Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 24, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 254
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2022
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Today I want to introduce health care workers and guests from the Hospital Employees Union who will be joining us in the noonhour for a celebration of the passage of Bill 47. They are Meena Brisard, the secretary business manager of the Hospital Employees Union; also Caelie Frampton, Ronnie Nicolasora, Mike Old, Máire Kirwan, Brenda Van Der Meer, from the HEU as well; Clarissa Hicap, who’s a housekeeping worker, who is today a validator of the impact of Bill 47; and Cora Mojica, a food service worker.
Many of these people will be familiar to you, hon. Speaker, and to members of the House, and I ask everyone to make them welcome.
D. Coulter: I had a wonderful breakfast this morning with Kathy Klassen from the Shake and Shingle Bureau. Kathy and I share some friends. Kathy was born and raised in Chilliwack. We had a lovely discussion about shakes, shingles and our value-added forestry industry.
She’s in the gallery right now, so if everyone would please welcome Kathy.
I. Paton: It’s been two days in a row for me with a guest from Tsawwassen, British Columbia, my beautiful riding of sunny Tsawwassen. Today I want to introduce a good friend, Shelley Davidson, who’s here today, and she’s brought four wild and crazy ladies with her: Kim Allen, Valarie Sawka, Lynn Burns and Anna Lesko.
They’re going to be touring the facility this afternoon, so please make them all feel welcome.
B. Anderson: So I do think I might rival you for having incredible and wild, crazy ladies here today. I have my two CAs but also my dear friend Kelly Coulter. Kelly brought me to Ottawa to lobby — well, we weren’t even lobbying; we were activists — and it changed my life. She is the reason I entered politics. She has supported me through the entire process. She’s been my rock here in Victoria when I didn’t know anyone.
I love you, Kelly.
She is also the woman that convinced Justin Trudeau to legalize cannabis.
I can’t ask for a collective “Woot, woot,” but I would like to say, Kelly Coulter, I love you, and I’m so happy you’re here today. Thank you, Kelly.
M. de Jong: Kathy Klassen has spent a lifetime in the shake and shingle industry. Today she continues to operate her own business. She is also the head of the cedar shake and shingle sector. I know members will want to welcome her to Victoria and the precincts.
But she is here because the cedar shake and shingle business is facing some serious challenges. I hope, in addition to welcoming her, that members will take a moment to learn more about the challenges facing that sector of the forest industry. It is difficult to make a cedar shake and shingle without access to the fibre.
Please make Kathy welcome.
J. Tegart: I stand today to wish a number of birthdays in my family. I announced in a secret last year about a little treasure that was coming to join us, and I’m very pleased to say he was born on December 1, and his first birthday is coming up.
Happy birthday to Beckett.
I also have a granddaughter, Maggie Reaugh, who is having a birthday, and I also share with Burnaby North my son-in-law, her nephew, who is turning the big five-O today.
Happy birthday to all those people in my family. The secret now is baby Beckett is having a brother or sister.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL DAY
FOR THE ELIMINATION OF
VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN
E. Sturko: Tomorrow, November 25, is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, officially designated by the adoption of a United Nations resolution in February of 2000. Tomorrow also marks the beginning of 16 days of action against gender-based violence.
Women’s rights activists have observed November 25 as a day against gender-based violence since 1981. The date was selected to honour the Mirabal sisters, three political activists from the Dominican Republic who were brutally murdered in 1960 by the country’s violent dictator.
Despite decades of activism, violence against women and girls remains a pervasive problem worldwide. To date, only two of three countries have outlawed domestic violence, while 37 countries worldwide still exempt rape perpetrators from prosecution if they are married to or will eventually marry the victim. And 49 countries currently have no laws protecting women from domestic violence.
In Canada, we have laws against domestic violence. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms codifies the rights of women under Canadian laws and statutes. Yet even with all our legal protections, violence against women continues to be a serious problem in Canada. While significant efforts have been made in recent decades, much work remains to be done to prevent and respond to the violence that persists in both public and private spheres of women’s lives.
According to national statistics, women are more likely than men to be the victims of specific forms of violence, such as intimate partner violence, severe forms of spousal violence, sexual violence and stalking. Tragically, the actual incidence of violent acts against women and girls is estimated to be much higher than official statistics suggest, as a large percentage of this violence goes unreported.
Today, as we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, I hope each member of this chamber will join me in not only raising awareness but also to act. Let us empower women and girls and continue to do the important work in this House required to support them and to protect them.
ACTIVISM AGAINST
GENDER-BASED
VIOLENCE
H. Yao: I’m going to be joining the previous member and also echoing her comments as well.
November 25 is the UN-recognized International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the start of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. The campaign runs until December 10, which is International Human Rights Day.
Gender-based and sexual violence too often impact women, girls, two-spirited, transgender, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, with a devastating and long-lasting impact. In our province, gender-based violence is also complicated by numerous barriers and stigma, and unfortunately, gender-based violence still exists today.
Our provincial government is committed to helping end gender-based violence, and we partner with community organizations, advocacy groups, sexual assault centres, victim services and transition houses to support victims in their communities with professional care and compassionate support.
Some actions our government has taken so far: provide paid leave for people facing domestic violence or sexual violence; undertake consultation regarding the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images; starting next year, an additional $10 million annually will be provided to establish stable funding for sexual assault centres. We’re providing annual funding to support 400 victim services and violence-against-women programs across the province. Our government is also investing $734 million over ten years to build and operate 1,500 transition housing, second-stage housing and long-term housing spaces for women and children fleeing violence.
If you know that someone you know is being abused or if you have concerns about someone’s safety, please call or text VictimLinkBC through its toll-free number — 24-7, confidential, multilingual telephone services — at 1-800-563-0808, or by email, VictimLinkBC@bc211.ca. Anyone who is in danger should call 911.
Ending gender-based violence will require all of us working together.
RUDY JOHNSON
L. Doerkson: Born in Sweden in 1922 as one of four children, Rudy has certainly lived a rich and full life.
In 1931 Rudy’s family immigrated to Canada. In 1934 he turned his mind to business at the ripe old age of 12, when he started his first firewood business in Matsqui, and in 1937, he ventured into the logging industry.
After knowing the love of his life for three years, the couple were married in 1943 and celebrated 77 years together before the sad passing of Helen in 2021. In 1947 the couple moved their family to Williams Lake, where they took on many businesses, including relocating houses, churches and other buildings, along with owning the Beaver Valley sawmill.
As if they weren’t busy enough already, they started Chilcotin Airways and bought the Valleyview Motel, built six bowling alleys throughout British Columbia and then purchased the Buckskin Ranch west of the Fraser River, near Soda Creek.
One day while helping a ferry operator, his wife Helen fell in the Fraser River and nearly drowned. Rudy, being Rudy, said, “It’s time for a bridge,” and off he set to build one. After purchasing a bridge in Alaska and bringing it to its current location, even after being told it could not be done, he opened the bridge in 1968 and sold it to the government of B.C. ten years later. The Rudy Johnson Bridge is still a crucial access to residents, ranchers and loggers.
Not sitting idle, he accomplished so much more in his life, including building the co-op feed store in Williams Lake and building a road-building business with his son Gary. He was the president and director for B.C. Livestock. A longtime friendship with past MLA Alex Fraser has always kept Rudy active politically.
I’m proud to share the incredible life story of Rudy Johnson with this House today and ask, Mr. Speaker, that you and this whole House join me in sending this British Columbia champion and Cariboo-Chilcotin icon, Rudy Johnson, the happiest of 100th birthdays from all of us here in the Legislature.
DISABILITY AWARENESS
D. Coulter: I’m speaking today to Indigenous Disability Awareness Month and the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
November is the eighth anniversary of the Indigenous Disability Awareness Month here in British Columbia. This awareness month was created by the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, or BCANDS, in 2015 and is now recognized by hundreds of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and organizations across Canada.
Thanks to BCANDS, B.C. is leading the way in recognizing, raising awareness and celebrating the contributions of Indigenous peoples with disabilities. Indigenous people with disabilities often face additional barriers, such as limited employment opportunities. I’d like to thank BCANDS for being an essential partner in advocating for Indigenous people for the past 30 years.
On December 3, we recognize the 30th anniversary of the U.N. International Day of Persons with Disabilities. While there are over 926,000 people in B.C. living with a disability, there are over one billion worldwide, or one in seven.
This day brings worldwide focus to the contributions and successes of people with disabilities. This year’s theme is “Transformative solutions for inclusive development: the role of innovation in fuelling an accessible and equitable world.” This is especially meaningful here in B.C.
We’re fortunate to have so many organizations in B.C. dedicated to supporting people with disabilities and working to break down long-standing and systemic barriers to accessibility. We’re pleased to support such organizations and help them advance accessibility and inclusion in their communities. For our part, we are hard at work to build a barrier-free B.C., a province with communities and workplaces that are truly accessible and inclusive.
I congratulate those around the province for their contributions that help make B.C. a welcoming place to call home.
We want all people in our province to feel supported, and we will continue to invest in programs that help Indigenous peoples and people with disabilities thrive and succeed.
COMMUNITY VISION
AND STEPHANIE
ALLEN
S. Furstenau: I’ve been thinking a lot lately about dreaming big. None of us came into this world we’re in and into this chamber without big dreams, without a vision for what we could do. It’s the belief that we can make real change that propels us through the late nights and long days, the time away from our families and loved ones.
I’m sure that each of us can think of the organizations and the people who inspire us to dream big, who make us believe that anything is possible, that we can imagine a world that is fair, a world of generosity and kindness, a world of hope, a world of abundance and love.
For me, one of these people is Stephanie Allen. Stephanie is a founding board member of Hogan’s Alley Society, a society that has not only restored the history, memory and celebration of Vancouver’s vibrant Black community that was displaced by the construction of the viaducts but that has a vision for a future of this area, created in collaboration with racialized and marginalized communities, that captures what is possible when we refuse to let our imaginations be confined and constrained.
I believe all of us can celebrate and embrace a vision where everyone is housed, there’s food on the table, and people are living in caring, connected communities. We have so much collective agency, but we get trapped in stories that are rooted in separation rather than connection, stories that tell us that for one person to get ahead, others must fall behind. Public health care, public education, non-market housing, libraries, parks — so much of what we know are the elements that make our neighbourhoods, communities and societies truly vibrant and rich. These aren’t manifestations of unfettered capitalism. They’re a buffer against it, recognizing that not all wealth is measured in dollars and GDP.
Let us remember and celebrate the voices and visions of women like Stephanie Allen, who remind us to dream big.
REPATRIATION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS
J. Sims: As I rise in the House today, I’m often amazed at the times that we can all come together, from both sides of the House, and take action that benefits British Columbians.
We did that four years ago today, when we passed Bill 47, the Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act, to undo Bill 29, which was passed in 2002, showing that elections matter and governments matter. That bill had led to the privatization of services and had seen thousands of jobs contracted out to for-profit multinational corporations. Thousands of workers lost their jobs, and the rest saw their wages cut drastically, often reduced to minimum wage.
This legislation was repealed by all of us, setting the stage for the repatriation of thousands of health care workers, 4,601 food service and housekeeping staff. Many of us have been present as thousands of workers have been brought back into health care authorities. The tearful and emotional stories that every one of us heard have been touching and teary for us as well.
Thanks to Bill 47, thousands of health care workers returned home. They returned home to stable jobs with improved pay, job security and better working conditions. They are valued. The patients in our hospitals and care homes and their families across the province benefit because of improved care.
Thank you to the health authorities and Providence Health Care, who have worked with government to enable repatriation. Repatriation, the dictionary definition: the procedure through which the government brings an individual residing in a foreign-country home.
To all health care workers who have been repatriated: welcome home.
Today’s celebration, however, could not have been a reality without the tenacity, the commitment and the dedication of the Hospital Employees Union. For 20 years, HEU members have campaigned to have their family reunited under one roof.
Welcome home.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES
IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
AND ROLE OF HEALTH MINISTER
K. Falcon: Our health care system staggers from crisis to crisis to crisis. During this new Premier’s four-month tainted leadership race, not once did we hear a single policy with respect to health care — not once.
Our health care system in British Columbia was once recognized as one of the best in the country. Today, it ranks amongst the very bottom. One in five British Columbians who cannot access a family physician. Cancer care wait times among the very worst in the country.
Our hospitals, our emergency departments are in total chaos with wait times — young parents worried about their young children spending up to 15 hours in emergency departments, trying to get urgently needed care. Hospitals in Surrey, here on the Island, in Vancouver and right across the province are overrun, and we’ve got sick children that are being treated and resuscitated in hallways. It is worse than hallway medicine. It’s, literally, hallway CPR.
Leadership means having the ability to make tough decisions. Once again, I want to ask the new Premier…. He now has an opportunity. We’ve asked the Health Minister repeatedly to do the right thing and resign so that we can get someone in here that knows how to fix problems.
Will this Premier do the right thing, fire his Health Minister and make sure we get someone in there that knows how to fix problems and improve the health care system in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Eby: The member is right that our health care system is under incredible stress. Health care workers have gone through the pandemic. They’ve worked extended hours. We have a very significant flu and respiratory virus season that we’re seeing having impacts across Canada.
Actually, it was just this morning that I was on a call with Premiers across Canada, leaders of the territories, talking about the challenges that they face in their provinces and territories, as well, around health care and how we’re all going to work together with the federal government to address this critically important issue for families.
I can’t imagine the feeling, as a parent going to a hospital, when the care is not there when you need it, when you expect it, for your own kid. This is a priority for our government.
We talked about housing. We talked about public safety. We talked about a strong economy. But health care is foundational for British Columbians, and we have taken important steps. The Health Minister has taken important steps.
You saw recently the agreement with family doctors to get increased access to family doctors for British Columbians. You saw our expansions at UBC in the faculty of medicine to train more people. You saw that we brought health care workers back into the system and hired thousands and thousands more to address this strain — 602 new nurse-training seats, fast-track credential recognition.
The work is not done, and we’ve got a lot more to do.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Well, boy, do you ever have a lot more to do. I’ve been a Health Minister. I can tell you….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor.
K. Falcon: I’ve been a Health Minister when our health system was considered the top in the country, but I also know that the health care system is a tough portfolio. And I know that while I was Health Minister, we saw challenges too. There was H1N1. There was SARS. There are always going to be stresses on the system, but never have we seen a situation where even the current Premier’s predecessor described our system, correctly, as crumbling. It is imploding upon itself.
There is such a massive gap between their lack of understanding that announcements are not outcomes. Making announcements does not produce a better outcome. We are getting terrible outcomes in virtually every measurement in the health care system, Mr. Premier. In cancer care, we hear devastating stories of wait times that are some of the worst in the country. They balloon from weeks to months.
A young man in his 40s diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, waiting eight weeks for his first consultation and dying only three days later. We hear of women with urgent gynecological cancers who can’t get appointments scheduled until March of next year, virtually guaranteeing that these cancers will progress and, in some cases, will become incurable.
We’ve heard the story in this Legislature of Fayra Krueger, a retired nurse from White Rock, who was diagnosed with skin cancer and has endured eight weeks waiting on a wait-list. A retired nurse who spent her life helping others now having the system let her down.
Since I raised Fayra’s case three weeks ago, things have gotten a lot worse, and doctors have now told her she will likely lose her ear, part of her jawbone, facial mobility and her sense of smell and taste. Delays and cancer wait-lists mean that Fayra now faces permanent disfigurement. The system has completely failed her and so many others. Sadly, in many cases, that will be individuals that lose their lives.
Will this Premier recognize that the health care system needs leadership — leadership that can focus on outcomes, that is paying attention to the right things that we have to focus on, measuring those outcomes, holding people accountable, making sure that if we’re not getting improved results that people are being removed and changes are being made so that we can get the improved outcomes that British Columbians deserve? Will the Premier do this?
Hon. D. Eby: If someone has a diagnosis of cancer, they shouldn’t have to wait for the care they need. I agree with the member this far. It is unacceptable to have people waiting for cancer care like that. We are investing in diagnostic equipment across the province. We’re investing $10.1 million to hire 25 new oncology physicians. We increased B.C. Cancer’s base funding by $41 million to expand services. These are all very serious issues.
I wasn’t going to raise it, but the member raised his record. I will mention, as Health Minister in 2009, he forced health authorities to absorb $360 million in cuts.
S. Bond: The Premier may want to be careful with his words in this House, because one thing I can assure him of is the budget for health care went up every single year that this side of the House was in government.
Let’s be clear. The Premier is out making a blizzard of announcements and pouring money into areas that he’s trying to fix after he had those files for more than six years and, at the same time, has failed to make a single comment on the state of health care in British Columbia. Meanwhile, the crisis has gotten worse.
It’s so bad that families who arrive at B.C. Children’s Hospital with a sick child…. I do know the Premier can understand what that might feel like. They need urgent care. They are waiting up to 12 hours for that care. Not acceptable.
Other families are dealing with the trauma of cancelled surgeries, like the parents of Nash. Nash is six months old, and the optimal time to have his surgery is right now, but last week the Premier may be interested to know, his heart surgery was cancelled in British Columbia under this minister’s watch.
His father said: “Obviously, we think of how long can we delay the surgery without having long-lasting impacts on him and also for the other families that are in exactly the same situation.”
More than ever, it is time for a change in direction, and the Premier now has the opportunity to do that. Will the Premier do the responsible thing, fire his Health Minister and find somebody who is going to pay attention to the outcomes that matter for British Columbia’s families?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. When surgeries are delayed…. I know, as Minister of Health, that everyone in the health system takes the matter exceptionally seriously.
In March of 2020, we delayed effectively 30,000 surgeries, and our commitment in surgical renewal was to make that up, and we did — 99 percent of them completed in a pandemic year because of surgical renewal, because of the 300 new surgical nurses that we hired, because of the 70 new device-processing technologists that we hired. We were able to complete record numbers of surgeries.
In fact, in the last two weeks in October, we did more surgeries in British Columbia in some of the most challenging circumstances than has ever been done before.
Now, when you’re facing a pandemic and the challenges of dealing with influenza and RSV and other conditions, especially for children right now, you do have to adapt in the health care system to respond to that, and we’re doing that. That’s why we prepared in September for what is going to be an exceptionally difficult fall. We’ve made preparations, as we did in 2021, as we did in 2020.
And yes, in 2021, for example, we delayed a lot of surgeries in the Northern Health Authority and mobilized to bring 160 people in critical care down to the southern part of the province. Yes, we did that, because that’s preparation, and that’s action, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, the minister can talk about those surgeries, but his words mean very little to Nash’s family. They have a six-year-old child whose heart surgery has been delayed.
That’s not the only surgery that’s been delayed, and it’s not the only situation that families are facing. The minister knows outcomes matter, and currently, for British Columbians, many British Columbians are afraid that if they get sick, they are not going to get the care they need in this province, and that is unacceptable in the province of British Columbia.
I’ll just share one other story of the many, many, many that I know the minister hears about too. Let’s talk about Rachel Thexton’s story. Her five-year-old son had pneumonia, and her two-year-old daughter Naiah had been sick with a fever for nearly a week. She first tried to go to B.C. Children’s Hospital, but it was obvious that they were completely overwhelmed. So what did she do? Desperate mother, two children. She turned around and went back to her home community of Burnaby to another completely overwhelmed emergency waiting room. At 4 a.m., her sick two-year-old just begged her mom to go home.
Here’s what Rachel had to say to the minister. During this entire time — we’re at six-plus hours — there was no communication. No one came in, talked to her or even looked at her or took her temperature. So they left the ER and went home.
Those are the stories of British Columbians. Those are the outcomes that this minister stands up and chooses to ignore every single day.
For the minister, it’s time for him to do the right thing. It is time for him to resign, to step down, and for the Premier to stand up and make sure that someone’s in charge who cares about outcomes for British Columbians in this province.
Hon. A. Dix: I would say, as the Minister of Health and as a person in B.C., that I care about every single case, and members of this House know I care about every single case. When cases come to my attention, and they do every day, we provide all the support we can.
We have gone through a period in every health system in the world that is without precedent. British Columbia, as a province, because we came together — including, let me say, members of the opposition — and did exceptional things together on surgeries, on diagnostics, on our response to COVID-19, on one region of the province supporting other regions of the province, in preparing for some of the most difficult challenges we’ve ever faced.
The staff at B.C. Children’s Hospital and in pediatric units around British Columbia are doing exceptional work right now. We are taking every step we can — every step we can — to support them.
I say this to everybody in the House. We are also standing up the largest immunization program in the history of British Columbia, the largest in the history. We are going to have more people immunized against influenza this year than ever before, in the midst of a health care crisis, and 1.5 million so far are immunized with a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.
I say to everybody that it’s time to book your vaccination. This is an important time.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, the opposition may moan, but this is a critical thing for people to do. The influenza is preventable.
Right now, as we say it, it’s the largest campaign in history, but less than 20 percent of children are immunized against influenza.
Book our appointments today, and let’s all get immunized.
PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF HEALTH CARE AND
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
FOR PUBLIC SYSTEM
S. Furstenau: My question is to the Premier. Is he in favour of the rise of for-profit corporate health care delivery in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Dix: The answer is no, and that’s why we have hospital employees, union members, in this House today who have seen what we did to repatriate contracts throughout the health care system.
That’s why in communities such as Dawson Creek, Terrace, Williams Lake and communities around British Columbia, such as Surrey, North Vancouver, we’re building health capital projects that are not P3s, that are owned by the people of British Columbia.
That’s why we work together with our province’s doctors to change the way we pay doctors in B.C.; working together to ensure that that payment reflects the work done, reflects the care patients need; why we have continued to take steps, dozens of steps, to ensure a stronger public health care system and to work against the increasing privatization of the system, which is not good news for anyone.
It’s why we purchased private MRI machines. It’s why we purchased private surgical centres, why we’ve seen the largest increase in….
Interjections.
Hon. A. Dix: No staff? Hon. Speaker, they’re yelling “no staff.”
We did more surgeries in the last two weeks than we’ve ever done before in the public system. And it’s why we changed….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The minister will conclude.
Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the Medicare Protection Act, we brought in regulations. We proclaimed regulations that had been left unproclaimed for 15 years, to strengthen the protection of public health care as well, and we’re going to continue to do it.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Well, regulations to this government, whether it’s regulations in environmental protection or regulations in health care protection, seem to amount to the same thing: not much at all.
We’ve heard over and over again from the minister, but my question was to the Premier.
Under this government’s watch, let’s look at what’s happening. Two-tier health care has been on the rise. While family doctors burn out in record numbers, some are choosing to charge for their services. Telus Health is charging upwards of $3,000 a year for access to health care, including access to a family doctor.
We’ve been asking this minister about this since February, and it’s always: “The report is coming. The report is coming.” Shoal Health charges $2,400 a year. BETA Therapeutics charges $110 a month. More and more for-profit corporate clinics are popping up, yet nothing has been done.
Universal health care was a foundational principle of the NDP in Canada. One wonders what Tommy Douglas and Dave Barrett would have to say about the conditions under an NDP government in B.C. today.
My question is to the Premier. Will he stand up and tell British Columbians his position on for-profit, two-tiered health care in British Columbia and whether that is the future that he sees for this province?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m opposed to extra billing for medically necessary services. The Medical Services Commission has been taking action, again and again and again, to deal with it. They are dealing, as well, with the Telus Health issue, which I referred to them because I take that issue so seriously.
We are in a province of laws, which means the Medicare Protection Act, in these matters, is enforced by the Medical Services Commission. No one would want it any other way.
What we’re doing, in particular and in important ways, is to improve the public health care system and services that people used to have to go and get private care for. Under the previous government, we only did 174,000 MRIs in 2016-17. What that meant for people is they had to go and get private care and pay for care that they should have been getting in the public system.
That is why we increased the number of MRIs in the public system by 120,000, purchased private MRIs and improved care for British Columbians, and we’re going to continue to do it.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES
IN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
J. Rustad: I had a different question planned for today, but given the topic, I think it’s appropriate to stay on the topic of health.
In my riding, we have seen similar health problems as we’ve heard now from the opposition. I have to say…. It was back under Gordon Campbell, when he said that the issue of mental health — in particular, the issue of dementia alone — would sink the health care system, and the toughest job would be the Minister of Finance — to be able to provide enough funding for the system. Unfortunately, through the years, we haven’t seen a lot of changes.
Across Canada, in 2020-21, more than 26,000 people died on the waiting list for diagnostic or surgical services. In Fraser Health, that number was about 321 people that died waiting for those services. We have a health care system, quite frankly, that is in crisis. We have a system that is not meeting the needs of the people in this province, whether that’s in rural B.C. or whether that’s in urban B.C.
The challenge, quite frankly, I see…. When this came to court just this summer, the government, basically, argued that the system was more important than patient outcomes. That was with a case against Brian Day and his surgical centre that came out.
The question to the minister is: when are we going to be looking at a system that works in other jurisdictions rather than focusing on a system that, quite frankly, is falling under its own weight?
Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for his question. I’ll just note that Dr. Day brought a case against the government and the people of B.C., not the other way around. Successive governments defended the province of B.C. and the public health care system against that. I was very happy that case was won. It’s now on appeal. That’s with respect to Dr. Day’s case.
The important fact, I think, for people in rural B.C…. You do not see in the Northern Health Authority the same development of for-profit for example, long-term care or anything else as in other jurisdictions. The public health care system does it. We’ve made important changes, and the member will know this in his riding, but sometimes it requires, yes, political will to invest. That’s why we’re building a new hospital in his riding.
There was a temporary hospital, he knows, built in 1972, a temporary modular hospital that should have been replaced in 1982. We waited decades, under successive governments, let’s say, for that hospital to be built.
It’s being built now, and that allows us to recruit. It will be owned by the people of B.C., and services will be delivered by the outstanding health care staff of the region. We need to continue to make those kinds of investments to ensure that there’s care everywhere in the province, not just in urban areas.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supplemental.
J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for his response. We’re very appreciative of the hospital that will be built. The current hospital is on diversion almost half the time, and there are only three doctors remaining in Fort St. James at the moment. In addition, the new hospital will need about eight doctors, and there is no staffing plan.
Regardless of that, a recent report showed that our health care system is the second most expensive in the world for universal health care. Yet we are almost dead last on doctors per patient, beds per patient as well as wait times, particularly in the critical windows. Our system is broken. We need to be looking at models that are working in other jurisdictions in the world.
The previous Premier and Health Minister have gone to Ottawa and said: “We need Ottawa to put more money into the system.” Well, there is only one taxpayer. Whether it comes through Ottawa and then gets wasted before it gets to us, or whether it comes through us, there is only one taxpayer.
We have a system that is expensive. We need to see a system that has real, meaningful change.
Mr. Speaker: Member, can you have a question, please?
J. Rustad: European jurisdictions don’t have these problems. They have solved the problems. Why are we not looking at their model and trying to learn from them to get a health care system in British Columbia that can actually meet the needs of people in this province?
Hon. A. Dix: I thank the member for his thoughtful question. Respectfully, B.C. has, in terms of its administrative costs, one of the most efficient health care systems in the country. I believe that we have to make investments, particularly in the communities, particularly in rural communities, to support primary care in the future.
We have gone from 300,000 people without a family doctor in 2003 to 908,000 people without a family doctor in 2017. That trend, because of COVID-19, largely has picked up again now. So we have to take action to address that and to transform the system.
We have just designed and worked on and signed, with the Doctors of B.C., a transformational agreement that, in particular, will help people in the member’s constituency.
The member talks about dementia. We have, in long-term care, gone from the worst record in Canada under previous Ministers of Health — I won’t name them — to meeting provincial standards by investing in more staff in the community. Since the 2020 election, when we promised 7,000 new staff in long-term care for infection control and to support long-term-care residents, we have delivered more than 7,000 in this short period of time.
B.C. HOUSING AUDIT AND AGENDA
FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
COMMITTEE
T. Stone: Well, this last week has been full of revelations about a variety of topics that are undoubtedly shocking to British Columbians.
A particular theme has been a series of audits and reviews related to the mess at B.C. Housing and Atira. Some of these audit reviews have been leaked by whistleblowers. Some have been buried by government. Others are mysteriously, apparently, underway.
As important as it is to look to the future, it’s equally important to examine the past performance of government.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.
T. Stone: For that, we have to thank the tireless work of the Public Accounts Committee.
My question today is actually to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Can the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee tell us what is on the agenda of the committee and if it relates to the pressing and important matters facing the people of British Columbia today?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Members will come to order.
P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A guy could get used to this.
The Public Accounts Committee actually does have a quite lengthy meeting scheduled. We just finished finalizing that. It was originally supposed to be a three-hour meeting on February 1 to go over the Auditor General’s three-year rolling average fiscal plans that he plans to bring forward to the committee to review and investigate. We also have reached out to the office of the comptroller general for that meeting, so we’ve extended it to a six-hour meeting.
Both the Auditor General and the comptroller general provide feedback, valuable feedback, on the scrutiny of what’s going on with spending within British Columbia. We’ve asked for updates on the grizzly bear management plan, the commercial vehicle safety audit as well as the detection of and response to cybersecurity threats to B.C. Hydro industrial control systems.
I would anticipate on that agenda, in the discussion phase with the Auditor General and with the comptroller general…. Given the revelation from the Premier yesterday, unlike the Housing Minister on Tuesday, that there is in fact a forensic audit underway of B.C. Housing, I would fully expect that the Public Accounts Committee will be engaged with that audit, as it finalizes, and have the opportunity to scrutinize that audit with the comptroller general, the Auditor General and B.C. Housing, much as we’ve done in the past with B.C. Housing, the Auditor General and the comptroller general.
We do look forward to the previously unannounced, or no notice, forensic audit coming forward.
[End of question period.]
Question of Privilege
K. Kirkpatrick: I rise on a point of privilege, having reserved my right yesterday at the termination of question period, that being my earliest opportunity.
The point of privilege concerned statements made yesterday, November 22, in question period by the minister of children and youth in response to a question put to the minister by the member for Saanich North and the Islands regarding ending the individualized funding model for children with autism and replacing it with a hub model.
Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development stated: “There was a select standing committee of this very Legislative Assembly that made the recommendation that we need to move towards a needs-based system.” This is a statement that the minister has made before on multiple occasions.
I have the privilege of being a member of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. That committee undertook a special project on children and youth with neurodiverse special needs with a focus on eligibility and assessment processes.
On October 30, 2019, the committee released its report, making 16 recommendations. The report has these 16 recommendations, which are available for anyone to read. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that not one of these recommends a needs-based system. As a current member of the committee, I can also confirm that outside of this 2019 report, there has been no further recommendation made on a needs-based system.
It’s demonstrably inaccurate to claim that the committee made any such recommendation to move to a needs-only-based approach to provide services to neurodiverse children. It did not happen, and the minister was well aware of this. I am calling on her to retract these purposely erroneous statements and correct the record.
To substantiate my assertions, Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to table the 2019 report.
Mr. Speaker: Would the minister like to make a submission? If not, the Chair will take it under advisement.
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will deal with this at a later time.
T. Stone: I rise to seek leave for Motion 24, standing in my name on the order paper, which amends Standing Order 81.1, the intent being to preclude the deplorable and precedent-setting use of time allocation by government, as witnessed in the House earlier this week.
Leave not granted.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, in this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act.
In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee debate on Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government Act.
In the Birch Room, Committee C, I call continued Committee of the Whole debate on Bill 36, Health Professions Act.
Committee of the Whole House
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 43; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
The Chair: We’ll call a short recess as people get prepared.
The committee recessed from 11:06 a.m. to 11:10 a.m.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
On clause 17 (continued).
M. Bernier: Welcome to the minister and his staff. I hope they had a good night’s rest after a long day yesterday. I can foreshadow that we won’t be here till ten o’clock tonight as we discuss this bill. I know we’re getting very near to the end, but I want to again just acknowledge the work that was done by the minister’s staff yesterday. It was a long day, but we moved through this.
It’s very important, when we’re talking about the housing crisis that we have in the province of British Columbia right now and the work that’s trying to be put forward, to try to, I guess, put an end to it. That would be the commentary that the minister and I could agree on, on this one.
In section 17, we were talking about, basically, judicial review, judicial orders and that. This is something, obviously, that the minister has a lot more expertise in, in a lot of ways, than I do. We did canvass it a little bit yesterday in talking about what would constitute, I guess, moving forward, depending on whether things were patently unreasonable, and the determination around that on a judicial review.
I’m just kind of curious, though. When the minister looks at this, the legalese around this and around setting thresholds…. We talked about that an order would already be made. It would be going to a judicial review before it would be considered whether it was patently unreasonable or not, if I understood what the minister was talking about yesterday. But how do we determine the threshold of what’s considered unreasonable? Could those thresholds be low? I’m curious if you could have political shenanigans that could take place when we look at setting criteria.
I’m just looking for some reassurance and maybe a bit of a discussion on this to give assurances, I guess, when we talk about setting the criteria of what’s patently unreasonable and how that would all be considered through a court system.
Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to thank the hon. member for Peace River South and the Housing critic for the official opposition for his kind remarks about my team. I’m grateful for him pointing out the hard work that they’ve done.
On the specific section 17 issue on judicial review, just as a backgrounder, the courts have the inherent jurisdiction when a judicial review application is brought to them at the threshold to determine what the standard of review should be. That would happen in any case involving any statutory power of decision. Later today we’re going to be debating the Judicial Review Procedure Act amendments, and that is a statute that is at the core of what the member is referring to.
We in British Columbia, under the former government, passed a statute that tried to clarify just when a particular set of decisions would be subject to what standard of review — namely, the Administrative Tribunals Act. What this bill has done, as is typical, increasingly, is to say to the courts and to the people who might litigate any kind of a decision made: “Here’s a standard of review that is appropriate for this kind of a decision.”
It’s not left to the courts. The courts have to decide just whether or not it’s appropriate and applicable, but rather than letting them start at the outset to make that determination on their own, the Legislature would say to them that certain of those decisions would only be open to a successful judicial review if the court initially concludes that they are either correct or not or patently unreasonable or not.
It’s also gone to suggest the kinds of things that would be subject to patently unreasonable discretionary decisions, such as exercising a power arbitrarily or in bad faith or for an improper purpose or predominantly irrelevant factors being taken into account or failing to meet a particular statutory requirement.
The purpose of the legislation is to provide guidance at the back end, as it were. When a particular decision, a housing target review, a progress report, an order-in-council, a directive…. Whatever it is, the courts have guidance as to what standard they should apply when it gets to them. Then, of course, they’ll apply that standard and find out whether there’s been an error that warrants their overturning the decision, or frequently, they send it back for reconsideration. They have a number of remedies available, both under the Judicial Review Procedure Act or at common law.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. I want to spend a little bit of time on this, because of course, this is something that…. In the context of this bill, the Housing Supply Act…. And as the minister alluded to, there will be other discussions on judicial review later. But when it comes to the discussion that we’re having around this specific bill….
Just to backtrack a little bit after the long day yesterday. Of course, we were talking about the bill bringing in the requirement for municipalities to set targets. Then we talked about how those targets will be audited — we’ll use that word, I guess — or reviewed then through annual submissions, for them to be looked at. Then there’s the opportunity for the minister to appoint an auditor to come in and to look at what’s taking place and an adviser to support them if they’re not meeting targets. You know, we talked about all of that yesterday.
One of the questions that came to me yesterday, after our debate, from a local government — I wanted to make sure that we get clarity around it — is: who’s asking for the judicial review? And the situation that might rise for the requirement of a judicial review — is that being initiated by a local government who is not in agreement with the minister or ministry’s and government’s decisions? Or would it be a judicial review based on the ministry then going after a local government for not implementing an order?
Maybe the minister could spend a little time just giving some examples so that local governments that have contacted me understand the purpose of why this is part of the Housing Supply Act.
Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question very much. The bill does not contain an appeal. Many statutes do, and then it’s quite straightforward. The legislation can say who has what the courts call standing. Who has the ability to bring that appeal is very explicit in the bill. But this bill is subject to normal judicial review, which goes back, frankly, to the Middle Ages — well, at least into the 1700s in England. We’ve taken our law in Canada from that tradition.
To the member’s question — specifically, who has standing? Who would have the ability to bring a judicial review? — is really in the courts’ hands. So for example, if a ratepayer were to come forward and say, “I don’t like this decision or that order” or “they shouldn’t have done that directive” or whatever, the first question the court has to determine, after the standard-of-review piece we discussed, is: does this person have standing? And I can assure the member that there are thousands of cases at the Supreme Court and elsewhere that answer that question: who has standing?
Would a local government have standing? I can’t give you an answer, because it would depend on the issue and what the court would say. But would a local government have the ability to seek judicial review? I would have thought so. Would a ratepayer have the ability? Would a developer have the ability? Would a citizen, just an ordinary citizen? All of that, frankly, is left unanswered, because we have an enormous body of common law that answers those questions.
M. Bernier: I appreciate that answer, too, because that does go to some of the commentary that’s come to me on the authority of jurisdiction of who has the ability to apply to the courts, I guess, in this case, for a judicial review. And I appreciate that the minister has also acknowledged that this could be a ratepayer or a citizen of a community, because as we were talking through this yesterday, part of the narrative that we had in this House is that this is all about the citizens.
In essence, it’s putting a piece of legislation forward to try to solve an issue in the sense that we’re not getting the housing supply that we need. But in saying that…. As the minister will recall, yesterday there was discussion around the implementation of OCPs, zoning changes that will directly affect — in some cases positively and, in some cases, maybe negatively — in the perception of the homeowners…. It could be affecting them. So I appreciate when we talk about the judicial review.
Now, listening to the minister’s commentary on that, as well…. It sounds like there is a substantive amount of case law when it comes to the determination of whether it meets the test to go forward. I will acknowledge the minister’s point….
With this bill, we’re in new territory. Case law is not new territory, but in this bill, we’ll be in a situation of, I guess, later determination, depending on how a piece of whatever is done by a municipality or the government…. It could be perceived as something that would negatively affect somebody. So put it into the position where they could apply, through the court system, for a judicial review of that decision. I really appreciate a little bit of that clarity.
I guess, in the process of putting this together…. I’ll look at it this way. I’ll ask this question. Is it common in legislation to have a section around the regulations for the allowability for a judicial review of a decision? Is this a very common practice in all legislation?
I’ve read a lot. This is not something that is in my wheelhouse, per se. It’s not something I’m familiar with completely. Is this a common practice in legislation, or is it specifically put into this one for a reason?
Hon. M. Rankin: It is increasingly common to provide the standard of review. I’ll give the member an example. We have dozens and dozens, as all jurisdictions in Canada do, of what are called administrative tribunals — regulatory bodies, the Environmental Appeal Board, the regulation of oil and gas, statutory decision–makers galore.
Those tribunals have their own statute now. It was enacted under the former government. It’s called the Administrative Tribunals Act. If you look at that statute, it says…. For all judicial reviews of all of those tribunals, here are the standards of review. Here’s where it’s correct. Here’s where it’s patently unreasonable, etc.
They give guidance to all of those tribunals. Therefore, when you’re amending the Forest Appeals Commission legislation, you don’t need to indicate what the standard of review is. You’ve got a place to go, one-stop shopping called the Administrative Tribunals Act. I commend the former government for that practice, for putting it all in one place.
This is not an administrative tribunal, as the member will know. It’s decision-making on a very specific issue. I believe the process here tracks very nicely with the standards of review found in other legislation.
M. Bernier: In the case of a housing supply act…. In this case, there was a determination that this wording and language needed to be part of this bill.
Was there discussion, then…? This will be, I think, important for the House and for others. Is this clause put into the legislation to protect local government, or is it in there to protect the provincial government? Is it in there to protect the ratepayers — or in essence, I guess, really, all of the above — when decisions are being made and people want to apply?
Hon. M. Rankin: The section in question deals with the decisions that the minister makes or the cabinet makes, in the case of an order-in-council. So I’m not sure who it’s protecting or otherwise.
It’s simply saying…. The public has every right to take those decisions that are made, if they feel aggrieved by those decisions, to a court of law. It simply says: here’s the standard of review that that court will take into account.
I don’t think it’s a question, to use the member’s terms, of protecting anyone or otherwise. It’s just providing clarity. It’s, first of all, acknowledging that, like every other government decision, the minister is subject to account in a court of law if they make errors. The court will put them right if they do.
It’s to be silent, as we said in answer to an earlier question, as to who gets to take that minister or the cabinet to court. Normally the courts will say they have to be a person aggrieved, not a mere busybody. Those are the kinds of standards that, over time, have evolved.
I wouldn’t want to suggest I have an answer to every single person in the community who might want to take a run at a government decision like this. The closer you are to the action, the more likely you are to have standing.
The standard of review that’s here is quite typical. I’d invite, again, the member or his colleagues to look at the Administrative Tribunals Act, passed by the party opposite when they were in government. I think you’ll see this is very similar. It was put in by lawyers in order to ensure that we had some kind of consistency with how a judicial review would occur.
M. Bernier: Thank you again. I appreciate the minister’s time to just make sure that we canvass this. It’s important just for clarity and for those that are not lawyers or who have maybe not been through this process before.
As we see in almost everything, when there are changes, it brings out the questions and the uncertainty. What does this mean? How will it affect me as an individual, going forward, when government is making decisions that could impact my life in some way?
The minister can use past experience, maybe, for this too. One of the things that’s been raised and flagged as a concern, which came to me, that I want to consider on this is not so much the decision for having a judicial review process available — we’ve canvassed the importance of that and the reasons why — but more of the backlog that we already see in the court systems.
With the minister’s experience…. Maybe there’s a different process for something like this, a judicial review. What kinds of timelines do we look at, which the minister might be able to share, through his expertise or experience on this, from when somebody applies for a judicial review to the time a decision is made, whether it’s erroneous or patently unreasonable, to yes, there’s a willingness to actually hear the complainant?
Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member. That is a very real concern. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Obviously, our courts are struggling, post-pandemic, with delays. I can give the member some comfort, though. The nature of a judicial review is normally…. First of all, it does not require a trial. It does not require witnesses and evidence presented orally. It’s normally done through affidavits, sworn statements. It’s more about questions of law, once you have those facts before the court. It’s normally done on a motion in chambers, and then it’s assigned to a judge.
In my experience, a judicial review can occur very, very quickly. You can get into court on these much more quickly, because the registrar of the court doesn’t need to set a long trial date, such as might be the case if there was a personal injury or something. That is where delays may occur.
I can give comfort to the member that normally judicial reviews are done on a relatively expedited basis.
M. Bernier: I appreciate it, again, as we canvass this.
I, somewhat but not necessarily jokingly, say I’ve had the privilege of not having to go through a judicial review on decisions that I’ve made in my time, in almost 20 years now, in government. I don’t have the experience of that process. So I appreciate the minister explaining that to the House.
One of the questions, I guess, that arises through that commentary is: what happens in the meantime, while we’re waiting? By that, I mean…. When we look at examples of when we might go through a judicial review process, it’s because somebody…. Let’s just say somebody feels that they have been wronged in some way, whether it’s a municipality or a citizen, a stakeholder, so they seek the opportunity for a judicial review.
My assumption is, obviously, the decision that has been made, whether it has been an order by the minister, whether it’s been a directive, something that the adviser has put forward…. We’ll use those as examples for now. I know there’ll be a multitude of different conceptual ideas that might happen depending on the situation, so we can’t be prescriptive on an exact example. In a situation like that, I assume that what happens then is that any decision is now on hold.
When we’re working about trying to move housing forward…. We talked yesterday about how some of this stuff will be a couple of years down the road, as we go through the process that this bill is highlighting.
If something is now under a judicial review — the minister has said that, through experience, these can move fairly quickly — I guess the assumption is that if I, as a citizen, don’t agree, and I apply for a judicial review on a decision, the decision is now considered on hold, pending the judicial review. Could that create an unintended backlog on some of the decisions that we’re trying to make?
Hon. M. Rankin: It’s difficult to answer the question without the context of the judicial process in mind, but normally the court has the ability, if it’s a frivolous case, to say, under the rules of court, that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. So if a person comes in and makes what I might characterize as a frivolous case, the courts have a long-standing remedy to kick it out immediately on a chambers application. There’d be no delay whatsoever if that were the case.
If it does disclose a reasonable cause of action, the minister’s lawyers would no doubt want to get it heard on an expedited basis so that we can get it done and not cause the delay that the member fears. There’s full authority for courts to accept a motion to move it onto the chambers list on an expedited basis so that it can be dealt with.
The good news about judicial review, as I repeat, is that it can be done on a fairly expedited basis, as compared to other things that would go to the court. I point out to the member that this all is done in the superior court, not the B.C. Provincial Court. It’s all dealt with in the B.C. Supreme Court.
Clauses 17 and 18 approved.
On clause 19.
M. Bernier: I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this. Clause 19 is talking again about our advisers. It’s interesting on a follow-up. I know these are not directly put in sequence when we put out a bill. As we canvassed yesterday, it’s the legislative scripters that actually put things in a certain order for a certain reason. It is interesting. We just finished talking about judicial review, and then clause 19 actually talks about the immunity from liability for advisers.
Can the minister maybe explain why this section was required — the thought process of why we put this in here?
Hon. M. Rankin: I anticipated that the member might ask this question. It’s an excellent question.
As to the placement in the bill, (a) it’s a drafting convention — that’s where they put it; and (b) I would say the things we’re talking about now are ancillary to the main event. The main event is the orders, the targets, all of that. We’re at the tail end of the bill, for anyone who’s watching. These are merely ancillary provisions, but this is an important one.
A public servant who is sued for his or her work has normally got either immunity or an indemnity. An indemnity is where if I sue the public servant, the state will stand behind them and look after their expense, but they still have the uncertainty. They may have to go to court, and there’s anxiety, and all of this that goes along with it, for a person who’s just doing their job.
However, what if I hire somebody? The other way of doing that, rather than leaving them with that uncertainty for which they’ll be indemnified, is to say from the outset, “We’re going to say that you have immunity from lawsuits,” so we avoid that uncertainty. You’re getting to the same place — you’re not going to have to pay for whatever the damages are, or whatever — but we’re providing immunity to that public servant.
Now we get to the meat of the member’s question. To use an example the member used yesterday, if you’re not a public servant — of course, an adviser can be a public servant — but you’re somebody who is from an accounting firm, who has expertise and is doing a job for the minister in good faith, trying to get to the bottom of why there are delays and we can’t get housing built in a particular municipality, then this section is intended to provide immunity to that person. So they can take the job on without fear that they’re going to have to deal with a court case later on, for which they’ll have anxiety, etc.
If there’s bad faith, that’s a different situation, but in the normal course of things, you will have statutory immunity. After all, it’s the minister who should take the heat, because it’s his or her decision that’s at play. This is merely a person advising that minister as to what should be done.
M. Bernier: I appreciate that. It’s interesting when the minister used the words “bad faith.” I mean, obviously, in good faith, we want to ensure that the people that are chosen as advisers, etc., are experts in their field for whatever decision has been made by government where an adviser is required to go into a municipality to assist them in the decision-making.
Maybe the minister can explain, then. The indemnity aspect was talked about. We’re trying to make an adviser, whether it’s in-house or out-of-house, immune from liability. As I’ve been glancing at the wording, it’s not a very big clause. It’s only two sections within that clause. We don’t want to say somebody will act in bad faith. I don’t want to say that that will happen. But where are the accountability measures, then? Where does that lie, if they are immune from liability?
Hon. M. Rankin: I’m happy to report that that very question was in clause 19(2). The first part of the clause says immunity protection for the adviser is provided for any work done in the exercise of that power. But subsection (2) makes it clear that that doesn’t apply to anybody for anything done or omitted to be done in bad faith.
If it’s bad faith, that changes everything. They would still face…. There would be no statutory immunity for a person who is found to have acted in bad faith. That’s what subsection (2) says, very clearly.
M. Bernier: When I was reading that…. The minister used “bad faith,” and that’s because that wording is very prescriptive, right in the legislation, as the minister just read out in clause (2) there. I guess my thought was: when we were talking about sticks for everybody else, what’s the mechanism for the adviser? As the minister said, they’re immune from liability unless they’ve acted in bad faith. Basically, I’m paraphrasing the discussion we just had. What are the tools, then? I guess that’s just what I wanted to get on the record, then, from the minister’s perspective.
If an adviser is chosen and it is decided that, for whatever reason, they did not do the job or that they acted in bad faith…. Obviously, that’s never the intent, and we hope that would never happen, but I know — when we’re doing legislation, and especially within the legal parameters that we’re trying to put together in legislation — that every “i” is dotted for circumstances.
Where is the jurisdictional aspect that comes in for the minister if somebody does act in bad faith? Is it just a mechanism of: “Your contract is cancelled. You’re immune under this act, but we’re getting rid of you” or “We’re just bringing in somebody else, because you acted in bad faith”? Are there at least some criteria to hold these people accountable?
Hon. M. Rankin: The minister will always be accountable. If that person acts in bad faith, they have no protection under this bill. They can be held to account as an individual. Bad faith unravels everything. I think that’s the point of this: to clarify.
M. Bernier: Just finishing off here on section 19, I appreciate, again, the minister’s answer.
Obviously, one of the main concerns I was hearing from some local governments, to maybe wrap up this section…. The last thing we want to see is an adviser brought in that has no accountability measures built into the work that they have to do when they’re scrutinizing and criticizing the ability of the local government. They, themselves, want to ensure that everybody, in this case, is acting in good faith.
On this section, I’ll just…. I know we only have a few minutes left till we’ll be having to move forward, reporting out from other Houses.
On this section, I just want…. I’ll wrap up there by saying that I appreciate the commentary that the minister just gave. That will help some of the questions from local government that came to me, especially, again, around the accountability aspect. We’re putting all this accountability on local government, and they just wanted to make sure that everybody else is being held to the same standards that this government is asking them to stand to.
Hon. M. Rankin: I would simply agree with my colleague. That’s exactly the theory of the legislation and, I hope, the practice.
Clauses 19 to 20 approved.
The Chair: Shall clause 21 pass?
M. Bernier: Not quite yet. But it will soon, I assume.
On clause 21.
M. Bernier: Clause 21 is the very last one. We’re talking about coming into force and commencement. I just want to….
Interesting the way this has transpired over the last ten hours, I guess, or whatever it has been, of discussion, as we bounced around between different sections. I think we were on section 1, and we talked about section 21, when we were talking about commencement and the time that we’re talking about from this bill coming into effect.
Since we’re actually on that section, for Hansard, can the minister, again, just remind this House why the decision was made that we have to wait for possible regulations, why we have to wait for commencement to come in through order-in-council rather than come in on royal assent, which we hear will be sometime this afternoon?
We are in a housing crisis, as we’ve all said in this House. Again, we want to move forward with things as quickly as possible. We’re trying to recognize the crisis that we’re in. So maybe the minister can just remind this House, again, why we’re waiting until next year.
Hon. M. Rankin: I share the member’s impatience to get on with it. I agree entirely that we have a crisis. This is one of the many tools that we need to bring to bear to address that crisis.
To answer the member’s question, the expectation would be that the bill would come into force in April. The reason is that we need to, in some cases, probably, hire staff, ensure we have the advisers on hand who could help, if that’s needed, and, more importantly, most importantly, make sure we dialogue with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and deal with the analysis of the housing needs reports and statistics, etc., get the first cohort identified and then consult with the municipalities thereafter.
We’re standing up an entirely new regime, as the member has said, an entirely new system. So we need to get it right. We want to do it…. So much of our effort is to collaborate with local government. We hope, as I have said, never to have to use some of the compliance tools that the member had been discussing with us earlier.
If I may. This may be the last question. I can’t anticipate what the member asks. I just want to thank him for his careful analysis of the bill. It served us all well, and I appreciate it very much.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister, again, and his staff. It’s been very informative, the discussion that we’ve had over the last day and a half.
I don’t want to take time on this, but it does remind me…. I have to comment, again, on how disappointed I was, when we heard yesterday that this bill had actually started being discussed last June, that it took till the last week of the session, with only a couple of days left, to bring the bill forward.
Nobody is arguing the importance of making sure we move forward to get the housing supply that we need. Obviously, the discussion that we’ve had in the past and some of the discussions and commentary that have been in this House that we were opposed to….
It was the fact that members weren’t afforded the time in second reading to really bring forward the comments that they wanted to do as respected members elected to this House to have commentary — and to rush forward a piece of legislation without affording the time for that scrutiny for all members.
I do appreciate, obviously, the time I’ve had in committee stage, which has been very important. But that should not take away from the fact that second reading was forced to close, not allowing other members the opportunity and the ability to speak their mind.
I’ll just end by saying that this is an important piece of legislation, I will acknowledge, if it works. My concern is…. I don’t want to use the analogy of too little, too late, but there have been housing supply needs that have been out for about five years. We’ve seen this housing crisis escalate to a point where it is a massive crisis. We’ve seen inflation. We’ve seen cost pressures. We’ve seen a lack of housing being built because of all of those.
With all due respect to the minister, I don’t see this being some iconic piece of legislation that’s going to be solving the housing crisis. If this is the one that the government sees fit to rush through the House on the first week of the new Premier as something that’s going to solve the housing crisis, I don’t see it. I don’t see this fixing something.
We’ve acknowledged that it’s an important piece to try to acknowledge where some of the backlog might be, but we’ve also canvassed the fact that this is going to be years more before we’ll maybe start seeing some kind of coming to fruition by whatever this happens to bring in.
I do want to say again, and acknowledge, because of the concerns that I’ve heard from UBCM and others, that there could be unintended consequences. The new Minister of Housing, whoever that may be, I think needs to be alive to that. I’m encouraged to hear they’ll go through that consultation. As a former mayor, we need to make sure we’re doing that.
Again, we need to fix this housing crisis. This might be a little piece of it, but I don’t think it’s going to be the silver bullet that some people out there are trying to proclaim that it will be.
Hon. M. Rankin: In the sense that those were, I presume, sort of the concluding remarks of my friend across the way, I’d just like to say, again, thank you to him for the thoughtful and thorough review of the bill that’s taken place. We disagree on the importance of this bill, I think. I consider it to be a tool, but only one tool, in the toolkit that we all have to apply if we’re going to tackle the housing crisis head on.
Contrary to what the member suggested, I can tell you that so many validators have come forward to express happiness with what they consider this bill will do, such as Michael Geller of the Geller Group, saying: “I like one of the pieces very much, and that’s the incentives or encouragement that’s proposed to give to municipalities to achieve certain targets. I think that actually is going to be very beneficial and will result in significant increases in supply, both for the market and especially non-market projects.” That’s CKNW, November 22.
People who are in the business, the day-to-day business of trying to get housing out the door, see this as a critically important tool. We do too. I hope that the party across the way will see fit to support this on third reading.
Clause 21 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Rankin: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
The Chair: Division has been called.
Members, could I have your attention, please? Order.
I’d like to advise members that it’s inappropriate to be speaking to people in the gallery, and I would expect that there would be decorum in the chamber. Thank you.
Members, the question is that the committee on Bill 43 report the bill complete without amendment.
Interjections.
The Chair: Could I please have order. Order in the chamber, please, as happy as you are today.
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
The committee rose at 12:01 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 43, Housing Supply Act, reported complete without amendment.
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Now, hon. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 43, Housing Supply Act.
Division has been called.
Members, may I ask if the House agrees to waive the time? Thank you.
Bill 43, Housing Supply Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS
SELF-GOVERNMENT
IN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
AMENDMENT
ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:13 a.m.
On clause 32 (continued).
M. Lee: Clause 32 does give us another opportunity to have this discussion that we’ve been having about jurisdiction and how the director steps in. This area here relating to continuing custody orders…. Here, again, we have the opportunity for the director to apply to court, under sub 50.03(2), for an order that the continuing custody order be maintained on the basis that the Indigenous law referred to in the notice that was provided in accordance with sub 50.02(3)(a) does not apply to the child.
This is the third example, provision in this act for which the minister yesterday confirmed that these are, I’m sure — and I will invite her to comment again in this area of continuing custody orders — rare in nature, where the director may make an application to court that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child. In doing so, I’d ask the minister to comment and recap some of the ways that this fits together.
I was referring yesterday to some of the discussion around Indigenous law and what the minister confirmed, that it is being codified by various Indigenous governing bodies, including the ones that are currently in the coordination tables with the federal and provincial governments here, and that there is work going on.
I was focused in some ways on part 1.1, the self-government principles, and the ways in which the director providing service under the act must do so in a manner consistent with the Indigenous law where it’s provided in writing to the director or, if not provided in writing to the director, it is in accordance with an agreement. We confirmed yesterday with the minister that that agreement would be a coordination agreement or a section 6 or section 7 agreement.
Presumably in this case and in the other two examples we looked at yesterday where a director can apply to a court, in this instance to say that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child insofar as continuing custody orders, that must mean — and I’d like the minister to confirm this — that it’s in an area where the Indigenous law has not been at least agreed to by the director, meaning it’s not the subject matter of an agreement. This means it is an Indigenous law that has been recognized here, in the sense that it exists and governs in this area, yet the director is challenging the applicability of the law.
The minister yesterday again confirmed that it is not assessing the law itself, but it is, in this case, saying to the court of this province that it doesn’t apply to the child. I need to continue to ask this question because we need clarity around where these provisions work and how they will work. This is an area, again to check with the minister, that applies where there’s no agreement, because if there was an agreement, the director wouldn’t be applying to court to say it doesn’t apply to the child or a child of that nation.
I am asking the minister to please clarify: in what instance will this occur? On what grounds will the director be applying for a court order that that Indigenous law does not apply to the child?
Hon. M. Dean: The focus needs to be on the child. So what’s really important is the identification of whether that IGB, that Indigenous governing body, has jurisdiction over the child. It is very, very unlikely that the ministry would disagree, because the definition of an Indigenous child and their membership in a community is very inclusive.
M. Lee: Again, the minister is limiting the scope of this provision, as only a determination by the director, in the very rare situation where it’s viewed by the director, that the Indigenous law that’s being presented doesn’t apply to the child….
That strictly is on the grounds that the child is not a member of the nation for which that Indigenous law is being presented. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Dean: It could be that circumstance, but we don’t know what other circumstances may be presented. It’s about whether or not the law applies to the child.
M. Lee: We have gone through a few scenarios right now, and the minister now has acknowledged that there could be other circumstances beyond the identity of the child as Indigenous. There could be other circumstances where it’s viewed by the director that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child. This is my original question and actually dates back to the two other scenarios that we’ve covered under the other provisions of this act, where a director is applying to a court in British Columbia for a court order that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child.
In the first instance, when we asked this question yesterday, we had an understanding that it had to do with the identity of the child. Now we’re talking about other circumstances, which is what I’m trying to get clarity on. I’d ask again: what are the other circumstances where this may arise?
Hon. M. Dean: When Indigenous jurisdiction is being exercised, then Indigenous law prevails. So it is only in the circumstance where the Indigenous law does not apply to the child. We don’t have lots of…. We don’t have examples of where that might apply.
M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response in the sense that she has…. Clearly, there’s a contemplation that there may be other circumstances, but the minister cannot at this time define what those circumstances may well be.
Another way to approach this question, which is something that is relevant to clause 30 that we looked at yesterday…. Under this clause, in section 50.05(1), there is…. “Change of circumstances – continuing custody order” — that’s the title. I will say that we didn’t have the opportunity to review the similar wording, noting for the record for those who might look back at this: “Change of circumstances – withdrawal after presentation hearing.”
There is similar lead-in language where here: “An Indigenous authority may apply to the court for an order that an Indigenous law applies to an Indigenous child if circumstances have changed significantly since an order was made…in relation to the child.”
With this mechanism, which I would say.… To the extent that this is a rare instance that the ministry views is applicable, there are pages of this bill that go through various scenarios, scenarios that the ministry cannot describe as to how this applies.
The complexity of the legal regime that we are placing on nations to work through their laws in order to reassert their Indigenous laws as it stands, for taking care of their own children, is complex. This is the solution of this government: to add additional complexity on top of nations and those working within the system.
I’m just trying to get clarity in the very little time that I have at this juncture now, on the last day of session, before closure is brought by this government to limit debate. We’ve been under time pressures on this bill. We’re working through the bill to the best of our abilities. I appreciate the minister and the staff around her, who have been very patient, trying to address the complexity of this bill, but I am concerned that we’re not doing enough justice, in many ways, to the clarity that’s required in this bill.
With that in mind, I will just ask the question, then. Here we have a situation where the Indigenous authority can apply to court for a further order to say the circumstances — circumstances that we cannot define, and I ask the minister to try and define these circumstances — have changed such that the order that was made originally does now apply to the child.
Can the minister now walk us through these particular circumstances that are contemplated under 50.05(1)?
Hon. M. Dean: All of these provisions are to ensure that the director, with the provincial government, can vacate the space when an Indigenous law applies. An Indigenous law applies when the Indigenous governing body is exercising jurisdiction. An IGB has jurisdiction when the child is a member of their community. The CFCSA has many detailed processes, all of which need to be addressed in order to ensure that the director is able to vacate the space in that situation.
M. Lee: Yes, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that that is a good summary of some of this bill and the structure of the bill.
What we’re into now, though, is situations where the director is challenging the applicability of the Indigenous law to the child. We went through that a couple of different ways now.
But then coming back, we have the Indigenous authority now applying to court again after…. Sub 50.03(8)(a) contemplates a situation where the court orders that the child remains in the custody of the director under the continuing custody order and that the continuing custody order be maintained. This is in response to an application by the director that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child.
Now we have, in response, the Indigenous authority applying back to the court after the court has already ordered that the director is correct, that the director’s application that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child is correct. The court agrees with the director.
We have set up a system now where the care of Indigenous children has to go to court for the court to determine in situations where the director believes that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child. Again, I’ve invited the minister to give clarity on these situations where the director would make that application. We have some clarity but not complete clarity.
Now I’m asking as to when the Indigenous authority needs to go to court because circumstances have changed significantly since that original order made by the court agreeing with the director that the Indigenous law doesn’t apply. Now the Indigenous authority comes back to court and says: “Well, that Indigenous law does apply to the child now, because circumstances have changed significantly.”
I’m asking these questions only for clarity for everyone involved, including the Indigenous governing bodies. What do these words mean? What does it contemplate, where an Indigenous authority can go back to court to apply where circumstances have changed significantly?
Hon. M. Dean: All of these provisions apply to children and youth who are currently in the system on continuing care orders. This is the mechanism for the director to vacate the space when Indigenous law applies.
M. Lee: For children who are in the system, the director can vacate the space where Indigenous law applies. A director, in some cases, where a child is in the system, applies to court to say that the Indigenous law doesn’t apply to this child. That’s what the previous provision under 50.03(1) provides. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Dean: It’s subsection (2), and that only applies in situations where the director thinks that the Indigenous law does not apply to that child.
M. Lee: Right. So that means it’s a situation where…. As much as the minister said, “This is what we’re trying to do, have the director vacate where Indigenous law does apply,” here, in this situation, is where the director believes and applies to court to say that the Indigenous law does not apply. The court order is granted, and the Indigenous authority comes back in to say: “It does apply where circumstances have changed significantly.”
Again, on what grounds? What is the test? What are the circumstances that this provision, which is section 50.05(1), second line, on page 26 of the bill…? What does that mean?
Hon. M. Dean: Section 50.03(8) identifies that it is the court that will consider the application of the Indigenous law to the child and will determine either that the Indigenous law applies or that the Indigenous law does not apply.
M. Lee: Yes, that certainly is what sub (8) sets out. But we’re talking here about the legislation. This is what we do in this House. We have the opportunity to review the actual proposed legislation to change the system. This is the guidance that we’re providing the legislative framework for which courts interpret and apply the law.
This minister and this government are presenting a bill to this House that provides the legislative framework that the courts need to interpret. So I’m asking the minister: what are the circumstances that are contemplated by this provision, where the Indigenous authority can go back and apply where there are significant changes in the circumstances? What is that actually referring to?
Hon. M. Dean: So 50.03(8) identifies that the court considers all of the application to identify whether the Indigenous law applies to the child. Even if the Provincial Court finds that an Indigenous law does not apply to the child, the Indigenous authority still has an opportunity to have the issue reconsidered by the court based on a significant change in circumstances. A change in circumstances is dependent upon the specific situation and circumstances relating to that child. It could also be a change in the Indigenous law.
M. Lee: That actually does provide some additional clarity as to how the ministry contemplates this process and the legal proceedings in the courts.
It does suggest, though, as well, that we’re asking the courts to review the Indigenous law itself, that there’s something there that the courts…. I would ask, then, that the minister confirm that, as the minister has said yesterday, “There is no review done by government when an Indigenous law is presented to government to assume jurisdiction,” yet the courts are going to be asked to review that Indigenous law in terms of its applicability to the child. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Dean: The court isn’t reviewing the law. The court is reviewing the application of the law to that child. And this is only going into the court system after every other approach to dispute resolution has been exhausted.
Clauses 32 to 34 inclusive approved.
On clause 35.
K. Kirkpatrick: In clause 35, we’re adding 50.2: “Dispensing with consent — Indigenous governing body.” This is providing for making an application for the Provincial Court to dispense with required consent of an Indigenous governing body before a director requests the placement of an Indigenous child for adoption.
My question, to start, is: can the minister confirm that if a child over 12 chooses to be adopted, the consent of the Indigenous governing body is not required?
Hon. M. Dean: No. Consent of the IGB is required, and this provision would only be used when there’s a dispute.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m confused, then, by the wording in this 50.2(1): “On application from a director or a child who is 12 years of age or older, the court may, in the child’s best interests, dispense with the consent required under section 50.1(2)(d).” Is that not saying that it can dispense with the consent of the Indigenous governing body?
Hon. M. Dean: The court is able to do that.
M. Lee: Just one question for clarity. Where is section 50.1(2)(d)?
Interjections.
The Chair: Members.
Hon. M. Dean: Could the member please clarify the question?
M. Lee: Just to assist the minister and her team, the reference in 50.2(1), which my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Capilano was just referring to, refers to the section 50.1(2)(d). That section is not under the existing legislation that I have in front of me for this act. I wonder whether that is a misreference and should actually be section 50.2(1)(d), which refers to sub (d) of this bill, Bill 38.
Hon. M. Dean: It’s added in clause 34.
Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS
AND
OCCUPATIONS ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section C) on Bill 36; P. Alexis in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
On clause 189 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, everyone and committee members.
S. Bond: We’re on clause 189. We started this, I think, about 9:30 last night, but we will pick up where we left off.
Could the minister tell me whether this section has the effect that a respondent may not reference prior complaints or patterns of behaviour in a disciplinary hearing? I think I referenced that last night, and I think we’ll start with that question once again.
Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for her question. We’re talking here about sensitive records, which we define earlier in the act. What we’re saying here is that just because you have something doesn’t mean you can use it. You’d have to demonstrate relevance here, particularly in these areas which are enumerated here. It’s important to enumerate these things.
You may argue that such a record is relevant, but you can’t bring it in unless you can demonstrate that. That’s why this list of things is so important. It’s not sufficient to say that a record exists to be able to use it. You’ve got to be able to demonstrate its relevance when it’s a sensitive record as defined under the act.
S. Bond: Could the minister speak to the issue of frivolous or vexatious claims? We’ve talked about those in other sections. Is the respondent, then, prevented from raising issues of frivolous or vexatious claims? Would the preclusion of prior complaints under this section have the effect of preventing such submissions?
Hon. A. Dix: No, they wouldn’t. They would simply have to demonstrate their relevance here. You don’t get to just throw them out there and say: “Oh, the person has made a prior complaint, and therefore, that’s in.” You have to show its relevance to the issues that are the subject of the complaint. That’s important when it comes to a sensitive record, right? I think that’s an important protection for people.
It doesn’t prohibit someone from making a defence, but if they’re going to go down that road, they have to demonstrate its relevance to introduce it.
S. Bond: We had a good conversation yesterday about the whole issue of being considered a vulnerable person. Important to think about that.
If a person was deemed to be a vulnerable person, perhaps with a history of mental illness, especially in the matter of a complaint they have made, would this preclude a respondent from using the complainant’s medical history against them?
Hon. A. Dix: That’s taken up in the definition section, which I think is section 160 — might be 161, but I think it’s 160 — of sensitive records. Exactly right. You have to demonstrate its relevance. You can’t just say, “This person is X,” and introduce that as if it in itself is representation of something. It has to be relevant to the matter at hand.
Clauses 189 and 190 approved.
On clause 191.
S. Bond: This section speaks to the issue of orders after discipline hearings. That’s division 17, part 3, so we’re working our way through, now, clause 191.
When a discipline panel makes an order to dismiss under this clause, is it final or is there any mechanism for appeal?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes. A person can appeal to the director any decision of the panel.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. In what circumstances, then, would a discipline panel still make an order to dismiss the citation if the respondent is found to have committed an act of misconduct?
Hon. A. Dix: There are a number of circumstances — maybe, just by example — to describe the purpose here. It may be determined that it’s a health issue — effectively, a capacity issue — at some point, in which case it may be more appropriate to go down that path, and this gives the panel the ability to do that.
Equally, there may be a more serious matter facing the person, which wouldn’t be consistent with the end of this process, that the panel or another panel might take up. Essentially, it gives them the option — if they’re determining an act of misconduct, but it’s not the appropriate path or penalty when it’s actually a health issue — to address the health issue.
S. Bond: I want to reference subclause 191(4) where it speaks to the issue of…. At the completion of a discipline hearing, “a discipline panel may make an order described in section 272.” That is the section that talks about costs and who will pay. On what grounds or how would a discipline panel make a determination whether or not to make an order under clause 272?
Hon. A. Dix: In this subsection, 191(4), the purpose…. I’ll refer just to proposed section 272 just to describe it. This allows the panel, if the health profession is the subject of the complaint, and the respondent…. So to pay for the cost of the hearing. Not of the investigation, as we deal with that in the next one, but the hearing. Potentially, if their behaviour were to have been abusive — potentially to pay for the costs of other participants in the hearing.
Both of those options are available to the registrar or to the discipline panel. So that’s the purpose. It’s linked to section 272. It says that if the purpose of the hearing was to determine someone’s responsibility and if they’re found to be responsible, that part of that responsibility might well be the cost of the hearing.
S. Bond: Obviously my question wasn’t well formed, as I was attempting not to choke. I understand the connection to 272, and ultimately, there could be an order made for the respondent to pay for the hearing costs. How would that be determined? On what basis would a discipline panel decide whether or not the respondent would actually be made to pay for the hearing costs? On what basis?
Hon. A. Dix: Essentially if they were at fault. Then the additional question…. It’s dealt with in 272, but I’ll just refer to it if that’s okay. It’s to say that in addition to the cost of the hearing, which are the costs borne by the registrar and the college, if the respondent has been abusive or acted in bad faith, they may be asked to pay the costs incurred by other parties. That’s defined in 272(3). So the conduct test there is defined in 272(3), but in general it’s when they’re at fault.
Clause 191 approved.
On clause 192.
S. Bond: So a similar situation here, other than…. Here, the order would be related to costs for an investigation. Is it the same criteria? Or is there a threshold in terms of when a registrar would make an order regarding investigation expenses? Again, does it relate to fault? Or are there other circumstances?
Hon. A. Dix: Essentially fault. This is different than a hearing, because there aren’t other parties, necessarily, with costs. So this is the investigation committee ordering that investigation costs be paid. This helps sustain the college and hold responsibility where it lies in the case of someone being at fault.
Clauses 192 and 193 approved.
On clause 194.
S. Bond: Could the minister tell me why there is a limitation of 30 days, as per sub (2)(b)? Here we do actually have a 30-day limitation. Is there an opportunity to apply for an extension?
Hon. A. Dix: In this case, the 30-day limit is the limitation. It’s 30 days. It’s standard in similar hearings in other parts of other administrative bodies and regulatory bodies across government. And 30 days is a reasonable period of time to determine if you want a decision to be reviewed.
S. Bond: I just want to, then, for context, make sure that there is an understanding on the record that this is related to the ability to review. It’s an application for review of an order that is made by a discipline panel. So that’s probably going to be pretty important to people, should they be in that situation.
The minister has said that it is 30 days, and after 30 days, there is no other opportunity to seek a review. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes. Remember, it’s not just the respondent in this case. It’s the complainant, the regulatory college as well. The same constraint applies.
Clause 194 approved.
On clause 195.
S. Bond: Clause 195 talks about the conduct of the review. When we look at 195(1), after the application for review, which we just discussed in section 194, the director of discipline must conduct the review in accordance with the practice directives.
My question is: are the practice directives public, or are only those involved in the proceedings aware of the practice directives?
Hon. A. Dix: The practice directives and how they’re defined are found in section 447. But the director would publish those. People would understand what they were, and they’re defining….
He or she, they, would set up the administrative process for the conduct of hearings, more hearings than this. But they could set rules or practice directives of how this is going to be conducted and timeliness in terms of other issues. Then the review itself and the conduct of it — as you’ll see in the next section, which the member will get to — is defined in section 382.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response. I want to just stop for a minute here and think about this process.
This is a process that will be conducted by the director of discipline. That is new, as I understand it, as we’ve worked our way through this process. Is this process of review a new concept captured in this act?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, the role of the director of discipline is new, so this practice is new as well. It helps everyone ensure, first of all, that there is a place for those reviews. That review is independent of the panel process, and the director’s responsibility is to ensure, amongst many other things, the legal and procedural fairness of the other hearing.
Those are the subjects for review. Essentially, the director of discipline, if there’s an application for review, has to decide if there are grounds for that review and then, if the director was to determine the ground for review is justified, to conduct a review.
S. Bond: We spoke yesterday at some length about discipline panels. Obviously, we talked about areas of expertise. The discipline panel does their work, but there is now the requirement for the director of discipline to review if that application is made.
Could the minister remind me: is the director of discipline expected to be a lawyer?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes.
Clause 195 approved.
On clause 196.
S. Bond: We are now looking at post review. We’re looking at after the review. Could the minister tell me: in what circumstances would the director vary an order?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, that would be the outcome of the review. There’s a review requested. The review is accepted. The director of discipline conducts that review and determines that the order from the hearing needs to be varied.
He has some other options here, of course: to confirm it, to rescind it, to terminate it or to refer back to the discipline panel. All of those things are possible as well, and it deals with the issue of the cost of review and the payment for the review.
Essentially, what we have is a place where people can go to have a case reviewed by someone independent of that process. That’s necessary in any such system, and this is the mechanism here. I think it’s an effective mechanism and one that came out of the work we did together.
S. Bond: I agree. Obviously, with the new process, new discipline panels, there will be a process as those are created. Having a review process is absolutely critical. And the minister did reflect what will be in the law and what options the director of discipline would have. That does include rescinding the order or terminating it.
An interesting note in 196(1)(c) is referring the matter back to the discipline panel for reconsideration, with or without directions. Can the minister explain to me, when that return is made, what circumstance would generate that reference back being made without recommendations?
Hon. A. Dix: This is kind of the current drafting language. What it says is normally a director would, obviously, provide some direction, reasons why the action is being taken.
What circumstances could lead to another approach? The panel, after the fact, sees new information and essentially asks the director to send something back for them to do a new review before it goes forward. That might be a referral back without direction, in that case, but that would be an unusual circumstance. Normally, we would expect it to be with direction, but we don’t limit the director in that way. He or she or they can provide that direction or not when sending it back to a panel.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. It’s just a very…. I mean, candidly, it seems unnecessary. Obviously, staff and the minister spent years figuring this out.
Basically what we’re saying is that an application for a review comes to the director of discipline, and they must do one of the following things after a review: confirm, vary, rescind or terminate; rescind the order that is under review and substitute — which I would like to speak about in a moment; basically refer the matter back to the discipline panel for reconsideration without direction.
What on earth would happen in that process? Nothing has changed. Even if you send it back and say, “Look at this again; consider new information,” whatever it is…. I simply want to make the point that it seems hard to understand. If you’re going to send it back to the very panel that made the decision for reconsideration, at minimum there would be some direction to do something differently, or the director of discipline would have confirmed, varied, rescinded or terminated the order.
Can the minister…? I heard what he said. I’m not certain I understand the necessity to send back an order with no direction.
Hon. A. Dix: I think the purpose of this is to allow the director the option of sending direction. But the director may feel, conceivably…. I think in the vast majority of cases, it would be with direction, I would imagine, we would imagine. It gives them the opportunity to send something back if they’re saying: “Take another look at this.”
Sending it back is an action. It’s not direction, but it’s an action. But they don’t want to intervene. They want the panel to have another look at the matter without guiding them in one direction or another and having that option available for the director, which I think would be unusual. That’s what’s being maintained by that particular language.
S. Bond: Again, we’re not going to spend an inordinate amount of time here. Even by sending it back, the implication is that they need to reconsider it. So the fact that the words “with no direction….” The fact it goes back there, in and of itself, is a direction. It basically is implicit that you’re going to do it over again or do something with it.
I’m interested in 196(1)(b). This apparently now gives the director of discipline the ability to create a new order themselves. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes.
S. Bond: Is the director’s variance of review findings limited to findings of reason, or can the director consider findings of fact?
Hon. A. Dix: The rationale here is laid out in proposed section 381(3). There’s a series of grounds here, but they include:
“(a) the decision or order was made contrary to this Act or the regulations, bylaws or rules; (b) the decision or order was not made in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness; (c) new information is available that is material and relevant and that (i) was not available or could not reasonably have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence…or (ii) relates to a change in circumstances since the decision or order was made and, because of the change, the decision or order is no longer appropriate.”
That is the set of reasons that would guide the director.
S. Bond: In 196(2)(b), there is the opportunity for a refund of, obviously, an order that’s been made to cover costs. Under what circumstances would a refund be appropriate? Could the minister describe what would lead to that decision being made?
Hon. A. Dix: It would be made if the director, for example, were to rescind or terminate an order. That would be significant. Or if the director determines that a refund is appropriate. In other words, they may vary an order or may decide it’s appropriate not to charge the fee.
Clause 196 approved.
On clause 197.
S. Bond: As I understand it, this is a new process here, where previously, there has not been a mechanism for enforcing compliance with a discipline order. In clause 197, the regulatory colleges will now, I assume, have to create bylaws for boards respecting the enforcement of orders. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Dix: Previously the college would make the decision and then deliver the discipline. In this case, the director is making the decision with the discipline, and the college would implement it. What makes it new is the role of the director here. Those roles obviously existed before. There wouldn’t have been a discipline before.
But this is a change in that process that separates those processes, which is, I think, an important principle and has been important in the development of the legislation from the all-party working group through the process.
S. Bond: Obviously, a significant change in how enforcement and, in fact, the whole discipline process will work. We now have a director of discipline. We have discipline panels. We have the regulatory colleges having to ensure compliance with those orders.
Could the minister…? I understand, in terms of time, that we’re about to be cut off here for the lunch-hour. Perhaps the minister wants to answer it later, should we be given more time.
In the discussion with regulatory colleges during this process…. What type of feedback did the minister receive from those colleges regarding the separation of discipline functions, which, as he just pointed out, now separate this particular process? What was the feedback about that process? Was there support? Was there understanding?
My question related to that is…. Bylaws will now need to be created in order to enforce the law. Will there be a template provision? Will there be consistency across colleges when it comes to the need to enforce disciplinary orders?
I’m happy to wait till we return, if we return.
Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s fair to say that the separation of discipline from the college was a key principle of the Cayton report, a key principle of the work of the members of the all-party working group and a key direction of the legislation. I think, certainly, the colleges understood that. Whether they all agreed with it, I don’t know.
It was one of the clearest directions possible that one could provide when one’s saying that we need to separate these functions. That’s fundamental to the reform we’re proposing. Then, I think, what colleges are doing and have done in the process is make sure that the process works most effectively for the professions and for the colleges.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.