Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 3, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 247
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2022
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Tributes
MICHAEL RENSING
Hon. B. Ralston: I’m going to invite the House to celebrate the extraordinary career of an exceptional public servant this morning, Dr. Michael Rensing.
Dr. Michael Rensing joined the British Columbia public service in September 2003, in the air protection section of the Ministry of the Environment. In November 2007, he moved to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation to develop policies and legislation for renewable and low-carbon fuels.
Throughout his career in the ministry, Michael has supported a number of ministers in the House for amendments, supported a parliamentary secretary review of the legislation in 2013 and overseen regular updates to the regulations as lessons were learned about the impact of this leading-edge policy. From the beginning, Michael has been the public face of the government’s low-carbon fuel standard, conducting stakeholder consultations and building the province’s very positive reputation as a jurisdiction that supports evidence-based policies.
With his expert guidance, the low-carbon fuel standard has become the single largest contributor to the CleanBC roadmap to 2030 targets and is expected to cut five million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 — fully 31 percent of the amount required to meet the CleanBC roadmap climate targets. Working with Paul Wieringa, who recently retired as well, Michael developed the part 3 agreement program, which has spurred over $2 billion of investment in clean fuels in British Columbia in 2020.
British Columbia is now recognized by Canadian fuel suppliers as a role model in Canada for supporting low-carbon fuel investment and innovation. In 2021, the B.C. Bioenergy Network recognized Michael’s contribution by awarding him the first annual bioenergy sector champion award for outstanding leadership and contribution to the bioenergy sector in B.C. Michael began his career in the ministry in 2007 as a program analyst, and he will be retiring as the executive director of the low-carbon fuels branch.
He tells me he plans to spend the next few years as an adviser to industry who are working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through the use of low-carbon fuels, while spending more time with his beautiful granddaughter, Audrey.
Will the House please join me in celebrating the extraordinary career of Dr. Michael Rensing.
Introductions by Members
Hon. R. Kahlon: I have two sets of introductions. First, we have some of our GCPE staff who are in the chambers watching question period today. We have Caroline McAndrews, who just recently got a lifetime achievement award from the provincial government for service for 30 years, serving members on both sides of the House; Scott McKenzie; Angela Soukoreff; Bianca Chu; Lara Hurrel; Katya Slepian; Tom Laird; and Shantel Esplen. Can the House please make them welcome today.
I have two special guests from my community today here in the House. First, we have Mark Gordienko. Mark was the former president of the ILWU. He’s well known to members of this House. A strong advocate for the women and men who work on the docks. A strong advocate for resource development — sustainable, responsible resource development — in the province. He is retired, and he’s here today.
As well, it’s a bit of an odd couple. He came with a gentleman named Gurmit Grewal, who is my father-in-law. My father-in-law is a remarkable human being. He immigrated to Canada, and from all the places he could have gone, he went to Stewart, B.C.
He spent many, many years in Stewart, B.C., working in mining, working on the big trucks that are needed in the mines up there. Then he was one of the first South Asian heads of a department in the city of Vancouver. He served there for 30 years and retired.
These two — I call them the odd couple — became friends when they volunteered on my campaign and became sign crew members together five years ago. Now they meet regularly for lunch, they go on trips together, and they’ve travelled here today to watch question period.
So please can the House make these two amazing people welcome.
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to recognize an important member of the Ministry of Finance policy team who was sitting here just a couple of weeks ago, helping steward some legislation through, Shauna Sundher.
Shauna is known throughout the ministry as one of the go-to people on so much work that we do here to improve policies and services for British Columbians. You may recall that she was the one who was significantly pregnant. Well, this week, hours after briefing our team, Shauna delivered baby Kai. She worked the entire day and then went off and just had a baby. I know that the whole team is thrilled for Shauna and her family.
I ask the House to join me in recognizing an outstanding member of the public service and congratulate Shauna Sundher and newborn baby Kai.
G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a very close friend of mine, M.J. Whitemarsh, who’s accompanied by her husband, Bill; also her granddaughter Emma Fisher; as well as a friend, Josh Goodhume.
Emma is quite an accomplished athlete. I understand that in high school, she was the quarterback of her high school co-ed football team. She’s an accomplished hockey player as well, playing competitive women’s hockey throughout her high school. She’s now playing, actually, for Western University, the women’s team.
Would the House please make my good friend M.J. and her family very welcome.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: In the precinct today, I encourage the Legislature to help me welcome the members of the Canadian Mental Health Association’s B.C. chapters and representatives from across the province.
I was so happy to meet this morning with chapter reps from Nanaimo, Vancouver-Fraser, Port Alberni, the North, Shuswap, Vernon, Kamloops. Special thanks to Vernon, which is celebrating five years of operating Foundry on behalf of the province of B.C.; and the North Shore CMHA B.C. celebrating its first-year anniversary of operating peer-assisted care teams for the province.
Please thank them for their work, and welcome them to the precinct.
Hon. R. Fleming: With us in the precinct today is a new Vancouver Island, Victoria, resident, who finally saw the light and moved across the water, well known to many members of this House on all sides because he was for many years the president of CUPE British Columbia.
I would ask the House to make Mr. Paul Farrow most welcome here today to watch question period.
Tributes
RATTAN KAUR GHOLIA
B. Banman: Tomorrow I had hoped to be able to announce that Rattan Kaur Gholia had reached 104 years of age. Sadly, that is not to be. Mrs. Gholia passed a few weeks ago.
I was going to get up last year at 103, but she had asked me: “Please don’t. There are so many others that are passing of COVID.” She felt it would have been inappropriate to celebrate her life when others, much younger than her, were succumbing to the disease.
Would the House please take a moment to just say may she rest in peace.
Speaker’s Statement
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION
OF HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, a trial project to provide American Sign Language interpretation during the broadcast of House proceedings took place this fall. I would like to thank Hansard broadcasting and Island Deaf and Hard of Hearing Centre for coordinating professional interpretation services for us over the past few weeks.
Enhancing access to the work of the Legislative Assembly is valued by us all, and as such, their important work was greatly appreciated. Let’s express appreciation to the interpreters and all those who initiated this special project.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M216 — LAND TITLE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
K. Kirkpatrick presented a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2022.
K. Kirkpatrick: I move that a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2022, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first time now.
Racial segregation should belong in a history book, not in any legal document in 2022. Unfortunately, despite being void and unenforceable, racial covenants are still common on property titles across British Columbia.
Although I don’t like to read this aloud, it’s a common example of such a covenant: “No person of the African or Asiatic race or of African or Asiatic descent, except servants of the occupier of the premises and residence…shall reside or be allowed to remain on the premises.”
Such languages are exclusionary, demeaning and incredibly offensive. So this bill, the Land Title Amendment Act, 2022, would require registrars to fully remove such discriminating covenants from land titles. It’s because just striking these unacceptable covenants out is not enough, as they are still visible and very hurtful to read.
We must use these tools we have to undo historical wrongs, as no one should continue to suffer from xenophobia. Hate has no place in our society.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill M216, Land Title Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BRIAN COWAN
G. Kyllo: It has been a number of months now since the passing — I said my final goodbye — of a very dear friend of mine, Brian Cowan, from Salmon Arm.
Now, 41-year friendships are rare, and I was very blessed to have had such an amazing man in my life. He was kind. He was thoughtful, wickedly funny, hard-working and generous of his time. He had a very keen sense of interest in all things political and a genuinely infectious smile.
Brian was rich in both family and friends, and if Brian didn’t know you personally, he took great pride in the fact that he likely was friends with or knew somebody that you knew. A dedicated member of the B.C. Liberals for over 20 years and president of a B.C. Liberal riding association for well over a decade, Brian earned the respect of the extended B.C. Liberal family.
When it came to fundraising, Brian was an absolute rock star. Shuswap is not considered the mecca of finance in B.C., but when it comes to finding sustaining donors, Brian led the charge and had the highest number of sustaining donors of any riding association in the province for over nine years.
Our community felt the grief in such a heavy loss, and the outpouring of love and support is an excellent testament to Brian’s impact on those around him of what an outstanding man he was. Brian was an extension of my family and dearly loved by my wife Georgina, our daughters and grandchildren. Although there is much sadness, we all feel extremely blessed to have had the privilege and good fortune to have Brian in our lives.
Brian is survived by his loving wife, Holly, of over 38 years, his son, Sean, daughter, Lindsay, his son-in-law, Lance, grandson Eli and many other members of his beautiful family. Brian will remain a bright light in our collective memories, and I’ll forever cherish all the time that I spent with my dear friend.
In his memory, thank you.
SAFETY OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS
J. Rice: We all want to feel safe on the job. In fact, workers have a right to feel safe on the job. Last weekend, an incident in Prince Rupert left health care workers feeling unsafe and scared.
While I am thankful for the quick response from local health administrators, our local police and security services that meant no one was harmed, it shows us just how important it is for health care workers to be safe and secure when they’re at work.
Incidents like this make everyone feel unsafe, whether it’s doctors, lab techs, nurses, janitors and all workers in a health care setting. It also means patients feel similar. When a health care worker is safe on the job, they can spend time and energy focusing on the care of our loved ones.
A concerning issue is that we know what happened in Prince Rupert last week was not an isolated incident. Health care workers, whether they are working at an emergency room or administering vaccines in a clinic, are experiencing an increase in threats and even violence.
We’ve listened. We’ve heard these concerns and have come up with solutions. We’ve made a new shift to health care security to prioritize staff and patient safety in hospitals across B.C. This new relational security model means that 320 in-house security staff will be hired, in addition to 14 specialized violence prevention leads, including in Prince Rupert.
By supporting health authorities in transitioning their security teams, hospitals and health centres will have staff that aren’t just security guards. They are partners in safety. This new model and these new staff will ensure that people keeping hospitals safe have an acute awareness of patients and their surroundings as well as how to anticipate, de-escalate and prevent aggression. When you base your approach on trauma-informed practice and care, we all have better outcomes.
We know that health care comes from a team working together. Our doctors, nurses, radiologists, specialized techs and care aides all have an important role to play in treating patients. It’s time to remember that security professionals are a valued part of this team too.
LIBERATION OF NETHERLANDS
AND WAR
REMEMBRANCE
M. de Jong: My parents were 12 years old in 1940 when the invading Nazi armies arrived in Holland. For the next five years, they struggled to survive the grotesque perversions of Hitler’s tyrannical regime.
On May 5, 1945, they were liberated by Canadians who had fought their way from Normandy up through France and into Belgium, the Scheldt Estuary, and into the flooded lowlands of Holland itself. By then, my mom’s family was barely alive. They had survived the last few months of the war on a diet of ground tulip bulbs and potato peelings. It was the Canadians that nursed them back to health, gave them food and freedom.
My parents never forgot that remarkable gift of liberation or the sacrifice of those who had given it to them. A few years later my mom, now in Canada, gathered her kids around and reminded all of us that, but for that sacrifice, we wouldn’t exist as a family. She helped her then six-year-old son memorize the words of the poem, our anthem of remembrance in Canada.
She’s 95, and believe me, she still remembers. I hope we all will for the veterans, all the veterans of all the wars.
In Flanders fields, the poppies blow
Between the
crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The
larks, still bravely singing, fly.
We are the dead. Scarce days
ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved,
and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the
foe
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch, be yours to
hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die,
We will not
sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
M. Starchuk: On Tuesday, the member for Shuswap spoke to Movember, a light-hearted way to raise the serious concerns of men’s health. Movember raises awareness on men’s mental health, suicide prevention, prostate cancer and testicular cancer.
The hairy season has arrived. The Movember movement is taking them all on with patchy, lopsided, itchy, epic ‘staches. Whatever “mo” is grown in November, those are the faces who will raise funds for awareness of men’s health.
Men are dying before their time, and the Movember movement is close to me in a personal way. Prostate cancer is a treatable cancer, and many men are surviving longer due to research and awareness campaigns, such as Movember, that’s brought to us. I have many colleagues that have been diagnosed and are survivors of prostate cancer, which, unfortunately, is linked to the occupation of firefighting. I congratulate Jerry, Lowell, Glen, Ross, Tim and Lorne on their journeys to battle this cancer. I wish them well as they cherish each day with their family and friends.
Three out of four suicides are men and the second-highest cause of death amongst men aged between 15 and 44. Unfortunately, there are two of my former colleagues who suffered from mental health issues who took their own lives. I will never forget the two days that were announced when Kevin and Ernie, who had taken their own lives, and may these young men rest in peace.
With the money raised and funded ground-breaking health projects for mental health and suicide prevention, prostate cancer and testicular cancer, those things can all be achieved. There have been 1,250 projects that have been funded so far through the Movember movement, and now a nationwide search is on for Canada’s most legendary moustaches in the Great Canadian Mo Challenge.
Who knows? Maybe the distinguished ‘stache grown by the member for Kelowna West could be Canada’s next greatest peach fuzz moustache.
SAANICH INLET
A. Olsen: The environmental degradation of the Saanich Inlet is personal. It’s a culturally and ecologically sensitive glacial fjord that has sustained countless generations of my ancestors. This is the place that I and my relatives belong to.
As a boy, I worked the deck of my father’s fishing boat as visitors from around the world came to experience the once robust salmon fishery there. We worked under the dark shadow of the Bamberton cement plant. It was a heavy industrial site, spewing ash over the mountainside. By the 1980s, the inlet had succumbed to the pollution, and the fishers abandoned fishing almost altogether. Our shellfish beaches have been perpetually closed, herring and fowl harvests just a memory.
I hung my head in shame. Had I been the last generation of W̱JOȽEȽP to fish those waters? What about my children, my nieces and nephews? Quoting a 1996 study undertaken by the Provincial Ministry of the Environment: “The level of protection afforded to Saanich Inlet must be based on the most sensitive human or ecological use. The concept of assimilative capacity must not be viewed as a pollute-up-to level, but rather as a tool to effectively direct protection and remediation efforts.”
This summer my father bought a boat, and we returned to the inlet for the first time in 20 years. After years of limited industrial activity, the fish and wildlife are returning, and on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, we went fishing. Just a few hundred metres from Bamberton, my nine-year-old nephew reeled in his first salmon, that beautiful coho netted by his grandfather.
Any proposals to return to the heavy industrialization of the Saanich Inlet will be met with fierce resistance. Clearly, this place needs to be treated for the environmental gem that it is.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
POVERTY AND ACCESS TO
MENSTRUAL
PRODUCTS
N. Sharma: No student should have to miss school, and no employee should have to miss work due to financial barriers to accessing products which are basic and necessary.
Sometimes referred to as menstrual equity, period poverty occurs when British Columbians who menstruate struggle to purchase period products. Research tells us that half of the people who need period products in B.C. have struggled to pay for them at some point in their lives.
In addition, more than 25 percent of them have gone through a period without having menstrual products at all, and nearly 15 percent grew up in homes where they didn’t have access to menstrual products.
Imagine the monthly burden this places on too many people in the province, who are often too ashamed to speak about it.
Everyone who menstruates, including non-binary and transgendered people, should have access to menstrual products so that they can fully participate and thrive in daily life.
Our government is fully committed to removing barriers for British Columbians with lower incomes. In 2018, the province provided $107,000 to the United Way B.C. to support the delivery of menstrual products through 12 non-profit agencies across the province. Since 2019, all public schools in B.C. have been mandated to provide free menstrual products in school washrooms. Students should not have to miss school, extracurricular activities or sports due to cost.
In May 2022, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction announced a new Period Poverty Task Force. As we speak right now, it’s their inaugural meeting. Chair Nikki Hill, who is a force, together with the task force members: Zeba Khan, A.J. Lowik, Tiffany Ottahal, Kate Fish, Jackie Jack and Lori-Ann Armstrong. They are gathered together in Burnaby to begin their work.
I want to thank them for their dedication and valuable work. By working together with our valued community partners, we will continue to fight to eliminate period poverty for British Columbians.
Oral Questions
ACCESS TO CANCER CARE SERVICES
K. Falcon: B.C.’s cancer care system was once recognized, internationally, as one of the best in the world, but that’s not the reality anymore. We have plummeting quality of care, and now we have some of the worst wait times in the country.
In British Columbia, only 20 percent of cancer patients referred to an oncologist are being seen within the recommended two-week period. Contrast that with Ontario, where 75 percent of their residents are being seen within that two-week window. In B.C., the wait time for cervical cancer screening is an unacceptable six months. The wait for radiation therapy is the worst in Canada. We are dead last.
On medical imaging, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are on dangerously long wait-lists, waiting to be seen. Radiologists tell us that these delays mean that British Columbians will face a tsunami of late-stage cancer cases in the years ahead.
My question to the Minister of Health. In their second term as government, with the health care system failing in so many different areas, will the minister accept responsibility for these terrible results that the public is having to deal with every single day?
Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate…. Perhaps the member forgot the last line of his question.
What I would suggest is…. Issues around our cancer system have been priorities in the last two budgets. We have a Minister of Finance in British Columbia who has led on this question. That’s why, because of her personal experience and because of her knowledge of the system….
In the last two budgets, we’ve added resources to our cancer system in each budget. For example, the $41 million increase in base funding this year, in addition to our funding for caseload, meant that we added 36 new oncology positions. These new physician roles, combined with the 12 we added as a result of the budget in ’20-21, and the 25 new alternate payment program funded physician positions mean that we’re building capacity. That’s 115.6 new FTEs.
In addition — and the member knows this, because the failure of diagnostic care under the previous government is a matter of record — we have dramatically added to the diagnostic capacity of the province, including in cancer, with two new PET-CT scanning machines in different communities so that people in the Okanagan and people on Vancouver Island can benefit from care that they never benefited from before. In addition, 17 net new MRI machines in British Columbia and an additional 200,000 CT scans.
We are going to continue, with a ten-year cancer plan, to lay out the necessary resources to deal with the system now but also to deal with the fact that over the next ten to 15 years, with the increase in our aging population…. We need to respond by increasing our resources in oncology and everywhere else to deal with what we will expect to be more age-related cancer in B.C.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: I’m sure British Columbians feel comforted that the minister and the NDP caucus find it humorous and can laugh at the fact that we have some of the worst wait times in the country. Actually, it’s no laughing matter.
Once again, what we see from this member is the total lack of any private sector background. He still hasn’t figured out that it’s not what you’re putting into the system. It’s the results you’re getting out of it that you should be focusing on. The public of British Columbia expect results, not excuses, not a bunch of numbers that mean nothing in terms of improved outcomes.
Fayra Krueger is a nurse who was diagnosed with skin cancer and has endured a gruelling eight months going from one wait-list to another wait-list and is now stuck in limbo wondering when, if ever, she’ll get a surgery date. We have now gone from having a world-leading cancer care system to now having some of the worst cancer care wait times in the country.
This is what a whistleblower on the front lines of cancer care in our province had to say about the issue. “Patients are not being seen within time frames. We are in a crisis. My job lately has just been rebooking patients weeks to months out and having them crying, yelling, insulting and beating us down. We are drowning. People are dying. When you hear the news and they say it’s bad, it’s worse.”
My question is to the minister, who continues to try and tell the House that everything is actually just quite great, regardless of what whistleblowers and front-line staff are saying. Patients and our health care workers have actually had enough.
When is this minister going to understand that empty announcements, repeating a bunch of data and failing, worsening results are not the outcomes that British Columbians expect from their health care system?
Hon. A. Dix: I think the first lung cancer screening program in Canada, established under this government and supported by our teams at the B.C. Cancer Agency, is a substantive response. Major investments in two consecutive budgets, with more doctors and more oncologists, is a substantive response. Taking an MRI and CT and diagnostic system that had declined, including under the time when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Health, is a substantive response.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the former Minister of Health, the Leader of the Opposition, the only Minister of Health in the recent history of British Columbia, Liberal or NDP, who saw a decline in the number of registered nurses in his time in office can talk about outcomes.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, Members. Members, the minister has the floor.
Hon. A. Dix: At every level of the cancer system, given the aging of our population, we require and will require more support and more investment, and that is what we are doing.
The member will know, because he was Minister of Health, that there was a turnaround leadership at B.C. Cancer for ten years under their government. We have changed that. We have an outstanding leader at B.C. Cancer, a Canadian doctor who has led on these issues, Dr. Kim Nguyen Chi. He is leading our ten-year cancer plan initiatives. He is leading our efforts to add staff.
Yes, of course there are challenges. But the way you respond is substantive action, not personal attack. The way you respond is consistent substantive action, and that is exactly what this government is doing.
S. Bond: This is not at all about personal attacks, and the minister knows it. This is about his job, his responsibility to British Columbians.
Where it starts in this House should be an acknowledgment that when you walk into an emergency room and you are diagnosed with advanced cancer, that is terrifying. People every day are waiting longer and longer and longer.
Dr. Christopher Applewhaite is not only seeing people with undiagnosed cancers walk into an emergency room, but shockingly, he says that patients are choosing medically assisted death because of inexcusably long waits for cancer care. Not my words. The doctor says, “People are just throwing their hands up, going: ‘I know it’s bad, and I don’t know when I’ll get to see the cancer doctors. I’m just going to end my life.’”
That’s what the minister needs to hear from British Columbians. They don’t want to hear numbers. They want to see outcomes. When is this minister going to stand up and acknowledge that there’s a crisis, that people are dying while they are waiting, and do something?
Hon. A. Dix: That is precisely what we are doing: taking action. After ten years of disruption at B.C. Cancer, we have given stability and resources to that organization — stability and resources. Resources in the 2021 budget. Resources in the 2022 budget, which means more money for oncologists and a dramatic increase in our screening programs and our MRI and our diagnostic programs in British Columbia. It is a fact that people in Kelowna have access to PET CT scanning in their community now and didn’t before. It is a fact that people on Vancouver Island have the same.
The Leader of the Opposition can dismiss those initiatives, but those initiatives did not take place under the previous government. They need to be accountable for that. We will continue to take the actions required to….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. The minister will continue.
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, opposition members, I take this subject, both personally and in my ministerial responsibility, very seriously. Surely we can have a serious discussion about it in the House on this particular subject without the usual chatter from the opposition.
The fact of the matter is that we are and will be making unprecedented investments in cancer care to deliver services to people on the ground. That is what we need to do as a province. That is our obligation as a health care system. That is what we are going to continue to do. You bet that the people of B.C. support that.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, I don’t know how many more stories — tragedies that are happening in this health care system — that it’s going to take for this minister to acknowledge that he has actually been the minister for two terms, going on six years.
What matters is outcomes. People receive, in our province today, an absolutely devastating diagnosis of cancer. They don’t get the basic medical support that they deserve, and they sit and wait in fear. That’s the reality. Those are the stories that the Leader of the Opposition hears and brings to this chamber.
We all know that the longer you wait, the more the cancer spreads. Dr. Applewhaite says: “I think it’s important to talk about what patients experience — the uncertainty, the waiting that causes the most suffering, by far, for people. The distress is palpable.”
What the minister needs to pay attention to is the suffering that patients are experiencing. It is unimaginable that this doctor says that in B.C. today it is faster and easier for many people to get medical assistance in dying than it is to get urgent cancer care.
How many people need to suffer and experience despair before he will at least acknowledge that he must take urgent action to improve outcomes for British Columbians?
Hon. A. Dix: Urgent action is always required with respect to cancer, and urgent action is more effective when we improve screening programs. That’s why we established a lung cancer screening program. The highest mortality is from lung cancer. Frequently, in the past, across jurisdictions, for all kinds of reasons, it hasn’t been a priority of screening programs. We’ve made it one under the leadership of Dr. Kim Nguyen Chi.
At-home cervix screening pilots are underway around the province to improve that aspect of screening. With respect to hereditary cancer…. These are very significant questions that we absolutely take action on and take seriously. We’ve seen referrals to that program, the hereditary cancer program, increased. That’s why, in 2021-22, last year, we invested substantial funds, $2.025 million, to eliminate the backlog, and that elimination is expected to be complete by fall 2022.
It requires action in every element of cancer care — strong leadership, not inconsistent leadership; investment in research, not cutting research; adding diagnostic screening, not worst in Canada in diagnostic screening. Those are results people can count on in British Columbia.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
AND PEDIATRIC CARE
S. Furstenau: We hear, in responses about health care, over and over, about the inputs going in. We don’t hear about the outcomes that we’re getting on the ground. Progress has been made on payments to family doctors, but the crises in health care continue.
The ER in Port Hardy has had closures for months. A senior at Victoria General Hospital, who recently had a stroke, has had to sleep on an old couch in the hallway. He’s now being discharged, even though he was told, only days before, that he needed rehabilitation from the stroke.
Cancer surgeries are being delayed time and again, leaving people to get sicker, and their prognosis worsens. To quote from a constituent in Saanich: “My husband has another three weeks to wait for his cancer surgery. We have waited weeks already. I see how a tiny melanoma spot on his head doubled in size within a week.”
Hospitals are discharging people, they’re delaying essential surgeries, and they’re past their breaking point. On top of it, they’re preparing for things to get worse. Yesterday B.C. Children’s Hospital wrote a memo to staff stating that they are establishing an emergency operations centre, anticipating that things for children are going to get worse. Nothing is worse for a parent than when you need care for your child and it’s not there.
My question is to the Minister of Health. What does he say to the people who can’t get care for themselves, for their elders and for their children in our health care system right now?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, we are preparing for this fall and winter. Yes, in a global health emergency, a COVID-19 pandemic, we’re preparing. This was announced and laid forward.
This was announced and presented to the people of B.C. two months ago to demonstrate that that preparation is happening, to prepare every health care facility for what is expected to be — because of what’s happened, for example, in the southern hemisphere — a more challenging influenza and COVID-19 season in our hospitals.
So yes, we’re preparing in every health care facility in B.C., and that is the strength of public health care to prepare for exactly those things. Every health authority and every hospital is preparing. You bet they are.
I think the message is, in addition to everything else, the absolute fundamental importance for everybody to be immunized against influenza and immunized against COVID-19 with a bivalent booster this fall, which will assist greatly in ensuring those numbers are lower. It will also assist in keeping people healthier through what will be a challenging fall.
The member is correct. We are preparing for that season, as everyone would expect we would. We did that in 2021, and we did that in 2020. We delivered on those expectations with, I think, some of the best responses to the pandemic in the world, and we’re going to continue to do it this year.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Indeed, pediatric units around the world are showing signs of being under enormous challenge. Montreal’s pediatric unit is being described like a horror film. Two of their hospitals hit two to three times their capacity. In Ontario, adult ICUs are accepting teenagers to help create capacity at pediatric units. Here at B.C.’s children’s hospitals, surgeries are already being cancelled because of nurse shortages.
The memo that went out to staff yesterday is asking health care workers to “show up in a different way, lean in where emerging needs are the greatest.” There has been a chronic shortage of nurses in hospitals. Imagine how those who have been working on short-staffed units and are already struggling with burnout feel when they’re asked to lean in even more instead of hearing that help is on the way.
My question is to the Minister of Health. What does the minister say to the nurses and doctors who are being asked to lean in when they are already exhausted, and to the parents whose children’s surgeries have been cancelled?
Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I would say that because of the extraordinary work of our surgeons and our medical device technicians and our nurses and our health care workers and our health sciences professionals, we did more surgeries in September than ever before in British Columbia, in a pandemic.
I would say that of course we’re preparing for the conditions of the fall. Of course we are. That is our duty, and it’s our responsibility. It’s been that approach, led by our health care teams around the province, that has been effective in previous falls. It will be a challenge, and we’re responding to it.
I would say that we’ve added 604 nursing spaces this year. I would say that we’ve changed…. We’ve improved pathways for internationally educated nurses to work in B.C. I’d say we’ve taken specific action to address issues in the workplace that are important to the B.C. Nurses Union and the Hospital Employees Union, like improved security. I would say that we are absolutely leaning in to support nurses and everyone else in our health care system.
ACCESS TO CANCER CARE SERVICES
R. Merrifield: I don’t know what the minister was just talking about, because Kelowna General Hospital sits this morning at 137 percent occupancy, with 103 ALC patients — no deviation whatsoever. I don’t know about this preparation for the fall, but it certainly isn’t trickling down to the Interior.
In fact, my constituent in Kelowna was just told that her mother, who she cares for, has cancer and only has six months to live, but when she went to get an appointment for her mother with an oncologist, she was told that her mom is not going to be able to be seen for three months. That means that of the six months that they’ve got left with her mom, half of them are going to be spent sitting on a chair at her house, waiting for an appointment.
She says: “I have called. I have begged. I have pleaded. I have explained the situation that she doesn’t have long, and I can’t get anything done until we get into the cancer clinic.”
How many more families will have to suffer through the last days of their lives because they are stuck on a cancer wait-list under this NDP government and this Minister of Health?
Hon. A. Dix: Of course, I don’t speak about individual cases, but when members want to bring individual cases to my attention, I personally look into them. I think they know that.
I would say that what is required in our cancer system is the kind of investments we’re making, taking away a centralized system and ensuring that there are new cancer centres in different parts of British Columbia. It’s why, for people in Surrey, when we’re building a new hospital in Surrey — something that should have happened a decade ago — we’re also building….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, members.
The Minister of Health has the floor.
Hon. A. Dix: We’re also building a new cancer centre. I would hope that members of the opposition would support that.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the Leader of the Opposition, as always, takes these matters very seriously.
I think what is required is exactly the kind of investment in screening and support we’re providing. Our health care system is, and has been, in the midst of two public health emergencies. It has responded with resources and courage that are second to none, and we have to continue to do that.
We absolutely engage with individual patients who have struggles in that health care system, to make sure they get the care they need. Sometimes — let’s face it — that can be a challenge, but our teams are working with people everywhere. The strong investment in cancer — not now but in the last number of years — helps in that regard and will continue to help as we address these issues over the next ten years, when we are expecting a significant increase in the number of people living with cancer because of increases in our population over 75.
What that requires is a health human resources plan. We’ve put one in place. More nurses; we’re hiring more nurses. We’ve hired 38,000 net new health care workers over the time I’ve been Minister of Health. We need to do it again. That means exactly the kind of investment and teamwork that went into our agreement with doctors this week, exactly the kind of work and effort that went into our working with the BCNU on security, exactly the kind of investment that went into our work with the HEU on long-term care.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.
Hon. A. Dix: We need to continue that work.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
MEDICAL IMAGING WAIT TIMES
AND SUPPLY OF
TECHNICIANS
K. Kirkpatrick: This minister likes numbers so much; I’ll give some numbers here. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are stuck on wait-lists for medical imaging. One of the reasons for this backlog is the critical shortage of medical imaging technologists.
B.C. is the worst in the country when it comes to technologists per capita. We are dead last under this Minister of Health. Statistics show that B.C. needs to hire more than 3,500 medical radiation techs just to meet the national average.
In its second term of government, why is this minister failing to do the work needed to recruit and retain medical technicians in this province?
Hon. A. Dix: With great respect to the member, it’s on this issue of diagnostic imaging, across the board, where more people have been hired than in almost any other discipline in the province. Why, hon. Speaker? Why? I mean, the facts are the facts. I know that members of the opposition….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: There he goes again, hon. Speaker. There he goes again.
We went from near the bottom of Canada in MRI wait times to the top. That’s the Canadian Institute for Health Information — bottom to top. In the Northern Health Authority, when I became Minister of Health, there were 22 MRIs per 1,000. At the time, in Ontario, it was 62. Now we’ve more than doubled that for people in the North. Medical imaging, MRIs, CT scans, new PET-CT scanners have improved dramatically.
Before, under the previous government, they would expect people to go to a private clinic and pay themselves. Now by running our machines 24-7, they do it in the public health care system.
ACCESS TO NON-PRESCRIPTION
PAIN MEDICATION FOR
CHILDREN
T. Stone: B.C. is the worst in the country when it comes to technologists per capita, as my colleague just mentioned. We are dead last under this Health Minister. So when he sits here and talks about going from worst to best, to best, to worst, he’s completely, completely disconnected from the reality of what patients and British Columbians are facing.
I want to move to a different health care issue. Across British Columbia, parents are increasingly stressed trying to deal with a growing shortage of children’s pain medication like Tylenol and Advil. The problem is hurting parents like Amber from Victoria who says: “I’m a single mom that doesn’t drive, and I cannot force my three kids out of the house to search high and low for Tylenol when they’re sick.”
Just yesterday the Prime Minister said that the provinces should be taking action. But we’ve heard nothing from the B.C. Health Minister about actions that are being taken here to secure a supply of children’s pain medication.
As more and more kids get sick this fall, parents are stuck watching their kids in pain while being unable to find the medicines that they need to give to their children. So a simple question to the Minister of Health: what is he doing to ensure that parents have access to the critical pain medication that their kids need as they get sick this fall?
Hon. A. Dix: Of course, some of these issues are issues everywhere in the world. They’re issues throughout the United States. They’re issues throughout Canada and in all jurisdictions in Canada. Health authorities, especially our teams dealing with children around the province, are taking steps, of course, to provide supply. But some of this is about private sector supply chains, so there is a significant role for the federal government.
I had not heard before the contribution of the Prime Minister to this discussion. But I can tell you, this is an issue in the past number of weeks I discussed with his Health Minister and one that all jurisdictions have to work together on — but also the providers and the manufacturers of the very medication in question have to work together on — to improve.
I agree with the hon. member. It is absolutely a priority for parents and all those in the system. These are issues in terms of supply that we have worked on in other issues, and he is well aware because it affected his riding. We have consistently worked during the pandemic, when there have been shortages, to get care and medication to the people who need it. But this is an international problem in terms of supply and one that we have to do everything we can….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please continue.
Hon. A. Dix: I think we have to do everything we can to address these questions, working with both the manufacturers and the federal government to see that that happens.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 42.
In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 36.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
(continued)
M. Bernier: I’ll speak slowly, with all the noise going on as people leave.
Mr. Speaker: Member, maybe you can wait.
Okay. Member will continue.
M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t take great offence because, normally, when I stand up, I scare away members of the government side, the NDP.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
But I do appreciate the opportunity to get up and speak to Bill 42 to continue my comments that I started with yesterday. Bill 42, as we were talking about, is a bill that’s going to allow for increased taxation under special events and circumstances.
We heard a lot of commentary yesterday around a lot of questions we have on this bill and the time that’s really going to be needed to talk about this. But I just want to highlight a few things and some of the reasons why we’ve been speaking to this bill.
Again, it’s the uncertainty that this government’s brought forward within the context of this bill and the details that are required to help alleviate some of the questions I think that we’re hearing out there in the public. As I mentioned yesterday in some of my closing comments, really, because of the lack of details specifically in the bill….
So what does constitute an international event? I was talking about…. In Dawson Creek, when we’re lucky enough to hold the world junior hockey, is that an international event? When we hold some of the world curling, is that an international event? We don’t know.
On top of that, one of the things I’m hearing is they want to bring in this extra tax. We know it was around, I think…. They tried to frame it around FIFA possibly coming, or coming, to the Lower Mainland — something a lot of us think is very exciting. Under this legislation, it will give the designation…. If applied for and if they meet the criteria, a community like Vancouver can add an extra tax for tourists for up to seven years.
One of the questions that I have, and why we want to talk about this, is…. When we get into committee stage and why…. Committee stage of bills is so important on every bill. Committee stage is important because we can dive down to answer some of these questions.
Here’s a question that you will want to ask. What constitutes a tourist? The reason why I flagged that, especially in light of what we just heard in question period about all the challenges in the health sector….
To give an example, FIFA is coming. If the city of Vancouver applies to increase the hotel tax by 2½ percent…. The concept, the idea, which I appreciate, will be that we can add an extra 2½ percent to hotel charges to get that extra money coming in and to be able to remit that back to the communities, as it said in the bill, for extra burden, infrastructure costs, whatever it might be, because of a special event.
I do find it interesting — you know, seven years. But here is the concern that I have. I’m waiting for anybody on the NDP side to stand up and talk to this bill. Unfortunately, they haven’t. Here’s a question. All the hotels will be able to apply, let’s say, in Vancouver. Mr. Speaker would acknowledge this in his riding. So 2½ percent. That’s great. But my question, again. What’s a tourist?
I know we have St. Paul’s Hospital. I know we have hotels all around St. Paul’s Hospital. When people from my riding up North have no choice but to come down for medical appointments and may have to spend one, two, three, four weeks in a hotel next to St. Paul’s Hospital, are they now going to be a tourist? Are they going to have to pay an extra 2½ percent on their hotel costs when they’re coming down for important and life-saving medical appointments? Are they tourists?
Is somebody from Dawson Creek having to pay more now? Is that going to be offset somehow, maybe by the Ministry of Health? Are there going to be exceptions? People will be able to go to the counter of the hotel and say: “I’m not a tourist. Don’t charge me the extra 2½ percent.”
We’re talking about international events and recouping costs. I get that. Is somebody from Abbotsford, who’s in downtown Vancouver for a business meeting, staying in a hotel, now a tourist? Are the multitude of health professionals who move around the province, who will be staying in hotels, now tourists? Are they going to have to pay more for a hotel?
These are the things that I just think we need to flag and talk about because the details aren’t in the bill. In typical fashion, Bill 42 is not much different than almost every other bill we’ve seen from this government. We always say the devil is in the details, but there are no details. It’s always: “Trust us. We’re going to make decisions, behind closed doors later, on what the regulations will be.” No different than….
The Minister of Tourism stood up in this House and said they made the decision, behind closed doors, to not support or approve or lend any credence to having the Olympics in 2030, an Indigenous-led process that everybody was touting. It was the first of its kind in the world. This government, this incoming Premier…. The Minister of Tourism even said: “We made the decision, behind closed doors, not to support that.”
When we’re hearing that information will come later and decisions will be made behind closed doors, that gives very little comfort to the people of British Columbia, especially in light of the fact that we are hearing that, probably later today, this NDP government is going to be cancelling four much-needed days in this Legislature. For the amount of bills that they’ve brought forward…. I commend them for bringing legislation forward. A lot of it has a lot of merit. That’s why we have these sittings. It’s when legislation needs to come forward.
But it’s also a slap in the face of the democratic process, with the arrogance of, “We’ll put bills forward, and we’ll just rush them through and not give time for the public, the opposition, the Third Party to really digest, understand, scrutinize a bill,” which we need to remember is around accountability. Now, we know we have the most secretive government in Canada, who wants to hide from accountability, but that’s not what this establishment is supposed to acknowledge or support.
When we look at Bill 42, again, there are going to be a lot of detailed questions, important questions that need to be asked — no different than every single other bill that is still on the docket. When we look again at this specific bill…. I’m hoping we have more time. I’m hoping the government sees the light to give us that time to make sure that this bill and others are properly scrutinized.
We’ve already seen bills in this House, in this session, where this government — I will give them credit — with all good intentions, have brought legislation forward, and through the questions from this side of the House, have realized that there were flaws in that legislation, that changes did need to be made because the details weren’t quite accurate for what’s going to work on the ground.
I’m not criticizing the government’s intent. Of course, we want to see that legislation. What I’m criticizing is the fact that when we are in this House, the only time we in the opposition, and the public, get to see a bill is when government has presented it in this House, which is why we need that time to look at it, to understand it and to ask those questions. As I’ve said, that’s why we’ve seen, through some of those questions so far in this session, that we were able to highlight and fix bills that government brought forward where it wasn’t quite to the accuracy that was required.
Again, I’ll probably just end some of my commentary on this bill, because I know we have others that we definitely need to talk to. I just want to end by talking about, again, the importance within this bill of the democratic process of this House. We need to ensure we have that time. We need to ensure, on Bill 42 and others, that we ask those questions.
This is a technical bill. The Minister of Finance and others, of course, will talk about the technicality of bringing forward yet another tax. I know this government likes to add taxes. This one here is a little different, I would argue, though, on how the process is and how it will support local governments, regional districts, municipalities that choose to bring this forward as an option within their community.
But there are going to be those questions that need to come forward through the democratic process. Maybe when the minister closes debate, she could…. I know she’s heard some of the questions or commentary through our second reading debate. Maybe we’ll have a chance to even address some of those then, before we get to committee stage.
It’s almost confusing for a lot of people reading it, because of the lack of details. If Vancouver applies for this tax, does that mean Richmond can or can’t? What about Whistler, if Vancouver applies? Is it going to be a regional thing? Is the tax imposed on everybody? What constitutes an international event? Will the city of Dawson Creek be able to apply, as I mentioned, when we hold the world juniors, if they choose to do so?
I want to go back to the details that are needed. In my opinion, one of the glaring areas is “Who’s a tourist?” I think that’s an important one. Are we charging this extra tax, if it’s applied in a municipality, to just people who show their passport and say: “I’m not from British Columbia”? What happens if…?
We’ve got the Grey Cup coming up. Interestingly, though, if we already apply the 2½ percent because of an international event, because of FIFA, does that mean anybody coming for the Grey Cup has to pay as a tourist now because, even though they’re not here for FIFA, they’re here for the Grey Cup?
I say this as a big what-if: what if the Canucks actually ever make it to the finals again?
Interjection.
M. Bernier: The Minister of Finance…. I have a little bit more optimism that in my lifetime, it might happen again — the Speaker as well. The Minister of Finance doesn’t think that will ever happen. I’m always holding on to that Bernier Canucks jersey, that someday I’ll get to wear it again at a Stanley Cup playoff finals here. We can only hope. But I don’t want to digress.
The point being…. That’s a big if, if they make it to the Stanley Cup finals. But if it’s in that seven-year window, does that mean anybody in British Columbia, maybe from Richmond, who happens to get a hotel room in downtown Vancouver to cheer on the Canucks is now a tourist, and they have to pay an extra 2½ percent because it was applied because of FIFA?
How do we distinguish who pays and who doesn’t? If it’s everybody, well, that will be the decision of this government, but I think that’s also needed to be highlighted, the impacts that that is going to have on British Columbians as well.
With that, I just want to acknowledge and appreciate the time that I’ve had during second reading debate. Again, it’s important, through the democratic process of how we operate this House, that we all get the time to speak to bills, to question the government during committee stage to ensure that we, on behalf of British Columbians, have done our job.
It’s no different than it’s the government’s job for the people of British Columbia to be in this House and to give the time for scrutiny of the bills that they want to present for British Columbians.
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that I have been listening to the second reading debate. I’m quite surprised that we spent well over six hours at this stage, given the importance of committee stage and answering the questions and given the repetitive nature of this second reading debate.
The major complaint was concern that there wouldn’t be enough time, in spite of opening up a second House, to make sure that we can do the important work, the committee stage work. In spite of that, the repetitive arguments that I heard time and time again by members from the opposite side and making sure that we weren’t taking up the valuable time of the House….
Given that it seems that there’s a general consensus on the value of this tool, I’m quite surprised that the members opposite used the argument of needing more time and, while doing that, used up significant hours — six hours, in fact. I find that a little surprising.
However, having said that, how I’m understanding that is that there’s a desire for what I would characterize as playing games, rather than doing important work. That’s how I was reading that.
Having said that, I do look forward to committee stage. I do think that is the most robust part of debating the legislation, in understanding the impacts. I look forward to doing that conversation and just want to remind everybody that there’s a lot of excitement about FIFA coming — a lot of excitement — as there should be. This is a significant event and a significant opportunity for British Columbia.
The city of Vancouver has brought forward $5 million to help defray the cost, but I think there’s absolute recognition that hosting a number of games for FIFA is going to cost significantly more than that. They approached the province looking for a tool that would help them cover off the costs. They’re still analyzing. We’ve done some preliminary analysis, but we want to make sure that we understand the real costs. That work is continuing.
I also want to remind the House that this isn’t a new concept. In 2007, the previous B.C. Liberal government brought in a temporary tax for the resort municipality of Whistler to help them around the 2010 games. So it shouldn’t be a foreign concept to the members opposite, given that it was their government that brought this forward. This is a tool that we think will work again.
Having said that, I do look forward to the next stage of debate, which is committee stage, where we’ll be able to get into the details. With that, I move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson: 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 42, Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022, 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. S. Robinson: I call second reading, Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.
BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT
IN CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.
[Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ was spoken.] I go by she/her pronouns. I spoke in the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ language to show my appreciation and respect for the land I’m joining you from today — the land of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ peoples, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. This bill marks a milestone for our province and my ministry, and most importantly, for Indigenous children, youth, families and communities across British Columbia.
When passed into law, this bill will be an important turning point that serves to break the cycle of government’s overinvolvement in the lives of Indigenous peoples in this province. Our government is committed to reconciliation, and as I said last week, when we gathered to mark the introduction of this bill, nowhere is this work more important than in the area of child and family services. We know that the harms of the colonial system of so-called residential schools and the Sixties Scoop continue in the current child welfare system.
The very first five calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are demands for change in the child welfare system to address the legacies and impacts of child welfare policies on outcomes for Indigenous people in Canada. For too long, Indigenous children and youth have been overrepresented in the child welfare system. Here in B.C., while less than 10 percent of the population, Indigenous peoples represent 68 percent of children in care. It has been described as a crisis, and that’s why our government prioritized immediate attention, through our Declaration Act action plan, to “end the epidemic of Indigenous children in government care.”
We know that it is in the best interests of children to remain with their families when it is safe to do so. When that isn’t possible, the best outcomes for children and youth come from living with extended family, friends or community members, where they remain connected to family, community and culture.
Our government is committed to reducing the number of children coming into ministry care, and we have made significant progress. I’d really like to thank the former minister, now the Minister of Forests, for the work that she did and for starting our government on this pathway.
This work has also gathered momentum since the province passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in November 2019. I remember that moment; it was historic. I was sitting here in the chamber. We had First Nations leadership on the floor, making speeches. We felt the significance of that moment, and we’re continuing on our journey.
We’re now seeing the lowest number of children and youth in care in 30 years and the lowest number of Indigenous children and youth in care in over 20 years. Through improvements to supports for extended families and changes to legislation over the past few years, we’ve also seen a dramatic increase in the number of B.C. children and youth in out-of-care arrangements. This means that so many more children and youth are living with family, with extended family or with community members, close to home and within their communities and their culture.
However, while we have made progress in providing better supports and services to ensure those connections are made, our laws have remained fundamentally colonial in orientation, with a bias towards the removal of children and youth from their families instead of being focused on prevention and offering supports.
Changing the foundation and the laws that created a system steeped in colonialism doesn’t happen overnight, and can’t be done unilaterally. This bill marks an important step towards that goal of paddling together in partnership towards a healthier system supporting Indigenous children and families.
I was so honoured, as minister, to introduce this bill last Wednesday and to mark the significant milestone of its introduction, here in this House and in the Hall of Honour, with Indigenous leaders from across the province, with Elder Shirley Alphonse and mentors for me like Chief Chipps and Brother Rick of the Scia’new Nation.
I’ve worked with Elder Shirley for well over a decade. She has been a mentor to me. She has been so generous in sharing her guidance and her wisdom. She has helped us here in this place in the Legislature with smudging, with changing culture, with having prayers, with recognizing traditional territory, with following protocol. So it was really, really special for me personally to stand with Shirley, for her to say the prayer and to make her welcome here in my place of work.
Just knowing the history that we have together and the significance of this bill made it a truly, very special moment for me, and I will always remember and treasure that. It was really meaningful for me to hear Indigenous leaders and community members — including some who themselves are residential school survivors and former children in care — and to hear them speak about this legislation, both here in the House and at the recognition ceremony that we had earlier.
Many spoke and paid tribute to those who had gone before, and they were also very powerfully talking about future generations as well. I’m very touched by the fact that we heard a lot that people do recognize that this is a turning point and that we need to stand and recognize the history and work together for a different future, for changing the system now for children and youth in care and for future generations to come.
This legislation is only possible because of the guidance and collaboration of Indigenous rights holders, Indigenous governing bodies, modern treaty nations, Métis Nation B.C. and Indigenous partners, including the First Nations Leadership Council. We are so grateful to them for their commitment, their wisdom, their graciousness, their tireless work and, above all, their patience.
I also want to recognize the commitment of our staff — the staff of the government, in the Ministry of Children and Family Development — to this work. It has been a very meaningful and respectful collaboration. Without the dedication of our staff to building a different system, we wouldn’t have reached this point.
The work that we’ve been doing together, to address gaps and barriers in our child welfare legislation and laying the path for Indigenous governing bodies to exercise their inherent jurisdiction, will mark a historic shift in how child welfare is administered in B.C.
This proposed legislation, Bill 38, will amend B.C.’s two key pieces of child welfare legislation — the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act, or CFCSA — to align with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples’ objectives. It will uphold and recognize and reduce barriers to Indigenous jurisdiction over Indigenous child, youth and family services in British Columbia, services that include everything from family support to child protection.
The amendments aim to make space for collaborative decision-making and improved information-sharing. They enable Indigenous authorities to administer their own laws respecting child and family services. Crucially, they will reduce the disproportionate number of Indigenous children and youth in care.
The proposed amendments will recognize that the CFCSA must be administered and interpreted in accordance with Indigenous communities’ inherent right of self-government with respect to child and family services. It will enable Indigenous governing bodies to assume jurisdiction over child welfare services provided to an Indigenous child in accordance with Indigenous laws.
It will strengthen collaboration and consent-based decision-making with Indigenous communities on adoption placements for Indigenous children. It will ensure that both treaty First Nations and non-treaty First Nations have equal opportunities to exercise jurisdiction in these areas.
It will enable information-sharing between the province and Indigenous governing bodies and help Indigenous governing bodies plan for and exercise jurisdiction. It will enable joint and consent-based agreements to be made in accordance with the Declaration Act for certain powers under the Adoption Act and the CFCSA. It will establish a new Indigenous child welfare director position in MCFD to provide guidance and advice to CFCSA directors and their delegates in navigating a multi-jurisdictional child and family services model.
With these changes, B.C. will be the first province in Canada to expressly recognize Indigenous self-government in provincial legislation specific to child and family services and the first province to align with the historic federal legislation, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families. The federal act, which came into force in 2020, affirms the inherent right for Indigenous rights holders to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services for their citizens, as enshrined within section 35 of the Constitution Act.
While our government was already working towards the goal of jurisdiction, the federal legislation creates a clear pathway towards a collaborative model where provincial and Indigenous laws coexist. It outlines a path for how Indigenous governing bodies will exercise authority through the development of a coordination agreement that takes precedence over provincial laws.
In B.C., there are four active Indigenous governing bodies on this pathway and currently working on their coordination agreements. These agreements are unique to each nation, and they will vary for each of the Indigenous governing bodies.
Our provincial legislation must be changed to eliminate barriers to Indigenous governing bodies implementing their jurisdiction. What that means is that we’re moving from two pieces of provincial legislation determining child welfare to a future where Indigenous peoples develop and exercise child welfare laws for their citizens, regardless of where those citizens live in Canada, and also create their own models for delivering child and family services.
Changes to the Adoption Act will ensure that Indigenous communities are part of the adoption process for any children who are citizens of the Indigenous community. This enables the adoption process to continue in a partnership between the ministry, adoption agencies and Indigenous communities.
Specifically, these amendments strengthen consultation, cooperation and consent on adoption placements for Indigenous children; enable joint and consent-based decision-making agreements and statutory power agreements, as contemplated in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act; add Indigenous self-government principles; and align the legislation with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
This proposed legislation also creates the position of the Indigenous child welfare director, a position Indigenous partners have been requesting for some time. The Indigenous child welfare director will provide advice and guidance in advancing the Indigenous exercise of child welfare jurisdiction and promoting the harmonization of provincial and Indigenous laws.
These amendments to the CFCSA and Adoption Act are foundational to meaningfully transforming the historical legacy of the child welfare system and to taking immediate action to end the over-intrusion of government into the lives of Indigenous children and families. This work is not easy. This legislation is only a first step, but it is a critical one.
Indigenous peoples throughout the province continue to work with us on this legislation, and we’re all determined to create a better future for all generations to come. We are so grateful for the time, the wisdom, the knowledge, the energy, the leadership, the commitment, the expertise that every one of them has contributed to these transformational amendments.
I was so grateful for the all-party support for this bill at first reading and the speeches made on that day. The words of the Premier were very powerful, and his commitment to reconciliation has been evident over the last more than five years. When he spoke last week, he recognized the need to atone for the impact of the child welfare system.
We know that we have a lot more work to do, and we’re absolutely committed to doing that and doing that in partnership. This is a first step, but this is really crucial.
It’s such an honour to be the minister of this ministry at this time. We know that this will make a difference. We know that this will change lives now for children and youth in care, for Indigenous children and youth in care and for future generations to come.
I look forward to the committee process as well as continued support for this bill and its passage. As one Indigenous leader told us, this is a change that has been too long coming, and this bill can’t be passed soon enough.
Thank you for your time.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 38. The legislation in front of us is an important step in the ongoing work of reconciliation and affirming Indigenous peoples’ inherent rights to self-determination and self-government. It’s long overdue, and it will be a long process.
Truth and reconciliation mean accountability and recognition of the actions that we need to take to make things right. Self-government in child welfare is the right thing. It’s acknowledging the wrongs of the past, ensuring that we’re all aware of and understand the true history of Canada’s First Peoples so that we can work together to make positive changes.
For years, we have torn First Nations families apart. We have considered child welfare through a European lens. There has been the purposeful destruction of First Nations family units over the years — birth alerts, apprehensions for poverty, apprehensions due to misunderstanding traditional family culture. This has led to a system that continues to harm rather than lift First Nations children and families.
By amending these two key pieces of legislation — the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Adoption Act — we are taking the first step on a long pathway. I believe that this could be one of the most significant and impactful pieces of legislation that I will have the opportunity to review in my career here in the Legislature. It will be a significant step in the ongoing work of reconciliation.
Every child matters. Listening to Indigenous nations, on what tools they need to ensure that they can exercise their rights around adoption and child welfare, is shown in the multi-jurisdictional models represented in both acts. The legislation sets out the right for Indigenous communities to have a choice in which model they choose to implement. It’s meant to fulfil the federal government’s obligations under Bill C-92 and amend two provincial acts: the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Adoption Act.
In January 2020, the federal Bill C-92, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, came into force. It was co-developed by Indigenous partners, with an expected result of reducing the number of Indigenous children in care and reforming child and family services. This was part of a larger commitment to implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
This is also in line with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s calls to action for the federal, provincial and Indigenous governments to work together with respect to the welfare of Indigenous children and calls for the enactment of federal legislation that establishes national standards for the welfare of Indigenous children.
As child welfare services fall under the jurisdiction of provincial or territorial authorities, each province will need to develop, in consultation with their Indigenous partners, legislation which will meet these commitments, including those made through B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. More specifically, it addresses two sections of the DRIPA action plan:
“4.16 — Co-develop a B.C.-specific fiscal framework, in partnership with First Nations, Métis and Inuit, and in consultation with key Indigenous organizations, to support and move forward with jurisdiction over child and family services….
“4.17 — In collaboration with B.C. First Nations and Métis Peoples, and Inuit, continue implementing changes to substantially reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in care through increased prevention and family support services at all stages of contact with the child welfare system.”
This brings us to the legislation we’re discussing today as Bill 38. Bill 38 deals with an amendment to both the Adoption Act and the CFCSA, and proposed amendments are very specific to moving our existing child welfare services and supports to the authority of First Nations communities.
I’d like to thank our honourable speakers from last week, our honourable guests: Elder Shirley Alphonse, of the T’Sou-ke Nation, for her prayers; and Chief Judy Wilson, Chief Jerry Jack and Hugh Braker for their important remarks on the significance of Bill 38. I’d like to quote something that Hugh Braker said to us last week that I think sums up what we’ll be doing with this legislation: “I say to all sides that reconciliation is filled with obstacles. It’s filled with challenges and a multitude of questions, but it’s also filled with tremendous opportunity — opportunity to make this province a much, much better place than it has been for the past 100 years. It’s that opportunity that I ask and plead with all the members to think about, no matter what side they come from.”
I thank him for these good words that, I believe, set the stage for what we want to accomplish.
The child is in the centre of everything that we hope to achieve with this legislation, but there may be obstacles. The ability to implement this legislation will be difficult, and it’s going to be filled with many complexities. We already know that in Canada 52.2 percent of children in foster care are Indigenous but only account for 7.7 percent of the child population. This means that over 14,000 of the 30,000 foster children in private homes under the age of 15 are Indigenous. These numbers are even more significant here in British Columbia.
With the historic significance of this legislation, there are many details that are yet to be explained. Last week the minister said: “They” — First Nations — “will need to decide the relationship that they want to continue having with the ministry, in a positive way, on what services they want to continue to have from the ministry or from Indigenous child, youth and family services agencies.”
It doesn’t provide clarity upon what that means. It’s hard to understand this without understanding services that are being referred to and how that will work with each individual nation.
The opposition will be asking many questions about various sections of this legislation and how it will actually work in practice. We know that the current child welfare system in B.C. fails children and families. We don’t want the current limitations of the ability for MCFD to provide services to hinder the rollout of a quality and effective new system of Indigenous child welfare self-determination.
We will want to know the framework upon which this new system will work. We are unaware of the financial framework. We’re unaware if there’s a framework being worked through these cooperation agreements that will actually set out the capacity that these First Nations will need to be given or assisted in building before this can become a reality.
How will there be an equitable transfer of resources and funding, and how will community be built for those young people off reserve? We want to know that true, genuine consultation took place with the 204 Indigenous communities in B.C. Consultation is more than sending out 204 letters inviting participation.
On this, I worry. We’re already hearing from First Nations communities in B.C. that they don’t think proper consultation has happened, that up to the point where they were actually given the legislation and read the legislation last week, there have been many conversations, but there are concerns now that the words are down on paper.
B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth has been urging this government to focus on belonging for Indigenous children and to better help children in government care to realize the valuable connections to family that are too often damaged by the historic effects of colonialism, ranging from residential schools to the current child welfare system. It’s safe to say, and we all know, that the current child welfare system in B.C. is not working for Indigenous children and families. It’s so important for us to ensure that the current limitations in the ministry’s ability to provide services does not hurt our ability to move to a better system.
Earlier this year a report was issued by the Representative for Children and Youth, who said that the system of funding child welfare services for Indigenous kids in B.C. is deeply flawed, and there is an urgent need to overhaul practices to make data accessible and transparent. She called the current practice fiscal discrimination and says in her report that if the province is truly committed to reconciliation, it has to change this immediately.
So it is behind this backdrop of incomplete data held by the government that I am concerned the implementation of this legislation may be flawed, even if the legislation itself may not be. In June of this past year, the B.C. Office of the Ombudsperson found that the Ministry of Children and Family Services acted unjustly by failing to forward federal disability benefits to two grandparents caring for their Indigenous granddaughter.
Again, does MCFD have the capacity to truly support the commitments being made here? We have seen sad examples of how the current MCFD system has failed Indigenous children. We need to look no further than Noelle O’Soup or Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais.
The legislation recognizes Indigenous self-determination for child welfare and seeks to move from a protection focus to one of prevention and early intervention support services that will assist those young people as they’re growing and assist those families in providing supports.
I’ve heard stories of young people being taken away from their moms, being taken away from their families, because it was difficult for those children to come to school in clean clothes. Rather than remove a child for an issue with poverty, help that family to be able to provide those services to that child and look at better ways to prevent…. A washing machine, a doula that comes in and helps to support that family — it’s more important to do those things up front than the traditional colonial way of dealing with child welfare.
What this legislation more specifically is meant to do is:
“Recognize that the Child Family and Community Service Act must be administered, and it must be interpreted in accordance with the Indigenous communities’ inherent right of self-government with respect to child and family services;
“Enable Indigenous governing bodies to assume jurisdiction over child welfare services provided to an Indigenous child in accordance with Indigenous laws;
“Strengthen collaboration and enable consent-based decision-making with Indigenous communities on adoption placements for Indigenous children;
“Ensure that both treaty First Nations and non-treaty First Nations have opportunities to exercise jurisdiction in these areas;
“Enable information-sharing between the province and Indigenous governing bodies to help those governing bodies plan for and exercise jurisdiction;
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
“Establish a new child welfare director position in the Ministry of Children and Family Development to provide guidance and advise the CFCSA directors and their delegates in navigating this complicated, multi-jurisdictional child and family services model;
“Enable joint and consent-based agreements to be made in accordance with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act or relevant powers under the Adoption Act and CFCSA.”
Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reserve my right to continue my speech and move adjournment of the debate.
K. Kirkpatrick moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND
OCCUPATIONS ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 36; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
On clause 29.
S. Bond: On clause 29, I’m wondering if the minister could specifically articulate for me how this clause is different from the clause that would deal with this issue in the current Health Professions Act.
Hon. A. Dix: The impact of this, the import of this…. It takes what’s in the present act and extends it to the idea of occupation. The present act is health professions. This act is health professions and occupations. So that’s the main difference between this section…. Otherwise, it essentially picks it up. There’s one small difference related to an aspect of practice, but that’s just really cleaning up the act and the understanding of the act.
S. Bond: That is what I thought — that it was simply recognizing the new parts of the act.
Could the minister perhaps try to provide me with an example of a situation when subsection 29(d) would actually apply?
Hon. A. Dix: What it really means is that nobody but the health professional can do a designated activity unless there’s a specific authority to delegate in the college’s bylaws. That’s the intent. So it’s to make clear the responsibility of health professionals and that these responsibilities are not things that can be delegated unless there’s a specific reason to do that.
Clause 29 approved.
On clause 30.
S. Bond: Obviously, we don’t want people musing, implying that they’re a physician if they’re not. This section relates to unauthorized use of titles. I’m just wondering. Has there been a substantive need for this clause? Is it simply preventative? Have there been a significant number of situations that require this clause to be included?
Hon. A. Dix: This is consistent with the current act. Title protection is a key question. You can imagine, in the community, someone — people do this occasionally — claiming status that they do not have. Some of the examples that one might use don’t occur because we have this very protection. It’s key to it.
But we did have a situation a number of years ago — the province and the college of midwives won the case — where a group of people were referring to themselves as death midwives. They’re playing a different role, obviously, and the college of midwives said, “That’s not on” — that midwives have a very specific role and understanding. That term is a protected title, and that’s important.
That was under their regulatory authority, and there was a challenge to that case. Of course, we won that case, but it does show that sometimes these issues come up. This is kind of foundational to the current Health Professions Act, but it also would be in the future. The second you took it out, you would have a major problem. So it’s more foundational than anything else. Hopefully, you don’t deal with it, because it exists.
S. Bond: I do appreciate the minister. Throughout our discussion, he has been helpful enough to refer to what’s current and what isn’t. As you can imagine, with these many clauses, it’s hard to, often, do them directly, side by side.
I just do want to confirm that when we get to clause 514 — I’m not suggesting we discuss it right now — as I understand it, if a person were to contravene this section 30 or, obviously, the additional section 34, they’d actually commit an offence, and there would then be penalties applied. Could the minister confirm that that’s correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes. A person who violates these sections is committing an offence under the Health Professions and Occupations Act and may be subject to a fine of up to $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or both. This is a serious thing to do, and the act properly reflects that.
Clause 30 approved.
On clause 31.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that additional information. I appreciate that.
In clause 31, could the minister just explain to me why additional exemptions related to regulations made by the minister are necessary here? Perhaps if he could provide me with an example of where and when this might be utilized, that would be helpful.
Hon. A. Dix: Most importantly, there’s an exception here for giving first aid, for obvious reasons, if there was an emergency circumstance. Then it provides an exception for providing first aid and responding as a human being to the plight of another human being, without being caught up in the Health Professions and Occupations Act. This really is similar to the current section 14 of the Health Professions Act. It does, again, provide the change. It brings health occupations into the picture, and it does allow us to make further regulations.
Should there be a circumstance that we haven’t thought of currently…. Again, these are the exceptions we’ve thought of now. Should there be another one, it allows us to respond to that and not, presumably, wait for a legislative session or other issue.
It’s a regulation-making power. What we’ve tried to do consistently, as I said to the member, is do everything we can in the act now, understand that we may not capture everything that there will be in the evolution of health care in the future and so provide that regulation-making power. The intention isn’t to present new regulations, when we bring the bill into force, on those things. If we had this list now, it’s in the bill.
Clause 31 approved.
On Clause 32.
S. Bond: I do appreciate that. I think that there’s always hesitancy when, especially as this is a major new act, and people will need to interpret and utilize it. So I think that when more is evident in the law, it is very helpful. I do appreciate that. I mean, opposition and others always question regulation-making, right? I can remember the minister asking me those very questions when I was on the other side of the House.
Clause 32, as I understand it, is updating language that currently exists in the act. What I’m interested in is that it basically says that a person can use a title if they are part of “a class of regulated health practitioners” and if “(a) the person is in the process of meeting the requirements and conditions, set under an applicable eligibility standard….”
I guess my question is: at what point in the process…? How long do they have to have been pursuing that particular designation? You wouldn’t want it to happen in the first week or five weeks. Is there a place that triggers the ability for that person to utilize the title?
Hon. A. Dix: This allows for what you might call or what is typically called a provisional licence. That’s sometimes meeting the standards of the college, so it allows people to work under supervision. One can imagine, because there are some health professions which require much longer training than others, that it would be the responsibility of the college, through its bylaws, to do that for each health profession.
It might well be different for an optician, where the length of training is less, than it would be for a nurse practitioner, for example, where the training, obviously, is long. That’s the responsibility of the college. It allows the flexibility to have provisional licensees under supervision, and it allows the college to regulate exactly the issues raised by the hon. member.
S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister for his response. Using the title is one of the aspects of this clause. Obviously, the subsections describe where they need to be, to be able to do that. I know this is not new, but can the minister describe what that means in the context of the health system currently?
It also references that a person may do an activity which has been described in section 29 as unauthorized practice. In essence, there is a permissive part of this clause that allows someone in the process of getting their designation to perform a particular activity. Could the minister just speak to what that means, operationally, in the health system?
Hon. A. Dix: I think a good example is, say, a nurse working on a practicum who’s going through nurse training. As they’re doing their training, part of the purpose of that practicum, under supervision, is, for example, to do injections. Obviously, you can’t learn to do injections unless you do injections under supervision and do that work.
This is, while it seems like an exception, very much part of the sort of daily work and aspects of people in health care as they train to become professionals or get accredited in British Columbia.
It adds necessary flexibility to the system. If we didn’t have it, it would have a very significant, I think, negative effect on the system. That’s why the provision is there with those conditions.
Clause 32 approved.
On clause 33.
S. Bond: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your patience.
Clause 33 speaks to extrajurisdictional practitioners. I’m wondering if…. This clause speaks specifically to the use of titles. Is there anything else that it refers to in terms of the processing of credentials or anything? Or does it simply speak to the use of titles by someone who is an extrajurisdictional practitioner?
Hon. A. Dix: Yeah, I think it is limited to titles.
The reason we have it in there is…. If you’re visiting Ontario or Charlottetown and you tell someone you’re a doctor from B.C., or vice versa…. This allows you to do that, right? Otherwise, in theory, those sorts of things would be limited or outside. So this is why this particular action, for people, or vice versa, the Ontario law or…. Someone comes here. They’re a doctor from Ontario, and they tell people they’re a doctor. They are. They’re obviously a doctor from Ontario. That’s why we have this in place.
Clause 33 approved.
On clause 34.
S. Bond: Clause 34 speaks to providing false or misleading information. So I’m assuming that refers to the fact that someone chooses to call themselves a doctor or a nurse, and in fact, they are not. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes.
S. Bond: What implications does this have, if any, for people who provide advice on matters of health and wellness and a variety of other things? We have people who talk about nutritional programs and physical fitness and a variety of other things. How does this impact…? Or does it? How is the misleading information or providing false information ultimately determined?
Hon. A. Dix: For example, not 20 minutes ago I suggested that people get vaccinated in B.C. What would be wrong with that is not suggesting that. The member and I have been on calls where we’ve suggested that people get vaccinated. She led on that in her community. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, just as advising people to — I don’t know — swim three times a week, if you’re a swim coach or a fitness trainer…. Nothing wrong with that.
It’s the use of the title. And it’s a restricted activity, right? You can’t claim you’re regulated, you can’t use the title, and there are some restricted activities. You can’t diagnose people in a formal way, in that way, for example. That’s a restricted activity.
I don’t think there’s too much confusion. In the course of our daily lives, someone will come up to us and say: “Boy, it sounds like you have a cold.” It’s not a diagnosis. We’re not pretending, in that case, to be a health professional. That’s really the distinction. That’s what it applies to.
These issues do come up. A significant part of the act is how to deal with people who then give up their titles and what happens then. As the member will know from the media, there have been some issues with certain naturopathic physicians who have engaged in such practices. The profession is not very happy about that because it damages the credibility of the profession. So that’s what we’re talking about.
S. Bond: It’s the direct link to the use of the title that creates the false or misleading information. I appreciate that.
I just want to confirm, again, that if a person were to contravene this section…. We talked about 30, but this also would be considered an offence and, again, come with the penalties that the minister had outlined.
Hon. A. Dix: Yes.
Clause 34 approved.
On clause 35.
S. Bond: This clause is entitled “Unauthorized acts of corporations.” I’m wondering if the minister…. I believe that there is a comparable clause in the current health act. Can the minister describe what the changes are and why it’s necessary?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s exactly the same, with intent, as section 45 of the current Health Professions Act. There is some modernization of the language, but it’s the exact same provision.
Clauses 35 to 37 inclusive approved.
On clause 38.
S. Bond: Thanks to the minister. He knows I’m madly flipping to try to keep up here. So thank you for that.
In clause 38, we’re speaking about requirements for licence. I’m wondering if the minister could describe for me who determines fitness to practise.
Hon. A. Dix: The licensing committee of the college.
S. Bond: Will each regulatory college have their own standards for what constitutes ethical behaviour? Or is there a general — universal, basically — understood set of principles?
Hon. A. Dix: We didn’t insist, in the legislation, on one ethical standard. One of the reasons for that is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has an ethical standard consistent with colleges across the country and other colleges. That was important, given that physicians frequently move from one province to another. B.C. benefits from that more than we lose, actually, historically and now. So that’s the reason for the engagement.
It will be the role of the superintendent to ensure that colleges meet the same standard and a general expectation that they meet the same standard. We decided not to start forcing a rewrite of that now, partly because of the circumstances of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but that would be the intent of the role of the superintendent.
S. Bond: Ultimately, the superintendent will have the responsibility to ensure that there is at least a degree of consistency across the colleges and that there is at least embedded that important principle of ethical conduct?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes.
S. Bond: I wanted to ask about what the phrase “other qualifications” would refer to. Obviously, this is really important. It’s a short clause but a really important one. It’s requirements for getting your licence. In 38(a)(i)….
I like the way the other member, from Langara, calls it little 1 or little 2. I’m going to have to get the proper…. After all these years.
So anyway, 38(a)(i): “education training, experience and other qualifications.” Could the minister give me an example of what that might refer to?
Hon. A. Dix: Even though one could imagine this falling under education and training, it may be a specific type of certificate that’s required in a particular college. We can get the member some examples. We don’t have one now, a specific example, but you can imagine a specific kind of certificate.
It also allows a college to add other expectations to that, should they be required for licensees.
S. Bond: The minister is being so brief I don’t even have time to write down the answer. I’ll have to look it up later.
Interjections.
S. Bond: It is. Let’s keep her moving here.
Also importantly here in, sub 38(b), in terms of requirements for licence, it speaks to looking at the person’s entire disciplinary record. So would that include the disciplinary record that may exist under other regulatory colleges or just to the college that the person is applying to for a licence?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, it’s the entire disciplinary record. You can imagine someone seeking a licence who has worked in another Canadian jurisdiction. There’s a requirement for them to provide all that, and then an ability, obviously, to check all that. So this is a requirement to review all of that.
It’s not the requirement to provide that they would be expected, under the college bylaws, to provide and obviously to provide information that’s accurate about their application for a licence. So that’s precisely what we’re talking about. They have to review the entire record. That would include, if they came from Nova Scotia, what they did in Nova Scotia.
S. Bond: I’m wondering if the minister could provide for me…. I know this is obviously not new, but it would be interesting. Again, our conversations will help shape how people actually interpret this act moving forward. So sub 38(b) also speaks to a person’s character. How does one judge or how does one make a determination about one’s character?
Hon. A. Dix: If we go to 49 — we’ve just been going around — you’ll see, in the general licensing bylaws, the provision: “evidence of good character, including character references and other types of checks and references.”
It allows a person to check that. Conceivably, some of the things in the record of discipline might be indicative of that. But there’s also a requirement to do that. There’s also, in terms of the records and the requirement to provide records…. We’ll get to that on section 390, but that’s linked to that as well, where we go through, in detail, what a disciplinary record would look like and the expectations of what we would receive in detail.
These are really important questions, but the character relates to the potential for a college to seek character references from people. This provides the basis for that.
S. Bond: I think that’s a practical way to look at how we would look at character. I appreciate the fact that the minister referenced the disciplinary record. I would assume that past conduct would also shape how one one’s character was judged.
I want to just ask about past conduct. I’m wondering: how expansive is the look at past conduct? Does that include, for example, and in the world we live in…? Does it include past personal conduct? Is it professional? Obviously that would be a critical one — professional past conduct.
But also, in the age we live in, would it, for example, capture online behaviour or behaviour related to social media — those kinds of things? I’m wondering how expansive the consideration of past conduct is.
Hon. A. Dix: Past conduct is really your past conduct in the profession, so both the actions taken and what you did about those actions. It’s really more linked to the entire disciplinary record. The past conduct would have to be proven in things.
The issue of social media, one could imagine, might be dealt with under character, potentially, should those issues be questioned. Sometimes individuals on social media have done engaging behaviour. They’ve done it and then corrected. That’s the way it is.
So that’s where you’d see that realm. But the past conduct is specific, and it has to be proven. That’s important in these processes. Really, justice for everyone is dependent on that.
S. Bond: I would agree in thinking about character. Obviously, there may well be other evidences of behaviour that include social media behaviour, those kinds of things. So thank you to the minister for that.
I just want to confirm that “other relevant factors” is in that category of things that we’ve been discussing, that rather than suddenly having a long list of regulations in addition to this, if there is something, that would be covered in this in this clause.
Hon. A. Dix: Yeah, that’s correct. It might include the member’s discussions on social media. Not all posts on social media are the same. Were a practitioner to have done something, established something, on social media at a different time, that might have got them some attention for whatever reason, then that conceivably could come up there, but it also allows the college not to be limited to those things.
If there’s something else that’s relevant — we’re talking about, after all, the licensing of a health professional — then the college should be able to consider it without looking at the act and saying that we can’t.
Clause 38 approved.
On clause 39.
S. Bond: I’m not sure we will have time to quite get through all of this before we get to noting the hour, but maybe I could…. This is a very important section, obviously. We’re talking about “fit to practise.” It outlines, in essence, the thresholds that people are measured against in order to get licensing or if there’s a disciplinary action.
Again, it may be self-evident, but perhaps we could at least put it on the record. Why is “fit to practise” not applicable to health occupations? Here, we speak about a designated health profession under the act. Or is there a comparable section in part 4?
Hon. A. Dix: Here, it is health professionals. Health occupations have a different level of risk. They’re operating under supervision. That’s why the difference is in place. However, the health occupations are, under section 200, required to do a number of things. This would effectively be taken up there. But the reason this is focused on health professions is because of the level of risk of a professional who’s not operating under supervision.
If someone is operating under supervision and they’re not able to assist someone with the task they’re doing, then it would be the responsibility of their supervisor. If it’s you, and you’re the health professional, and you’re authorized to do that in person, and you’re not fit for that, then that’s a different responsibility. That’s the reason for the difference.
We’ll take up clause 39 unless you’re….
S. Bond: Yes. Could you just repeat the section for me, please?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s 200. We’ll be back on section 39 after lunch. With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee adjourned at 11:49 a.m.