered yet. He was asking the general status of the thing, and I think that was the element that he may not have heard.

On the other point, I believe that there is a date, but I don’t think that date has been put forward yet or has been made public yet on certification. But it’s obviously…. We’re working on that effort.

M. de Jong: Have any of the defendants made application to have the action against them discontinued for any reason?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Noramco is one of the defendants that asked to be taken off the case. If you look at the list, it’s line 5, in the action — if he’s got that in front of him — in terms of the list of defendants there. That is part of the ruling that has gone to the Court of Appeal because the justice supported the government’s position.

M. de Jong: Just to be clear, that defendant has sought an order from the court to have it struck as a defendant from the action. Is that correct? And if that’s correct, are there any other defendants that have made a similar application?

Hon. A. Dix: Others have made applications on other grounds, but Noramco asked to be stricken, and Justice Brundrett essentially said no. Those issues are before another court.

M. de Jong: Sorry to be a bit picky about this. Others have made applications relating to other aspects of the action but have not made application to be struck, as they have the action against them discontinued. Do I understand that correctly?

Hon. A. Dix: I think the purpose of their actions might well be to be struck, right? That’s the purpose of their actions around issues of constitutionality, etc. Obviously, a ruling in their favour, should that have happened, would assist them in that task, but it’s not as direct a path, if the member understands what I’m saying.

M. de Jong: I think I do. Thank you.

Is there anything that links those defendants? Any common features? Whether they’re U.S.-based or…. I’m just trying to…. First of all, how many such applications is the Crown dealing with? Is it the vast majority of defendants that have brought those actions? We’ve mentioned one that is making an actual application to be struck as a defendant. But how many other proceedings are there that would touch upon, depending on the ruling, the Crown’s ability to proceed?

Hon. A. Dix: There are two other applications, and they’re both before Justice Brundrett.

M. de Jong: There’s another defendant that’s named in the notice of civil claim that we might expect to see disappear from the action. I’m talking about the defendants Purdue Pharma and Purdue Pharma LP, with whom the Crown has reached a settlement. That was disclosed back in June of this year. A settlement number was disclosed at that time.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could share with the committee as much of the details of the settlement — I may press a little bit further — as he is in a position to share and confirm what needs to happen. Now, I’m advised, again, by staff that that settlement needs to be certified or approved by the court. I think people would be interested to know what that process involves, where two parties to litigation have come to an agreement around settlement — what the role of the court is to authorize them to proceed on that basis.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s very interesting — this thing. I think it may be a new career for me — this legal career. You’re never too young to keep learning.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Listen, you are every day, I say to the member.

As you know, Purdue, in the United States and, by extension, in Canada, has a stay against it. What’s happening now is that they’re applying to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act court in Toronto to lift that — the purpose of this agreement. Then it will be presented to Mr. Justice Brundrett. That’s the process where we’re at.

M. de Jong: So a two-stage process that involves the defendant party to the proposed settlement seeking permission from that agency that is dealing with creditors’ rights and remedies. That’s the first step. If and when that approval is received, there’s a secondary step that involves bringing the settlement to the British Columbia Supreme Court for approval.

[4:45 p.m.]

I won’t dwell on the first stage of that exercise, but it strikes me that the role of the B.C. Supreme Court, in that sense, would be fairly minimal if the parties have agreed to a settlement. Is there a test that the parties need to meet in presenting a joint settlement proposal to the court which, presumably, would involve agreement from the defendant to pay a sum in exchange for an absolute release from the plaintiff, a release from the pursuit of any further liability? Is there something beyond that that the B.C. Supreme Court needs to see in order to authorize a settlement?

Hon. A. Dix: The member wouldn’t want me to presume what Justice Brundrett would decide under those circumstances. He does have to decide if it’s in the best interest of the class — the settlement. That’s part of his role in the process. That would be…. So it’s not…. There is a role for Mr. Justice Brundrett, but obviously, as the member has suggested, there is also a settlement between the parties.

M. de Jong: Does it follow, therefore, that the proposed settlement with Purdue can’t be finalized until such time as the decision around whether or not to grant a class certification…? If the test that the court apparently is going to apply in approving the settlement hinges on measuring or assessing the best interests of the class, well, we don’t have a class yet.

I’ll tell you why I ask. When the government, back in June of this year, announced the settlement, it made the point of saying: “The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts” — that’s what we’re discussing — “expected in the next few months.” It sounds like we may be some time off from knowing whether this settlement can proceed or not.

In a moment, I’m going to ask some questions on the assumption that it does. But if the minister’s advice is correct, and the B.C. Supreme Court must exercise a jurisdiction of weighing the benefits of this settlement, as it relates to the overall class, well, the court can’t really do that until the decision is made about whether there is going to be a class, because right now there’s just a single plaintiff.

Hon. A. Dix: As part of the application to approve the settlement, the court would be asked to approve the class for the purpose of the settlement. The member follows me. So that’s what the court would be asked to do.

Then the court would decide whether the settlement, within the view of Mr. Justice Brundrett, is to be approved. So that would be the decision for him. Obviously, I can’t comment on what factors he would bring to make such a decision, but effectively, the parties will be bringing forward the application and, for the purpose of the settlement, approving the class for that purpose.

M. de Jong: This might be a good time, just as part of this discussion, to verify one thing from my reading of the pleadings and the nature of the application, going forward, to establish the class. In pursuing this action, the province isn’t attempting to collect damages that would then be redistributed to members of the class — that is, members of the British Columbia public.

[4:50 p.m.]

The province, as I understand it, in the action, is seeking to present to the court a quantification of the damages that have accrued — in particular, the cost of delivering health care services to people adversely impacted by the provision of opioids in the way that is described in the notice of claim. But that money rests with that. That money will stay with the Crown.

The court is not assessing this from the point of view of whether it is fair to members of the class as to how that money will be distributed. The money will all stay with the Crown, unless I’m mistaken.

Hon. A. Dix: The member is correct. The class is the governments involved in the claim, which are the governments that are involved in the action. So the member is right. That’s the class, though. It’s not another group of individuals. In terms of the health care cost recovery, that’s the nature of this action.

M. de Jong: Can the minister, then, advise or provide an updated estimate of the timeline? We’ve now established that there are, as it relates to this tentative settlement, two separate judicial proceedings — one, as I understand it, taking place in Ontario and another that needs to take place here. Has the proceeding in Ontario taken place or been scheduled? If so, when? And has the proceeding here in British Columbia been scheduled? If so, when? I understand that one must follow the other.

Hon. A. Dix: The first action has happened. The stay’s been lifted. The second action, I understand, has been scheduled, although there’s not a public date yet. But that’s kind of where we’re at.

We’re jumping over that hurdle. That’s the process, right? Now the next step would be the application to Mr. Justice Brundrett.

M. de Jong: To be clear, the court in Ontario overseeing the defendant, Purdue, and Purdue’s creditors’ protection and debt situation has approved the settlement, and armed with that approval, the parties are now proceeding, I presume, jointly and by agreement. Again, that’s a statement, but it’s meant to be a question.

The parties, the Crown in the Right of the Province of British Columbia and Purdue and Purdue, will appear before the B.C. Supreme Court and make a joint submission urging the court to approve the settlement as they’ve arrived at it.

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s just important to be clear that the court in Toronto isn’t approving the settlement. It’s just lifting…. It’s effectively allowing for the settlement. That latter question is the jurisdiction of the court in B.C., and that’s the process we’re in. The member is correct.

M. de Jong: Thank you for that important distinction. Suffice to say that we are now awaiting the second judicial exercise of jurisdiction, and that is the actual approval of the settlement. That application will come before the B.C. Supreme Court. We don’t know, or we don’t know in this committee, and the public does not know when that will occur.

[4:55 p.m.]

Suffice to say, the suggestion in the news release earlier in June that this would all happen within the next few months was a bit over-optimistic.

Hon. A. Dix: I don’t think we’re defining “few” in the act, but in the common usage, yeah, I think it’s our hope, but this always depends on the availability of the court — that that might happen in this calendar year. Just to give the…. I think the member was looking for what the frame of time was, so more than a few but less than a lot.

M. de Jong: That’s the kind of linguistic certainty that will make the minister a great lawyer one day.

At the time the settlement was announced, the figure was given at $150 million, and the point was made that all of the provinces and…. I’m not sure territories was mentioned, but federal, provincial and territorial governments signed off. What’s the procedure for that? And I should say…. Again, we’re discussing a bill that deals with amendments that are…. I think the questions are legitimate in this sense.

I presume the minister would say that the legislation — I think he already has — is designed to enhance the prospects for either successful litigation or a settlement of that litigation on favourable terms. So understanding the one settlement that has already been arrived at I think is an appropriate use of the time of the committee.

What is the procedure? On a case…. I do know that the minister talked about the tobacco cases that were launched and have been proceeded with, and a fairly formal structure exists around communications between the jurisdictions in Canada. Does something similar exist around this particular claim that’s being pursued in a number of provinces?

Hon. A. Dix: I would say that the discussions of the allocation — I think that’s the purpose of the member’s question — and of potential settlement…. Those are still under discussion.

M. de Jong: I think the minister has anticipated subsequent questions correctly.

At this point, I was more interested in exploring the degree to which a structure has been created to address the mechanics of agreeing to a settlement. Surely that involves some kind of cost-sharing formula. But before quantifying what that may or may not be, I was simply trying to ascertain to what extent a formalized intergovernmental mechanism exists to conduct this litigation, and it’s national implications.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the settlement, all of the provinces have agreed to the settlement, and that’s sort of the structure, if you will. But there’s not…. If the member is looking for a sort of formalized structure — or almost, for want of a better word, organizational term — there’s not that. But all of the provinces have agreed to the settlement, and obviously they’re all parties.

M. de Jong: Sorry, that last phrase, “They’re all parties.” I think the minister said: “They’re all parties.” All parties to what?

Hon. A. Dix: Sorry, to the settlement. Sorry, I should have included that.

M. de Jong: I’m going to do something that one has to be cautious about doing, but I’m going to do so on the basis of something that happened. I’m going to make some assumptions.

We now know that the court overseeing the defendant, Purdue’s, creditor situation has authorized the presentation of this settlement offer through the B.C. court. Let’s assume for the moment that when that application is made jointly by the plaintiff — the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia — and Purdue, that the court accedes and says: “Yes, we are prepared to endorse and approve this settlement.”

This part is a question that the minister can confirm. Once that occurs, Purdue will be released as a defendant. I’m asking that question, but I assume that’s why they are interested in entering into a settlement of this sort. For B.C.’s part, the question is an obvious one: how much money does B.C. get?

I defend my preparedness to make those assumptions because of the wording the news release used back in June. There weren’t a lot of caveats in the headline that the then Attorney General signed off on: “Settlement reached with Purdue Pharma (Canada).” There weren’t any caveats.

There’s a settlement, and it would be logical for a British Columbian to read that and see the figure $150 million. There wasn’t any indication in the document about the fact that that settlement amount would have to be shared with other jurisdictions within Canada. I expect that is so, but the minister can confirm that today — that B.C. won’t be getting $150 million. But he could also perhaps shed some light on just how much of that $150 million settlement, if approved by the court, would actually flow to British Columbia.

Hon. A. Dix: Just to be clear from news releases, the news release did say, in 2018, that B.C. began a class action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

[5:05 p.m.]

I don’t think we need to get into a debate on it. That’s what we’re doing here. And as I said, in anticipating this question three questions ago, there haven’t been those discussions about the allocation of the as-yet-not-approved settlement.

M. de Jong: Maybe I’ll lump as many of these questions together as I can, and someone will make a note for the minister because it can get confusing at times. Who is conducting those discussions on behalf of British Columbia? Are they being conducted with specific reference to the settlement with Purdue or on a broader level as it relates to all of the potential defendants and certainly the defendants that have been named in this action by B.C. and defendants named by other provinces?

Well, let’s start there.

Hon. A. Dix: This answer may not satisfy the member, but it’s the Ministry of Attorney General on behalf of the province of British Columbia. As to the nature of the negotiations or the discussions between parties, I really can’t say more than that. But it’s the Ministry of Attorney General who is representing British Columbia in that.

M. de Jong: The second part of my question was…. Those discussions that the Health Minister advises are being conducted by the Ministry of Attorney General — do they relate specifically and exclusively to the Purdue Pharma settlement, or are they taking place on a broader level to establish a sharing agreement as it relates to what we are told and hopefully will be additional settlements?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think it would be speculative to refer to future settlements, but the discussions, such as they occur…. There is a proposed settlement — we’ll call it that because it hasn’t yet been approved — that has been adopted, so those discussions would be about that settlement. You know, it would be speculative to talk about settlements that don’t exist.

M. de Jong: I’m a bit surprised by that answer, because the minister has been around long enough to know of any number of examples where, in the case of pan-Canadian initiatives that I think, in a good way, this falls under, that the various jurisdictions, to expedite these matters, will try to come to an agreement in advance.

[5:10 p.m.]

I recognize that this is the first settlement. But surely, it would make sense for British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, all the provinces and the federal government to know as soon as possible how those settlement proceeds are going to be shared amongst them. Because at some point, ministers are going to have to come before bodies like this and get pesky questions from pesky opposition members that say, “How much does our jurisdiction get?” and want to assess the validity of the settlement or the benefits of the settlement on that basis.

It sounds like the minister is saying the only discussions that are taking place thus far relate to the Purdue settlement, and there’s no discussion taking place around a broader — I always want to say cost-sharing, but this is the opposite of that — revenue-sharing formula that would be applicable going forward. Have I got that right?

Hon. A. Dix: Never pesky.

I think maybe I’ll frame it this way for the member. The allocations have not been decided with respect to Purdue so therefore not been decided of the impact of Purdue on other future settlements. None of that has been decided yet, and that’s the reason for my reticence to respond. Right? It hasn’t been decided yet on Purdue.

It’s possible some of the conclusions the member draws, that we’d be familiar with, might be true, but that hasn’t happened yet. That’s the reason why the questions are absolutely legitimate and not pesky, but that’s the response. That’s the response we’re getting and, obviously, as the process unfolds, people will draw their own conclusions about that.

As you know, British Columbia obviously sees this — and the other jurisdictions in the country — as something that we should do and we are doing.

M. de Jong: Again, a statement that is meant to be a question.

It’s fair to say British Columbia will not receive all $150 million of this settlement with Purdue. Secondly, at the moment, it is impossible for the minister to advise the committee how much of that $150 million will flow to B.C.

Hon. A. Dix: The latter was the answer I just gave. So I guess…. I think it’s yes. I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t posed in the negative or anything else.

This is from the June 29 press release. The member referred to the proposed settlement. It says: “The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit.” That clearly states the former: that this represents all of those jurisdictions, yes.

M. de Jong: When that figure is ultimately known, as the result of conversations and discussions that are taking place at the provincial-federal level, what is the process for approval within the British Columbia government? This is where…. I’m trying to get a sense of the chronology. B.C. is going, along with Purdue, to the B.C. Supreme Court to seek approval of a settlement, but what’s B.C. going to say if the judge asks how much of this settlement is coming to B.C.?

[5:15 p.m.]

We just had the conversation about the role the judge plays in assessing the interests of the class. What’s the answer going to be to the court if the judge says: “How much of this settlement is coming to B.C.?” Or is the expectation that we’ll have that answer by then, in the next few months?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the judge would approve a settlement for all the parties of the class, meaning all of the governments in question, and then a decision…. In approving the $150 million settlement, that’s what the judge would be doing.

If the judge were to ask, and I hear the…. I’m answering a hypothetical question from a judge to the province. I think what the province would say is that that would be decided amongst the parties of the class, meaning all of the governments of Canada.

M. de Jong: Now I am a bit confused. Well, that may be a common feature of my time here. It may be the use of terms.

My understanding was that the government of B.C., Her Majesty the Queen, I guess now the King, in Right of the Province of British Columbia, along with one of the defendants, was going to the B.C. Supreme Court to seek approval for a settlement of a dispute involving the government of British Columbia and that defendant. But the minister has now said…. He has introduced what I think is a new element to that exercise, which is that the B.C. Supreme Court is going to conduct some kind of an analysis about whether or not this settlement is fair to jurisdictions.

Then I have misunderstood, because I heard the minister talk about other governments as members of the class. As I understand it, I thought the class application being made by the government of British Columbia was on behalf of British Columbians, as a way of ensuring that the cost of providing health care services to them will be calculated as part of the damages claim. But the minister seems to be suggesting now that the B.C. Supreme Court has to assess the fairness of this as it relates to other governments in British Columbia.

If I have misinterpreted what the minister says, I’m sure he’ll clarify.

Hon. A. Dix: Just to be clear, I mean…. The member referred to the press release. I just want to be clear, in terms of the press release, that:

“In 2018, B.C. began a class action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health care costs that resulted from the wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

“The proposed settlement with Purdue Pharma” — again, I’m reading from the document that the member has — “has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit.”

[5:20 p.m.]

So that is the class, and it’s pretty clear, I think, in the document that British Columbia began the class action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada.

Subsequent we’ve had the action under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to allow Purdue to pursue the settlement, and that’s what they’re doing. Then an application to approve the settlement will be made to the B.C. Supreme Court, and then that approval will take place. There will be discussions, inevitably, amongst the parties as to the allocation of different parties to the settlement.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: Do you want to do one more?

The Chair: One more? Okay.

M. de Jong: All right, well, here’s my confusion. The minister may or may not be able to…. I know what’s in the press release, but I am more interested in what is in the pleadings. In the pleadings and the court action commenced by the government of British Columbia, there is only one plaintiff. My reading of that notice of claim relates to costs that have been incurred by the government of British Columbia relating to the provision of health care services to those who have been damaged by the conduct of the plaintiffs.

It says nothing of damages incurred elsewhere. In fact, as I understand it, other provinces have commenced their own actions. That’s my understanding.

The press release characterized this as an action that has been launched on behalf of all other governments. I don’t think it’s that, because other governments have launched their own actions. It’s relevant to our conversation, because we’ve been talking about the approval process for a settlement.

If the assessment the B.C. Supreme Court has to make is whether this proposed settlement and, presumably, subsequent settlements are fair to all other jurisdictions in Canada, that is very different than if the court is going to assess whether it is an appropriate settlement for the class that the British Columbia government is seeking to certify, which is the people of British Columbia — unless the minister is going to say, “No, we are seeking to certify a class that includes all other governments in Canada.” Then I would understand the minister’s statement, but I don’t think that’s what the government proposes to do.

Hon. A. Dix: In a class action, there’s always a representative plaintiff. In this case, it’s British Columbia. We’ve named a proposed class. The class hasn’t been approved. As we discussed in response to earlier questions, that would include other governments, provinces and territories in the country. I hope that clarifies it for the member. We are the representative plaintiff at the moment, and then the others would be added to the class.

It might be a good place to stop. I’ll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday, October 31.

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.