Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 24, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 254

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

E. Sturko

Activism against gender-based violence

H. Yao

Rudy Johnson

L. Doerkson

Disability awareness

D. Coulter

Community vision and Stephanie Allen

S. Furstenau

Repatriation of health care workers

J. Sims

Oral Questions

Government action on issues in health care system and role of Health Minister

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Private providers of health care and government support for public system

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Government action on issues in health care system

J. Rustad

Hon. A. Dix

B.C. Housing audit and agenda for Public Accounts Committee

T. Stone

P. Milobar

Question of Privilege

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Dean

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 43 — Housing Supply Act (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. M. Rankin

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 43 — Housing Supply Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2022

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Today I want to introduce health care workers and guests from the

Hospital Employees Union who will be joining us in the noonhour for a

celebration of the passage of Bill 47. They are Meena Brisard, the secretary

business manager of the Hospital Employees Union; also Caelie Frampton,

Ronnie Nicolasora, Mike Old, Máire Kirwan, Brenda Van Der Meer, from the HEU

as well; Clarissa Hicap, who’s a housekeeping worker, who is today a

validator of the impact of Bill 47; and Cora Mojica, a food service

worker.

Many of these people will be familiar to you, hon. Speaker, and to

members of the House, and I ask everyone to make them welcome.

D. Coulter: I had a wonderful breakfast this morning with Kathy Klassen from the

Shake and Shingle Bureau. Kathy and I share some friends. Kathy was born and

raised in Chilliwack. We had a lovely discussion about shakes, shingles and

our value-added forestry industry.

She’s in the gallery right now, so if

everyone would please welcome Kathy.

I. Paton: It’s been two days in a row for me with a guest from Tsawwassen,

British Columbia, my beautiful riding of sunny Tsawwassen. Today I want to

introduce a good friend, Shelley Davidson, who’s here today, and she’s

brought four wild and crazy ladies with her: Kim Allen, Valarie Sawka, Lynn

Burns and Anna Lesko.

They’re going to be touring the facility this

afternoon, so please make them all feel welcome.

B. Anderson: So I do think I might rival you for having incredible and wild, crazy

ladies here today. I have my two CAs but also my dear friend Kelly Coulter.

Kelly brought me to Ottawa to lobby — well, we weren’t even lobbying; we

were activists — and it changed my life. She is the reason I entered

politics. She has supported me through the entire process. She’s been my

rock here in Victoria when I didn’t know anyone.

I love you, Kelly.

She is also the woman that convinced Justin Trudeau to legalize

cannabis.

I can’t ask for a collective “Woot, woot,” but I would like to say,

Kelly Coulter, I love you, and I’m so happy you’re here today. Thank you,

Kelly.

M. de Jong: Kathy Klassen has spent a lifetime in the shake and shingle industry.

Today she continues to operate her own business. She is also the head of the

cedar shake and shingle sector. I know members will want to welcome her to

Victoria and the precincts.

But she is here because the cedar shake and shingle business is facing

some serious challenges. I hope, in addition to welcoming her, that members

will take a moment to learn more about the challenges facing that sector of

the forest industry. It is difficult to make a cedar shake and shingle

without access to the fibre.

Please make Kathy welcome.

J. Tegart: I stand today to wish a number of birthdays in my family. I announced

in a secret last year about a little treasure that was coming to join us,

and I’m very pleased to say he was born on December 1, and his first

birthday is coming up.

Happy birthday to Beckett.

[10:10 a.m.]

I also have a granddaughter, Maggie Reaugh, who is having a birthday,

and I also share with Burnaby North my son-in-law, her nephew, who is

turning the big five-O today.

Happy birthday to all those people in my family. The secret now is

baby Beckett is having a brother or sister.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION OF

VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

E. Sturko: Tomorrow, November 25, is the International Day for the

Elimination of Violence Against Women, officially designated by the

adoption of a United Nations resolution in February of 2000. Tomorrow

also marks the beginning of 16 days of action against gender-based

violence.

Women’s rights activists have observed November 25 as a day

against gender-based violence since 1981. The date was selected to

honour the Mirabal sisters, three political activists from the Dominican

Republic who were brutally murdered in 1960 by the country’s violent

dictator.

Despite decades of activism, violence against women and girls

remains a pervasive problem worldwide. To date, only two of three

countries have outlawed domestic violence, while 37 countries worldwide

still exempt rape perpetrators from prosecution if they are married to

or will eventually marry the victim. And 49 countries currently have no

laws protecting women from domestic violence.

In Canada, we have laws against domestic violence. Our Charter of

Rights and Freedoms codifies the rights of women under Canadian laws and

statutes. Yet even with all our legal protections, violence against

women continues to be a serious problem in Canada. While significant

efforts have been made in recent decades, much work remains to be done

to prevent and respond to the violence that persists in both public and

private spheres of women’s lives.

According to national statistics, women are more likely than men

to be the victims of specific forms of violence, such as intimate

partner violence, severe forms of spousal violence, sexual violence and

stalking. Tragically, the actual incidence of violent acts against women

and girls is estimated to be much higher than official statistics

suggest, as a large percentage of this violence goes

unreported.

Today, as we mark the International Day for the Elimination of

Violence Against Women, I hope each member of this chamber will join me

in not only raising awareness but also to act. Let us empower women and

girls and continue to do the important work in this House required to

support them and to protect them.

ACTIVISM AGAINST

GENDER-BASED

VIOLENCE

H. Yao: I’m going to be joining the previous member and also echoing her

comments as well.

November 25 is the UN-recognized International Day for the

Elimination of Violence Against Women and the start of 16 days of

activism against gender-based violence. The campaign runs until December

10, which is International Human Rights Day.

Gender-based and sexual violence too often impact women, girls,

two-spirited, transgender, non-binary and other gender-diverse people,

with a devastating and long-lasting impact. In our province,

gender-based violence is also complicated by numerous barriers and

stigma, and unfortunately, gender-based violence still exists

today.

Our provincial government is committed to helping end gender-based

violence, and we partner with community organizations, advocacy groups,

sexual assault centres, victim services and transition houses to support

victims in their communities with professional care and compassionate

support.

Some actions our government has taken so far: provide paid leave

for people facing domestic violence or sexual violence; undertake

consultation regarding the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images;

starting next year, an additional $10 million annually will be provided

to establish stable funding for sexual assault centres. We’re providing

annual funding to support 400 victim services and violence-against-women

programs across the province. Our government is also investing $734

million over ten years to build and operate 1,500 transition housing,

second-stage housing and long-term housing spaces for women and children

fleeing violence.

[10:15 a.m.]

If you know that someone you know is being abused or if you have

concerns about someone’s safety, please call or text VictimLinkBC

through its toll-free number — 24-7, confidential, multilingual

telephone services — at 1-800-​563-0808, or by email,

VictimLinkBC@bc211.ca. Anyone who is in danger should call

Ending gender-based violence will require all of us working

together.

RUDY JOHNSON

L. Doerkson: Born in Sweden in 1922 as one of four children, Rudy has certainly

lived a rich and full life.

In 1931 Rudy’s family immigrated to Canada. In 1934 he turned his

mind to business at the ripe old age of 12, when he started his first

firewood business in Matsqui, and in 1937, he ventured into the logging

industry.

After knowing the love of his life for three years, the couple

were married in 1943 and celebrated 77 years together before the sad

passing of Helen in 2021. In 1947 the couple moved their family to

Williams Lake, where they took on many businesses, including relocating

houses, churches and other buildings, along with owning the Beaver

Valley sawmill.

As if they weren’t busy enough already, they started Chilcotin

Airways and bought the Valleyview Motel, built six bowling alleys

throughout British Columbia and then purchased the Buckskin Ranch west

of the Fraser River, near Soda Creek.

One day while helping a ferry operator, his wife Helen fell in the

Fraser River and nearly drowned. Rudy, being Rudy, said, “It’s time for

a bridge,” and off he set to build one. After purchasing a bridge in

Alaska and bringing it to its current location, even after being told it

could not be done, he opened the bridge in 1968 and sold it to the

government of B.C. ten years later. The Rudy Johnson Bridge is still a

crucial access to residents, ranchers and loggers.

Not sitting idle, he accomplished so much more in his life,

including building the co-op feed store in Williams Lake and building a

road-building business with his son Gary. He was the president and

director for B.C. Livestock. A longtime friendship with past MLA Alex

Fraser has always kept Rudy active politically.

I’m proud to share the incredible life story of Rudy Johnson with

this House today and ask, Mr. Speaker, that you and this whole House

join me in sending this British Columbia champion and Cariboo-Chilcotin

icon, Rudy Johnson, the happiest of 100th birthdays from all of us here

in the Legislature.

DISABILITY AWARENESS

D. Coulter: I’m speaking today to Indigenous Disability Awareness Month and

the United Nations International Day of Persons with

Disabilities.

November is the eighth anniversary of the Indigenous Disability

Awareness Month here in British Columbia. This awareness month was

created by the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability

Society, or BCANDS, in 2015 and is now recognized by hundreds of

Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and organizations across

Canada.

Thanks to BCANDS, B.C. is leading the way in recognizing, raising

awareness and celebrating the contributions of Indigenous peoples with

disabilities. Indigenous people with disabilities often face additional

barriers, such as limited employment opportunities. I’d like to thank

BCANDS for being an essential partner in advocating for Indigenous

people for the past 30 years.

On December 3, we recognize the 30th anniversary of the U.N.

International Day of Persons with Disabilities. While there are over

926,000 people in B.C. living with a disability, there are over one

billion worldwide, or one in seven.

This day brings worldwide focus to the contributions and successes

of people with disabilities. This year’s theme is “Transformative

solutions for inclusive development: the role of innovation in fuelling

an accessible and equitable world.” This is especially meaningful here

in B.C.

We’re fortunate to have so many organizations in B.C. dedicated to

supporting people with disabilities and working to break down

inclusion in their communities. For our part, we are hard at work to

build a barrier-free B.C., a province with communities and workplaces

that are truly accessible and inclusive.

I congratulate those around the province for their contributions

that help make B.C. a welcoming place to call home.

We want all people in our province to feel supported, and we will

continue to invest in programs that help Indigenous peoples and people

with disabilities thrive and succeed.

[10:20 a.m.]

COMMUNITY VISION

AND STEPHANIE

ALLEN

S. Furstenau: I’ve been thinking a lot lately about dreaming big. None of us

came into this world we’re in and into this chamber without big dreams,

without a vision for what we could do. It’s the belief that we can make

real change that propels us through the late nights and long days, the

time away from our families and loved ones.

I’m sure that each of us can think of the organizations and the

people who inspire us to dream big, who make us believe that anything is

possible, that we can imagine a world that is fair, a world of

generosity and kindness, a world of hope, a world of abundance and

love.

For me, one of these people is Stephanie Allen. Stephanie is a

founding board member of Hogan’s Alley Society, a society that has not

only restored the history, memory and celebration of Vancouver’s vibrant

Black community that was displaced by the construction of the viaducts

but that has a vision for a future of this area, created in

collaboration with racialized and marginalized communities, that

captures what is possible when we refuse to let our imaginations be

confined and constrained.

I believe all of us can celebrate and embrace a vision where

everyone is housed, there’s food on the table, and people are living in

caring, connected communities. We have so much collective agency, but we

get trapped in stories that are rooted in separation rather than

connection, stories that tell us that for one person to get ahead,

others must fall behind. Public health care, public education,

non-market housing, libraries, parks — so much of what we know are the

elements that make our neighbourhoods, communities and societies truly

vibrant and rich. These aren’t manifestations of unfettered capitalism.

They’re a buffer against it, recognizing that not all wealth is measured

in dollars and GDP.

Let us remember and celebrate the voices and visions of women like

Stephanie Allen, who remind us to dream big.

REPATRIATION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS

J. Sims: As I rise in the House today, I’m often amazed at the times that

we can all come together, from both sides of the House, and take action

that benefits British Columbians.

We did that four years ago today, when we passed Bill 47, the

Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act, to undo Bill 29, which was passed in

2002, showing that elections matter and governments matter. That bill

had led to the privatization of services and had seen thousands of jobs

contracted out to for-profit multinational corporations. Thousands of

workers lost their jobs, and the rest saw their wages cut drastically,

often reduced to minimum wage.

This legislation was repealed by all of us, setting the stage for

the repatriation of thousands of health care workers, 4,601 food service

and housekeeping staff. Many of us have been present as thousands of

workers have been brought back into health care authorities. The tearful

and emotional stories that every one of us heard have been touching and

teary for us as well.

Thanks to Bill 47, thousands of health care workers returned home.

They returned home to stable jobs with improved pay, job security and

better working conditions. They are valued. The patients in our

hospitals and care homes and their families across the province benefit

because of improved care.

Thank you to the health authorities and Providence Health Care,

who have worked with government to enable repatriation. Repatriation,

the dictionary definition: the procedure through which the government

brings an individual residing in a foreign-country home.

To all health care workers who have been repatriated: welcome

home.

Today’s celebration, however, could not have been a reality

without the tenacity, the commitment and the dedication of the Hospital

Employees Union. For 20 years, HEU members have campaigned to have their

family reunited under one roof.

Welcome home.

[10:25 a.m.]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

AND ROLE OF HEALTH MINISTER

K. Falcon: Our health care system staggers from crisis to crisis to crisis.

During this new Premier’s four-month tainted leadership race, not once

did we hear a single policy with respect to health care — not

once.

Our health care system in British Columbia was once recognized as

one of the best in the country. Today, it ranks amongst the very bottom.

One in five British Columbians who cannot access a family physician.

Cancer care wait times among the very worst in the country.

Our hospitals, our emergency departments are in total chaos with

wait times — young parents worried about their young children spending

up to 15 hours in emergency departments, trying to get urgently needed

care. Hospitals in Surrey, here on the Island, in Vancouver and right

across the province are overrun, and we’ve got sick children that are

being treated and resuscitated in hallways. It is worse than hallway

medicine. It’s, literally, hallway CPR.

Leadership means having the ability to make tough decisions. Once

again, I want to ask the new Premier…. He now has an opportunity. We’ve

asked the Health Minister repeatedly to do the right thing and resign so

that we can get someone in here that knows how to fix

problems.

Will this Premier do the right thing, fire his Health Minister and

make sure we get someone in there that knows how to fix problems and

improve the health care system in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right that our health care system is under

incredible stress. Health care workers have gone through the pandemic.

They’ve worked extended hours. We have a very significant flu and

respiratory virus season that we’re seeing having impacts across

Canada.

Actually, it was just this morning that I was on a call with

Premiers across Canada, leaders of the territories, talking about the

challenges that they face in their provinces and territories, as well,

around health care and how we’re all going to work together with the

federal government to address this critically important issue for

families.

I can’t imagine the feeling, as a parent going to a hospital, when

the care is not there when you need it, when you expect it, for your own

kid. This is a priority for our government.

We talked about housing. We talked about public safety. We talked

about a strong economy. But health care is foundational for British

Columbians, and we have taken important steps. The Health Minister has

taken important steps.

You saw recently the agreement with family doctors to get

increased access to family doctors for British Columbians. You saw our

expansions at UBC in the faculty of medicine to train more people. You

saw that we brought health care workers back into the system and hired

thousands and thousands more to address this strain — 602 new

nurse-training seats, fast-track credential recognition.

The work is not done, and we’ve got a lot more to do.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, boy, do you ever have a lot more to do. I’ve been a Health

Minister. I can tell you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Leader of the Official Opposition has the

floor.

K. Falcon: I’ve been a Health Minister when our health system was considered

the top in the country, but I also know that the health care system is a

tough portfolio. And I know that while I was Health Minister, we saw

challenges too. There was H1N1. There was SARS. There are always going

to be stresses on the system, but never have we seen a situation where

even the current Premier’s predecessor described our system, correctly,

as crumbling. It is imploding upon itself.

There is such a massive gap between their lack of understanding

that announcements are not outcomes. Making announcements does not

produce a better outcome. We are getting terrible outcomes in virtually

every measurement in the health care system, Mr. Premier. In cancer

care, we hear devastating stories of wait times that are some of the

worst in the country. They balloon from weeks to months.

[10:30 a.m.]

A young man in his 40s diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, waiting

eight weeks for his first consultation and dying only three days later.

We hear of women with urgent gynecological cancers who can’t get

appointments scheduled until March of next year, virtually guaranteeing

that these cancers will progress and, in some cases, will become

incurable.

We’ve heard the story in this Legislature of Fayra Krueger, a

retired nurse from White Rock, who was diagnosed with skin cancer and

has endured eight weeks waiting on a wait-list. A retired nurse who

spent her life helping others now having the system let her

down.

Since I raised Fayra’s case three weeks ago, things have gotten a

lot worse, and doctors have now told her she will likely lose her ear,

part of her jawbone, facial mobility and her sense of smell and taste.

Delays and cancer wait-lists mean that Fayra now faces permanent

disfigurement. The system has completely failed her and so many others.

Sadly, in many cases, that will be individuals that lose their

lives.

Will this Premier recognize that the health care system needs

leadership — leadership that can focus on outcomes, that is paying

attention to the right things that we have to focus on, measuring those

outcomes, holding people accountable, making sure that if we’re not

getting improved results that people are being removed and changes are

being made so that we can get the improved outcomes that British

Columbians deserve? Will the Premier do this?

Hon. D. Eby: If someone has a diagnosis of cancer, they shouldn’t have to wait

for the care they need. I agree with the member this far. It is

unacceptable to have people waiting for cancer care like that. We are

investing in diagnostic equipment across the province. We’re investing

$10.1 million to hire 25 new oncology physicians. We increased B.C.

Cancer’s base funding by $41 million to expand services. These are all

very serious issues.

I wasn’t going to raise it, but the member raised his record. I

will mention, as Health Minister in 2009, he forced health authorities

to absorb $360 million in cuts.

S. Bond: The Premier may want to be careful with his words in this House,

because one thing I can assure him of is the budget for health care went

up every single year that this side of the House was in

government.

Let’s be clear. The Premier is out making a blizzard of

announcements and pouring money into areas that he’s trying to fix after

he had those files for more than six years and, at the same time, has

failed to make a single comment on the state of health care in British

Columbia. Meanwhile, the crisis has gotten worse.

It’s so bad that families who arrive at B.C. Children’s Hospital

with a sick child…. I do know the Premier can understand what that might

feel like. They need urgent care. They are waiting up to 12 hours for

that care. Not acceptable.

Other families are dealing with the trauma of cancelled surgeries,

like the parents of Nash. Nash is six months old, and the optimal time

to have his surgery is right now, but last week the Premier may be

interested to know, his heart surgery was cancelled in British Columbia

under this minister’s watch.

His father said: “Obviously, we think of how long can we delay the

surgery without having long-lasting impacts on him and also for the

other families that are in exactly the same situation.”

More than ever, it is time for a change in direction, and the

Premier now has the opportunity to do that. Will the Premier do the

responsible thing, fire his Health Minister and find somebody who is

going to pay attention to the outcomes that matter for British

Columbia’s families?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. When surgeries are

delayed…. I know, as Minister of Health, that everyone in the health

system takes the matter exceptionally seriously.

In March of 2020, we delayed effectively 30,000 surgeries, and our

commitment in surgical renewal was to make that up, and we did — 99

percent of them completed in a pandemic year because of surgical

renewal, because of the 300 new surgical nurses that we hired, because

of the 70 new device-processing technologists that we hired. We were

able to complete record numbers of surgeries.

In fact, in the last two weeks in October, we did more surgeries

in British Columbia in some of the most challenging circumstances than

has ever been done before.

Now, when you’re facing a pandemic and the challenges of dealing

with influenza and RSV and other conditions, especially for children

right now, you do have to adapt in the health care system to respond to

that, and we’re doing that. That’s why we prepared in September for what

is going to be an exceptionally difficult fall. We’ve made preparations,

as we did in 2021, as we did in 2020.

And yes, in 2021, for example, we delayed a lot of surgeries in

the Northern Health Authority and mobilized to bring 160 people in

critical care down to the southern part of the province. Yes, we did

that, because that’s preparation, and that’s action, and that’s what

we’re going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the minister can talk about those surgeries, but his words

mean very little to Nash’s family. They have a six-year-old child whose

heart surgery has been delayed.

That’s not the only surgery that’s been delayed, and it’s not the

only situation that families are facing. The minister knows outcomes

matter, and currently, for British Columbians, many British Columbians

are afraid that if they get sick, they are not going to get the care

they need in this province, and that is unacceptable in the province of

British Columbia.

I’ll just share one other story of the many, many, many that I

know the minister hears about too. Let’s talk about Rachel Thexton’s

story. Her five-year-old son had pneumonia, and her two-year-old

daughter Naiah had been sick with a fever for nearly a week. She first

tried to go to B.C. Children’s Hospital, but it was obvious that they

were completely overwhelmed. So what did she do? Desperate mother, two

children. She turned around and went back to her home community of

Burnaby to another completely overwhelmed emergency waiting room. At 4

a.m., her sick two-year-old just begged her mom to go home.

Here’s what Rachel had to say to the minister. During this entire

time — we’re at six-plus hours — there was no communication. No one came

in, talked to her or even looked at her or took her temperature. So they

left the ER and went home.

Those are the stories of British Columbians. Those are the

outcomes that this minister stands up and chooses to ignore every single

day.

For the minister, it’s time for him to do the right thing. It is

time for him to resign, to step down, and for the Premier to stand up

and make sure that someone’s in charge who cares about outcomes for

British Columbians in this province.

Hon. A. Dix: I would say, as the Minister of Health and as a person in B.C.,

that I care about every single case, and members of this House know I

care about every single case. When cases come to my attention, and they

do every day, we provide all the support we can.

[10:40 a.m.]

We have gone through a period in every health system in the world

that is without precedent. British Columbia, as a province, because we

came together — including, let me say, members of the opposition — and

did exceptional things together on surgeries, on diagnostics, on our

response to COVID-19, on one region of the province supporting other

regions of the province, in preparing for some of the most difficult

challenges we’ve ever faced.

The staff at B.C. Children’s Hospital and in pediatric units

around British Columbia are doing exceptional work right now. We are

taking every step we can — every step we can — to support

them.

I say this to everybody in the House. We are also standing up the

largest immunization program in the history of British Columbia, the

largest in the history. We are going to have more people immunized

against influenza this year than ever before, in the midst of a health

care crisis, and 1.5 million so far are immunized with a bivalent

COVID-19 vaccine.

I say to everybody that it’s time to book your vaccination. This

is an important time.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, the opposition may moan, but this is a critical

thing for people to do. The influenza is preventable.

Right now, as we say it, it’s the largest campaign in history, but

less than 20 percent of children are immunized against

influenza.

Book our appointments today, and let’s all get

immunized.

PRIVATE PROVIDERS OF HEALTH CARE AND

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR PUBLIC SYSTEM

S. Furstenau: My question is to the Premier. Is he in favour of the rise of

for-profit corporate health care delivery in British

Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: The answer is no, and that’s why we have hospital employees, union

members, in this House today who have seen what we did to repatriate

contracts throughout the health care system.

That’s why in communities such as Dawson Creek, Terrace, Williams

Lake and communities around British Columbia, such as Surrey, North

Vancouver, we’re building health capital projects that are not P3s, that

are owned by the people of British Columbia.

That’s why we work together with our province’s doctors to change

the way we pay doctors in B.C.; working together to ensure that that

payment reflects the work done, reflects the care patients need; why we

have continued to take steps, dozens of steps, to ensure a stronger

public health care system and to work against the increasing

privatization of the system, which is not good news for

anyone.

It’s why we purchased private MRI machines. It’s why we purchased

private surgical centres, why we’ve seen the largest increase

in….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: No staff? Hon. Speaker, they’re yelling “no staff.”

We did more surgeries in the last two weeks than we’ve ever done

before in the public system. And it’s why we changed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the Medicare Protection Act, we brought in

regulations. We proclaimed regulations that had been left unproclaimed

for 15 years, to strengthen the protection of public health care as

well, and we’re going to continue to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Well, regulations to this government, whether it’s regulations in

environmental protection or regulations in health care protection, seem

to amount to the same thing: not much at all.

We’ve heard over and over again from the minister, but my question

was to the Premier.

Under this government’s watch, let’s look at what’s happening.

Two-tier health care has been on the rise. While family doctors burn out

in record numbers, some are choosing to charge for their services. Telus

Health is charging upwards of $3,000 a year for access to health care,

including access to a family doctor.

We’ve been asking this minister about this since February, and

it’s always: “The report is coming. The report is coming.” Shoal Health

charges $2,400 a year. BETA Therapeutics charges $110 a month. More and

more for-profit corporate clinics are popping up, yet nothing has been

done.

[10:45 a.m.]

Universal health care was a foundational principle of the NDP in

Canada. One wonders what Tommy Douglas and Dave Barrett would have to

say about the conditions under an NDP government in B.C.

today.

My question is to the Premier. Will he stand up and tell British

Columbians his position on for-profit, two-tiered health care in British

Columbia and whether that is the future that he sees for this

province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m opposed to extra billing for medically necessary services. The

Medical Services Commission has been taking action, again and again and

again, to deal with it. They are dealing, as well, with the Telus Health

issue, which I referred to them because I take that issue so

seriously.

We are in a province of laws, which means the Medicare Protection

Act, in these matters, is enforced by the Medical Services Commission.

No one would want it any other way.

What we’re doing, in particular and in important ways, is to

improve the public health care system and services that people used to

have to go and get private care for. Under the previous government, we

only did 174,000 MRIs in 2016-17. What that meant for people is they had

to go and get private care and pay for care that they should have been

getting in the public system.

That is why we increased the number of MRIs in the public system

by 120,000, purchased private MRIs and improved care for British

Columbians, and we’re going to continue to do it.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE

SYSTEM

J. Rustad: I had a different question planned for today, but given the topic,

I think it’s appropriate to stay on the topic of health.

In my riding, we have seen similar health problems as we’ve heard

now from the opposition. I have to say…. It was back under Gordon

Campbell, when he said that the issue of mental health — in particular,

the issue of dementia alone — would sink the health care system, and the

toughest job would be the Minister of Finance — to be able to provide

enough funding for the system. Unfortunately, through the years, we

haven’t seen a lot of changes.

Across Canada, in 2020-21, more than 26,000 people died on the

waiting list for diagnostic or surgical services. In Fraser Health, that

number was about 321 people that died waiting for those services. We

have a health care system, quite frankly, that is in crisis. We have a

system that is not meeting the needs of the people in this province,

whether that’s in rural B.C. or whether that’s in urban B.C.

The challenge, quite frankly, I see…. When this came to court just

this summer, the government, basically, argued that the system was more

important than patient outcomes. That was with a case against Brian Day

and his surgical centre that came out.

The question to the minister is: when are we going to be looking

at a system that works in other jurisdictions rather than focusing on a

system that, quite frankly, is falling under its own weight?

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for his question. I’ll just note that Dr. Day

brought a case against the government and the people of B.C., not the

other way around. Successive governments defended the province of B.C.

and the public health care system against that. I was very happy that

case was won. It’s now on appeal. That’s with respect to Dr. Day’s

case.

The important fact, I think, for people in rural B.C…. You do not

see in the Northern Health Authority the same development of for-profit

for example, long-term care or anything else as in other jurisdictions.

The public health care system does it. We’ve made important changes, and

the member will know this in his riding, but sometimes it requires, yes,

political will to invest. That’s why we’re building a new hospital in

his riding.

There was a temporary hospital, he knows, built in 1972, a

temporary modular hospital that should have been replaced in 1982. We

waited decades, under successive governments, let’s say, for that

hospital to be built.

[10:50 a.m.]

It’s being built now, and that allows us to recruit. It will be

owned by the people of B.C., and services will be delivered by the

outstanding health care staff of the region. We need to continue to make

those kinds of investments to ensure that there’s care everywhere in the

province, not just in urban areas.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supplemental.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for his response. We’re very

appreciative of the hospital that will be built. The current hospital is

on diversion almost half the time, and there are only three doctors

remaining in Fort St. James at the moment. In addition, the new hospital

will need about eight doctors, and there is no staffing plan.

Regardless of that, a recent report showed that our health care

system is the second most expensive in the world for universal health

care. Yet we are almost dead last on doctors per patient, beds per

patient as well as wait times, particularly in the critical windows. Our

system is broken. We need to be looking at models that are working in

other jurisdictions in the world.

The previous Premier and Health Minister have gone to Ottawa and

said: “We need Ottawa to put more money into the system.” Well, there is

only one taxpayer. Whether it comes through Ottawa and then gets wasted

before it gets to us, or whether it comes through us, there is only one

taxpayer.

We have a system that is expensive. We need to see a system that

has real, meaningful change.

Mr. Speaker: Member, can you have a question, please?

J. Rustad: European jurisdictions don’t have these problems. They have solved

the problems. Why are we not looking at their model and trying to learn

from them to get a health care system in British Columbia that can

actually meet the needs of people in this province?

Hon. A. Dix: I thank the member for his thoughtful question. Respectfully, B.C.

has, in terms of its administrative costs, one of the most efficient

health care systems in the country. I believe that we have to make

investments, particularly in the communities, particularly in rural

communities, to support primary care in the future.

We have gone from 300,000 people without a family doctor in 2003

to 908,000 people without a family doctor in 2017. That trend, because

of COVID-19, largely has picked up again now. So we have to take action

to address that and to transform the system.

We have just designed and worked on and signed, with the Doctors

of B.C., a transformational agreement that, in particular, will help

people in the member’s constituency.

The member talks about dementia. We have, in long-term care, gone

from the worst record in Canada under previous Ministers of Health — I

won’t name them — to meeting provincial standards by investing in more

staff in the community. Since the 2020 election, when we promised 7,000

new staff in long-term care for infection control and to support

long-term-care residents, we have delivered more than 7,000 in this

short period of time.

B.C. HOUSING AUDIT AND AGENDA

FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE

T. Stone: Well, this last week has been full of revelations about a variety

of topics that are undoubtedly shocking to British

Columbians.

A particular theme has been a series of audits and reviews related

to the mess at B.C. Housing and Atira. Some of these audit reviews have

been leaked by whistleblowers. Some have been buried by government.

Others are mysteriously, apparently, underway.

As important as it is to look to the future, it’s equally

important to examine the past performance of government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

T. Stone: For that, we have to thank the tireless work of the Public

Accounts Committee.

My question today is actually to the Chair of the Public Accounts

Committee. Can the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee tell us what

is on the agenda of the committee and if it relates to the pressing and

important matters facing the people of British Columbia

today?

Interjections.

[10:55 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Members will come to order.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A guy could get used to this.

The Public Accounts Committee actually does have a quite lengthy

meeting scheduled. We just finished finalizing that. It was originally

supposed to be a three-hour meeting on February 1 to go over the Auditor

General’s three-year rolling average fiscal plans that he plans to bring

forward to the committee to review and investigate. We also have reached

out to the office of the comptroller general for that meeting, so we’ve

extended it to a six-hour meeting.

Both the Auditor General and the comptroller general provide

feedback, valuable feedback, on the scrutiny of what’s going on with

spending within British Columbia. We’ve asked for updates on the grizzly

bear management plan, the commercial vehicle safety audit as well as the

detection of and response to cybersecurity threats to B.C. Hydro

industrial control systems.

I would anticipate on that agenda, in the discussion phase with

the Auditor General and with the comptroller general…. Given the

revelation from the Premier yesterday, unlike the Housing Minister on

Tuesday, that there is in fact a forensic audit underway of B.C.

Housing, I would fully expect that the Public Accounts Committee will be

engaged with that audit, as it finalizes, and have the opportunity to

scrutinize that audit with the comptroller general, the Auditor General

and B.C. Housing, much as we’ve done in the past with B.C. Housing, the

Auditor General and the comptroller general.

We do look forward to the previously unannounced, or no notice,

forensic audit coming forward.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

K. Kirkpatrick: I rise on a point of privilege, having reserved my right yesterday at

the termination of question period, that being my earliest

opportunity.

The point of privilege concerned statements made yesterday, November

22, in question period by the minister of children and youth in response to

a question put to the minister by the member for Saanich North and the

Islands regarding ending the individualized funding model for children with

autism and replacing it with a hub model.

Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development stated:

“There was a select standing committee of this very Legislative Assembly

that made the recommendation that we need to move towards a needs-based

system.” This is a statement that the minister has made before on multiple

occasions.

I have the privilege of being a member of the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth. That committee undertook a special project

on children and youth with neurodiverse special needs with a focus on

eligibility and assessment processes.

On October 30, 2019, the committee released its report, making 16

recommendations. The report has these 16 recommendations, which are

available for anyone to read. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that not one of these

recommends a needs-based system. As a current member of the committee, I can

also confirm that outside of this 2019 report, there has been no further

recommendation made on a needs-based system.

It’s demonstrably inaccurate to claim that the committee made any such

recommendation to move to a needs-only-based approach to provide services to

neurodiverse children. It did not happen, and the minister was well aware of

this. I am calling on her to retract these purposely erroneous statements

and correct the record.

To substantiate my assertions, Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to table the

2019 report.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister like to make a submission? If not, the Chair will

take it under advisement.

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will deal with this at a later

time.

[11:00 a.m.]

T. Stone: I rise to seek leave for Motion 24, standing in my name on the

order paper, which amends Standing Order 81.1, the intent being to

preclude the deplorable and precedent-setting use of time allocation by

government, as witnessed in the House earlier this week.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, in this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole on

Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee debate on Bill 38,

Indigenous Self-Government Act.

In the Birch Room, Committee C, I call continued Committee of the Whole

debate on Bill 36, Health Professions Act.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

The Chair: We’ll call a short recess as people get prepared.

The committee recessed from 11:06 a.m. to 11:10 a.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

On clause 17 (continued) .

M. Bernier: Welcome to the minister and his staff. I hope they had a good

night’s rest after a long day yesterday. I can foreshadow that we won’t

be here till ten o’clock tonight as we discuss this bill. I know we’re

getting very near to the end, but I want to again just acknowledge the

work that was done by the minister’s staff yesterday. It was a long day,

but we moved through this.

It’s very important, when we’re talking about the housing crisis

that we have in the province of British Columbia right now and the work

that’s trying to be put forward, to try to, I guess, put an end to it.

That would be the commentary that the minister and I could agree on, on

this one.

section 17, we were talking about, basically, judicial review,

judicial orders and that. This is something, obviously, that the

minister has a lot more expertise in, in a lot of ways, than I do. We

did canvass it a little bit yesterday in talking about what would

constitute, I guess, moving forward, depending on whether things were

patently unreasonable, and the determination around that on a judicial

review.

I’m just kind of curious, though. When the minister looks at this,

the legalese around this and around setting thresholds…. We talked about

that an order would already be made. It would be going to a judicial

review before it would be considered whether it was patently

unreasonable or not, if I understood what the minister was talking about

yesterday. But how do we determine the threshold of what’s considered

unreasonable? Could those thresholds be low? I’m curious if you could

have political shenanigans that could take place when we look at setting

criteria.

I’m just looking for some reassurance and maybe a bit of a

discussion on this to give assurances, I guess, when we talk about

setting the criteria of what’s patently unreasonable and how that would

all be considered through a court system.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to thank the hon. member for Peace River South and the

Housing critic for the official opposition for his kind remarks about my

team. I’m grateful for him pointing out the hard work that they’ve

done.

On the specific

section 17 issue on judicial review, just as a

backgrounder, the courts have the inherent jurisdiction when a judicial

review application is brought to them at the threshold to determine what

the standard of review should be. That would happen in any case

involving any statutory power of decision. Later today we’re going to be

debating the Judicial Review Procedure Act amendments, and that is a

statute that is at the core of what the member is referring

to.

We in British Columbia, under the former government, passed a

statute that tried to clarify just when a particular set of decisions

would be subject to what standard of review — namely, the Administrative

Tribunals Act. What this bill has done, as is typical, increasingly, is

to say to the courts and to the people who might litigate any kind of a

decision made: “Here’s a standard of review that is appropriate for this

kind of a decision.”

It’s not left to the courts. The courts have to decide just

whether or not it’s appropriate and applicable, but rather than letting

them start at the outset to make that determination on their own, the

Legislature would say to them that certain of those decisions would only

be open to a successful judicial review if the court initially concludes

that they are either correct or not or patently unreasonable or

not.

It’s also gone to suggest the kinds of things that would be

subject to patently unreasonable discretionary decisions, such as

exercising a power arbitrarily or in bad faith or for an improper

purpose or predominantly irrelevant factors being taken into account or

failing to meet a particular statutory requirement.

[11:15 a.m.]

The purpose of the legislation is to provide guidance at the back

end, as it were. When a particular decision, a housing target review, a

progress report, an order-in-council, a directive…. Whatever it is, the

courts have guidance as to what standard they should apply when it gets

to them. Then, of course, they’ll apply that standard and find out

whether there’s been an error that warrants their overturning the

decision, or frequently, they send it back for reconsideration. They

have a number of remedies available, both under the Judicial Review

Procedure Act or at common law.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. I want to spend a little bit of time on

this, because of course, this is something that…. In the context of this

bill, the Housing Supply Act…. And as the minister alluded to, there

will be other discussions on judicial review later. But when it comes to

the discussion that we’re having around this specific bill….

Just to backtrack a little bit after the long day yesterday. Of

course, we were talking about the bill bringing in the requirement for

municipalities to set targets. Then we talked about how those targets

will be audited — we’ll use that word, I guess — or reviewed then

through annual submissions, for them to be looked at. Then there’s the

opportunity for the minister to appoint an auditor to come in and to

look at what’s taking place and an adviser to support them if they’re

not meeting targets. You know, we talked about all of that

yesterday.

One of the questions that came to me yesterday, after our debate,

from a local government — I wanted to make sure that we get clarity

around it — is: who’s asking for the judicial review? And the situation

that might rise for the requirement of a judicial review — is that being

initiated by a local government who is not in agreement with the

minister or ministry’s and government’s decisions? Or would it be a

judicial review based on the ministry then going after a local

government for not implementing an order?

Maybe the minister could spend a little time just giving some

examples so that local governments that have contacted me understand the

purpose of why this is part of the Housing Supply Act.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question very much. The bill does not contain an

appeal. Many statutes do, and then it’s quite straightforward. The

legislation can say who has what the courts call standing. Who has the

ability to bring that appeal is very explicit in the bill. But this bill

is subject to normal judicial review, which goes back, frankly, to the

Middle Ages — well, at least into the 1700s in England. We’ve taken our

law in Canada from that tradition.

To the member’s question — specifically, who has standing? Who

would have the ability to bring a judicial review? — is really in the

courts’ hands. So for example, if a ratepayer were to come forward and

say, “I don’t like this decision or that order” or “they shouldn’t have

done that directive” or whatever, the first question the court has to

determine, after the standard-of-review piece we discussed, is: does

this person have standing? And I can assure the member that there are

thousands of cases at the Supreme Court and elsewhere that answer that

question: who has standing?

Would a local government have standing? I can’t give you an

answer, because it would depend on the issue and what the court would

say. But would a local government have the ability to seek judicial

review? I would have thought so. Would a ratepayer have the ability?

Would a developer have the ability? Would a citizen, just an ordinary

citizen? All of that, frankly, is left unanswered, because we have an

enormous body of common law that answers those questions.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that answer, too, because that does go to some of the

commentary that’s come to me on the authority of jurisdiction of who has

the ability to apply to the courts, I guess, in this case, for a

judicial review. And I appreciate that the minister has also

acknowledged that this could be a ratepayer or a citizen of a community,

because as we were talking through this yesterday, part of the narrative

that we had in this House is that this is all about the

citizens.

[11:20 a.m.]

In essence, it’s putting a piece of legislation forward to try to

solve an issue in the sense that we’re not getting the housing supply

that we need. But in saying that…. As the minister will recall,

yesterday there was discussion around the implementation of OCPs, zoning

changes that will directly affect — in some cases positively and, in

some cases, maybe negatively — in the perception of the homeowners…. It

could be affecting them. So I appreciate when we talk about the judicial

review.

Now, listening to the minister’s commentary on that, as well…. It

sounds like there is a substantive amount of case law when it comes to

the determination of whether it meets the test to go forward. I will

acknowledge the minister’s point….

With this bill, we’re in new territory. Case law is not new

territory, but in this bill, we’ll be in a situation of, I guess, later

determination, depending on how a piece of whatever is done by a

municipality or the government…. It could be perceived as something that

would negatively affect somebody. So put it into the position where they

could apply, through the court system, for a judicial review of that

decision. I really appreciate a little bit of that clarity.

I guess, in the process of putting this together…. I’ll look at it

this way. I’ll ask this question. Is it common in legislation to have a

section around the regulations for the allowability for a judicial

review of a decision? Is this a very common practice in all

legislation?

I’ve read a lot. This is not something that is in my wheelhouse,

per se. It’s not something I’m familiar with completely. Is this a

common practice in legislation, or is it specifically put into this one

for a reason?

Hon. M. Rankin: It is increasingly common to provide the standard of review. I’ll

give the member an example. We have dozens and dozens, as all

jurisdictions in Canada do, of what are called administrative tribunals

— regulatory bodies, the Environmental Appeal Board, the regulation of

oil and gas, statutory decision–makers galore.

Those tribunals have their own statute now. It was enacted under

the former government. It’s called the Administrative Tribunals Act. If

you look at that statute, it says…. For all judicial reviews of all of

those tribunals, here are the standards of review. Here’s where it’s

correct. Here’s where it’s patently unreasonable, etc.

They give guidance to all of those tribunals. Therefore, when

you’re amending the Forest Appeals Commission legislation, you don’t

need to indicate what the standard of review is. You’ve got a place to

go, one-stop shopping called the Administrative Tribunals Act. I commend

the former government for that practice, for putting it all in one

place.

This is not an administrative tribunal, as the member will know.

It’s decision-making on a very specific issue. I believe the process

here tracks very nicely with the standards of review found in other

legislation.

M. Bernier: In the case of a housing supply act…. In this case, there was a

determination that this wording and language needed to be part of this

bill.

Was there discussion, then…? This will be, I think, important for

the House and for others. Is this clause put into the legislation to

protect local government, or is it in there to protect the provincial

government? Is it in there to protect the ratepayers — or in essence, I

guess, really, all of the above — when decisions are being made and

people want to apply?

Hon. M. Rankin: The

section in question deals with the decisions that the minister

makes or the cabinet makes, in the case of an order-in-council. So I’m

not sure who it’s protecting or otherwise.

It’s simply saying…. The public has every right to take those

decisions that are made, if they feel aggrieved by those decisions, to a

court of law. It simply says: here’s the standard of review that that

court will take into account.

[11:25 a.m.]

I don’t think it’s a question, to use the member’s terms, of

protecting anyone or otherwise. It’s just providing clarity. It’s, first

of all, acknowledging that, like every other government decision, the

minister is subject to account in a court of law if they make errors.

The court will put them right if they do.

It’s to be silent, as we said in answer to an earlier question, as

to who gets to take that minister or the cabinet to court. Normally the

courts will say they have to be a person aggrieved, not a mere busybody.

Those are the kinds of standards that, over time, have

evolved.

I wouldn’t want to suggest I have an answer to every single person

in the community who might want to take a run at a government decision

like this. The closer you are to the action, the more likely you are to

have standing.

The standard of review that’s here is quite typical. I’d invite,

again, the member or his colleagues to look at the Administrative

Tribunals Act, passed by the party opposite when they were in

government. I think you’ll see this is very similar. It was put in by

lawyers in order to ensure that we had some kind of consistency with how

a judicial review would occur.

M. Bernier: Thank you again. I appreciate the minister’s time to just make

sure that we canvass this. It’s important just for clarity and for those

that are not lawyers or who have maybe not been through this process

before.

As we see in almost everything, when there are changes, it brings

out the questions and the uncertainty. What does this mean? How will it

affect me as an individual, going forward, when government is making

decisions that could impact my life in some way?

The minister can use past experience, maybe, for this too. One of

the things that’s been raised and flagged as a concern, which came to

me, that I want to consider on this is not so much the decision for

having a judicial review process available — we’ve canvassed the

importance of that and the reasons why — but more of the backlog that we

already see in the court systems.

With the minister’s experience…. Maybe there’s a different process

for something like this, a judicial review. What kinds of timelines do

we look at, which the minister might be able to share, through his

expertise or experience on this, from when somebody applies for a

judicial review to the time a decision is made, whether it’s erroneous

or patently unreasonable, to yes, there’s a willingness to actually hear

the complainant?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member. That is a very real concern. Justice delayed

is justice denied.

Obviously, our courts are struggling, post-pandemic, with delays.

I can give the member some comfort, though. The nature of a judicial

review is normally…. First of all, it does not require a trial. It does

not require witnesses and evidence presented orally. It’s normally done

through affidavits, sworn statements. It’s more about questions of law,

once you have those facts before the court. It’s normally done on a

motion in chambers, and then it’s assigned to a judge.

In my experience, a judicial review can occur very, very quickly.

You can get into court on these much more quickly, because the registrar

of the court doesn’t need to set a long trial date, such as might be the

case if there was a personal injury or something. That is where delays

may occur.

I can give comfort to the member that normally judicial reviews

are done on a relatively expedited basis.

M. Bernier: I appreciate it, again, as we canvass this.

I, somewhat but not necessarily jokingly, say I’ve had the

privilege of not having to go through a judicial review on decisions

that I’ve made in my time, in almost 20 years now, in government. I

don’t have the experience of that process. So I appreciate the minister

explaining that to the House.

One of the questions, I guess, that arises through that commentary

is: what happens in the meantime, while we’re waiting? By that, I mean….

When we look at examples of when we might go through a judicial review

process, it’s because somebody…. Let’s just say somebody feels that they

have been wronged in some way, whether it’s a municipality or a citizen,

a stakeholder, so they seek the opportunity for a judicial

review.

[11:30 a.m.]

My assumption is, obviously, the decision that has been made,

whether it has been an order by the minister, whether it’s been a

directive, something that the adviser has put forward…. We’ll use those

as examples for now. I know there’ll be a multitude of different

conceptual ideas that might happen depending on the situation, so we

can’t be prescriptive on an exact example. In a situation like that, I

assume that what happens then is that any decision is now on

hold.

When we’re working about trying to move housing forward…. We

talked yesterday about how some of this stuff will be a couple of years

down the road, as we go through the process that this bill is

highlighting.

If something is now under a judicial review — the minister has

said that, through experience, these can move fairly quickly — I guess

the assumption is that if I, as a citizen, don’t agree, and I apply for

a judicial review on a decision, the decision is now considered on hold,

pending the judicial review. Could that create an unintended backlog on

some of the decisions that we’re trying to make?

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s difficult to answer the question without the context of the

judicial process in mind, but normally the court has the ability, if

it’s a frivolous case, to say, under the rules of court, that it does

not disclose a reasonable cause of action. So if a person comes in and

makes what I might characterize as a frivolous case, the courts have a

long-standing remedy to kick it out immediately on a chambers

application. There’d be no delay whatsoever if that were the

case.

If it does disclose a reasonable cause of action, the minister’s

lawyers would no doubt want to get it heard on an expedited basis so

that we can get it done and not cause the delay that the member fears.

There’s full authority for courts to accept a motion to move it onto the

chambers list on an expedited basis so that it can be dealt

with.

The good news about judicial review, as I repeat, is that it can

be done on a fairly expedited basis, as compared to other things that

would go to the court. I point out to the member that this all is done

in the superior court, not the B.C. Provincial Court. It’s all dealt

with in the B.C. Supreme Court.

Clauses 17 and 18 approved.

On clause 19.

M. Bernier: I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this. Clause 19 is talking

again about our advisers. It’s interesting on a follow-up. I know these

are not directly put in sequence when we put out a bill. As we canvassed

yesterday, it’s the legislative scripters that actually put things in a

certain order for a certain reason. It is interesting. We just finished

talking about judicial review, and then clause 19 actually talks about

the immunity from liability for advisers.

Can the minister maybe explain why this

section was required — the

thought process of why we put this in here?

Hon. M. Rankin: I anticipated that the member might ask this question. It’s an

excellent question.

As to the placement in the bill, (

a) it’s a drafting convention —

that’s where they put it; and (

b) I would say the things we’re talking

about now are ancillary to the main event. The main event is the orders,

the targets, all of that. We’re at the tail end of the bill, for anyone

who’s watching. These are merely ancillary provisions, but this is an

important one.

A public servant who is sued for his or her work has normally got

either immunity or an indemnity. An indemnity is where if I sue the

public servant, the state will stand behind them and look after their

expense, but they still have the uncertainty. They may have to go to

court, and there’s anxiety, and all of this that goes along with it, for

a person who’s just doing their job.

However, what if I hire somebody? The other way of doing that,

rather than leaving them with that uncertainty for which they’ll be

indemnified, is to say from the outset, “We’re going to say that you

have immunity from lawsuits,” so we avoid that uncertainty. You’re

getting to the same place — you’re not going to have to pay for whatever

the damages are, or whatever — but we’re providing immunity to that

public servant.

[11:35 a.m.]

Now we get to the meat of the member’s question. To use an example

the member used yesterday, if you’re not a public servant — of course,

an adviser can be a public servant — but you’re somebody who is from an

accounting firm, who has expertise and is doing a job for the minister

in good faith, trying to get to the bottom of why there are delays and

we can’t get housing built in a particular municipality, then this

section is intended to provide immunity to that person. So they can take

the job on without fear that they’re going to have to deal with a court

case later on, for which they’ll have anxiety, etc.

If there’s bad faith, that’s a different situation, but in the

normal course of things, you will have statutory immunity. After all,

it’s the minister who should take the heat, because it’s his or her

decision that’s at play. This is merely a person advising that minister

as to what should be done.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. It’s interesting when the minister used the

words “bad faith.” I mean, obviously, in good faith, we want to ensure

that the people that are chosen as advisers, etc., are experts in their

field for whatever decision has been made by government where an adviser

is required to go into a municipality to assist them in the

decision-making.

Maybe the minister can explain, then. The indemnity aspect was

talked about. We’re trying to make an adviser, whether it’s in-house or

out-of-house, immune from liability. As I’ve been glancing at the

wording, it’s not a very big clause. It’s only two sections within that

clause. We don’t want to say somebody will act in bad faith. I don’t

want to say that that will happen. But where are the accountability

measures, then? Where does that lie, if they are immune from

liability?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m happy to report that that very question was in clause 19(2).

The first part of the clause says immunity protection for the adviser is

provided for any work done in the exercise of that power. But subsection

(2) makes it clear that that doesn’t apply to anybody for anything done

or omitted to be done in bad faith.

If it’s bad faith, that changes everything. They would still

face…. There would be no statutory immunity for a person who is found to

have acted in bad faith. That’s what subsection (2) says, very

clearly.

M. Bernier: When I was reading that…. The minister used “bad faith,” and

that’s because that wording is very prescriptive, right in the

legislation, as the minister just read out in clause (2) there. I guess

my thought was: when we were talking about sticks for everybody else,

what’s the mechanism for the adviser? As the minister said, they’re

immune from liability unless they’ve acted in bad faith. Basically, I’m

paraphrasing the discussion we just had. What are the tools, then? I

guess that’s just what I wanted to get on the record, then, from the

minister’s perspective.

If an adviser is chosen and it is decided that, for whatever

reason, they did not do the job or that they acted in bad faith….

Obviously, that’s never the intent, and we hope that would never happen,

but I know — when we’re doing legislation, and especially within the

legal parameters that we’re trying to put together in legislation — that

every “i” is dotted for circumstances.

Where is the jurisdictional aspect that comes in for the minister

if somebody does act in bad faith? Is it just a mechanism of: “Your

contract is cancelled. You’re immune under this act, but we’re getting

rid of you” or “We’re just bringing in somebody else, because you acted

in bad faith”? Are there at least some criteria to hold these people

accountable?

Hon. M. Rankin: The minister will always be accountable. If that person acts in

bad faith, they have no protection under this bill. They can be held to

account as an individual. Bad faith unravels everything. I think that’s

the point of this: to clarify.

M. Bernier: Just finishing off here on

section 19, I appreciate, again, the

minister’s answer.

[11:40 a.m.]

Obviously, one of the main concerns I was hearing from some local

governments, to maybe wrap up this section…. The last thing we want to

see is an adviser brought in that has no accountability measures built

into the work that they have to do when they’re scrutinizing and

criticizing the ability of the local government. They, themselves, want

to ensure that everybody, in this case, is acting in good

faith.

On this section, I’ll just…. I know we only have a few minutes

left till we’ll be having to move forward, reporting out from other

Houses.

On this section, I just want…. I’ll wrap up there by saying that I

appreciate the commentary that the minister just gave. That will help

some of the questions from local government that came to me, especially,

again, around the accountability aspect. We’re putting all this

accountability on local government, and they just wanted to make sure

that everybody else is being held to the same standards that this

government is asking them to stand to.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would simply agree with my colleague. That’s exactly the theory

of the legislation and, I hope, the practice.

Clauses 19 to 20 approved.

The Chair: Shall clause 21 pass?

M. Bernier: Not quite yet. But it will soon, I assume.

On clause 21.

M. Bernier: Clause 21 is the very last one. We’re talking about coming into

force and commencement. I just want to….

Interesting the way this has transpired over the last ten hours, I

guess, or whatever it has been, of discussion, as we bounced around

between different sections. I think we were on

section 1, and we talked

about

section 21, when we were talking about commencement and the time

that we’re talking about from this bill coming into effect.

Since we’re actually on that section, for Hansard , can

the minister, again, just remind this House why the decision was made

that we have to wait for possible regulations, why we have to wait for

commencement to come in through order-in-council rather than come in on

royal assent, which we hear will be sometime this afternoon?

We are in a housing crisis, as we’ve all said in this House.

Again, we want to move forward with things as quickly as possible. We’re

trying to recognize the crisis that we’re in. So maybe the minister can

just remind this House, again, why we’re waiting until next

year.

Hon. M. Rankin: I share the member’s impatience to get on with it. I agree

entirely that we have a crisis. This is one of the many tools that we

need to bring to bear to address that crisis.

To answer the member’s question, the expectation would be that the

bill would come into force in April. The reason is that we need to, in

some cases, probably, hire staff, ensure we have the advisers on hand

who could help, if that’s needed, and, more importantly, most

importantly, make sure we dialogue with the Union of B.C. Municipalities

and deal with the analysis of the housing needs reports and statistics,

etc., get the first cohort identified and then consult with the

municipalities thereafter.

We’re standing up an entirely new regime, as the member has said,

an entirely new system. So we need to get it right. We want to do it….

So much of our effort is to collaborate with local government. We hope,

as I have said, never to have to use some of the compliance tools that

the member had been discussing with us earlier.

If I may. This may be the last question. I can’t anticipate what

the member asks. I just want to thank him for his careful analysis of

the bill. It served us all well, and I appreciate it very

much.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister, again, and his staff. It’s been very

informative, the discussion that we’ve had over the last day and a

half.

I don’t want to take time on this, but it does remind me…. I have

to comment, again, on how disappointed I was, when we heard yesterday

that this bill had actually started being discussed last June, that it

took till the last week of the session, with only a couple of days left,

to bring the bill forward.

Nobody is arguing the importance of making sure we move forward to

get the housing supply that we need. Obviously, the discussion that

we’ve had in the past and some of the discussions and commentary that

have been in this House that we were opposed to….

[11:45 a.m.]

It was the fact that members weren’t afforded the time in second

reading to really bring forward the comments that they wanted to do as

respected members elected to this House to have commentary — and to rush

forward a piece of legislation without affording the time for that

scrutiny for all members.

I do appreciate, obviously, the time I’ve had in committee stage,

which has been very important. But that should not take away from the

fact that second reading was forced to close, not allowing other members

the opportunity and the ability to speak their mind.

I’ll just end by saying that this is an important piece of

legislation, I will acknowledge, if it works. My concern is…. I don’t

want to use the analogy of too little, too late, but there have been

housing supply needs that have been out for about five years. We’ve seen

this housing crisis escalate to a point where it is a massive crisis.

We’ve seen inflation. We’ve seen cost pressures. We’ve seen a lack of

housing being built because of all of those.

With all due respect to the minister, I don’t see this being some

iconic piece of legislation that’s going to be solving the housing

crisis. If this is the one that the government sees fit to rush through

the House on the first week of the new Premier as something that’s going

to solve the housing crisis, I don’t see it. I don’t see this fixing

something.

We’ve acknowledged that it’s an important piece to try to

acknowledge where some of the backlog might be, but we’ve also canvassed

the fact that this is going to be years more before we’ll maybe start

seeing some kind of coming to fruition by whatever this happens to bring

in.

I do want to say again, and acknowledge, because of the concerns

that I’ve heard from UBCM and others, that there could be unintended

consequences. The new Minister of Housing, whoever that may be, I think

needs to be alive to that. I’m encouraged to hear they’ll go through

that consultation. As a former mayor, we need to make sure we’re doing

that.

Again, we need to fix this housing crisis. This might be a little

piece of it, but I don’t think it’s going to be the silver bullet that

some people out there are trying to proclaim that it will be.

Hon. M. Rankin: In the sense that those were, I presume, sort of the concluding

remarks of my friend across the way, I’d just like to say, again, thank

you to him for the thoughtful and thorough review of the bill that’s

taken place. We disagree on the importance of this bill, I think. I

consider it to be a tool, but only one tool, in the toolkit that we all

have to apply if we’re going to tackle the housing crisis head

on.

Contrary to what the member suggested, I can tell you that so many

validators have come forward to express happiness with what they

consider this bill will do, such as Michael Geller of the Geller Group,

saying: “I like one of the pieces very much, and that’s the incentives

or encouragement that’s proposed to give to municipalities to achieve

certain targets. I think that actually is going to be very beneficial

and will result in significant increases in supply, both for the market

and especially non-market projects.” That’s CKNW, November

People who are in the business, the day-to-day business of trying

to get housing out the door, see this as a critically important tool. We

do too. I hope that the party across the way will see fit to support

this on third reading.

Clause 21 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

The Chair: Division has been called.

[11:50 a.m.]

Members, could I have your attention, please?

Order.

I’d like to advise members that it’s inappropriate to be

speaking to people in the gallery, and I would expect that there

would be decorum in the chamber. Thank you.

[11:55 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.]

Members, the question is that the committee on Bill 43 report

the bill complete without amendment.

Interjections.

The Chair: Could I please have order. Order in the chamber, please, as

happy as you are today.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and

Proceedings .]

The committee rose at 12:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY ACT

Bill 43, Housing Supply Act, reported complete without

amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 43, Housing Supply

Act.

Division has been called.

Members, may I ask if the House agrees to waive the time? Thank

you.

[12:05 p.m.]

Bill 43, Housing Supply Act, read a third time and passed unanimously

on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS

SELF-GOVERNMENT

IN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On clause 32 (continued) .

M. Lee: Clause 32 does give us another opportunity to have this discussion

that we’ve been having about jurisdiction and how the director steps in.

This area here relating to continuing custody orders…. Here, again, we

have the opportunity for the director to apply to court, under sub

50.03(2), for an order that the continuing custody order be maintained

on the basis that the Indigenous law referred to in the notice that was

provided in accordance with sub 50.02(3)(

a) does not apply to the

child.

This is the third example, provision in this act for which the

minister yesterday confirmed that these are, I’m sure — and I will

invite her to comment again in this area of continuing custody orders —

rare in nature, where the director may make an application to court that

the Indigenous law does not apply to the child. In doing so, I’d ask the

minister to comment and recap some of the ways that this fits

together.

[11:15 a.m.]

I was referring yesterday to some of the discussion around

Indigenous law and what the minister confirmed, that it is being

codified by various Indigenous governing bodies, including the ones that

are currently in the coordination tables with the federal and provincial

governments here, and that there is work going on.

I was focused in some ways on

part 1.1, the self-government

principles, and the ways in which the director providing service under

the act must do so in a manner consistent with the Indigenous law where

it’s provided in writing to the director or, if not provided in writing

to the director, it is in accordance with an agreement. We confirmed

yesterday with the minister that that agreement would be a coordination

agreement or a

section 6 or

section 7 agreement.

Presumably in this case and in the other two examples we looked at

yesterday where a director can apply to a court, in this instance to say

that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child insofar as

continuing custody orders, that must mean — and I’d like the minister to

confirm this — that it’s in an area where the Indigenous law has not

been at least agreed to by the director, meaning it’s not the subject

matter of an agreement. This means it is an Indigenous law that has been

recognized here, in the sense that it exists and governs in this area,

yet the director is challenging the applicability of the law.

The minister yesterday again confirmed that it is not assessing

the law itself, but it is, in this case, saying to the court of this

province that it doesn’t apply to the child. I need to continue to ask

this question because we need clarity around where these provisions work

and how they will work. This is an area, again to check with the

minister, that applies where there’s no agreement, because if there was

an agreement, the director wouldn’t be applying to court to say it

doesn’t apply to the child or a child of that nation.

I am asking the minister to please clarify: in what instance will

this occur? On what grounds will the director be applying for a court

order that that Indigenous law does not apply to the child?

Hon. M. Dean: The focus needs to be on the child. So what’s really important is

the identification of whether that IGB, that Indigenous governing body,

has jurisdiction over the child. It is very, very unlikely that the

ministry would disagree, because the definition of an Indigenous child

and their membership in a community is very inclusive.

M. Lee: Again, the minister is limiting the scope of this provision, as

only a determination by the director, in the very rare situation where

it’s viewed by the director, that the Indigenous law that’s being

presented doesn’t apply to the child….

[11:20 a.m.]

That strictly is on the grounds that the child is not a member of

the nation for which that Indigenous law is being presented. Is that

correct?

Hon. M. Dean: It could be that circumstance, but we don’t know what other

circumstances may be presented. It’s about whether or not the law

applies to the child.

M. Lee: We have gone through a few scenarios right now, and the minister

now has acknowledged that there could be other circumstances beyond the

identity of the child as Indigenous. There could be other circumstances

where it’s viewed by the director that the Indigenous law does not apply

to the child. This is my original question and actually dates back to

the two other scenarios that we’ve covered under the other provisions of

this act, where a director is applying to a court in British Columbia

for a court order that the Indigenous law does not apply to the

child.

In the first instance, when we asked this question yesterday, we

had an understanding that it had to do with the identity of the child.

Now we’re talking about other circumstances, which is what I’m trying to

get clarity on. I’d ask again: what are the other circumstances where

this may arise?

Hon. M. Dean: When Indigenous jurisdiction is being exercised, then Indigenous

law prevails. So it is only in the circumstance where the Indigenous law

does not apply to the child. We don’t have lots of…. We don’t have

examples of where that might apply.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response in the sense that she has….

Clearly, there’s a contemplation that there may be other circumstances,

but the minister cannot at this time define what those circumstances may

well be.

Another way to approach this question, which is something that is

relevant to clause 30 that we looked at yesterday…. Under this clause,

section 50.05(1), there is…. “Change of circumstances – continuing

custody order” — that’s the title. I will say that we didn’t have the

opportunity to review the similar wording, noting for the record for

those who might look back at this: “Change of circumstances – withdrawal

after presentation hearing.”

There is similar lead-in language where here: “An Indigenous

authority may apply to the court for an order that an Indigenous law

applies to an Indigenous child if circumstances have changed

significantly since an order was made…in relation to the

child.”

With this mechanism, which I would say.… To the extent that this

is a rare instance that the ministry views is applicable, there are

pages of this bill that go through various scenarios, scenarios that the

ministry cannot describe as to how this applies.

[11:25 a.m.]

The complexity of the legal regime that we are placing on nations

to work through their laws in order to reassert their Indigenous laws as

it stands, for taking care of their own children, is complex. This is

the solution of this government: to add additional complexity on top of

nations and those working within the system.

I’m just trying to get clarity in the very little time that I have

at this juncture now, on the last day of session, before closure is

brought by this government to limit debate. We’ve been under time

pressures on this bill. We’re working through the bill to the best of

our abilities. I appreciate the minister and the staff around her, who

have been very patient, trying to address the complexity of this bill,

but I am concerned that we’re not doing enough justice, in many ways, to

the clarity that’s required in this bill.

With that in mind, I will just ask the question, then. Here we

have a situation where the Indigenous authority can apply to court for a

further order to say the circumstances — circumstances that we cannot

define, and I ask the minister to try and define these circumstances —

have changed such that the order that was made originally does now apply

to the child.

Can the minister now walk us through these particular

circumstances that are contemplated under 50.05(1)?

Hon. M. Dean: All of these provisions are to ensure that the director, with the

provincial government, can vacate the space when an Indigenous law

applies. An Indigenous law applies when the Indigenous governing body is

exercising jurisdiction. An IGB has jurisdiction when the child is a

member of their community. The CFCSA has many detailed processes, all of

which need to be addressed in order to ensure that the director is able

to vacate the space in that situation.

M. Lee: Yes, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that that is a good

summary of some of this bill and the structure of the bill.

What we’re into now, though, is situations where the director is

challenging the applicability of the Indigenous law to the child. We

went through that a couple of different ways now.

But then coming back, we have the Indigenous authority now

applying to court again after…. Sub 50.03(8)(

a) contemplates a situation

where the court orders that the child remains in the custody of the

director under the continuing custody order and that the continuing

custody order be maintained. This is in response to an application by

the director that the Indigenous law does not apply to the

child.

Now we have, in response, the Indigenous authority applying back

to the court after the court has already ordered that the director is

correct, that the director’s application that the Indigenous law does

not apply to the child is correct. The court agrees with the

director.

[11:30 a.m.]

We have set up a system now where the care of Indigenous children

has to go to court for the court to determine in situations where the

director believes that the Indigenous law does not apply to the child.

Again, I’ve invited the minister to give clarity on these situations

where the director would make that application. We have some clarity but

not complete clarity.

Now I’m asking as to when the Indigenous authority needs to go to

court because circumstances have changed significantly since that

original order made by the court agreeing with the director that the

Indigenous law doesn’t apply. Now the Indigenous authority comes back to

court and says: “Well, that Indigenous law does apply to the child now,

because circumstances have changed significantly.”

I’m asking these questions only for clarity for everyone involved,

including the Indigenous governing bodies. What do these words mean?

What does it contemplate, where an Indigenous authority can go back to

court to apply where circumstances have changed

significantly?

Hon. M. Dean: All of these provisions apply to children and youth who are

currently in the system on continuing care orders. This is the mechanism

for the director to vacate the space when Indigenous law

applies.

M. Lee: For children who are in the system, the director can vacate the

space where Indigenous law applies. A director, in some cases, where a

child is in the system, applies to court to say that the Indigenous law

doesn’t apply to this child. That’s what the previous provision under

50.03(1) provides. Is that correct?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: It’s subsection (2), and that only applies in situations where the

director thinks that the Indigenous law does not apply to that

child.

M. Lee: Right. So that means it’s a situation where…. As much as the

minister said, “This is what we’re trying to do, have the director

vacate where Indigenous law does apply,” here, in this situation, is

where the director believes and applies to court to say that the

Indigenous law does not apply. The court order is granted, and the

Indigenous authority comes back in to say: “It does apply where

circumstances have changed significantly.”

Again, on what grounds? What is the test? What are the

circumstances that this provision, which is

section 50.05(1), second

line, on page 26 of the bill…? What does that mean?

Hon. M. Dean:

Section 50.03(8) identifies that it is the court that will

consider the application of the Indigenous law to the child and will

determine either that the Indigenous law applies or that the Indigenous

law does not apply.

M. Lee: Yes, that certainly is what sub (8) sets out. But we’re talking

here about the legislation. This is what we do in this House. We have

the opportunity to review the actual proposed legislation to change the

system. This is the guidance that we’re providing the legislative

framework for which courts interpret and apply the law.

This minister and this government are presenting a bill to this

House that provides the legislative framework that the courts need to

interpret. So I’m asking the minister: what are the circumstances that

are contemplated by this provision, where the Indigenous authority can

go back and apply where there are significant changes in the

circumstances? What is that actually referring to?

Hon. M. Dean: So 50.03(8) identifies that the court considers all of the

application to identify whether the Indigenous law applies to the child.

Even if the Provincial Court finds that an Indigenous law does not apply

to the child, the Indigenous authority still has an opportunity to have

the issue reconsidered by the court based on a significant change in

circumstances. A change in circumstances is dependent upon the specific

situation and circumstances relating to that child. It could also be a

change in the Indigenous law.

M. Lee: That actually does provide some additional clarity as to how the

ministry contemplates this process and the legal proceedings in the

courts.

[11:40 a.m.]

It does suggest, though, as well, that we’re asking the courts to

review the Indigenous law itself, that there’s something there that the

courts…. I would ask, then, that the minister confirm that, as the

minister has said yesterday, “There is no review done by government when

an Indigenous law is presented to government to assume jurisdiction,”

yet the courts are going to be asked to review that Indigenous law in

terms of its applicability to the child. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Dean: The court isn’t reviewing the law. The court is reviewing the

application of the law to that child. And this is only going into the

court system after every other approach to dispute resolution has been

exhausted.

Clauses 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

On clause 35.

K. Kirkpatrick: In clause 35, we’re adding 50.2: “Dispensing with consent —

Indigenous governing body.” This is providing for making an application

for the Provincial Court to dispense with required consent of an

Indigenous governing body before a director requests the placement of an

Indigenous child for adoption.

My question, to start, is: can the minister confirm that if a

child over 12 chooses to be adopted, the consent of the Indigenous

governing body is not required?

Hon. M. Dean: No. Consent of the IGB is required, and this provision would only

be used when there’s a dispute.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m confused, then, by the wording in

this 50.2(1): “On application from a director or a child who is 12 years

of age or older, the court may, in the child’s best interests, dispense

with the consent required under

section 50.1(2)(d).” Is that not saying

that it can dispense with the consent of the Indigenous governing

body?

Hon. M. Dean: The court is able to do that.

M. Lee: Just one question for clarity. Where is

section

50.1(2)(d)?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: Could the member please clarify the question?

[11:45 a.m.]

M. Lee: Just to assist the minister and her team, the reference in

50.2(1), which my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Capilano was

just referring to, refers to the

section 50.1(2)(d). That

section is not

under the existing legislation that I have in front of me for this act.

I wonder whether that is a misreference and should actually be

section

50.2(1)(d), which refers to sub (

d) of this bill, Bill 38.

Hon. M. Dean: It’s added in clause 34.

Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AND

OCCUPATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 36;

P. Alexis in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On clause 189 (continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, everyone and committee members.

S. Bond: We’re on clause 189. We started this, I think, about 9:30 last

night, but we will pick up where we left off.

Could the minister tell me whether this

section has the effect

that a respondent may not reference prior complaints or patterns of

behaviour in a disciplinary hearing? I think I referenced that last

night, and I think we’ll start with that question once again.

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for her question. We’re talking here about

sensitive records, which we define earlier in the act. What we’re saying

here is that just because you have something doesn’t mean you can use

it. You’d have to demonstrate relevance here, particularly in these

areas which are enumerated here. It’s important to enumerate these

things.

You may argue that such a record is relevant, but you can’t bring

it in unless you can demonstrate that. That’s why this list of things is

so important. It’s not sufficient to say that a record exists to be able

to use it. You’ve got to be able to demonstrate its relevance when it’s

a sensitive record as defined under the act.

S. Bond: Could the minister speak to the issue of frivolous or vexatious

claims? We’ve talked about those in other sections. Is the respondent,

then, prevented from raising issues of frivolous or vexatious claims?

Would the preclusion of prior complaints under this

section have the

effect of preventing such submissions?

Hon. A. Dix: No, they wouldn’t. They would simply have to demonstrate their

relevance here. You don’t get to just throw them out there and say: “Oh,

the person has made a prior complaint, and therefore, that’s in.” You

have to show its relevance to the issues that are the subject of the

complaint. That’s important when it comes to a sensitive record, right?

I think that’s an important protection for people.

It doesn’t prohibit someone from making a defence, but if they’re

going to go down that road, they have to demonstrate its relevance to

introduce it.

[11:15 a.m.]

S. Bond: We had a good conversation yesterday about the whole issue of

being considered a vulnerable person. Important to think about

that.

If a person was deemed to be a vulnerable person, perhaps with a

history of mental illness, especially in the matter of a complaint they

have made, would this preclude a respondent from using the complainant’s

medical history against them?

Hon. A. Dix: That’s taken up in the definition section, which I think is

section 160 — might be 161, but I think it’s 160 — of sensitive records.

Exactly right. You have to demonstrate its relevance. You can’t just

say, “This person is X,” and introduce that as if it in itself is

representation of something. It has to be relevant to the matter at

hand.

Clauses 189 and 190 approved.

On clause 191.

S. Bond: This

section speaks to the issue of orders after discipline

hearings. That’s division 17,

part 3, so we’re working our way through,

now, clause 191.

When a discipline panel makes an order to dismiss under this

clause, is it final or is there any mechanism for appeal?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes. A person can appeal to the director any decision of the

panel.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. In what circumstances, then, would a

discipline panel still make an order to dismiss the citation if the

respondent is found to have committed

an act of misconduct?

Hon. A. Dix: There are a number of circumstances — maybe, just by example — to

describe the purpose here. It may be determined that it’s a health issue

— effectively, a capacity issue — at some point, in which case it may be

more appropriate to go down that path, and this gives the panel the

ability to do that.

Equally, there may be a more serious matter facing the person,

which wouldn’t be consistent with the end of this process, that the

panel or another panel might take up. Essentially, it gives them the

option — if they’re determining

an act of misconduct, but it’s not the

appropriate path or penalty when it’s actually a health issue — to

address the health issue.

[11:20 a.m.]

S. Bond: I want to reference subclause 191(4) where it speaks to the issue

of…. At the completion of a discipline hearing, “a discipline panel may

make an order described in

section 272.” That is the

section that talks

about costs and who will pay. On what grounds or how would a discipline

panel make a determination whether or not to make an order under clause

272?

Hon. A. Dix: In this subsection, 191(4), the purpose…. I’ll refer just to

proposed

section 272 just to describe it. This allows the panel, if the

health profession is the subject of the complaint, and the respondent….

So to pay for the cost of the hearing. Not of the investigation, as we

deal with that in the next one, but the hearing. Potentially, if their

behaviour were to have been abusive — potentially to pay for the costs

of other participants in the hearing.

Both of those options are available to the registrar or to the

discipline panel. So that’s the purpose. It’s linked to

section 272. It

says that if the purpose of the hearing was to determine someone’s

responsibility and if they’re found to be responsible, that part of that

responsibility might well be the cost of the hearing.

S. Bond: Obviously my question wasn’t well formed, as I was attempting not

to choke. I understand the connection to 272, and ultimately, there

could be an order made for the respondent to pay for the hearing costs.

How would that be determined? On what basis would a discipline panel

decide whether or not the respondent would actually be made to pay for

the hearing costs? On what basis?

Hon. A. Dix: Essentially if they were at fault. Then the additional question….

It’s dealt with in 272, but I’ll just refer to it if that’s okay. It’s

to say that in addition to the cost of the hearing, which are the costs

borne by the registrar and the college, if the respondent has been

abusive or acted in bad faith, they may be asked to pay the costs

incurred by other parties. That’s defined in 272(3). So the conduct test

there is defined in 272(3), but in general it’s when they’re at

fault.

Clause 191 approved.

On clause 192.

S. Bond: So a similar situation here, other than…. Here, the order would be

related to costs for an investigation. Is it the same criteria? Or is

there a threshold in terms of when a registrar would make an order

regarding investigation expenses? Again, does it relate to fault? Or are

there other circumstances?

Hon. A. Dix: Essentially fault. This is different than a hearing, because there

aren’t other parties, necessarily, with costs. So this is the

investigation committee ordering that investigation costs be paid. This

helps sustain the college and hold responsibility where it lies in the

case of someone being at fault.

Clauses 192 and 193 approved.

On clause 194.

S. Bond: Could the minister tell me why there is a limitation of 30 days,

as per sub (2)(b)? Here we do actually have a 30-day limitation. Is

there an opportunity to apply for an extension?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: In this case, the 30-day limit is the limitation. It’s 30 days.

It’s standard in similar hearings in other parts of other administrative

bodies and regulatory bodies across government. And 30 days is a

reasonable period of time to determine if you want a decision to be

reviewed.

S. Bond: I just want to, then, for context, make sure that there is an

understanding on the record that this is related to the ability to

review. It’s an application for review of an order that is made by a

discipline panel. So that’s probably going to be pretty important to

people, should they be in that situation.

The minister has said that it is 30 days, and after 30 days, there

is no other opportunity to seek a review. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes. Remember, it’s not just the respondent in this case. It’s the

complainant, the regulatory college as well. The same constraint

applies.

Clause 194 approved.

On clause 195.

S. Bond: Clause 195 talks about the conduct of the review. When we look at

195(1), after the application for review, which we just discussed in

section 194, the director of discipline must conduct the review in

accordance with the practice directives.

My question is: are the practice directives public, or are only

those involved in the proceedings aware of the practice

directives?

Hon. A. Dix: The practice directives and how they’re defined are found in

section 447. But the director would publish those. People would

understand what they were, and they’re defining….

[11:30 a.m.]

He or she, they, would set up the administrative process for the

conduct of hearings, more hearings than this. But they could set rules

or practice directives of how this is going to be conducted and

timeliness in terms of other issues. Then the review itself and the

conduct of it — as you’ll see in the next section, which the member will

get to — is defined in

section 382.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response. I want to just stop

for a minute here and think about this process.

This is a process that will be conducted by the director of

discipline. That is new, as I understand it, as we’ve worked our way

through this process. Is this process of review a new concept captured

in this act?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, the role of the director of discipline is new, so this

practice is new as well. It helps everyone ensure, first of all, that

there is a place for those reviews. That review is independent of the

panel process, and the director’s responsibility is to ensure, amongst

many other things, the legal and procedural fairness of the other

hearing.

Those are the subjects for review. Essentially, the director of

discipline, if there’s an application for review, has to decide if there

are grounds for that review and then, if the director was to determine

the ground for review is justified, to conduct a review.

S. Bond: We spoke yesterday at some length about discipline panels.

Obviously, we talked about areas of expertise. The discipline panel does

their work, but there is now the requirement for the director of

discipline to review if that application is made.

Could the minister remind me: is the director of discipline

expected to be a lawyer?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

Clause 195 approved.

On clause 196.

S. Bond: We are now looking at post review. We’re looking at after the

review. Could the minister tell me: in what circumstances would the

director vary an order?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, that would be the outcome of the review. There’s a review

requested. The review is accepted. The director of discipline conducts

that review and determines that the order from the hearing needs to be

varied.

He has some other options here, of course: to confirm it, to

rescind it, to terminate it or to refer back to the discipline panel.

All of those things are possible as well, and it deals with the issue of

the cost of review and the payment for the review.

Essentially, what we have is a place where people can go to have a

case reviewed by someone independent of that process. That’s necessary

in any such system, and this is the mechanism here. I think it’s an

effective mechanism and one that came out of the work we did

together.

S. Bond: I agree. Obviously, with the new process, new discipline panels,

there will be a process as those are created. Having a review process is

absolutely critical. And the minister did reflect what will be in the

law and what options the director of discipline would have. That does

include rescinding the order or terminating it.

[11:35 a.m.]

An interesting note in 196(1)(

c) is referring the matter back to

the discipline panel for reconsideration, with or without directions.

Can the minister explain to me, when that return is made, what

circumstance would generate that reference back being made without

recommendations?

Hon. A. Dix: This is kind of the current drafting language. What it says is

normally a director would, obviously, provide some direction, reasons

why the action is being taken.

What circumstances could lead to another approach? The panel,

after the fact, sees new information and essentially asks the director

to send something back for them to do a new review before it goes

forward. That might be a referral back without direction, in that case,

but that would be an unusual circumstance. Normally, we would expect it

to be with direction, but we don’t limit the director in that way. He or

she or they can provide that direction or not when sending it back to a

panel.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. It’s just a very…. I mean, candidly, it

seems unnecessary. Obviously, staff and the minister spent years

figuring this out.

Basically what we’re saying is that an application for a review

comes to the director of discipline, and they must do one of the

following things after a review: confirm, vary, rescind or terminate;

rescind the order that is under review and substitute — which I would

like to speak about in a moment; basically refer the matter back to the

discipline panel for reconsideration without direction.

What on earth would happen in that process? Nothing has changed.

Even if you send it back and say, “Look at this again; consider new

information,” whatever it is…. I simply want to make the point that it

seems hard to understand. If you’re going to send it back to the very

panel that made the decision for reconsideration, at minimum there would

be some direction to do something differently, or the director of

discipline would have confirmed, varied, rescinded or terminated the

order.

Can the minister…? I heard what he said. I’m not certain I

understand the necessity to send back an order with no

direction.

Hon. A. Dix: I think the purpose of this is to allow the director the option of

sending direction. But the director may feel, conceivably…. I think in

the vast majority of cases, it would be with direction, I would imagine,

we would imagine. It gives them the opportunity to send something back

if they’re saying: “Take another look at this.”

Sending it back is an action. It’s not direction, but it’s an

action. But they don’t want to intervene. They want the panel to have

another look at the matter without guiding them in one direction or

another and having that option available for the director, which I think

would be unusual. That’s what’s being maintained by that particular

language.

S. Bond: Again, we’re not going to spend an inordinate amount of time here.

Even by sending it back, the implication is that they need to reconsider

it. So the fact that the words “with no direction….” The fact it goes

back there, in and of itself, is a direction. It basically is implicit

that you’re going to do it over again or do something with

it.

[11:40 a.m.]

I’m interested in 196(1)(b). This apparently now gives the

director of discipline the ability to create a new order themselves. Is

that correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

S. Bond: Is the director’s variance of review findings limited to findings

of reason, or can the director consider findings of fact?

Hon. A. Dix: The rationale here is laid out in proposed

section 381(3). There’s

a series of grounds here, but they include:

“(

a) the decision or order was made contrary to this Act or the

regulations, bylaws or rules; (

b) the decision or order was not made in

accordance with the principles of procedural fairness; (

c) new

information is available that is material and relevant and that (

i) was

not available or could not reasonably have been discovered through the

exercise of due diligence…or (ii) relates to a change in circumstances

since the decision or order was made and, because of the change, the

decision or order is no longer appropriate.”

That is the set of reasons that would guide the

director.

S. Bond: In 196(2)(b), there is the opportunity for a refund of, obviously,

an order that’s been made to cover costs. Under what circumstances would

a refund be appropriate? Could the minister describe what would lead to

that decision being made?

Hon. A. Dix: It would be made if the director, for example, were to rescind or

terminate an order. That would be significant. Or if the director

determines that a refund is appropriate. In other words, they may vary

an order or may decide it’s appropriate not to charge the

fee.

Clause 196 approved.

On clause 197.

S. Bond: As I understand it, this is a new process here, where previously,

there has not been a mechanism for enforcing compliance with a

discipline order. In clause 197, the regulatory colleges will now, I

assume, have to create bylaws for boards respecting the enforcement of

orders. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Previously the college would make the decision and then deliver

the discipline. In this case, the director is making the decision with

the discipline, and the college would implement it. What makes it new is

the role of the director here. Those roles obviously existed before.

There wouldn’t have been a discipline before.

[11:45 a.m.]

But this is a change in that process that separates those

processes, which is, I think, an important principle and has been

important in the development of the legislation from the all-party

working group through the process.

S. Bond: Obviously, a significant change in how enforcement and, in fact,

the whole discipline process will work. We now have a director of

discipline. We have discipline panels. We have the regulatory colleges

having to ensure compliance with those orders.

Could the minister…? I understand, in terms of time, that we’re

about to be cut off here for the lunch-hour. Perhaps the minister wants

to answer it later, should we be given more time.

In the discussion with regulatory colleges during this process….

What type of feedback did the minister receive from those colleges

regarding the separation of discipline functions, which, as he just

pointed out, now separate this particular process? What was the feedback

about that process? Was there support? Was there

understanding?

My question related to that is…. Bylaws will now need to be

created in order to enforce the law. Will there be a template provision?

Will there be consistency across colleges when it comes to the need to

enforce disciplinary orders?

I’m happy to wait till we return, if we return.

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s fair to say that the separation of discipline from

the college was a key principle of the Cayton report, a key principle of

the work of the members of the all-party working group and a key

direction of the legislation. I think, certainly, the colleges

understood that. Whether they all agreed with it, I don’t

know.

It was one of the clearest directions possible that one could

provide when one’s saying that we need to separate these functions.

That’s fundamental to the reform we’re proposing. Then, I think, what

colleges are doing and have done in the process is make sure that the

process works most effectively for the professions and for the

colleges.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 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.