Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

AUTISM AWARENESS

K. Kirkpatrick: April 2 is World Autism Day. We know that autism spectrum disorder affects a significant number of families in Canada. Canada has a health care system and social safety net to prevent illness and serve citizens, but those Canadian families affected by autism have unequal access to services across the country.

Worldwide the number of diagnoses is growing. There’s no known cause or cure for autism spectrum disorder. However, we now have a greater awareness of the importance of early diagnosis and treatment for people with autism. Early intervention and treatment can have promising results and help people engage and contribute to society.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

One hundred ninety-two United Nations represen­tatives agreed that World Autism Awareness Day would draw the attention of people across the globe to this neuro­logical disorder that is affecting an increasing number of families. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly designated April 2 as World Autism Day.

[10:05 a.m.]

“…Canada is a signatory to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which maintain that children with disabilities should enjoy a full and decent life in conditions that ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate their active participation in the community, while also enjoying all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.”

The information I just read is actually contained in the World Autism Awareness Day Act, by our provincial government. Our province has an obligation to meet these commitments. This means equal access to education, health care, quality child care, respite for families and those therapies, activities and supports that are shown to help autistic people be their best.

Although we see an increase in diagnoses of autism, autism and autistic traits have been part of what makes us human for a long time. Many of us recognize that people with autism bring a whole range of valued skills and talents, both technical and social, to the workplace and beyond, and many skills that have been beneficial to whole societies through history. Many artistic traits are valued for the role they’ve always played in communities.

Now, while autism is often described in terms of deficits, many people with autism have exceptional memory skills; heightened perception in the realms of vision, taste and smell; even an enhanced understanding of natural systems, such as animal behaviours; visual skills; creativity; new approaches to problem-solving; and tenacity. All of these things can be positive and exciting. I would recommend, actually, that you visit a website called The Art of Autism to witness some of the creativity and talent of autistic artists.

All people with autism are different. Some may function well independently, and others may need one-on-one support for their lives. As much as we need to celebrate all the good and amazing things that autism can bring, we have to remember that along with that come struggles.

Unfortunately, in B.C., too many children with autism don’t have equal and timely access to the services they need. Long wait-lists often mean months or years of intervention therapies lost.

Parents of individuals with autism disorders often re­port high levels of stress and mental health problems associated with the challenges of caring for individuals with complex needs and with navigating multiple service sectors across the course of life. Let’s not forget the siblings and other family members impacted. When one child has autism, the whole family has autism.

Now, these are the words of a parent whose child needs one-on-one support. This is Michelle:

“Being a parent of a child with autism is exhausting. There are no breaks. There’s very little help, and you are always on. Even if my daughter is at school or with her home team, I am still constantly thinking and worried about her.

“I feel like I’ve lost myself some days. I don’t get the opportunity to be Michelle anymore. I’m always Sarah’s mom. I miss out on events or nights out because there’s no sitter and the venue would be dangerous for her. My husband and I don’t get to do things together very often. It’s usually just one or the other who can go.

“My daughter Sarah is seven. We first suspected autism at the age of two, and she was diagnosed as autistic just before her third birthday. She’s non-verbal, elopes frequently and has zero awareness of danger, which results in the need for constant supervision no matter where we are — at home, school, shopping or even out enjoying nature.

“Going anywhere is a struggle. She’s not potty trained. So we’re always aware of areas to change a Pull-Up, having to carry additional supplies and the stigma of having someone her size still in diapers. She also is prone to meltdowns when needing to wait in a lineup or when she’s frustrated that she can’t verbalize a need.

“Because of her high needs, we have a very limited support system. Not many people are willing or equipped to take on the additional responsibility of constant supervision. We live in Surrey, and the closest option we have for babysitters, especially for overnight, is my parents, who live in Victoria and are seniors.

“Luckily, funding from government has allowed us to build an amazing home team for my daughter over the past four years. She’s learned to gain trust with her support workers.

[10:10 a.m.]

“I cannot express how important this is to Sarah and to my family. Losing independent funding and this home team would be devastating, and that keeps me up at night.”

S. Chant: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the statement of my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano.

First, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, specifically the Esquimalt and the Songhees Nations, and I thank them for the opportunity to live and work here.

Additionally, I am fortunate to live and work and learn on the unceded territories of the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations when I’m in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour.

The month of April is Autism Acceptance Month, with April 2 as World Autism Day, declared by the United Nations in 2007 to enhance awareness and knowledge of this lifelong neurological condition. Autism affects children and adults all over the world, irrespective of gender, race or socioeconomic status.

Autism is the most common neurological disorder affecting children and is one of the most common developmental disabilities affecting British Columbians. As per the World Health Organization, approximately one in 100 children has autism spectrum disorder.

When a child is diagnosed with autism, we know it can be a challenging time for a family. Early diagnosis and intervention are vital to families of all neurodiverse children, including those with autism. That’s why we are committed to working with families, with service providers and with Indigenous leaders and communities to build wraparound services for children and youth with support needs, to meet the needs of all children.

Our government is focused on meeting the needs of families through offering options for how they can access the services and supports. A family in B.C. whose child has been diagnosed with autism can access support and funding for children at home and in school and may be eligible for a variety of other services, including respite, family supports and early intervention therapies.

I want to recognize and express my appreciation for the families, caregivers, service providers and others who are working to improve the lives of individuals with autism and other neurodiverse conditions. I know it takes a team and a community to raise our kids. That team is critical in raising a child with autism, and the community continues to be critical in supporting youth and adults who are managing autism throughout their lives.

I think of my friend Pippa, whose autistic son was working on his degree when COVID hit, and the disappointment felt by the whole family when the routine that had finally fallen into place was disrupted and progress was stopped. The effort needed to gain that momentum again is significant, and it has not yet been achieved.

I watch in awe as my friend Kulvir, a school board chair, involved herself in so many community events and ensured that her son Saajin is fully involved at school, in the community and in his own interests as much as possible. He and I have had fun palling around together on occasion.

The young woman who brought her daughter to the Lynn Valley legion Santa’s breakfast, taking transit from Coquitlam because she saw the event on the web page and felt it would be a safe and welcoming environment for both of them. She was right, and they both had a wonderful time, as did we all.

However, what I see, and what most of us see, is the public face of the families who work with autism. We don’t see the time of various clinicians, speech and language pathologists, behavioural therapists, counsellors, teachers and many other specialists who work with the parents to support these kids to navigate their day-to-day world safely and successfully.

We don’t see the impact that a routine change has on a child or adult who has developed specific strategies to manage their environment. That change can mean significant distress and short-term or long-term loss of ability to cope.

Fortunately, over the years, through a variety of public-private partnerships, many advances have been made in understanding and working with children, adults and families who are dealing with autism. A couple of museums, including the Museum of North Vancouver, have devel­oped programs such as sensory-friendly Sundays, with limited numbers of people attending and opportunities to be part of demonstrations that are done in a way to have reduced stimulation.

The district of North Vancouver offers a virtual autism series that provides information about autism itself and resources that can be tapped. The North Vancouver dis­ability resource centre has a low-stimulation van, a portable activity centre that can be booked by families and schools.

The first responders on the North Shore — RCMP, West Van police, all the fire departments and North Shore Rescue — have gone through training with the Canucks Autism Network. This allows them to understand and support any autistic individual that they encounter when providing service. The North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, WorkBC and the Canucks Autism Network recently sponsored their first annual Diverse Abilities Employment Fair.

[10:15 a.m.]

Access to learning about autism continues to grow, evi­denced by the offering by Simon Fraser University entitled “Changing Developmental Trajectories of Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” The special dates in April are opportunities to recognize and reflect on the needs and experiences of neurodiverse children, youth and adults in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour.

As I was thinking about what I wanted to say today, I came across a poem that was written by a ten-year-old boy named Benjamin Giroux, at his school. I’m just going to read that for you:

I am odd; I am new.
I wonder if you are, too.
I hear voices in the air;
I see you don’t, and that’s not fair.
I want to not feel blue.
I am odd; I am new.
I pretend that you are, too.
I feel like a boy in outer space.
I touch the stars and feel out of place.
I worry what others might think.
I cry when people laugh; it makes me shrink.
I am odd; I am new.
I understand now that so are you.
I say “I feel like a castaway.”
I dream of a day that that’s okay.
I try to fit in; I hope that some day I do.
I am odd; I am new.

Now, two autistic people are not the same. They are all uniquely special, so I’m going to end with the words written to me by another young man in Surrey:

“My name is Ben. I’m 22 years old and I have autism. My autism is different from my brother’s. I’m high-functioning. I graduated high school with a Dogwood diploma, which means I actually got the grades to go to university.

“I did get accepted to university but dropped out because I didn’t have the same support I received in high school. It was so fast-paced it made it much harder. Now I work full-time at a grocery store in the produce department, but I have goals to get a better-paying job, as I only make minimum wage.

“Now, my brother is 18 months younger than I am. He has what they call, nowadays, ‘profound autism.’ He’s 20, and turning 21 in June. Life was tough enough growing up with autism myself, but having a sibling with such high needs took away time and focus for me.

“My parents, especially my mom, always stressed about caring and trying her best to provide support for my brother and me. We weren’t a typical family. I was often envious of all the typical families in our neighbourhood.

“You see, we didn’t get to do the normal things as a family. We didn’t get to go to movies, travel out for dinner and skiing. I always wanted to do things like fishing or ATVing.

“Now, I’ve seen my mom over the years have to fight so hard, especially the government, because you just don’t know what it’s like when you make decisions for families like mine without understanding. If you’re not living it yourself, or a parent, you just don’t get it.

“For World Autism Day, I’d like for all of you just to get that through your brain and stop making decisions that make life harder. For people like my mom, it’s hard enough, and sometimes you just add more stress onto an already stressful life.”

DECRIMINALIZING DRUGS,
NOT CRIMINALIZING PEOPLE

G. Begg: Decriminalizing drugs and not criminalizing people is a conversation that is long overdue in this House. This is not a discussion that we could have had 20 years ago. Decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs was once an idea that would have been immediately dismissed out of hand as revolutionary and radical, all at the same time as users of drugs would run the risk of being stigmatized as criminal degenerates for whom incarceration was the only answer.

The use of drugs was considered to be a scourge of weak people with no willpower, and substance usage was treated entirely as within the purview of criminal justice and then the penal system. We now know we must treat substance use as a public health issue and not a criminal justice one. We are decriminalizing people who use drugs to fight the shame and stigma around addiction. Breaking down these barriers will help create new pathways to life-saving service and care.

[10:20 a.m.]

We are decriminalizing people who use drugs, to fight that stigma and shame. So how did we get here?

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities members supported and endorsed a resolution which asked both the province and the federal government to “declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency and develop appropriate comprehensive, holistic pan-Canadian overdose action plans that include the legislative and funding frameworks for decriminalization, de-stigmatization, safe supply, suitable medical treatments and thereby function to holistically address the opioid crisis, mental health issues and connections to homelessness and overdose deaths in local governments across Canada.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police also called on the federal government to decriminalize possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The then Premier, John Horgan, asked the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, to do the same. The top criminal adviser to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s so-called tough-on-crime administration recently wrote a book in support of decriminalization, and major publications across the country have now published editorials urging the same.

So in response to that request from the province of British Columbia, the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health authorized that from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2026, adults in B.C. — those 18 years of age and over — will not be subject to criminal charges for possession of up to 2.5 grams of certain illegal drugs for personal use. Possession of any drug for the purpose of trafficking, production or export across or within Canada’s borders remains a crime.

This time-limited exemption is part of a comprehensive response to what everyone now recognizes clearly as a public health crisis. The toll of the overdose crisis, driven primarily by the toxic illegal drug supply, continues to devastate families and communities across this province and throughout the country. The stigma and fear of criminalization related to substance use causes some people to hide their drug use, take more risks, and may prevent them from seeking help. This government is working to divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and towards supportive and trusted relationships within British Columbia’s health and social services.

The exemption is the first of its kind in Canada. Throughout this period, the federal government will work with British Columbia to ensure the exemption continues to strike the right balance between promoting public health and ensuring public safety. The decriminalization of people who possess certain illegal drugs for personal use is a critical step in our fight against the toxic drug crisis. Substance use is a public health matter, not a criminal justice matter.

What has been decriminalized? The illegal drugs cov­ered by the exemption are opioids such as heroin, mor­phine and fentanyl; crack and powder cocaine; metham­phetamine, commonly called meth; and MDMA, commonly known as Ecstasy. Adults found in personal possession of any combination of these illegal drugs that add up to a combined total of 2.5 grams or less will now not be subject to criminal charges, and the drugs will not be seized by police.

The continued criminalization of drugs ensures that an unending stream of men and women are incarcerated for drug possession and drug sales and also influences a much wider group of prisoners who commit crimes to pay for their drugs or use violence as part of the illicit drug market.

How will we benefit from this drug decriminalization and not criminalizing people? Decriminalization will allow police to concentrate on more serious issues by reallocating resources away from the task of preventing drug use. It would also halt the revolving door of incarcerated drug users and allow for greater investments in services designed to assist people who want to address their substance use.

[10:25 a.m.]

Most crucially, it will allow us to reframe Canada’s drug problem and understand it as a public health and public education problem rather than a moral failing. Simply put, the decriminalization of people who possess the designated illegal drugs for personal use is a critical step in this province’s fight against the toxic drug crisis. It will help reduce the barriers and stigma that prevent people from accessing life-saving supports and services. Substance use is a public health matter, not a criminal justice issue.

E. Sturko: The member is correct. This is a conversation that we couldn’t have 20 years ago. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak today on this motion about the public health emergency related to drug toxicity deaths and decriminalization.

I’m going to start by asking a question, which is: why is this motion coming forward now? It has been 884 days since the current government promised to “fast-track the move towards decriminalization.” It has been 782 days since the Minister of Health and Addictions sent a letter to the federal government formally asking for the exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and 511 days since the government formally applied to Health Canada for an exemption to allow the removal of criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of illicit substances for personal use. Health Canada approved the province’s request 333 days ago, and decriminalization of illicit drugs came into effect in British Columbia 55 days ago.

Nearly 1,000 days have gone by in the planning and decision-making relating to Canada’s first pilot on illicit drug decriminalization, yet this is the first time that we have talked about this formally, to debate this issue specifically related to decriminalization in this chamber. It’s too bad that the scrutiny on a seismic shift in policy like that of decriminalization has received so little scrutiny, the scrutiny that it deserves in the best interest of all British Columbians.

On March 22, the province set a new, shameful record on the number of overdose calls in a single day. First responders had to attend 45 calls for help in the Downtown Eastside alone. It’s incomprehensible that over six years into this public health emergency, people experiencing a mental health or addictions crisis continue to languish on wait-lists for life-saving treatment. We need a coherent, provincewide strategy so that when someone reaches out for help, they can immediately get the services they need and, importantly, that they can afford them.

Let me be clear that our caucus supports the primary goal of decriminalization to reduce stigma and to encourage people to access treatment and recovery. We’ve always said that addiction and substance use should be treated as a critical care and health care issue, and that people who are ill should not be criminalized, but decriminalization alone is not going to fix this tragedy.

Decriminalization policy reflects what’s already been in effect as the de facto law enforcement policy in B.C. for years. It’s a small fraction of what should be a comprehensive approach, including harm reduction measures and effective public education with a relentless focus on treatment as part of a recovery-oriented system of care.

Unfortunately, we continue to see harm reduction pri­oritized over other equally important pillars. All we need to do is to look to Oregon to see how decriminalization without the other pillars in place can ruin communities and, ultimately, fail the most vulnerable. The model in Portugal has only shown success because all areas are working jointly together, and this was meant to be the vision for British Columbia. Yet, as currently implemented, we can already see and predict its failure due to the lack of guardrails that should have been in place before decriminalization was introduced.

This province was provided with a letter of requirements by the federal government, including things like alternative measures, that says: “Ensure that individuals who desire treatment or other supports can access them when needed.” Readiness and capability of the health and social systems, including building B.C.’s substance abuse care system that meets the unique needs of specific regions in communities such as rural and remote communities — it just simply has not happened.

[10:30 a.m.]

We’re not doing enough; 360 treatment beds are not enough. We have private treatment beds sitting empty throughout this province, yet no public spaces are open. Not subsidizing private treatment beds is wasting space and wasting valuable resources that British Columbians desperately need right now. If this is the direction we’re going, and we’re not subsidizing the cost of treatment, then what is the direction? If we want to ensure comprehensive change, systemic change, then accessible and free treatment and resources must be available in every community throughout the province.

Decriminalization has been an important step, but it’s not the only step needed to combat this incredibly complex issue. By increasing recovery and treatment services, we can give individuals and their families hope of a brighter future. There’s no more time to waste. What’s needed is a greater urgency towards a coherent, comprehensive approach. Better is possible.

G. Begg: Thanks to the member for her thoughtful comments.

Addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal justice one. So what have we done? We have built new pathways into the health care system by hiring health authority–specific positions dedicated to building connections with local service providers and people referred by the police. These positions also help connect people with resource information to voluntary mental health and addictions support in their own communities.

We’ve worked with police leaders to develop a range of training resources and practical guidance, which is now available to more than 9,000 front-line police officers. We have continued to build a voluntary system of mental health and addictions care that works for all British Columbians, including investments in treatment and recovery and including 340 new beds over the past five years.

In addition to the historic $500 million investment to build a voluntary system of mental health and addictions care, the province is investing more than $11 million in new positions to ensure the success of this decriminalization program across B.C. These new roles will be on the ground building connections every day with local service providers and police. This includes both project coordination support and proactive outreach. These new positions help people understand the array of available services and streamline the referral and access processes. They will also help connect people who are referred by police to voluntary mental health and addictions supports in their own communities.

In addition, the province made an historic half billion-dollar investment to continue to build a comprehensive and seamless system of mental health and addictions care that the people of British Columbia need and deserve, including $132 million for treatment and recovery across the full spectrum of care. Since 2017, we’ve added more than 360 new adult and youth substance use beds across the province.

Separating people from the toxic, unpredictable, illicit drug supply is also an important step to preventing drug poisoning and helping people stabilize their lives. That’s why we’re working to expand access to life-saving medications for opioid use disorder and prescribed safer supply. Today over 23,700 people in B.C. are on some form of medication assisted treatment, which is more than ever before.

When people make the courageous decision to come forward and get help, we want services there to meet them. The full continuum of substance use treatment and recovery services is combined to four main categories: withdrawal management, transition and assessment, specialized treatment and recovery and aftercare.

SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESS

B. Stewart: I rise in the House today to speak about the concerns of those in the small business community here in British Columbia. This is a time of unprecedented challenges facing small business owners in B.C. Labour shortages and increased inflation are among the many factors that have led to rapidly increasing costs of doing business.

[10:35 a.m.]

Entrepreneurs in B.C. are starting to lose hope as meaningful steps have not been taken to address the mounting challenges that they face. There are more than 510,000 small businesses in B.C., which account for 98 percent of all the businesses. With a provincial population of more than five million, this means that one in ten British Columbians are entrepreneurs of some kind.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our communities, employing more than 1.1 million people or 43 percent of all workers. Despite playing a vital role in the economy in employing a large portion of the workforce, these businesses are not receiving adequate financial support to combat the rising costs that they are facing. The growing costs and pressures on small business are an urgent issue which we must address because business owners are struggling to keep up with the mounting costs.

In a recent B.C. Chamber of Commerce survey, 87 percent of the respondents said that the costs of doing business have gotten worse over the past years. Andre Thomas, a small business owner of more than 25 years in my community of Kelowna, recently said: “I think it’s worse than it’s probably ever been.” He, along with many other business owners and chambers of commerce, have cited labour shortages, costs of goods, inflation, lower consumer spending and higher interest rates as challenges to business.

These rising costs, coupled with slower economic activity, have left small business owners struggling to keep their doors open and livelihoods afloat. Small businesses are struggling to manage costs associated with the higher minimum wage, paid sick days and increased carbon tax. Instead of receiving additional support, they have received additional tax hikes and increased red tape.

Commercial rent is another major concern for small businesses to tackle. Kent’s Kitchen has been a staple of Vancouver’s Chinatown for more than 40 years, offering large portions of delicious food at an affordable price. Sadly, the restaurant will be forced to close its doors on April 30 due to a 30 percent rent increase that it cannot afford. William Liu, president of the Vancouver China­town Merchants Association, said: “It’s literally monthly that we see businesses closing, old and new. It’s really tough to look into the future right now.”

The continual business closures are causing concern that the fabric of our neighbourhood is in jeopardy. This is happening across the province. Currently, in downtown Victoria, retail space vacancies are at an all-time high of 10.9 percent, the highest they’ve been in more than a decade.

Unfortunately, the challenges facing small business don’t end with rising costs alone. The rampant increase of break-ins, broken windows and other property crimes are taking a toll on businesses in the downtown core of our cities. A recent survey asked 500 Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley, Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Victoria businesses a simple question: how long can they continue to operate under the current level of crime? Just under 50 percent of the businesses responded with “less than two years.” Let me repeat that it’s almost half of the businesses in major cities in the province suggesting that they will close their doors in under two years if this level of crime continues.

It does not look like it’s getting better. Last month in a single night in Victoria, six different businesses had their windows broken, and this is just one night in a spree of attacks. The costs of these damages add yet another cost to businesses, with a single window costing thousands of dollars to replace.

Things are so bad in Vancouver that the West End Business Improvement Association is giving businesses the opportunity to apply for a $500 grant to help with the cost of vandalism. The Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association has opened a similar grant program to help businesses repair the damage. It should not be up to non-profits or businesses themselves to deal with the repercussions of a failed soft-on-crime approach.

The future currently looks bleak for small business owners in B.C., with many wondering how much longer they can keep their businesses afloat and their dreams alive. Small business tax revenue is currently projected to decline by 20 percent in 2023, further shrinking the small business sector. With so much money going elsewhere, entrepreneurs and small business owners are feeling left out, with few signs help on the way.

[10:40 a.m.]

Small businesses are the backbone of the community, providing employment, goods and services, and allowing people to put food on the table for their families. We cannot have strong communities without strong businesses. By allowing our small businesses to struggle, we are weakening our communities. It’s time to listen to our business leaders, take immediate action to provide relief and certainty, and help reduce the struggling business pressures with growing operational costs.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member previous for the statement. I agree. Absolutely, small businesses are the backbone of our communities. I operated a small business. I know the member opposite and his family have a long history in the business community. Businesses are the source of innovation and a wealth of connection between a community and their economy.

Small business people in B.C. have faced enormous pressures over the past couple of years, the pandemic obviously being forefront in everyone’s mind but also the extreme weather events of the province, global inflation, which has driven costs up, and particularly, in terms of government interest, the skills shortage that we’ve seen really being the number one challenge for business in this province.

That said, this economy created 66,000 jobs last year and has created over 14,000 already in 2023. These are some of the highest numbers in Canada. They’re accompanied with the recent past of some of the highest numbers per capita of supports for both businesses and people. Of course, small businesses are people. Small businesses depend on people not only as customers but as their employees. So it is inherently important that government pay strict and focused attention to preparing our workforce for tomorrow. That’s what this government has done.

In fact, in the past couple of years, over half a billion dollars of small business supports have been granted. This government has cut the small business tax rate. It continues to be the second lowest in Canada. It has reduced the municipal tax rate, which also impacts small businesses.

The government has permanently allowed restaurants to purchase alcohol at a wholesale rate, saving them up to 20 percent, and made the food delivery cap permanent to give them certainty in planning. There has been a $1 billion community infrastructure fund, which is helping keep down municipal taxes and create the infrastructure advantages that diversification requires in our communities.

It’s important that government recognizes its other roles. The member mentioned commercial rents. Well, one of the most important factors for small businesses is in fact residential rents. Can their workers live in the communities where their businesses are located? This government capped the rental increases at 2 percent. This is an important distinction, because had the previous speakers’ parties’ plans been implemented, or if they were in government, we would have seen an 8 percent increase in residential rents. What that would have done would have been to make that inflation permanent in the economy, another challenge to small businesses to have the workforce that they need.

These are important roles in government that we need to take seriously. The previous government closed multiple schools. Bicycle shop owners in my community responded by fighting school closures, saying that you wouldn’t locate a bicycle shop in a community that closed elementary schools.

In forestry, we’ve seen a transition away from old growth and towards value-added. The government has supported that with training and employment initiatives that help small business.

Yes, the foundation of a healthy private sector economy is strong public services like education. The previous government cut $70 million from universities. That did not help small businesses in terms of preparing the workforce for tomorrow. Education equals innovation. Innovation equals success for our communities.

[10:45 a.m.]

That’s what this government supports, working in partnership with business to help create the workforce of tomorrow — the foundational investments in our communities and our infrastructure to support diversification and, overall, to support the value-added forest industry in this province, which will employ thousands of people in small businesses through small contractors that exist today and need good partners to thrive, just like our communities.

B. Stewart: Well, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo–​North Cowichan for his comments. But I am troubled by the fact he suggests that closure of schools suggests there’s going to be less small business. Sometimes there’s a reality, just like in business. You have to relocate and position your business where there is going to be certainty.

What I really object to is the fact that of the 66,000 new jobs that have been opened up…. The fact is there are over 100,000 new immigrants that are coming to the province. What we have is so much uncertainty in the province created by red tape and increased cost of taxes that is causing these businesses, just like the bike shop that he’s referring to…. I know that’s his former business.

The bottom line is that you can’t operate a business with those continued layers of increased costs. I mean, forget about just minimum wage. Look at employer health tax. Look at the five paid sick days. Look at the whole issue about the costs that are being put on to communities. There are so many communities that have had to raise taxes well above inflation.

I mean, 6 percent, maybe, is inflation. But what’s happening in the city of Vancouver or many other communities…. These increased costs are a direct result of the government bureaucracy being put onto the backs of those 510,000 small businesses. Those 510,000 business owners are trying to create an opportunity for themselves, their families and the people that work for them.

The fact is that we do need those immigrants coming in here, and we’re going to need a higher growth rate than just the 66,000 that he mentions.

I think the small business tax rate — that’s admirable. The bottom line is, if we look at the costs…. I know that many small businesses are saying that it’s a 25 percent increase across the board in the last six years in terms of what they’ve had to carry on top of the other costs that they already have to pay. The reality is they are struggling. They’re suffering.

The bottom line is that that level of uncertainty is just unacceptable if we’re going to make certain that we’re going to create an opportunity here in British Columbia to grow small business, to make certain that everybody that wants to come here can create that opportunity and take that vision, the excitement, of what it is that we can do here in British Columbia.

But you can’t do that if you continue to beat them down with red tape and other things and, frankly, spending money in areas that doesn’t necessarily improve their business ability to actually compete and survive.

I really think one of the things that is confusing here is how it is that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan can suggest that working from home, as a small business, is one of the ways of saving money in terms of being able to be more competitive.

I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about the importance of small business here in British Columbia. I look forward to the government making significant changes on this.

INTERNATIONALLY TRAINED
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS

H. Sandhu: Today I rise in this House to highlight the importance of supporting internationally educated health care professionals to support our existing health care workers and to strengthen our health care in our province.

I want to share some of the key investments that are being made by taking multifaceted approaches.

We know the pandemic, opioid crisis and many pre-existing gaps in the health care sector have intensified the strain on the entirety of the health care system and has been tremendously difficult on our health care workers. This is an issue that all jurisdictions are facing nationally and internationally.

We know that the success of our health care system depends on various important professions and roles. Whether they are professionals or working in support services, they are equally valuable and integral parts. Therefore, our government is constantly investing to support all health care workers.

As an internationally educated nurse and as Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors’ Services and Long-Term Care, today I will talk about the importance of internationally trained health care workers and how they can be integral parts to help us meet the needs.

[10:50 a.m.]

While our government is constantly building and strengthening our health care system by adding more seats for health care professionals…. We know that the internationally educated health care professionals can also help to fill these existing gaps. When we support them, they can be ready to help our health care system sooner. Internationally trained professionals bring a wealth of knowledge, a wide variety of lived and professional experiences, dedication and resiliency, as they often work under very complex situations.

I, too, had the honour to contribute to B.C.’s health care system for nearly two decades. Every single day I am immensely grateful for this opportunity to work in our health care system and to build my life here in this beautiful province. However, my journey of going through the international credentials evaluation process was not easy, as it took me a long time to finally become a registered nurse in B.C.

Therefore, our government has now taken significant steps to remove bottlenecks — in other words, unnecessary barriers — and to make it easier for internationally educated health care professionals. This is also why we invested $12 million to support internationally educated nurses to practise here in B.C. by simplifying the application and assessment process for internationally educated nurse candidates, offering approximately $9 million in bursaries to help with assessment fees and creating a new nurse navigator profession to help internationally educated nurses navigate the assessment and licensing process.

This includes $1.2 million to the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives to streamline the regulatory assessment pathway called triple track, $9 million in bursaries to remove financial barriers for assessment and $2 million to Health Match B.C. to support enhanced recruitment and system navigation, including refreshed marketing and a website.

Triple track will streamline the assessment pathway so that internationally educated nurses can be assessed for multiple professions like health care aide, LPN and RN simultaneously, reducing red-tape costs and time. In this new process, internationally educated nurses are simultaneously assessed for the HCA, LPN and RN designation to determine where they are best positioned to enter B.C.’s health workforce. This will allow them to work as a health care aide or an LPN while they upgrade their training to work as a registered nurse, if they so wish.

In addition, we recently announced a significant expansion of the pathways to licensure for internationally trained physicians. That will improve community-based health care delivery in British Columbia.

We also added a total of 270 new, ongoing allied health seats to B.C.’s public post-secondary institutions as well as additional one-time support to meet immediate training needs for medical lab assistants and a new program to help internationally educated advanced-care paramedics join the workforce. Growing these programs and increasing B.C.’s supply of highly skilled graduates will ensure that our province has the right health professionals in the right places so that British Columbians can access the health services they need now and in the future.

The province is expanding the practice-ready assessment program, which is a pathway for internationally educated family physicians to be licensed to work in B.C. This program will triple, from 32 to 96 seats, over the next 16 months. International medical graduates who are not eligible for work or for provincial licensure in B.C. may be eligible for a new associate physician class of restricted registration with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. This will allow them to care for patients under the direction and supervision of an attending physician within a health authority and acute care setting.

On September 29, 2022, the Minister of Health an­nounced a comprehensive provincial health human resources strategy, as outlined in the Minister of Health’s 2020 and ’21 mandate letters. It utilizes a broad-based framework which will look at the full spectrum of health workforce issues, from education and training to recruitment and retention strategies, for a wide range of health care worker occupations.

[10:55 a.m.]

This strategy focused on four key areas: retain, redesign, recruit and train. The HHR strategy outlines 70 actions which will help build and support a healthy and productive workforce. These actions address staffing capacity issues throughout the health care system and will help alleviate the burden on our health care workers.

We’ve opened up several avenues to increase the number of nurses, physicians and allied health care professionals, both those trained here in B.C. and those trained in other provinces and countries. New education programs are being created, and other programs are being expanded. All steps are critical to increasing our supply of family doctors, nurses and allied health care professionals and are helpful to improving our health care system.

C. Oakes: I rise in the House today worried and frustrated, like many other British Columbians, to see the health care crisis continuing to rage on in this province. “Overworked,” “stressed” and “burnt out” are the words we hear far too often from our health care workers, who are tirelessly fighting for the well-being of all of us.

While some action is being taken to bring international doctors to British Columbia, the plan is short on details. How many doctors are we expecting? Where in the prov­ince will these doctors be practising? What are the metrics in place to ensure that we will see an increased standard of care and lower wait times for patients? We need a well-rounded, thought-out plan to effectively address the health care crisis promptly.

Today’s labour market outlook shows that there will be more than one million job openings in the next decade, but only 38 percent of these will be filled by immigration. Of these openings, we see 81,500 jobs where there is no plan in place for how they will be filled throughout the next decade.

Immigration alone will not fill all of them. Retention of current staff must be a priority, both for the sake of our future health care system and because of the moral responsibility we must uphold for the mental well-being of workers.

Northern Health has a vacancy rate of 20 percent for their baseline positions, with 55 percent of new hires leaving within the first three years. This is a prime example of how it’s not just important to recruit health care workers; we must ensure that we can keep them working here in British Columbia.

To strengthen our crumbling health care system, B.C. needs to hire 123,000 more health care professionals over the next decade. Interior Health has a vacancy rate of 13.7 percent, which is an 8 percent increase since 2019. Our standard of care is rapidly worsening, yet we see no measures in place to ensure improvements.

At the heart of the crisis, we see rural communities, like my own in Quesnel, struggling for years and left to deal with staffing shortages with little support. We see the struggles across this province in communities like Merritt, Clearwater, Chetwynd, Port Hardy and Port McNeill, among others.

In small communities like these, one medical worker calling in sick can literally shut down the only clinic in the community, forcing patients to drive hours for basic medical care. For example, in 2022, Mackenzie Hospital lost more than 300 hours of service due to closures. On the north Island, from July 2022 to 2023, the Port Hardy ER was closed 1,274 hours, 25 percent of the time, due to staffing shortages. The Merritt ER has already closed seven times since the beginning of the new year. And in Elkford, the temporary ER closure has lasted more than 17 months. The list goes on and on.

B.C.’s rural communities need more than vague promises of more doctors. They need specific details on how many doctors are going to be brought into these regions and how these wait times and closures are going to be alleviated.

[11:00 a.m.]

The fact of the matter is that the introduction of internationally trained doctors alone will not solve the staffing shortages across the province. However, other measures can be taken immediately that would complement this action, including the introduction of physician assistants into our medical system and the development of the long-anticipated Simon Fraser University medical school.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Our health care system is crumbling. People’s health, lives and well-being are at risk. The time for action is now.

British Columbians are suffering, health care workers are suffering, and it is our job to ensure that their needs are met for the safety of everyone in this province.

H. Sandhu: I want to thank the member for Cariboo North for her statement and her advocacy.

As I mentioned in my previous statement, our government is taking action by making historic investments and taking major steps to fix our health care system and to support health care workers so that people can get the care they need when they need it.

The previous member asked about the outlines, the stats and the numbers. I encourage the member to, if she can, read through our health human resources strategy, which we finally now have. It outlines 70 actions that will help and focus on retention, redesign, recruitment and training.

I remember advocating, along with many of my union members, to seek support for health care workers and for internationally educated nurses. My advocacy work for health care workers started in the early 2000s, when I repeatedly saw many people struggling to get timely access to quality care and many lost lives and staff struggling with workload and safety issues. I remember the days when I had to go back to my room to cry, when staffing workload issues were there.

I remember coming to the Legislature lawn along with many B.C. Nurses Union advocates during several rallies over a decade and a half. Then I came into this chamber’s gallery for the first time, there, in April 2014. Again, I tried to lobby with the government of the day. The member for Vancouver-Kensington and her colleagues were very supportive, and they heard our struggles.

Fast forward, and here we are now. I am so happy that our present government is making significant changes and investments to support internationally educated health care professionals. As a health care professional, knowing that our government is sincere and committed to continuing the work to make the health care system better is so reassuring. Seeing these concrete actions is refreshing.

We know that more work needs to be done, and actions are constantly being taken. However, we’re seeing the positive impacts that people are facing. I’ve talked to several people and my health care colleagues, and they appreciate these ongoing efforts.

I also recently saw a post in my local social media by a mom from Vernon who raved regarding the exceptional quality care her seven-year-old received within an hour. I don’t have time to quote the entire…. She said from getting admitted, getting seen, getting medication and treatment, it was one hour, and they received exceptional care. I then talked to health care workers, and they said this is what happens when we get the supports we need.

I’m confident our government’s commitment, ongoing work and historic investments to support health care workers will help, whether they’re trained in Canada or internationally. We will continue to see progress and will continue to make steps in the right direction.

Hon. N. Sharma: I ask the House consider proceeding with Motion 31, standing in the name of the member for Prince George–Valemount.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed to Motion 31 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 31 — HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONAL LEGISLATION

S. Bond: I move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House listens to health care professionals who are deeply concerned with the lack of scrutiny of Bill (No. 36) Health Professions and Occupations Act and its implications.]

[11:05 a.m.]

One of the legacies of the pandemic and the last three years is a recognition of the tireless efforts that were made by health care professionals. Nurses, doctors, psychologists, midwives and so many other professionals went to work so that we could stay home, often putting themselves in harm’s way to care for us during the most difficult of times.

It seems to me that in response to this incredible level of service and sacrifice, the least we could do as legislators is to listen to their voices and hear their concerns. Right now MLAs in every corner of this province are hearing from thousands of health care professionals who are deeply concerned, and, in fact, anxious about the lack of clarity and scrutiny around Bill 36, which passed in this House last fall.

Both NDP and Green Party members voted in in favour of this bill. However, our official opposition voted against Bill 36, worried about the government’s decision to force closure with hundreds of clauses yet to be discussed. In fact, the bill was 276 pages long and had a total of 645 clauses. Debate was arbitrarily ended at clause 232.

With every month that passes, we have heard from an increasing number of health professionals who have serious questions about what the changes contained in Bill 36 will mean for them and for their profession. There is absolutely no clarity from the government on what the bill will look like in practice, and the NDP has made little effort to change this situation and provide desperately needed reassurance.

The hundreds of clauses within Bill 36 the House did not get the chance to discuss include changes to board appointments, regulatory oversight, revisions to the disciplinary process and many more that have the potential to impact the everyday operation of many health care professions. Health care workers have the right to know and understand government’s decisions and the reasoning behind them, but they have simply not been given that opportunity.

That is why our B.C. Liberal caucus introduced a motion in this Legislature a few weeks ago to empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine the Health Professions and Occupations Act and make recommendations with respect to the sections of the act that did not have the chance to be debated last November.

Unfortunately, the NDP members present in the Legislature voted against that motion. This motion provided the opportunity to take a second look at Bill 36, to examine the implications and to hear directly from the people who would be most impacted by the legislation. For some reason, the NDP government did not want to let that happen.

I have to say that it is incredibly frustrating to see the NDP once again shut down the chance to give this bill the scrutiny it deserves, especially in light of the profound concerns of doctors, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists and the thousands of other health care professionals who have been reaching out to every single member in this Legislature.

We know that Bill 36 is no insignificant piece of legislation. The changes made to the structure of health care regulatory colleges in Bill 36 are some of the most significant in our province’s history. They simply should not come into force before they have gone through thorough review and debate in this Legislature.

That is not, as members in this House know, how this place is supposed to work. In fact, this type of approach is damaging to the democratic process. Frankly, it is bad for the people of British Columbia, who depend on us in this House to do the work here in their best interest.

This government had the opportunity to do the right thing. They can put a pause on the bill, refer it to the committee and let the opposition parties do what they are supposed to do. For the sake of worried health care professionals and the millions of British Columbians who depend on them for care, this NDP government must step up and finally allow a full and thorough discussion of Bill 36 and its impacts on health care professionals in our province.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for moving forward the motion. It is important to be able to have debate on this bill in the Legislature.

[11:10 a.m.]

I think it’s nice that we’re actually getting to talk about this, but we should also know the history of this bill. As the Health Minister said when he introduced the bill, this was a collaborative effort by all three parties that brought forward this bill into the Legislature. All three parties, to the best of my knowledge, voted in favour of it at first reading and second reading.

The issue I’ve got with Bill 36…. I’m glad to see that the official opposition is now raising concerns about this. The issue I have certainly does come from the health care workers themselves. To that point, the Canadian Society for Science and Ethics in Medicine, CSSEM, which is a group of doctors and nurses, has done a lot of work on this bill, including creating a petition that I’ve been helping to circulate around. I’m happy to pass this petition on to any of the members of the official opposition, if they care to sign it, which is in opposition to Bill 36. So far, across this province, more than 16,000 people have signed this petition, and more are coming in every day.

The CSSEM put a lot of information on their website associated with Bill 36, and I want to read some of that now. I quote:

“Our primary goal as health care professionals is to provide the highest standard of care, a standard which emphasizes ethics and quality while free from unprofessional discrimination, racism and sexual misconduct. We unequivocally support a system which upholds these values. We also support a system that embodies unity and democracy while creating public policy. These qualities help reassure British Columbians that they are receiving the quality of health care they deserve.

“However, without a democratic and collaborative policy-driven process, our system risks erosion to the quality and safety of care we can provide. Bill 36 will singlehandedly deteriorate the quality of health care in British Columbia. It will cause deleterious, catastrophic and irreparable consequences to our system and patients.

“Bill 36 promotes partisanship and the authority of our government to unilaterally dictate how health care services are delivered in British Columbia. Political influence has no role in health care, and that is exactly what Bill 36 entails. Failure to repeal this act will have devastating consequences on health care in British Columbia.”

That’s directly from doctors and nurses in this province that have a concern with this bill. I have been out speaking in town hall meetings, speaking with doctors and nurses. I’ve been out at health care rallies talking about this bill. What I’ve discovered is the complete lack of information that health care providers actually have. There has been no broad effort to engage with health care workers in this province. Bill 36, quite frankly, is a bit of a surprise to them, especially when you start hearing some of the things that are in this bill.

I want to read some more comments with regards to this bill — in particular, from a doctor. And the key here is about science. Science and medicine are always a work in progress. Without scientific debate, science cannot progress. The facts are always evolving. Anyone who has the most basic understanding of science will know that the concept of scientific misinformation is an oxymoron. The debate of science needs to develop, and it needs to develop through open dialogue, through allowing doctors and nurses and health professionals to be able to have this.

Informed consent and the concept of patient bodily autonomy is the bedrock of medical ethics, yet ethical health care professionals who hold these principles have been fired from their jobs and refused to take the vaccine, thus creating a health care crisis in public health care. I’ve raised this issue with the minister many times.

History is full of examples of how scientists have spoken up, professionals have spoken up against the orthodoxy of the day and were punished, were imprisoned, were under house arrest, yet they were proven to be correct. They helped to push the science. They helped to push the knowledge of science. I think if we want to have a good health care system in this province and we want to have a health care system that people can have confidence in, it’s important that people aren’t muzzled and they aren’t forced to follow the political doctrine of a government.

That’s why I’m happy this is coming forward because, quite frankly, more debate on Bill 36 is needed.

[11:15 a.m.]

M. Bernier: I want to start by thanking again the member for Prince George–Valemount for bringing this motion forward today and also for the incredible work that she and other members of the opposition caucus did, led under that member, when we talk about Bill 36. It’s unfortunate when we never got to get to the points that we really wanted to do, which is hold this government accountable as opposition. That is our job.

We are right now in the midst of a health care crisis in the province of British Columbia. And what does this NDP government do? They bring forward this massive 645-section bill, Bill 36, and then shut down debate when we actually are trying to get to the point where we want to scrutinize and ask the tough questions of this government. In the midst of a health care crisis, we have this government now throwing fuel on the fire by creating a situation of confusion, uncertainty and angst with the people on the front lines: our health care professionals.

I know my inbox and every inbox in this House, whether you’re in opposition or in government, is being inundated with emails of people who are speaking out and saying: “Due process wasn’t followed. Bill 36 was the wrong approach, the way it was handled by this government, and this government needs to do the right thing and bring it forward so we can finish the debate.”

Now the members in government, I think, respectfully, know the role of opposition. Opposition’s role is to scrutinize and hold government accountable. They should know it very well, because I think if we look at the history of British Columbia, there’s no party that’s been in opposition more than the NDP. They know the role of an opposition. Isn’t it surprising, though, when they get into government that they try to completely shut down the democratic process? It is unfortunate because there is a role that needs to be played. Questions need to be asked, and answers need to be given.

When we call on the government through a legislative all-party Health Committee, an opportunity to relook at Bill 36…. This government had the right opportunity in front of them to be able to refer Bill 36 to that all-party committee to make sure we could ask the tough questions.

The reason why we are even in this position to begin with, I would argue, is…. Whether it’s the lack of understanding or support for the democratic process or whether government is playing politics with this bill, they bring forward at the very end of a fall session, as I said, a 645-section bill. We get one-third of the way through it, and they ram it through. They vote in favour with the Green Party to support Bill 36. It was only the opposition that spoke out and voted against Bill 36 at that time.

There is still so much more work that could have been done during that session if this government actually would do the role that government has and allow the opportunity for the democratic process to unfold in debate. They chose not to do that.

Another slap in the face for all the people in the prov­ince who are speaking out, the tens of thousands of people who are not in support of the process that’s taken place on Bill 36…. When the opportunity came in front of this government again to bring it forward to that all-party committee, they voted against that as well. Again, highlighting the fact that they do not want to let scrutiny take place. They do not want to be accountable for this bill. They do not want to be able to have questions answered in the process that’s supposed to take place in this building. That’s why we’re here. That’s our jobs.

The government still has an opportunity. We have this bill here in front of us again today. They could finally, on this, do the right thing and support this, and understand that they have put so much pressure on the front-line health care workers with the uncertainty that this bill has presented within this province.

We implore the government to not just stand up in this section and actually read out some speaking notes that were probably written for them, but actually talk about the importance of this bill, and how they believe that it should have the scrutiny and reopen it up for proper debate so we can ask the questions.

[11:20 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

S. Chant: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to rise again in the House this morning to speak. The motion from the member for Prince George–Vale­mount is one that I’m really happy to explore for a variety of reasons.

Bill 36 is based on work that began in 2018, when concerns that the public and health care professionals were expressing led to an inquiry being launched by the Ministry of Health. That inquiry involved a specific regulatory college of health care professionals with concerns that the college was not carrying out its overall mandate. The mandate was that of protecting patients and the public from harms related to incompetent or unethical practice. The inquiry was carried out by a well-qualified neutral individual, who found that there was indeed cause for concern and not just in the initial college investigated.

Governance mechanisms varied across the myriad of colleges in place at the time, with governance often unable to be independent due to the mechanisms that were used to appoint board members. Additionally, the skill sets of the board members were not necessarily sufficient to do the role, and there was a lack of transparency, which made it difficult for the public to determine if the mandates were being met.

These factors were resulting in a risk to public safety, which needed to be addressed through legislation. The ensuing report recommended that the legislation be established to enable the following recommendations to be instituted in a transparent and standardized fashion across the health professional colleges in British Columbia: cultural safety and humility, improvement of governance, reduce the number of regulatory colleges, create a new oversight body and improve the complaints and discipline process and improve information sharing.

Also, as part of this inquiry, the Health Professions Act was reviewed. This was an act that set out how health professionals are regulated in British Columbia. And this review led to further recommendations that the government be enabled to regulate health occupations.

Now, as a registered nurse, I am accountable to my college, and that’s to the public, for my practice, just as other registered health care providers are. I feel that this is a very important component of ensuring the provision of safe, effective health care in our province. Many years ago, I spent two years working with the then Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia, helping to ensure that nursing standards were met and maintained by nurses in all aspects of health care in B.C. I know this is a complex and challenging thing to do, because patient care will always be complex and challenging.

Subsequently I recognize the gravity of the concerns expressed in 2018 that public safety was at risk, and I applaud the actions taken by initiating a thorough inquiry. The report was received with its recommendations, and the next stage of process was implemented to have the report and its recommendations scrutinized by the public and by the health care professionals that it impacted. That’s when the Steering Committee on Modernization of Health Professional Regulation, comprised of all parties and populated by members that still sit in this House, was appointed and began its work.

In August of 2020, the recommendation report was released, endorsed by the non-partisan committee, who accepted and endorsed the recommendations as they were originally outlined. Their work was informed by significant consultation with the public, internal and external stakeholders, and Indigenous leaders.

Many opportunities for public consultation were held. There were discussions with initial stakeholders, where we were to listen and understand the perspectives of partners and the public on issues of modernizing health regulation. Many submissions called for greater transparency and accountability in the complaints and discipline process, consistent approaches to regulation and greater role clarity in the mandate of regulatory colleges to protect the public.

This is the consultation that prompted the Ministry of Health to work towards Bill 36. Many written submissions were received by the Health Committee. Many personal submissions were made, and also, many people were spoken to right across the province.

[11:25 a.m.]

We cannot deny the work and the contributions those people made by asking again: can you come forward and have these discussions, talk this through again, look at it again? We can’t be doing that. This work has been done, and we are very disrespectful to disregard it.

T. Halford: I want to thank my colleague, firstly, from Prince George–Valemount for bringing this important motion forward. I am absolutely grateful to rise and for the opportunity to voice my concerns over the government’s handling of Bill 36.

Now, on the previous speaker, I’m going to point out a couple of things. Number one is that when the bill was introduced, it was then that thousands of people, health care workers, actually saw what was coming forward in terms of legislation. That was their first point. If this government defines that as consultation, we have a big problem.

I’ll give another example I think this is an example, and maybe this is a precedent that this government can use. When you look at Bill 36 and the consultation or lack of it that occurred and you look at the government’s reversal…. I think we’re going to applaud them for this — the Pre­mier’s reversal on the autism clawback because of lack of consultation. They took that one all the way down to the one-yard line until the Premier finally stood up on his own, albeit without the minister responsible for the file, to say: “We have not properly consulted on this.” I think there are some similarities here, and I think there’s an opportunity for learning.

Every day our caucus hears from countless health care professionals about their concerns and frustrations surrounding Bill 36. Our caucus has brought forward concerns about this legislation, but the government continues to ignore the interests of health care workers who feel they were ignored before the government rammed through this legislation. Again, lack of consultation.

Last fall, when this government introduced Bill 36, we were not given enough time to ask questions and scrutinize each of its clauses. Over 400 clauses were left completely unexamined because this NDP government at the time invoked what is called closure in order to ram the legislation through the House. There were important clauses that got left out dealing with board appointments, governance and regulatory oversight; in other words, items that will heavily impact the working environment of health care professionals every single day. We didn’t get to ask one single question on over 400 substantial clauses.

I know that on this side of the aisle, we believe that when making changes that will severely impact people’s lives, it’s important to have a genuine discussion in this Legislature. But based on the actions of this government, it’s clear they don’t hold that same sentiment. With so many health care professionals reaching out and expressing their concerns about this bill, it’s clear the NDP has failed, if not ignored, consultation with stakeholders.

Does this government feel they know better than health care professionals, who are working in this field, who are facing these realities every single day? It’s become a common theme for this government. I just raised the autism file, a file that the Premier then altered, I think, much to the agreement of everybody in this House.

When we talk about consultation, we actually asked and we wanted to see this bill referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health. Now, the member before me made a reference to things coming into that Select Standing Committee on Health. I don’t recall that ever happening. I was on the committee. I think that…. I know the Chair and the vice-Chair were on that committee. I don’t recollect that ever happening, any of those recommendations, any consultation happening in that committee. So I’m puzzled by that member’s remarks on that because I was there and I don’t believe that to be correct.

It is deeply concerning to me that this bill is not receiving the scrutiny that it deserves when our health care professionals are struggling. We know that they’re struggling, whether it’s staffing shortages, overflowing hospitals, closures of ERs at the last possible second. Reports of toxic workplaces have caused long levels of stress and burnout.

[11:30 a.m.]

These are front-line workers who got us through the pandemic and show up each and every day to protect the lives of British Columbians, yet this House has failed them on this piece of legislation. Rushing through Bill 36 without proper consultation is adding another stress to these invaluable workers who have done so much for our province.

It is time for this government to finally step up and allow for a full and thorough discussion of Bill 36 and the impacts for the sake of the worried health professionals and the millions of British Columbians who depend on them.

A. Singh: Sometimes the discussions here just confound me. Co-mingling healthcare shortages, which really are a result of almost two decades of underfunding and incessant ignoring, with what Bill 36 is about is just wrong. It spreads fear and anxiety. The only reason there’s confusion or nervousness out there is because the other side has resorted to fearmongering and spreading anxiety.

Everything in this bill is transparent, and the reasons and the impetus behind the legislation are absolutely clear and have been clear right from the beginning. In this prov­ince, we have professional colleges that do almost exactly the same thing, that have that professional oversight. We’ve had those for some time, so nothing really new here.

Again, if there’s any fearmongering and anxiety that have been spread, it’s because of political expediency from the other side. What’s wild is the members on the other side were at the table for all those consultations. And this is not unusual. This is not unusual, because they’ve done this again and again.

We had an all-party committee on the toxic drug supply, the Select Standing Committee on Health. All parties involved, including the other side, agreed on an approach. Now the MLA for Nechako Lakes has come out against that approach, and the B.C. Liberals don’t know where they stand. That is a fact. We had an all-parties approach to Bill 36. Everybody agreed.

You know what? If you recall, I was sitting here, and I actually went through quite a few of the clauses. Everybody agreed. We all proceeded on Bill 36, and now the MLA for Nechako Lakes says he’s against it. And again, we don’t know where they actually stand.

One of the responsibilities of government is to protect people and provide them with the services they need and to ensure that those services are provided competently and in a respectful manner. And we have that at some other colleges. We have an example of that. So I’m not really sure why this is such a surprise. No one should be the subject of misinformation or discrimination when it comes to their health. At a time when they need support the most, this is where the government should be stepping in.

We’ve heard some of this before, but I think it needs repeating. The concerns of public and health care professionals regarding the College of Dental Surgeons of B.C. gave impetus to the proposed legislation. My friend spoke about it earlier. That’s why we eventually have Bill 36. There were concerns that that college was not carrying out their duties in their mandate to protect patients and the public from the harms caused by incompetent or unethical practice. That really should be at the centre of an oversight agency. I know it is for the Law Society. I know it is for the Society of Notaries. That should be at the centre, protection of the public, and that’s what Bill 36 does.

On March 8, 2018, the Ministry of Health launched an inquiry into the conduct of the college by asking Harry Cayton, former chief executive of the United Kingdom’s Professional Standards Authority, to conduct an inquiry. Mr. Cayton’s report is quite extensive. I assume the members on the other side who were on that committee have ever seen that. He concluded: “There is a lack of relentless focus on the safety of patients in many but not all of the current colleges. Their governance is insufficiently independent, lacking a competency framework, a way of managing skill mix or clear accountability to the public they serve.”

Again, that’s the crux of it. That is really at the heart of it. It doesn’t matter how long this bill is or how long the piece of legislation is. What matters is, at the core of it, the protection of the public. That report urged the need for legislation that enabled cultural safety and humility.

[11:35 a.m.]

In the middle of that report, we had the In Plain Sight report come out as well, so that was taken into account. The second recommendation was improvement of governance, reducing the number of regulatory colleges — again, the crux of Bill 36 — and creating a new oversight body that’s independent, improving the complaints and discipline process and creating a regulatory system that improves information-sharing. Really, none of those things that anyone should be against — protection of public at the centre, something that government should be responsible for.

M. Lee: I rise to speak in support of this motion. Clearly, the member for Richmond-Queensborough was not lis­tening. He’s not listening to health care professionals who are deeply concerned with the lack of scrutiny to Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act.

Again, in the vote we did in this House, all members of this House on the opposition side opposed the passage of this Bill 36 when this government, with the support of the Third Party, brought closure in advance of the 413 clauses that were still to be reviewed in the committee process on this bill.

Let me clarify that it’s not just health care professionals but all British Columbians who are concerned about the immense lack of regard for our democratic system shown by this government — ramming through legislation at the last moment, rampant House mismanagement and filibustering their own bills. This government’s legislative approach has only given British Columbians worse results and decreased their trust and confidence in this government.

Bill 36 is one example among others of where legislation was given too little time to go through the scrutiny under a democratic process. The manner in which this bill was simply pushed through is immensely disrespectful to all those impacted.

I know most members in this House have repeatedly heard from concerned constituents and health care professionals. Yet how can this government simply ignore these concerns and these professionals? Bill 36, which brought about significant changes to the province’s oversight and regulation of health care professionals under the Health Professions Act, was rushed through without sufficient debate.

When I was invited by the member for Prince George–​Valemount and the official opposition shadow minister for Health to participate in the committee process for Bill 36, I was only able to focus on the ways in which the proposed legislation addressed discrimination against Indigenous peoples through the definitions and the guiding principles in the first 20 clauses of the bill and how the framework of these provisions are extended and incorporated into other parts of the bill.

The 413 remaining clauses were not subject to any review because of the closure by this government. As members of the official opposition caucus, we know that legislation of this magnitude and size should not be treated this way.

This is why we have called on the government to refer Bill 36 to the Select Standing Committee on Health. This referral would have provided a real opportunity for MLAs to hear directly from health professionals and review the hundreds of clauses that were left unexamined when this government forced closure on the bill. Health care professionals still have genuine concerns and real questions. Yet the government took away their ability to voice any of them.

The reason our democracy works and the reason our institutions are set up this way is so that the official opposition here can review, analyze and criticize proposed legislation to achieve results that matter. When this doesn’t happen, people’s trust and confidence in government erodes. That’s what British Columbians are learning about this new Premier, his agenda and the way his secretive government operates.

Considering that the health care system, cancer care and access to primary emergency care under the B.C. NDP government have only worsened year after year, the government’s lack of focus on results and outcomes is, regrettably, no surprise. Bill 36 has received pushback from credible and key stakeholders such as Doctors of B.C. and the B.C. Nurses Union who have real concerns about the bill which are yet to be addressed. But according to this Premier, any dissent must be silenced and given no voice.

[11:40 a.m.]

The Premier has ignored concerns from our health care experts and calls for increased scrutiny, all of which have led to many unanswered questions. Once again, he has demonstrated his distain for professionals, substituting his “government knows best” mentality and bolstering his most secretive government in Canada.

British Columbians are living through a health care system that is failing British Columbians daily. The statistics tell that B.C. has the worst cancer wait times in the country. People don’t have timely access to emergency medical services, while more than one million people go every day without access to a medical doctor.

This government’s blatant disregard for the democratic process that forms our legislation and their failure to adequately manage time in this chamber has produced the worst health care outcomes that British Columbians have ever experienced. It’s a government-knows-best approach which leads to further erosion of the trust and confidence we need to have in government, precisely at the time we need it most.

A. Walker: I want to thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for bringing this motion forward. It is always a good day when we’re able to speak on behalf of health care workers in this House and in this chamber.

To the point of the member for Prince George–Vale­mount, members in the health care community reaching out to our offices — that is exactly what my office has heard. I’ve heard from many passionate, articulate and well-educated health care workers that have wanted to speak to this bill. I’ve sat down with about four or five of them that took me up on the opportunity to speak to it.

When I walked through, with these members of my community, their concerns…. They wanted to know what the history of this bill was. Walking back five years to the Cayton report that identified some significant challenges with one of our regulatory colleges, the report that identified the systemic racism that exists in our health care system, and the fact that the Minister of Health was able to work with health critics from all parties to inform the process that led to this legislation — it allayed a lot of the concerns that members of the health care community that spoke with me had.

When we talk about the goals of Bill 36, the idea of increasing accountability and transparency and publishing some of the measures of misconduct of these professional individuals…. These are important measures and, I think, measures that all members of this House support — the idea of accountability and transparency, the idea of going from 22 colleges down to six colleges to improve efficiency and ensure that these colleges are truly there to represent people, as opposed to regulatory colleges representing the members of the profession. Knowing that these boards are going to be constituted in such a way that they truly represent regular British Columbians is so important.

The member for Prince George–Valemount mentions the damage to the democratic process. I also talked to these members about some of the challenges our health care system has faced in the past, the introduction of Bill 29 and Bill 47 that led to massive privatization in our hospitals. When the member says the damage to the democratic process…. When health care workers come to the then Minister of Health and say, “Hey, your policies are killing people in our hospital,” and the policies don’t change until government changes, that is, in my mind, damage to the democratic process.

Through Bill 47, one of the most important things we did as government was to bring back the health care workers that were privatized, because we knew that it led to significant challenges. The C. diff outbreaks at Nanaimo….

Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member of the motion and the relevance.

A. Walker: Oh, of course. I’m just saying I’m listening to health care workers. I’m listening to health care workers that have concerns about Bill 36 and health care workers that have concerns about the way that previous governments have neglected them for 16 years.

It’s important that we listen to our health care workers. Talking to a health care worker who described the scars and the wounds that they experienced through previous legislation…. That’s why it’s important that we, as elected officials, are able to listen to health care workers directly.

The investments that we’re seeing now are a result of listening to these health care workers, whether they’re concerned about Bill 36 or just concerned in general about the state of health care. In my community, almost $60 million for improvements to our hospital to make sure that patients not just in Nanaimo, not just in Parksville-Qualicum but the entire north Island have access to the best possible care possible.

When I listen to health care workers about the challenges of not having enough colleagues to work with them…. These are health care workers that may be concerned about Bill 36 but are also concerned, more broadly, about the fact that there aren’t enough people, enough colleagues, to work with them.

[11:45 a.m.]

Doubling the number of nurse training seats is a huge deal for these health care workers. They appreciate the fact that our government is listening to their concerns. We have listened to doctors, whether they’re concerned about Bill 36 or otherwise, about the challenges with the payment models, about the fact that they are not being covered for their overhead during these high-cost inflationary times, about the fact that their billing models didn’t allow for billing for complex care needs.

So when we listen to health care workers — which is what this motion is about; it’s about listening to health care workers — we are delivering on the requests that these health care workers are bringing towards us.

Listening to health care workers regarding Bill 36 and some of the public health measures…. When we had a nurse in Nanaimo that was spat at by a protester and we had an opportunity in this House to denounce those actions, we on this side of government did that, and we did not hear members on the other side use their opportunity in this chamber. We are listening to the members in our health care community.

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

P. Milobar: I rise to reserve my right on a point of privilege from the previous member’s comments.

Debate Continued

D. Davies: I do want to address, very briefly, Parksville-Qualicum’s comments, as well, regarding democracy and the challenges. Democracy is challenged when you use your majority of a shutdown to force closure on the debate on one of the largest pieces of legislation in B.C. history, one that is most impactful on our health care professions. That’s when we see democracy being threatened in this place.

Every day our opposition caucus hears from countless health care professionals who are deeply concerned and increasingly anxious about Bill 36. All of these individuals are vital to our province and continue to work under incredibly difficult circumstances, and it’s important that we listen to their concerns.

I know that the NDP and the Green Party are getting the same emails and calls that we are. Health care professionals across British Columbia are worried about the lack of consultation and scrutiny around this piece of legislation, as it was rammed through by the government with little opportunity for debate.

When this government introduced Bill 36 last fall, the opposition caucus should have been given adequate time to ask questions and inquire about all of the details of the bill. But again, the NDP closed the debate and, with the help of the Green Party, plowed through the legislation with more than 400 clauses left to examine.

Our caucus voted against this bill because there are far too many unanswered questions. We did not believe that it should have passed with so much left undiscussed and unscrutinized. Quite frankly, we weren’t allowed to do our job as opposition.

The changes made to the structure of the health care regulatory colleges in Bill 36 are some of the most significant in our province’s history, and they should not come into force before they have had a genuine chance to be fully canvassed in the Legislature. Some of these changes include alterations to regulatory oversight, board appointments and many more issues that health care workers will be directly affected by.

Like these health professionals, we have many outstanding questions about the implications of this piece of legislation, questions that went unanswered when forced closure was invoked by this government. The health care workers, who are the ones who will feel these changes the most, deserve to have their concerns heard.

This government did not provide sufficient time to discuss the bill in full detail and explain its rationale behind some of the measures included within it. The government’s decision to force the end of debate left our caucus without the chance to ask questions on behalf of all these professionals who are worried about the outcomes that these changes may have.

With such sweeping changes, we want to make sure we get full input from the stakeholders who are being impacted. In fact, this is why our caucus recently called on the NDP to refer Bill 36 to the Legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Health. This will provide a real opportunity for MLAs to hear directly from health care professionals and review the hundreds of pages — hundreds of pages — that were left unexamined when this government forced closure on the bill.

[11:50 a.m.]

Unfortunately, the members opposite all voted no and refused to support this plan. This government does not want the review to happen even though it would be a great opportunity to hear from those who will be affected most by the changes. The NDP is once again falling short by shutting down the chance to give this bill the scrutiny it deserves when those who are being affected by the changes are calling for it.

It is especially disheartening to see the government ignore the significant concerns of doctors, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, thousands of other health care professionals and even the general public. This government could do the right thing and, frankly, repair the damage to our democracy that they inflicted when they forced closure and limited the ability of the opposition to do its job. This not only failed to promote true democracy; it also led to legislation that may not take into account what those on the front line of our health care system in British Columbia want or need to see in their profession.

For those worried health care professionals, we hope that this NDP government will step up and finally allow a full and thorough discussion of Bill 36. For the sake of our crumbling health care system in B.C., this legislation must be brought back before this House to be properly scrutinized.

H. Yao: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the member for Prince George–Valemount’s motion.

I would like to take a moment to first express my gratitude to a colleague of mine who has a far better understanding of the history behind the consultation. I thank him for guiding me through the process.

For starters, Bill 36 is the first reform of the Health Professions Act in 30 years. It is responding, beginning 2018, to when there was a concern with one of the colleges for not carrying on a mandate to protect their patients and public health. Therefore, Harry Cayton, asked by the Minister of Health, was asked to come in and conduct a proper and thorough inquiry.

Mr. Cayton’s report concluded that there’s a lack of re­lentless focus on the safety of patients in many, but not all, of the current colleges, that governance is insufficient and independent, lacks a competence framework and a way to manage skills mix or clear accountability to the public they serve. The report urged for different adjustments, such as: (1) cultural safety and humility, (2) improve governance, (3) reduce the number of regulatory colleges, (4) create an oversight body and (5) improve the complaint and disciplinary process.

Given an issue identified by Cayton in the report for recommended change, I want to thank the Minister of Health for establishing a steering committee for modernization of health professional regulation which all three parties — B.C. NDP, B.C. Liberals and B.C. Greens — sat on and supported. It is important to know that the work was informed by significant consultation with the public, internal and external stakeholders and Indigenous leaders.

For starters, the first consultation was held from May 9, 2019, to June 14, 2019, and received over 300 written submissions. It was this consultation that resulted in the Ministry of Health’s appointment of an all-party steering committee.

The second consultation was held from November 27, 2019, to January 10, 2020. It consisted of a public survey, an opportunity for the public to submit written submissions. The survey received over 4,000 respondents, where 70 percent plus identified as health care professionals and 7 percent included health professional regulator staff and board members, professional association or union representatives, health professional students and researchers.

Following this public consultation period, further significant engagement was done with stakeholders. Through listening to a broad spectrum of health care professionals, it was clear that the core of Bill 36 must be enhanced for patient care.

From August 2020 to July 2022, the Ministry of Health held 53 distinctive meetings with stakeholders, which consisted of the following groups: B.C. Health Regulators; regulatory colleges; professional health associations; B.C. College of Social Workers; ambulatory paramedics of B.C.; and union groups including the health service association of B.C. and the Hospital Employees Union.

Between June 2019 and August 11, 2022, our Ministry of Health also met with….

Interjection.

[11:55 a.m.]

H. Yao: I’m not criticizing any part of a party.

May I continue? Thank you. I just wanted to double-check.

The Minister of Health met with Indigenous parties, specifically in 27 distinctive meetings with Indigenous groups, persons and bodies representing Indigenous peo­ple, during that time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to take a moment to express the gratitude to be educated to understand something beyond my time when I was sitting here since 2020. Our Ministry of Health has worked with various stakeholders to partner on a public consultation to ensure that we have a clear and strong understanding from our front-line service providers.

I want to say kudos to my colleagues beforehand, also mentioning we continue as MLAs, listening to our health care providers and front-line workers to understand some of the challenges and difficulties they were experiencing and really continue passing and continue the dialogue with the Minister of Health and of our constituents.

We want to reinforce the fact that a policy decision was made by an all-party steering committee, and that the following policy decisions made by recommendations and reports from an all-party committee includes: a proactive approach to eliminate discrimination in B.C.’s health care system; improved governance; a streamlined path to reduce the number of regulatory colleges through amalgamation; creation of an oversight body to promote accountability, transparency and consistency across the regulatory colleges; a new disciplinary process with im­proved transparency; greater information sharing; and enabling a regulatory health occupation.

Sorry, my time is almost up. I just want to say this is a great opportunity for us to really continue moving forward as a government.

P. Milobar: I thank the member for Prince George–​Valemount bringing forward this motion today, because it is important. I think I just want to summarize a few of the things we’ve heard today and maybe put a finer point on some of the process, because the government members seem to think that a committee coming up with broad concepts on what a bill should look like equates to the same as that bill now being written. The committee was not writing the legislation. The committee was advising on areas that legislation needed to address.

That is the problem. The fundamental problem with this is that there’s 400-plus clauses in this bill that were not canvassed, that were not having questions asked about it and that did not find potential errors in them. I know earlier sections of this bill that did get to actually had to be stood down so the minister could go away and come back with further answers for the critics, because it’s a complicated bill.

So with 400-plus other sections, it’s totally possible and conceivable that there were other sections like that in this bill as well, but the public won’t know. So when the members opposite talk about concern out in the public, that’s exactly what we’re conveying back, because the public — the health care professionals — have not actually had the full vetting of this bill.

One has to ask themselves why the government is so worried about having those 400 clauses worked through by a committee. The bill has been passed. This government has a two-to-one vote advantage. Even if it came for a second vote to this chamber, one would assume they would win again. Why is there such a fear and a worry by this government for open and transparent working through of a complicated bill like this that has created so much concern with health care professionals out there?

Obviously, the health care professionals have concerns about this bill. They’re misinterpreting — or not — sections of the bill or how it’s going to impact them. They’re simply hoping that the government would agree with the opposition and have those other sections thoroughly scrutinized, as we do with legislation.

Let’s remember that because of the Premier’s prolonged coronation at the end of the sham of a leadership race, there were four days of debate removed while this bill was in front of this chamber, four days that we could have used on this bill to get through more of those 400 clauses. That was the government’s choice to do that. That was the government that chose to remove the four days of debate.

For all of the discussion around “we went to these organizations,” it’d be very curious to see if these are the only organizations that this government did not force to sign a NDAs, because if they all had to sign non-disclosure agreements, none of their membership would have known what was actually in that legislation. They wouldn’t have been allowed to know ahead of time, just as the opposition didn’t know ahead of time what was in that legislation.

In fact, that legislation came to this House on October 19. We started sitting on October 3, but we had to wait 16 extra days for it to be brought forward to this House to get a first look at it.

[12:00 p.m.]

Then after four days of debate get removed from the schedule for the Premier’s coronation, we get closure brought down on November 24 — barely a month from the day it was introduced to the day it was rammed through with closure, with 400 outstanding clauses.

There was lots of lost time in that month that this chamber, our critics, could have looked at those 400 clauses in partnership with the government, with the minister, to provide explanation to the colleges, to their members, to the health professionals, to the broader public. At a time where there is mixed messaging going on and concerns within health care, especially in the backdrop of COVID, to not provide that greater certainty and peace of mind for people and health care workers on what this bill does and doesn’t actually do borders on negligent for the government.

There was no harm in agreeing to actually have the clauses reviewed. They’re written. They’re out there. What we haven’t heard is what the government actually thinks that those clauses mean in implementation and how they will be used. Why the government doesn’t want to speak about that should concern everybody.

Again, as the opposition, we hope the government will reconsider and bring this forward to the Select Standing Committee on Health for proper review of those remaining 413 clauses so that everyone can have a good, clear understanding of what this bill actually does and does not do instead of trying to hide behind a lack of transparency, as they’ve done on a wide range of files.

P. Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.