Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 27, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 289

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Autism awareness

K. Kirkpatrick

S. Chant

Decriminalizing drugs, not criminalizing

people

G. Begg

E. Sturko

Supporting small business

B. Stewart

D. Routley

Internationally trained health care

professionals

H. Sandhu

C. Oakes

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 31 — Health care professional

legislation

S. Bond

J. Rustad

M. Bernier

S. Chant

T. Halford

A. Singh

M. Lee

A. Walker

Question of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

P. Milobar

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 31 — Health care professional legislation

(continued)

D. Davies

H. Yao

P. Milobar

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2023

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

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.

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.

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.

Copyright © 2023 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.