Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 244

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)

Crime prevention and repeat offenders

M. Morris

Marshall McLuhan Fellowship for journalists in Philippines

M. Elmore

Adoption awareness

K. Kirkpatrick

Legal aid lawyers and duty counsel

A. Singh

Movember fundraising campaign

G. Kyllo

Kootenay culture and attractions

B. Anderson

Oral Questions

Response programs for mental health and addiction issues and role of police

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. S. Malcolmson

P. Milobar

Environmental assessment for Bamberton quarry expansion proposal

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Government action on mental health and addiction issues

E. Sturko

Hon. M. Farnworth

Hon. S. Malcolmson

E. Ross

Residential mental health care beds in White Rock

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Reports from Committees

Health Committee, report on expanding the response to the

toxic drug and overdose crisis, October 2022

N. Sharma

S. Bond

S. Furstenau

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. A. Dix

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2022

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Mr. Sebastiaan

Messerschmidt, consul general of the Netherlands in Vancouver. The consul

general is here on his first official visit. Later this morning, he will be

meeting with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, and

this afternoon, with the Premier and then with you, Mr. Speaker. I will have

the opportunity to meet with him today as well. Would the House please make

him feel very welcome.

[10:05 a.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Well, we’ve had some very special visitors in Esquimalt for the last

few months. Jane Barrett, who is the daughter of former Premier Dave Barrett

and his wife, Shirley, has been here from Perth, Australia. She’s also the

aunt of Andrew Barrett, who is the assistant to the Minister of Public

Safety and Solicitor General. She’s here with her friend Nellie Gaynor, also

from Perth in Australia. Would everybody please make them very

welcome.

We also have Atticus Kerr, who’s 16, who’s a student from Esquimalt

High School. He is here to meet with the Minister of Transportation, who I

think is also going to say a few words about what he’s up to in greater

Victoria. Would you please make Atticus very welcome.

Hon. L. Beare: For the past five years, I’ve been so fortunate to have working with

me, on and off in my ministries, Korleen Carreras, who’s not only a

fantastic public servant but a true friend as well. For the past eight

years, I have had the privilege of working with her both in government and

in school board on many campaigns together. She’s been in charge of my life

a number of times, quite literally, while I was in hospital, in

particular.

She gets the fabulous opportunity now to move on from our government

and pursue her career as a city councillor with the city of Maple Ridge. I

couldn’t be more proud, and I just want to thank her for her five years of

service here to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Fleming: Following on the Minister of Children and Family Development, I do

indeed want to introduce Atticus Dachsel Kerr, who’s a grade 11 student,

who’s here with his teacher and classmates from Esquimalt High School here

today to observe question period and to be in the precinct.

Atticus has had a lot of attention in a couple of our local newspapers

recently because he set a personal challenge for himself to promote public

transit use in our region. The challenge he has set for himself over the

next year is to ride every single numbered bus route in the capital region,

routes 1 to 88, in order to promote public transit. If members are

interested in that, his Instagram account is @busvictoriabc.

This young man is very bright. He went to school with my kids in

elementary and middle school and I think was the renowned chess champion in

both of those institutions. He’s considering a degree in urban planning

after high school.

I know that he is here today. He has brought his classmates to observe

the parliamentary process at work. So I would ask the House to make him and

his classmates and his teacher most welcome today.

B. Anderson: I have two introductions that I would like to make today. The first

one is a longtime family friend, a constituent and a public service

employee. Dave Heagy is here today, joining us. Dave is one of the kindest

people that I know. He has a gentleness that is extremely endearing. He and

his wife, Annie, have been incredibly supportive and kind to me over the

years.

Dave is in town because he is receiving a Long Service Award. He

started out as a Parks ranger, and now he is the B.C. Parks area supervisor.

So I would like everyone in the House to thank Dave for his service and

dedication to parks, the environment and people. He is getting 45 years,

which is absolutely incredible. So thank you, Dave, for everything you

do.

For my next introduction, I would like to wish a very, very happy

birthday to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, who is

a friend and a mentor.

Happy birthday, Nick.

R. Singh: It was today in 1966 that the present-day state of Punjab was formed

after the efforts of many who wanted a Punjabi-speaking region in

India.

[10:10 a.m.]

Being a proud Punjabi, I just want to say a few words in

Punjabi.

ਮੈਨੂੰ ਮਾਣ ਹੈ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਤੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਕਨੇਡਾ ਤੇ ਜਿੰਨੇ

ਮੇਰੀ ਮਾਂ ਬੋਲੀ ਨੂੰ ਪਰਫੁੱਲਤ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਮੌਕਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ

ਹੈ।

ਤੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ, ਮੈਂ ਖੜੀ ਹਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਮੂਲ ਨਿਵਾਸੀ ਭਰਾਵਾਂ ਤੇ

ਭੈਣਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਜਿਹੜੇ ਆਪਣੀ ਮਾਤ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰਜੀਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ

ਨੇ।

[I am proud of being Punjabi and of Canada, who has

given my mother language the opportunity to blossom. Also, I am standing

with my Indigenous brothers and sisters who are working to revitalize their

own mother tongue.]

[Punjabi text and translation provided by R.

Singh.]

P. Milobar: Today we have a few of my constituents in town for some meetings, and

I’d just hope the House make Alex, Pam and their baby Monika very welcome.

Pam is actually a psychiatric nurse that works on some of our street

outreach nursing and is currently on maternity leave. She does great,

important work within Kamloops. Will the House please make them

welcome.

G. Begg: All of us in this House are surrounded by staff who go out of their

way to make our jobs easier to do every day. We’re also supported, of

course, in our constituencies by constituency assistants. My long-standing —

some would say long-suffering — constituency assistant is here in the House

today, along with the constituency assistant for the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin. They are Nubwa Wathanafa and my constituency assistant,

Amna Shah. Would the House join me, please, in making them

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CRIME PREVENTION

AND REPEAT

OFFENDERS

M. Morris: This week is Crime Prevention Week, recognizing all the good work

that police and volunteers do in our communities around the province. My

purpose today is not to underscore the valuable work and contributions

made by police and volunteers but to focus on another area that can make

major contributions to crime prevention. That area is the B.C.

Prosecution Service and the courts.

Section 515(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code provides that prosecutors

must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause for why the

detention of an accused in custody is justified. In fact, there are four

areas in

section 515 that specifically provide authority for prosecutors

to show cause to a judge for why prolific offenders should be held in

custody. Under

section 523, the Criminal Code also provides authority

for judges to hear matters related to administration of justice offences

such as failing to appear in court. It also provides prosecutors to once

again show cause why the detention in custody is justified.

Justification to hold a prolific offender in custody is outlined

under subsection 515(10). This

section requires only one or more of the

following conditions: the detention is necessary to ensure the prolific

offender attends court; the detention is necessary for the protection or

safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including

the likelihood of the prolific offender to commit more criminal offences

or interfere with the administration of justice.

The third condition states that the detention is necessary to

maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to

all the circumstances, including the strength of the prosecution’s case,

the gravity of the offence, including whether a firearm was used or not,

and the length of potential imprisonment upon conviction.

The most significant impact that can be made for crime prevention

today is to keep prolific offenders in jail.

MARSHALL M c LUHAN FELLOWSHIP

FOR

JOURNALISTS IN PHILIPPINES

M. Elmore: The Marshall McLuhan Fellowship, first awarded in 1997, is given

annually by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the

Canadian Embassy in the Philippines to a Filipino journalist who has

exhibited excellent work in the preceding year.

Karmina Constantino is the 2022 Marshall McLuhan Fellow. Colin

Townson, chargé d’affaires of the Embassy of Canada to the Philippines,

said in a statement that Ms. Constantino was named fellow for her

“unflinching commitment to speak truth to power, an admirable

consistency in ferreting out the most complicated issues of the day and

a stirring courage to ask the toughest questions.”

[10:15 a.m.]

In the next two weeks, Christian Esguerra, the Marshall McLuhan

Fellow for 2020, will be holding lecture tours in Canada, including in

Vancouver, as part of the fellowship. His lecture tour was postponed due

to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fellowship highlights the best practices of Filipino

journalists at a time of heightened challenges to press freedom in the

Philippines and other countries amid a deluge of disinformation

globally. International media organizations have consistently named the

Philippines among the most dangerous countries for journalists. The

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines has recorded 197 media

workers killed since 1986. On October 3 of this year, assailants gunned

down popular and outspoken broadcaster Percival Mabasa in Metro Manila.

He was the second journalist killed since President Ferdinand Marcos,

Jr. took office on June 30 of this year.

Around the world, press freedom has been essential to the

democratic system. Effective participatory government is possible only

when it can count on a well-informed society where individuals freely

exchange ideas and public debate and discussion arise from knowledge and

understanding of national affairs.

I ask everyone in the chamber to congratulate the 2022 fellow,

Karmina Constantino, and welcome the 2020 fellow, Christian Esguerra, to

Canada and Vancouver for his lecture tour shortly.

ADOPTION AWARENESS

K. Kirkpatrick: There are many ways to build a family. November is Adoption

Awareness Month. It draws attention to the many children and teens who

are waiting for permanent homes through adoption, guardianship, kinship

placement or another form of permanency.

At any time, there are approximately 1,000 children in care in

B.C. who are waiting to be adopted. Many of these children suffer from

trauma from neglect or abuse. Others have delayed development due to

prenatal exposure to drugs or alcohol. And some are sibling groups who

must be kept together. But all of these children need a permanent,

loving and secure home where they can be lifted up and meet their full

potential.

Children need lifelong relationships, not just those relationships

that end at 19 years old. An adoptive parent or family needs to be ready

to deal with supporting these special young people and their

requirements. It takes time to build trust and create a sense of safety.

There exist a number of adoption assistance programs for parents

adopting from care that will help them navigate some of these unique

challenges. Some are financial to address the specific needs of the

child. Many are supportive in terms of counselling and assistance on how

best to support your child.

This is not a short-term commitment. This is a lifelong commitment

and must be entered into with that understanding and with a desire and a

commitment to build your family with the addition of one of these

special children who can add so much richness to your life.

I encourage people to build their family through adoption, and I

encourage them to consider one of the many young people in care. You can

give a child the home and love they need, and you can celebrate another

important new member of your family.

Every single minute matters. Every single child matters. And every

single childhood matters.

LEGAL AID LAWYERS

AND DUTY COUNSEL

A. Singh: Last week, October 27, legal aid organizations across Canada

partnered with schools and other educational institutions to build

awareness about the justice system. That day was recognized as Duty

Counsel Day.

Legal aid lawyers and duty counsel form an integral part of our

justice system. Legal aid lawyers and duty counsel provide legal

services at no cost to their clients and advise disadvantaged adults and

youth across Canada on an average of 1.2 million times a year. They’re

compassionate and capable and make a career of helping people in need.

Whether it be family law, immigration or a criminal matter, they form an

integral part of our system, especially for the most disadvantaged

British Columbians.

When an individual or a family has to deal with a matter that

requires legal help, that journey is often life-altering. Having the

helping hand of someone that can navigate the system with you is

crucial, not just to that individual but to our society as a whole if we

are to continue to live in a free and respectful society.

[10:20 a.m.]

Every year thousands of people are unable to pay for a lawyer when

they need it most. That’s where, for many of these families, legal aid

lawyers and duty counsels step in. They play that central part not only

for their client but for the overall fairness of our justice system. Our

system relies heavily on these exemplary individuals.

For the longest time, we in British Columbia ignored these

individuals who are a vital part of our justice system. That had a

deadening effect. The number of lawyers that were working for legal aid

decreased, and the most disadvantaged British Columbians had difficulty

accessing the justice system — something that should be honoured and

prized in a country that holds freedom and the rule of law

dear.

That’s why I’m really proud to stand with this government, who

listened to legal aid lawyers and the amazing people at ALL, the

Association of Legal Aid Lawyers, and reversed course. Since 2017,

provincial funding for legal services has increased by $34.2

million.

There’s much, much more to do to catch up, but we are committed to

improving access to legal services for all British

Columbians.

MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

G. Kyllo: When I woke this morning, I shaved. I see a whole bunch of freshly

shaven faces this morning, as we start the Movember campaign. I must

say, hon. Speaker, that is a magnificent moustache that you have

today.

Men’s health is in crisis. Men are dying, on average, five years

earlier than women — and for largely preventable reasons. Globally,

testicular cancer is the most common cancer among young men, with men

comprising also three out of every four suicides. Think about that:

three out of every four suicides are men.

In addition to that, men also represent 80 percent of the opioid

deaths in our province. So the need for increased awareness for men’s

mental health has never been greater. This is why I’m extremely proud to

rise in the House today to encourage everyone to participate in this

year’s Movember campaign, as we mark the beginning of November today.

This year’s slogan is “Rock a mo for a bro.” I hope you’ll be bold

enough to grow a moustache and, if you can, to please support the

Movember campaign.

Although Movember was initiated initially to bring awareness to

testicular and prostate cancer, in recent years the Movember campaign

has expanded to increase awareness of men’s mental health and suicide

prevention. Men are often expected to bottle up their emotions, to be

strong, to act tough, to be manly. In the spirit of addressing these

toxic societal expectations and supporting men’s health, the Movember

campaign advocates for increased awareness and support for men dealing

with cancer, mental health complexities and other preventable causes of

harm.

I’m proud to say that I’ve been part of the Movember campaign for

over 15 years, and thanks to the help of my colleagues and staff, our

B.C. Liberal team has raised over $100,000 for the Movember campaign. As

far as I know, we’re the only political party in Canada that

participates in the Movember campaign, and I encourage everyone to

please visit ca.movember.com and donate to our B.C. Liberal

team.

With your help, we can do our part to help increase awareness for

men’s mental health in British Columbia.

KOOTENAY CULTURE AND ATTRACTIONS

B. Anderson: I’ve had a few folks tell me recently that they have never been to

the Kootenays but that they’ve always wanted to go. So I ask them: “When

you go to a new place, what do you like exploring?”

If you’re a foodie, the Kootenays is for you. There are dozens of

independently owned restaurants that specialize in everything from vegan

delights to fancy wieners. Oh, and that’s just on one block of one city.

Red Light Ramen has cocktail creations that are ever-evolving and seduce

the senses.

If you’re more of a beer guy, you’re in luck. We have so many

microbreweries, and we are home to the Columbia Brewery. Why so many?

It’s because of the pristine water flowing off the mountains; it’s just

so good. I have to say that this summer, the raspberry sour from Wild

North was a real thirst-quencher.

If you’re the athletic type, we have hiking and biking trails that

can keep you busy for days and, for some of us, a lifetime. Many people

race to the trails after work. Head up to Kaslo, and hike the trails

like Monica Meadows or Jumbo. Thanks to our government, and in

partnership with the Ktunaxa, Qat’muk is wild forever.

[10:25 a.m.]

Where else do you have the ten-centimetre rule, where the powder

days become days off, if you want to keep your staff? If you want to try

cat-skiing, you’re in luck. The Kootenays have been named as the best in

the world for cat-skiing, multiple times.

Perhaps you’re more into culture. We’re abundant in visual artists

and film-makers, and we throw some of the best parties. From Tiny Lights

in Ymir to the Kaslo jazz fest, the Kootenays know how to bring people

together.

Still want to know more? Check out Kootenay Mountain Culture

Magazine or listen to their podcast from the

Headwaters . Both have incredible content that takes a deep

dive into Kootenay culture.

No matter what you choose to do while you’re in the Kootenays,

lean into the unexpected, and embrace Kootenay culture.

Oral Questions

RESPONSE PROGRAMS FOR

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION

ISSUES

AND ROLE OF POLICE

K. Kirkpatrick: The murder of Burnaby RCMP Const. Shaelyn Yang was a call for

action to deal with the massive gaps and missed opportunities in mental

health and addiction in this province.

Nineteen months ago Burnaby RCMP begged this government to

establish a mental health car program, an integrated crisis response

pairing police officers with trained mental health nurses, but the

LePard report revealed a shocking fact. The NDP declined the city of

Burnaby’s funding request for a mental health police Car model: “Fraser

Health declined a proposal from Burnaby RCMP, even though the RCMP…were

prepared to allocate a full-time officer, a vehicle and other

equipment.”

To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, why did this NDP

government decline the funding request to establish a safe and proven

mental health police car program?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The tragic death of the RCMP constable in Burnaby on the front

line, doing some of the most difficult work that we ask our front-line

people, public servants across the province to do, is heartbreaking. It

weighs heavily on all of us. We send our condolences, of course, to her

family and friends.

The intersection of mental health, substance use and public safety

is, of course, something that’s preoccupying everybody, on both sides of

the House. That we have, in multiple programs, a pairing of enforcement

and of health care is a really important evolution and one that we’re

expressing through our programs in many ways. Also, it’s important to

assert that, for the most part, people with untreated mental health and

addictions are not, themselves, violent. We don’t want to contribute to

stigma that prevents people from stepping up and asking for health care

support.

There are times that those pieces come together, and that’s why we

commissioned the LePard-Butler report. It’s why we commissioned the

Police Act review. It’s why, in a number of ways — in some cases through

car programs where there is a ride-along service, in other cases with

peer-assisted crisis supports, like we’re funding on the North Shore —

people in crisis aren’t escalated by the presence of a police

officer.

There is more work for us to do in this area, but we are gathering

data and evidence on a number of platforms, led by a number of

municipalities and a number of health authorities that are tackling this

problem together in different ways.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not sure that the minister completely understood the question,

so I am going to rephrase this.

It is not enough, and it is not fast enough, whatever is happening

now. Pairing mental health support workers with police, like the Car 67

program in Surrey, is a proven approach. It’s happening in communities —

community-based and community-funded — and we can show that it

works.

Over the past five years, this opposition has called for these

programs to be expanded. Seven months ago, the all-party police

committee called for them to be expanded as well. Now government’s own

LePard report calls it a proven approach, blocked by the NDP. How many

reports does this government need before they act?

[10:30 a.m.]

I quote from the LePard report again. They “declined a proposal

from Burnaby RCMP,” and “Fraser Health provided no explanation.” This

NDP government has ignored every suggestion that we have made related to

the crisis on our streets, without explanation.

Why has the NDP blocked integrated mental health teams?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I don’t agree at all with the member’s

characterization.

I’ll go through a number of the programs where we are exactly

tackling these problems with integrated police and mental health teams.

There is more to come and more to do.

Vancouver Coastal Health has three car programs that are funded

through the health authority: Vancouver, North Shore, Richmond. Fraser

Health has Car 67 in Surrey. Interior Health has Kamloops and Kelowna.

Northern Health has Prince George, Fort St. John, Terrace. Island Health

has an integrated mobile response team in the capital region.

In many of the programs — where the previous government started

them and we have continued to expand them, ACT teams — there is a police

liaison. So the crisis on the front lines, in the streets, often with

people who are unhoused, has a direct link to police, and this is what

we heard through the Police Act review and through LePard-Butler that

are working well and we need to expand.

Most encouragingly, and one that we have a lot of police support

for, is instead of asking police to respond to mental health and

crisis-on-the-street calls, like on North Shore with the Peer Assisted

Crisis Team, it is the peer worker team and the mental health worker

team that respond. If they need police backup, then they are called in.

We’ve got data on this from the first year. We’re funding this in two

more communities. I hope we’ll fund it in more.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister makes it sound like this government has

expanded the Car programs across this province, and they flat out have

not. That is the core to the problem. Municipality after municipality

has been asking for either expanded car services or, in the case of

Burnaby, one to be started. They repeatedly get told by this government:

no. So for the minister to talk about expanding these programs, it just

simply isn’t happening under their watch — full stop.

The NDP have actually taken the word “police” out of

police-assisted care teams. That doesn’t appear to be an accident.

Internal Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions documents show that

the NDP policy changes are designed to defund police mental health

teams. The policy document claims that: “Police response can be

retraumatizing and can contribute to stigma.”

In light of all the increased violence that mental health response

teams are seeing on a day-to-day basis, this simply makes no sense. The

NDP appear to be prioritizing their ideological opposition to police

over police mental health teams that are proven to work and that

communities desperately want expanded.

When will this government stop asking for yet another report to

verify what, over the last five years, has become very clear:

communities want these programs expanded?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Again, I completely disagree with the member’s characterization. I

know that the Minister of Public Safety will talk about all the ways

we’re expanding support for police. I’ve certainly seen it in my own

community in Nanaimo.

There’s no question there are times that a police response is

needed, and that is why we support people working on the front line in

this way. At the same time, team-based approaches are vital, and they

are evidenced throughout our government’s approach, particularly in

mental health and addictions, particularly in primary health care. And

the linkage of police is vital to that. To say otherwise is completely

ignoring the facts.

But let me say that the ACT teams in our communities deliver

crisis intervention, housing supports and psychiatric treatment, always

with the police linkage. The peer-assisted care teams, which I sometimes

called peer-assisted crisis teams…. Sorry for the change in

acronym.

[10:35 a.m.]

This program, which my ministry funds, doesn’t have “police” in

the name, and it hasn’t, because they’re only called in when needed.

Police asked for this in Victoria, in New West and in North Vancouver.

We’ve got direct police involvement because they love the fact that they

don’t have to get called.

North Shore PACT started operating in November 2021. Since then,

and until the end of August of this year, the team was contacted 448

times and only dispatched 75 times, because they were often able to give

people the support that they needed.

The PACT team only called for police intervention six times. That

means that police keep doing the work of fighting the real crime and

getting at the root of illegal drug dealing and the things that are

exacerbating what’s on the street, and mental health workers and peer

workers give people the care and de-escalation that sometimes is

needed.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Five and a half years the opposition has been calling for the

expansion of these programs. Five and a half years mayors and

councillors across this province have been calling for the expansion of

these programs. The all-party police committee called for the expansion

of these programs.

Seven months ago, the LePard report cited these police mental

health units as a proven approach. Yet the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions continues to stand up and be in the way of these proven

results.

Kamloops has been trying for years to get their Car 40 program

expanded. I’ve asked the minister directly, myself, in estimates about

that. Prince George has been asking. Surrey’s been asking. Burnaby was

flat out told no. Let that sink in for a second. Burnaby was flat out

told no.

Perhaps, given that Burnaby was directly asking for it — and

Burnaby was directly prepared to have the police resources and cars and

equipment; all they needed was nursing help and support — can the

minister explain why this government rejected Burnaby’s request for this

specific program despite all of the reports over the years that have

said that it’s a program that works and should be supported and

expanded?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Why the opposition continues to overlook the fact that

peer-assisted care teams, which my ministry is expanding, was the number

one recommendation in the LePard-Butler report, was also something that

resulted from the all-party budget committee two summers ago, was also

brought repeatedly to the Police Act review…. That is something that we

are implementing right now — peer-assisted care teams. We’re going to do

more. Police have called for them. It takes the pressure off police, and

sometimes it gets better results on the ground.

In my own community in Nanaimo, there is a pairing through the

health authority and the RCMP of some form of a ride-along program.

Those programs do continue to expand. But these are health authority

decisions about how they will use their health authority resources,

knowing that nurses in particular are in short supply. Sometimes, health

authorities make different decisions based on what is on the ground and

what their own human resources limitations and restrictions

are.

We know how difficult it is to hire nurses right now. But that

said, let me be really clear. Let me be very clear. Our government

continues to expand support for mental health and addictions. We

continue to work very closely with police and with health

authorities.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I have never said no to Burnaby.

Thank you for your heckling, Member.

I have never said no to Burnaby. I continue to meet…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Members.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I continue to work with municipal leaders, health authorities and

police about the resources they need to keep people safe.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

BAMBERTON QUARRY EXPANSION

PROPOSAL

A. Olsen: As local members here know and anybody who lives around the

Saanich Inlet knows, it is a special place. It’s fed countless

generations of my family. However, throughout the decades it’s also

suffered from environmental degradation. There’s been a long history of

industrial activity at the Bamberton site. As a young boy, I used to

fish underneath that cement plant with my father. The cement plant

closed many years ago.

Now, an operator, Malahat Investment Corp., has applied to expand

an existing quarry by approximately 47 percent. Under the Environmental

Assessment Act, the Reviewable Projects Regulation does not require an

existing mine to undertake an environmental assessment — and I’m

paraphrasing — if the request to expand is not at least 50 percent of

the previously permitted area.

[10:40 a.m.]

This is a culturally and environmentally significant area, and

there is no way to grind down an entire mountainside into construction

aggregate without damaging the environment. Without an environmental

assessment, we have no idea the extent of the destruction. The

regulation as it currently reads is unacceptable. This project may just

barely fit under the regulation.

Will the Minister of Environment exercise his discretion and

require this mine to undergo an environmental assessment?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for his question and for his concern. I’m

aware of the situation. The member has correctly pointed out that the

threshold in the Reviewable Projects Regulation is an expansion of area

by 50 percent, and this project is 47 percent.

I am in discussion with the environmental assessment office around

what they know about this particular project, but the project as it is

currently described falls under the threshold of a reviewable project.

There has to be very sufficient reason to seek to overrule the

regulation as it stands.

Mr. Speaker: Member, for a supplemental.

A. Olsen: Excellent.

The minister knows, as is pointed out in court cases, that there

is discretion that the minister could use to review a project. This

project actually exposes an absurd loophole that exists in this

regulation. In 2019, regulation was amended for new mines. Production

capacity exceeding 75,000 tonnes per year now requires an environmental

assessment. For context, the Bamberton application under consideration

by the Ministry of Mines is to expand extraction to 479,000 tonnes.

That’s 6.5 times the volume the environmental assessment considers

acceptable for a new project.

If the operators apply every five years or so, like we’ve seen

happening, to expand by slightly less than 50 percent of their current

operation, they could literally grind down the entire side of the

mountain without ever having to undertake an environmental assessment.

When I asked the Mines Ministry if I was correct in this, they said it’s

up to the Ministry of Environment. “Ask the minister.”

To the Minister of Environment, will he require this application

to have an environmental assessment at the Bamberton quarry, and will he

change the regulation to close this absurd loophole?

Hon. G. Heyman: The regulation itself is not currently under review. I would point

out to the member that whatever threshold level exists, there will be

project proposals that come close to it. That, in and of itself, is not

enough reason to change a regulation.

As I said to the member, I’m aware of the proposed production

expansion of this facility. I’m aware of how close it comes to the area

expansion threshold. The member is clearly aware that the minister has

discretion to order an assessment. I’ve already expressed that there has

to be good and sufficient reason to do that, and I am reviewing the

facts of this case.

But the member should also be aware that it is the role of the

chief environmental assessment officer, as the statutory decision–maker,

to also look at these projects. That official is doing her job, and it

is not my job to presume that she is not doing her job. I am being

briefed by her to find out what her considerations are, and we will

proceed down the path of reviewing projects that come so close to the

threshold that they need a good look.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON MENTAL

HEALTH AND ADDICTION

ISSUES

E. Sturko: I want to go back for a moment to the questions that my colleagues

asked with regard to the expansion of the police mental health outreach

teams. I want it on the record that it’s clear that the minister

believes that she knows better — believes that she knows better than two

reports that were commissioned by the NDP: the Police Act review panel,

the LePard report.

[10:45 a.m.]

In fact, she feels that she knows better than police. She thinks

that she knows better than mayors of communities, even a former police

officer in her own party, the member for Surrey-Guildford, who was

advocating for the expansion of these car ride-along programs. They’re

programs that put mental health nurses, psychiatric nurses with access

to critical information about mental health for people that we are

dealing with in the community — but have the protection of police

officers….

We’ve seen recently how tragically these kinds of even wellness

checks, even giving someone…. Something in the community can go so

terribly wrong, as we saw with Constable Yang. This is why we need to

have psychiatric nurses riding along with police officers.

I’m sorry that the member seems to know better than the two

reports that were issued by her own party recommending the expansion of

these programs. The report by the NDP’s handpicked expert, Doug LePard,

gives a damning indictment of the record of the incoming soft-on-crime

Premier. The incoming Premier not only ran a catch-and-release justice

system but also failed to provide proper supports as the minister

responsible for supportive housing.

This is what the LePard report says: “Large numbers of formerly

homeless people with high risks and high needs have been housed, some in

former hotels, but with completely insufficient staff and

support.”

When will the NDP fix the appalling record of the incoming

soft-on-crime Premier and deliver the mental health supports that people

actually need?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question, though I must say, right off

the top, I do find it interesting that today she is praising the author

of the report, Doug LePard,

whereas a week ago the B.C. Liberal

opposition was criticizing Doug LePard as being just a deputy police

chief. I think that’s reflective of the approach that the opposition has

taken.

The reality is this. We have been working very closely with local

governments, with police agencies and with the federal government to

ensure that we’ve got the tools, the programs and the laws in place to

be able to deal with the challenges that we have been facing in this

province — in fact, that provinces right across the country have been

facing — when it comes to violent repeat offenders.

It is not a question of saying the minister knows better. We know

that health experts are the ones who know what needs to be done. We know

that police know what needs to be done. We know that communities know

what needs to be done. We also know that one size does not fit

all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is why we have a range of tools and options that are

available and implemented for communities. They include car programs.

They include peer-assisted care teams, which was, as the minister

pointed out, the number one recommendation for changes to take

place.

Those are changes that are being put in place. We are expanding

resources. We know what the record from the other side was when they sat

on this side. It was to cut resources to programs, exactly the

kind….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You cut and cut and cut social programs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The members seem to think it’s just one program. There is a whole

range of programs, a whole range of tools that are required by police

and communities. This government is ensuring to work that those programs

and those resources are in place right across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: The LePard report makes it clear that the lack of housing supports

provided by the NDP has contributed to the four random attacks on people

in Vancouver every single day. As the Housing Minister, the incoming

soft-on-crime Premier repeatedly warehoused people in housing units

without proper supports.

[10:50 a.m.]

Vancouver police have front-line experience with this. “One

shelter with 90 people accounted for 1,000 calls for service in one

year. It spun that neighbourhood into crisis overnight. There were no

supports for that person in crisis in the middle of the night except for

a desk clerk.”

This is the same government that thinks a cup of tea counts as

supportive housing.

How is it acceptable for the incoming Premier to promise

supportive housing but not to deliver on mental health

supports?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m pleased to have another opportunity to rise to say that the

introduction to the member’s first question is completely a

mischaracterization of everything that I said in the first half of

question period.

I’ve never said no to a car program. We are implementing a

diversity of approaches. If Fraser Health doesn’t have enough nurses to

add to the existing car program that they fund, then…. That is work that

we are doing to train up more nurses so that the health authority is

able to make broader decisions about how they can dispatch

resources.

Let me also read into the record the number one recommendation of

LePard-Butler. “We recommend that the provincial government continue to

invest in civilian-led — non-police — mental health crisis response

teams in collaboration with community service providers — e.g.,

peer-assisted care teams.”

That’s exactly what we’re doing.

E. Ross: This is typical. This government actually deflects and passes

blame onto somebody else.

Talking about health authorities in B.C., you’ve got to remember

that these health authorities get their mandates from the government.

They get their funding from the government. The orders come from

government. So to say that somehow this is all the health authority,

that it falls on their shoulders, is false. Government has got to take

responsibility.

To say that somehow we’re mischaracterizing what’s happening in

B.C., whether we’re talking about the health crisis, whether it’s the

drug addiction crisis, the homeless crisis, the prolific offenders

crisis…. It’s not us. These are reports commissioned by the

government.

The incoming soft-on-crime Premier’s own LePard report says that

people are committing crimes just to have access to detox treatment

under this government. “Families of offenders living with mental health

and substance use needs come to court and are overwhelmed, do not know

where to access treatment or cannot afford it and are frustrated that

the only way to get access to treatment is to commit a criminal

offence.”

Do you want to hear the last bit again? “The only way to get

access to treatment is to commit a criminal offence.” This is coming

from the LePard report commissioned by this government.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

When will the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions stop forcing

people to get arrested just to get access to treatment?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The tragic loss of life across British Columbia because of the

increasingly toxic drug supply is something that consumes our work every

day. It directly informs what we hear from police, what we hear from

courtworkers, what we hear from the First Nations Justice Council, what

we hear from peers, people with lived experience, families that have

lost loved ones. It informs everything we do.

There was not a continuum of care in place when we formed

government. That’s why my ministry was created — to work with health

authorities and every ministry to build up just the kinds of supports

that we continue to hear people need. Prescribed safe supply. Opening

hundreds of new addiction treatment beds. Re-regulating this sector,

which the previous government deregulated, the treatment and recovery

sector. Going from one supervised consumption site in 2017 to now

40-plus — a great number of them.

Enforcement, working with partners, prevention, harm reduction

treatment, recovery, across every piece of the continuum, and mental

health crisis supports as well. We are building up more supports, and

there is so much more for us to do.

[10:55 a.m.]

There’s no question. The continued loss of life says that further

work is necessary. We continue to evolve our response and add more ways

to save lives and guide people towards treatment, because lives are at

stake.

RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH

CARE BEDS IN WHITE

ROCK

T. Halford: I must say that the lack of accountability from this minister in

this House today is absolutely staggering.

Buena Vista Lodge has provided residential care beds in White Rock

for decades. Last month they received news from this government that the

mental health beds they provide are being cut. This is the letter they

received from Fraser Health: “You have been caring providers and have

provided excellent service to clients at the site. However, the process

we have embarked on for bed replacement has dedicated resources to other

projects.” These are 12 beds that are leaving the community, with no

explanation.

This isn’t the first time my community has seen this. We saw the

closure of Good Shepherd Lodge. That was 30 beds, 30 beds that were not

replaced by this minister. This minister can stand in this House and say

that the blame falls on health authorities, but the blame falls on this

minister for not having accountability in her own file.

Why is this minister cutting beds in the middle of a mental health

crisis?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member letting me know any details

about the facility that he describes. I….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: No, please, I welcome the….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you just asked a question. Let’s hear the answer,

Member.

Minister.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In every health authority, we have opened more addiction treatment

and recovery beds and more mental health beds than there have ever been

in the history of the province.

Just ten days ago I was in Cranbrook opening another ten beds. In

Chilliwack, in Coquitlam, in Northern Health, in Interior Health, in

Kelowna, in Kamloops, in….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. Thank you.

The minister will continue.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Through every health authority, with our half-billion-dollar

investment in Budget 2021, we are opening more treatment and recovery

beds. I just got another briefing yesterday about the new ones that are

opening.

Now, the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let the minister finish, please.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The member knows well that there are always contracts that come to

an end, sometimes when the operators themselves do not want to carry the

work on.

The direction that I’ve given to every health

authority….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We’re building the system of care that the members opposite

refused to do when they had the chance.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

HEALTH COMMITTEE

N. Sharma: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing

Committee on Health, for the third session of the 42nd parliament,

entitled Closing Gaps, Reducing Barriers: Expanding the Response to

the Toxic Drug and Overdose Crisis .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

N. Sharma: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

N. Sharma: In moving adoption of this report, I would like to make some brief

comments.

As the House knows, the drug toxicity and overdose crisis remains

a health emergency in B.C., with nearly six people dying every day. This

staggering loss gave urgency to our committee’s work. The grief and loss

of this crisis also permeated every meeting of this committee. I know it

was carried by each of us personally and by all of the

presenters.

[11:00 a.m.]

Over the course of six months, this committee met over 35 times,

listened to 118 presenters and reviewed 800 public submissions. We heard

from as many British Columbians as we could, including people who use

drugs, and their loved ones; international experts; policy-makers;

researchers; and those working on the front lines of this crisis. In

total, nearly 1,000 organizations and individuals shared their stories

and perspectives with the committee.

The toxic drug supply knows no borders and is hitting communities

around the world. We focused on finding solutions for B.C. to stem the

tide. One presenter called this a wicked problem, one with terrible

outcomes, multiple causes and multiple solutions. When solutions are

developed and administered tirelessly by front-line workers, the problem

shifts — in this case, with an even more increasing toxic

supply.

It was clear to the committee that treatment and recovery; harm

reduction, including safer supply; enforcement and prevention are all

key parts of the solution. In this report, where there was progress and

investment, we acknowledged that progress. The bulk of our committee’s

recommendations aim to address the remaining gaps and barriers we

learned about to ensure that all British Columbians can access

high-quality treatment and care when they need it.

What we heard is that some British Columbians are not able to

access life-saving supports and services. Sometimes this is because

there are gaps in services that mean they don’t exist in their community

or don’t fit their needs. Other times, it’s because there are barriers

that exist, whether these are the arduous requirements for receiving

medication, wait-lists for entering treatment programs or spaces that

are not welcoming to people.

This committee also discussed several principles that members felt

must underpin the government’s ongoing response to this crisis. These

included urgency; ensuring equitable life-saving services in all parts

of the province; offering a multitude of substance use care to meet

people where they’re at, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution;

building opportunities for connection through ensuring that every

touchpoint with government services by individuals at risk connects them

with community networks, resources and supports; ensuring that there are

evidence-based standards and oversight for service providers; including

people who use drugs in designing policies and programs that will affect

their health and safety.

It is our belief that moving out of this public health emergency

will require not just policy-makers and key investments but all British

Columbians to put aside any preconceived notions about this crisis and,

fundamentally, to address our society’s deeply held stigma towards

people who use drugs. It is clear that we need to work collectively to

find and focus on solutions that will save lives and help people achieve

wellness.

It is our hope that this committee’s report and its

recommendations are a step in this direction. Each committee member

comes from different parts of B.C., has different political affiliations

and lived experience. Yet we all came together to build consensus and

meet at our places of agreement. Ultimately, the work of this committee

was

an act of solidarity with all British Columbians impacted by this

crisis.

I’d like to thank all committee members for their commitment and

contributions to our robust debate throughout this process. In

particular, I’d like to recognize the Deputy Chair, the member for

Prince George–​Valemount, for her support and assistance. She is

fierce with her convictions and is clearly an individual who shows up

tirelessly and shows up every day with the intention to make this

province better, and I’m grateful for that.

I want to also thank the Leader of the Third Party for all her

compassionate and valuable contributions and helping us always to focus

on the people impacted.

To the member for Abbotsford-Mission, the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour, the member for Courtney-Comox, the member for

Nanaimo–North Cowichan, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, the member for

Peace River North and the member for Surrey–White Rock, thank you all

very much for your dedication and invaluable contributions to this

report.

As members of this House are no doubt aware, there’s a

considerable amount of work behind the scenes to support the

parliamentary committee. On behalf of the committee, I’d like to

acknowledge and extend our appreciation to the Legislative Assembly

staff.

[11:05 a.m.]

I’d like to thank the Clerk of the committee, Artour Sogomonian,

for his commitment to deadlines and keeping us moving; and from the

Parliamentary Committees Office, Darryl Hol, for his tireless and

patient work; and all team members, including Lisa Hill, Katey Stickle,

Natalie Beaton, Jesse Gordon, Mary Heeg, Jonathan Hamilton, Victor Lucy,

Mary Newell, Emma Curtis, Jianding Bai and Katey Flechl.

From IT, thank you to Darren Parfitt.

From Hansard Services, thank you to Simon DeLaat, Amanda

Heffelfinger, Billy Young, Dwight Schmidt and all the entire Hansard

broadcasting, transcribing and publishing team. I’d like to express this

committee’s sincere appreciation to everyone who took time to provide us

with input for this report and for all front-line workers who are saving

lives every day.

To British Columbians who have suffered losses at the hands of

this poisonous drug supply, we are truly sorry for your loss.

S. Bond: I would like to join with the Chair in thanking the incredible

staff that helped support the work of the committee, in particular

Artour. As I understand, this may have been one of the first times he’s

clerked for a committee — hopefully, not his last. He certainly kept us

on time and was a very, very important part of the work that we did, so

we’re very grateful for that.

I also want to recognize the Chair of the committee specifically,

the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She did an exceptional job of

chairing this committee. She listened carefully, allowing space for

complex and emotional discussions and finding ways to allow members to

speak candidly. She did an incredibly skilful job, and for that, we are

most grateful.

I also want to recognize the Leader of the Third Party — always

present, always passionate and never afraid to remind us of the

important work that needed to be done. I want her to know that we

appreciate that she did her homework and contributed in many important

ways.

As we table this report today, I think back over the months of

work that was done. We heard in person, as our Chair noted, from

hundreds of people and received feedback from over 800 groups or

individuals. We listened, we read, and we debated the steps that need to

be taken. There are some important themes that emerged.

We looked at who is dying. The majority of people that are dying

are young men, using alone, many working in the trades, transportation

and as equipment operators. Indigenous people are dying at significantly

higher rates, and in particular, Indigenous women — in fact, 9.8 times

more frequently than other women in our province. Young people and

children are also impacted. Our neighbors, our friends and our family

members.

We also learned about missed opportunities. Over and over again,

we heard that there is a lack of coordination between ministries and

organizations. We heard that over 70 percent of people who died had a

visit with a health professional less than three months before their

death, and 30 percent of those people had ten or more visits in the

three months prior to their death. People recently released from prison

died at seven times the rate of other B.C. residents. The committee

learned that those are critical and important touchpoints.

Something is desperately wrong, and it must be fixed. Others who

provided input spoke passionately about the window of opportunity — that

moment when people courageously ask for help. What did we learn?

Wait-lists. Lack of resources, made even more challenging if you live in

a rural or remote area of this province. It meant that that window was

missed. We must do so much better.

As a committee, we also want desperately for the actions that are

taken to be urgent, dealing with this health crisis just as we did with

the pandemic. We want to move beyond facing a crisis month after month

after month. The report outlines the need for a continuum of care. That

starts with prevention and education, finding the words and the ways to

talk about the risk of drug use, giving children and families

information, support and tools.

[11:10 a.m.]

But it was also very interesting to note that the most frequent

issues that were raised with the committee were related to the ability

to access treatment and recovery. Many presentations and submissions to

the committee indicated there are long wait-lists, if service is

available at all, depending on where you live in our province. In fact,

we heard that many individuals may die on wait-lists before being able

to access service.

It is absolutely critical that there be a substantive expansion of

publicly funded and accredited treatment and recovery services. As we

move forward, it is essential that we increase transparency and

accountability. The report includes recommendations related to the

collection of data, the creation of regulations and standards and the

need to outline specific outcomes that can be evaluated and must be

publicly reported.

While there is so much more that I could comment on, I would like

to end with these observations. The committee went on a journey, and I

can assure you the discussions were not always easy. But we worked hard

to listen carefully to those who had the courage to share their stories,

and also, we listened to each other. It is our hope that just as we

engaged in difficult conversations, British Columbians will do that as

well and that as the government considers these recommendations, they

will move quickly to ensure that we have a continuum of care that

includes prevention, education, harm reduction, treatment and

recovery.

The title says it all: closing the gaps, reducing the barriers,

expanding the response to the toxic drug and overdose crisis. We must

see significant investment across the entire continuum of care. We need

a sense of urgency, and we need to evaluate, monitor and report

publicly.

I’m so grateful to the people who participated in this process and

stepped up to provide us with input. The report says, in relation to the

recommendations tabled today: “Many are actions that need to be taken

immediately to save lives.” And it is our committee’s hope that

implementing them now will move B.C. out of this public health

emergency.

S. Furstenau: I, too, want to start by thanking my fellow committee members;

and, in particular, the Chair, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, and

the Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Valemount. I am so

grateful for the commitment and hard work that they brought and that all

members of the committee brought to this effort.

A huge amount of work was also done by the Clerk’s office, led by

Artour Sogomonian and Darryl Hol with their team. It is extraordinary

how quickly they were able to turn this around and produce this report.

I’m grateful for their hard work and diligence and also to Hansard

staff, especially to Billy Young and Amanda Heffelfinger who brought the

equipment to Vancouver, set it up and took it down every time. That’s an

enormous amount of work.

The report being presented to the Legislature today captures what

we heard about the ongoing drug poisoning crisis, a crisis that was

declared a health emergency over six years ago. Since that time, more

than 10,000 people have been killed by drug poisonings. Not overdose —

they did not take too much of a drug. Ten thousand people used a drug

that was deadly, either because it had too much fentanyl or because it

had a combination of substances that was deadly.

This past Friday night a group of teens used drugs. One, an

18-year-old named Kylie Walker, was killed by those drugs. She is the

grand-niece of Cowichan school trustee and Cowichan Tribes member, and

my friend, Joe Thorne. After hearing the news, Joe drove around Duncan

that evening, warning people, especially youth, that the drugs that were

circulating were deadly.

[11:15 a.m.]

At the Ministry of Health building on Blanshard, a mom whose

25-year-old son, Aubrey, was killed by toxic drugs, has been running a

marathon each day around that building, trying to get the government to

ensure that a safe supply of drugs is available and that information on

how to access that safe supply is available to people who need it, when

they need it.

This is the reality of the crisis: mothers, fathers, uncles,

grandparents, brothers, sisters, children, friends — all left to grieve

the loss of people they love, people who access drugs from an illicit,

chaotic and toxic supply.

Almost all of us in this chamber start our day with our drug of

choice. Mine is in the form of two shots of espresso, with hot water and

cream added. Without it, I have trouble thinking clearly and I have

trouble focusing on my work. If I wait until the afternoon, a withdrawal

symptom in the form of a headache will kick in. It’s not intolerable,

but it certainly diminishes my productivity. If I’m having a

particularly busy or demanding day, I will have a second dose of

caffeine, which will provide me with a shot of sometimes-manic

energy.

At the end of the working day, many of us will use another drug of

choice. Perhaps it’s a glass or two of alcohol, which has some

increasingly well-documented harmful effects on our bodies and our

long-term health, including increasing our risk of a variety of cancers.

Nonetheless, alcohol is advertised, celebrated, considered a perfectly

acceptable part of our culture and society.

Alcohol has not always been legal in this country. In fact, it was

prohibited, and when it was prohibited, it didn’t prevent people from

using it. It just made it much more dangerous to do so. You might have

lost your sight. You might have lost your life. Ultimately, the

government moved from prohibition to regulation, ensuring that when

people used alcohol, it was not going to poison them, unless they made

the choice to overdose by consuming too much of it.

People, perhaps, will use tobacco or nicotine delivered by vape.

Perhaps they will use cannabis purchased at a government-run store. Each

of these drugs is also regulated and taxed with tax revenues flowing

back to government. Each of these drugs is detrimental to people’s

health, with risks increasing with the volume of use, and each of these

drugs creates a cost to our health care system. But we don’t ascribe a

moral failing to the people who use them. We don’t insist that they need

to be fixed or healed.

This is what we heard over and over again from presenters, whether

they were health officers or researchers, drug users or doctors. Drug

use is part of the society that we live in, drug use exists on a

spectrum, and drug use is not going to stop because some policy-makers

wish that it would. Yes, there are people who use drugs who are dealing

with addiction, people who want access to treatment and recovery, but

not all drug use is a result of addiction, and not all drug users need

to be treated for addiction.

But in B.C., accessing drugs that are not regulated means risking

one’s life, because the chaos of the illicit drug market is deadly, and

it is killing six people every day. Some of those people may use drugs

every day, some may use on weekends or as infrequently as once a year,

and some may be trying drugs for the first time in their

lives.

On May 14, 2021, our caucus wrote a letter to the Premier and

interim Leader of the Official Opposition requesting an all-party

committee to create the kind of collaboration necessary that could

deliver immediate and long-term solutions to this crisis. We proposed

that the committee could have worked over the summer of 2021 and brought

recommendations to the House that fall. The official opposition wrote a

letter in response supporting this. It took nearly ten months for the

Premier to agree to give a mandate to the Select Standing Committee on

Health to do this work.

Today’s report is a reflection of what the committee heard, what

the committee discussed and the recommendations that the committee was

able to reach consensus on. The recommendations are not particularly

surprising or even particularly profound. They reflect what has been

called for by the coroners death review panels and by health officials

and advocates, although some of the recommendations in this report are

not as strong as we’ve heard before.

The 2018 coroners death review panel had three recommendations —

“ensure accountability for the substance use system of care,” including

standards and regulations for evidence-based addiction treatment;

“expand opioid agonist treatment and assessment of substance use

disorders”; and “expand drug use safety options.” These are reflected in

recommendations in today’s report, 4½ years later.

[11:20 a.m.]

In March of this year, seven months ago, another coroners death

panel released another report on illicit drug toxicity deaths. In that

report, the recommendations were to ensure a safer drug supply to those

at risk of dying from the toxic illicit drug supply, to develop a

30/60/90-day illicit drug toxicity action plan with ongoing monitoring

and to establish an evidence-based continuum of care.

Today’s report also recommends there be an evidence-based

continuum of care and recommends that government fund measures to ensure

that a prescribed safer supply of substances is available in all areas

of the province.

In these reports, people tend to read the executive

summary and

the recommendations. I urge people to focus on the what-we-heard

sections. It is in these parts of the reports that you will see the

reality of this crisis reflected.

We heard over and over again that there are misconceptions about

who is impacted — among the people most impacted are young men, people

working in trades, transport-equipment operators, Indigenous people and,

in particular, Indigenous women — and that substance use for them is

driven by ongoing colonialism, racism and intergenerational trauma. We

heard that mental health supports are lacking and underfunded. We heard

that drug use is polarizing and that political sensitivity has inhibited

governments from taking bold action.

We heard that overdose prevention sites and drug checking are

critical to preventing deaths, but many communities don’t have them. We

heard about safe supply, over and again. We heard that non-prescriber

models are critical to saving lives. We heard that the drug poisoning

crisis before us is well beyond the capacity of our current

prescriber-based model. We heard from the B.C. Association of Chiefs of

Police to expand access to low-barrier safe supply.

Did our recommendations fully reflect all that we heard? No, they

didn’t. Some of the recommendations that I think merit particular

attention include reiterating the need for a review of the Mental Health

Act and incorporating mental health into our health care system. We also

need to recognize that, as government, ensuring that people have their

basic needs met has to be a priority. People need housing. They need

access to healthy food. They need connection and community. They need

reliable health care. They need access to lifelong education and

learning.

I will end with an excerpt from Gabor Maté’s new book, The

Myth of Normal : “Addictions represent, in their onset, the

defences of an organism against suffering that it does not know how to

endure. In other words, we are looking at a natural response to

unnatural circumstances, an attempt to sooth the pain of injuries

incurred in childhood and stresses sustained in adulthood.”

Today’s report is important, and it documents the input that this

committee heard from a wide range of people and experts and people who

use drugs. It is yet another call to action, one of many since this

health emergency was declared. That action should be rooted in making

our province, our society one that creates healthier conditions for all

children and adults.

It is now up to government, as it has always been up to

government, to take action. This will take courage and political will,

and I hope to see both of these in the days and weeks to

come.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second read­ing, Bill 41, Workers

Compensation Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage, Bill 36,

Health Professions and Occupations Act.

[11:25 a.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2022

Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 41 be read a second time now.

It is a continuing priority for this government to ensure that

work is undertaken to further enhance the workers compensation system in

British Columbia and ensure that it is clearly focused on providing the

necessary support for injured workers and their families. The bill makes

important improvements to British Columbia’s workers compensation system

that will support government’s priorities for the system.

There are three main support systems that we are trying to improve

here. First, enhance worker and employer confidence in the system.

Ensure fair compensation for injured workers and surviving dependents.

Have a worker-centric focus that also considers employers’ interests.

These amendments act upon the recommendations from several expert

reports received by government since 2017. This work has included

focused consultation to ensure that employers, workers and other

stakeholders all have a voice in building a more balanced workers

compensation system.

This House has often heard me say that it is critical that every

worker who goes to work in the morning comes home safe and healthy at

the end of their shift. Anything less is not acceptable to me, not

acceptable to their families and certainly not acceptable to that

worker, whether those injuries be in the form of an obvious or immediate

physical injury, exposure to hazardous and dangerous materials at the

workplace that result in serious illness and death, or injuries that are

psychological in nature by being exposed to traumatic events in the

course of undertaking workplace duties.

However, such unacceptable injuries do happen. Workers in British

Columbia do sometimes suffer a workplace injury or even a tragic

fatality. It is essential that the workers compensation system be there

for these workers and their families. This means that the system must

not only provide appropriate compensation and support services but that

these critical supports be provided in a timely, effective, efficient

and professional manner.

It is also vital that both workers and employers have full

confidence and trust in all elements of the system. It is not good

enough that this system is effective and fine-tuned. The perception and

reality that all parties are being treated fairly, with the fullest

respect and consideration and in a timely way, is also most

important.

It is with these key foundations in mind that I am pleased to

speak on the systemic improvement that Bill 41 brings out. Before I

address each of these improvements in some detail, I will first outline

the actions that this government has taken since 2017 to bring about

substantive changes to British Columbia’s workers compensation

system.

In 2018, this government passed Bill 9, the Workers Compensation

Amendment Act, 2018, which added a presumption for first responders who

experience trauma as a result of their work and which results in a

diagnosed mental health injury or mental disorder. The amendment

included authority to add other occupations by regulations. Effective

April 2019, government amended the Mental Disorder Presumption

Regulation to ensure that nurses, emergency dispatchers and publicly

funded health care assistants are provided the mental disorder

presumption for work-related trauma.

In 2019, the government passed Bill 18, the Workers Compensation

Amendment Act, 2019, which expanded the definition of firefighters who

are eligible for these three workers compensation presumptions currently

available to firefighters — that is, the presumption for certain

cancers, for heart disease and heart injury, and for mental health

disorders.

[11:30 a.m.]

Related to this, since 2017, government has added a number of

cancers to the Firefighters Occupational Disease Regulation to ensure

that those diseases are also covered by the cancer presumption for

firefighters.

In 2020 government introduced Bill 23, which provided key

amendments to the Workers Compensation Act, which includes increasing

the maximum earnings threshold for calculating workers compensation to

bring B.C. more in line with other Canadian jurisdictions; enhancing

WorkSafeBC’s occupational health and safety investigation framework to

support the health and safety of British Columbia workers; enhancing the

operational effectiveness of the workers compensation system, such as

expanding WorkSafeBC’s authority to reconsider a decision on its own

initiative beyond the 75-day time limit to do so, in the case of an

obvious error or omission; and also allow WorkSafeBC to determine a

worker’s retirement date when the worker is over, say, 63.

I just want to touch on that. The current system that was brought

in by the previous government…. Even if you are age 30, a very early

age…. You are just a few years at a workplace, and you suffered a

permanent disability, and you were awarded a disability pension. It was

determined at that time, whether you’re age 25 or age 30, that you will

be retiring at age 65. A worker has no way to prove that, no, they

actually would be working beyond age 65.

We made those changes now so that, closer to their retirement, age

63 would be the right time where the worker can determine and convince

WorkSafeBC that, actually, their conditions or circumstances, their

environment, their health clearly show that they will be working past

age 65. So it is a much better system now to actually have a real age of

retirement for those workers who are receiving disability

pensions.

The next thing was adding a provision to shorten the statutory

time frame for WorkSafeBC to introduce an occupational disease

presumption for COVID-19 so that workers in occupations impacted by

COVID-19 would have quicker access to workers compensation

benefits.

Most recently, on February 16 of this year, I introduced Bill 5,

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2022. This legislation brings in new

protections to help keep workers safe from the dangers of asbestos

exposure. These amendments will require asbestos abatement contractors

to be licensed to operate in B.C. and will require workers and employers

who perform asbestos abatement work to complete mandatory safety

training and certification.

WorkSafeBC is actively working to implement these important and

life-saving measures. The number of deaths that WorkSafeBC handles each

year…. Over 40 percent of them are related to asbestos exposure that

took place 15, 20 and 30 years ago, so it is paramount that we deal with

it now. That’s why that particular legislation is so important. Now the

asbestos abatement workers and contractors all must receive this

training and certification so that they know the dangers of asbestos

exposure and know how to protect themselves.

I think this would be a huge step forward. It was the result of

work, cross-ministry — people that were involved in it, the workers,

their representatives, the employers who are in that field. I just want

to say thank you for educating us, bringing that to our attention and

giving us the recommendations to put that legislation. It is so

important that the House supported that at that time.

In addition to those legislative changes, WorkSafeBC has made a

number of policy, practice and program changes to improve services.

Government and WorkSafeBC have taken actions to improve the workers

compensation system in British Columbia. However, as I noted in my

December 2021 public statement, there is still more work that needs to

be done.

[11:35 a.m.]

Bill 41 is another step to improve the system and ensure it is

worker-centric. It is important to note that each of the changes in Bill

41 are enabling B.C. to catch up to similar measures that exist in other

Canadian jurisdictions. In that way, we are ensuring our workers

compensation system is, at minimum, among the best and most current in

Canada.

I will now turn my attention to providing comments on each of the

improvements to the workers compensation system that were brought about

as a result of these amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. I’d

like to begin by addressing a key amendment that will significantly

improve the fairness of the annual inflation adjustment to compensation

benefits provided to injured workers and surviving

dependents.

British Columbians are concerned about the inflationary pressures

they are facing in their daily lives, whether it be the cost of

groceries, gasoline, day-to-day essentials or other purchases. Whether

they be workers, students, retirees or businesses and employers,

everyone is feeling the stress of rising prices.

I would suggest that these pressures are especially felt by people

on a fixed income or benefits such as those provided to injured workers

who rely on the workers compensation system. The problem is that

although some British Columbians have such benefits and payments

regularly adjusted for inflation, injured workers and survivors in B.C.

have been placed at a distinct and pressing disadvantage in keeping up

with the rising prices.

In 2002, the government of the day reduced cost-of-living

increases for workers compensation benefits from being indexed at a full

rate of changes to the consumer price index, or CPI, to being indexed at

an annual change in CPI of minus 1 percent. Now think about this. The

cost is going up 2 percent, 3 percent and, recently, a much higher rate,

but their pensions are capped at CPI minus 1 percent.

They also put an additional cap on…. The maximum that could go is

4 percent. It was the legislative actions by that government that capped

the maximum annual indexation at 4 percent, even when inflation is above

the amount. Year after year, since 2002, injured workers have helplessly

witnessed their purchasing power erode through no fault of their

own.

I will repeat. The current adjustment is CPI minus 1 percent.

That’s what we have today. That was left and put in place by the

government of the day in 2002. Therefore, unless inflation is zero

percent on an annual basis, which you never see, a worker who has been

injured on the job and is depending on workers compensation benefits to

get by, day to day and month to month, has automatically seen their

income diminish in the face of inflation.

The cumulative impact of this policy for workers who were injured

in 2002 and are still in receipt of benefits is enormous and unfair. In

fact, it is punitive, and this needs to be changed.

Bill 41 amends the act to improve how compensation benefits are

adjusted for cost-of-living increases so payments are fully indexed to

inflation up to 4 percent. Further, the bill will provide WorkSafeBC

with the discretion to approve a higher adjustment when inflation, as

measured by the CPI, exceeds 4 percent.

This amendment will ensure that the cost-of-living increases

better support the long-term financial well-being of injured workers and

their families in the future. At the same time, giving WorkSafeBC the

discretion to exceed the 4 percent cap in years of higher inflation

provides a measure of financial protection for the accident fund and

employer premiums while allowing a higher inflation adjustment when the

system can afford it.

[11:40 a.m.]

It also points out that most other Canadian jurisdictions provide

for full cost-of-living indexing for compensation benefits. Only Alberta

and Nova Scotia make a reduction from a full rate of CPI. Both deduct

one-half of a percentage point, not the 1 percent that British Columbia

currently has.

I will now turn the House’s attention to the next key improvement

that these amendments bring about: providing for a legal duty for an

employer to return injured workers to work.

Currently British Columbia, again, is the only jurisdiction in

Canada to not provide clear and legislated requirements in its workers

compensation legislation for the duty to accommodate injured workers and

an obligation to return such workers back into the workplace.

It is time for British Columbia to catch up. It is time for

British Columbia’s injured workers to be and enjoy the benefits that all

other workers all across Canada enjoy, requiring employers and workers

to cooperate with each other and with WorkSafeBC to return workers to

their pre-injury employment or, where it is not possible, to other

suitable work, and support a more effective and fair system in this

province. Moreover, a better return-to-work outcome for workers also

supports more productive workplaces.

Also, it is the right thing to do. When a worker goes to work,

it’s the workers and employers working together that run that factory or

that operation. It’s together that they are making workplaces safer. It

is a joint responsibility to make sure that when the worker is injured

at the workplace….

As for the great compromise of 1917, where a worker who is injured

at a workplace is looked after, is supported through medical support and

returns to their pre-injury job where there is a possibility…. That is

the minimum requirement we should all have. That was the compromise that

was made at that time. So we want to bring it back to make sure that

workers enjoy the same rights as all other workers all across the

country.

Also, it’s important. Although the duty to accommodate a person

with a disability is required under B.C. human rights legislation,

expert reviews have emphasized the importance of codifying their

re-employment and duty-to-accommodate principles into the Workers

Compensation Act to make clear the exact natures of the obligations,

upon whom they fall, and the consequences of non-compliance.

These amendments also provide that the employers with fewer than

20 workers will be provided an exemption from the duty-to-accommodate

provisions. This provision aligned with Janet Patterson’s recommendation

that this provision be provided in alignment with Ontario. Larger

employers are better able and equipped to provide staffing options and

workplace duty allocations to accommodate injured workers back into work

environments, as opposed to smaller worksites that may not provide that

flexibility.

There must be consequences for employers who fail to comply with

these important provisions. Bill 41 provides that WorkSafeBC may, at its

discretion, impose an administrative penalty on an employer who has

failed to comply with the duty to cooperate and the duty to maintain

employment. These amendments will provide WorkSafeBC with the discretion

to determine the penalty to be applied, and it specifies that WorkSafeBC

must notify the employer in the appropriate manner.

I would like to provide comments on another amendment that

provides a fundamental improvement to the workers compensation system

here in B.C., an improvement that perhaps many of those listening to my

comments think already exists. They it take for granted, but it does not

exist.

I’m referring to the amendment that addresses the unethical and,

to be frank, despicable practice of claim suppression. Claim suppression

occurs when an employer acts to discourage a worker from filing a

workers compensation claim or to punish them for doing so through

dismissal, discipline or other retaliatory actions. It happens. I’ve

seen it happen. Many people probably have come to your offices and have

told those MLA offices that it is happening.

[11:45 a.m.]

That is wrong. It is the responsibility of the employer to make

sure that the health and safety of the worker is maintained and

enhanced. It is their responsibility, when an injury or illness at a

workplace occurs, to report it to workers compensation, not to

discourage workers from filing a claim, not to punish a worker when they

are exercising the legal right that they have — and they are exercising

that legal right.

British Columbia’s workers compensation system provides no-fault

compensation benefits for work-related injuries, diseases, mental health

disorders and fatalities. The system, as I mentioned before, has been in

place since 1917, based on the so-called “historic compromise,”

where­by the employer funds both compensation for workers and

their surviving dependents and the regulation of workplace health and

safety. In return, employers avoid litigation over workplace incidents.

That was the compromise. That is the basic principle behind the workers

compensation system in British Columbia and elsewhere. We cannot ignore

that fact.

What claims suppression does is to actively and intentionally deny

or frustrate an injured worker from exercising their legal right, under

the Workers Compensation Act, to file a compensation claim and to

receive the benefits to which they are entitled for an injury sustained

at work. As I indicated before, it may be an unpleasant surprise, for

members of this House, to be informed that this practice is not already

strictly prohibited. That is a surprise for many who may think that this

already exists, but it does not in British Columbia, thanks to the

previous government’s changes.

To remedy the situation, amendments to the act contained in Bill

41 add explicit provisions prohibiting employers from discouraging

workers from filing a workers compensation claim, with enforcement

through occupational health and safety penalty provisions, including

orders and financial penalties.

Prohibiting claims suppression will help to ensure that

work-related injuries and diseases are funded out of the workers

compensation system, as intended, rather than through the public health

system, at a cost to the taxpayers. That is because an injured worker

will still need medical attention and treatment. The taxpayers should

not be paying for this, for injuries sustained at work. Otherwise, what

is the workers compensation system for? That’s a basic fundamental: if

you’re injured at work, you’re looked after through the workers

compensation system, not the public health system. So we are putting an

end to that.

It is, again, important to note the actions that other Canadian

jurisdictions have taken to address claims suppression. Manitoba,

Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and the Yukon all

have legislative provisions explicitly prohibiting claims suppression.

While we are catching up with other jurisdictions, it is important to

note that the new provisions will mirror the provisions that are already

in the act and that prohibit an employer from retaliating against a

worker for reporting an injury or raising a health and safety

concern.

The next two improvements I would like to address concern the

fundamental, overarching issue of confidence. Is there confidence? It

means confidence in there being fair processes and fair treatment at

WorkSafeBC, confidence in the medical decisions concerning a worker’s

physical or psychological condition, and confidence in the workers

compensation system as a whole.

With this bill, another improvement will be to establish a fair

practices commissioner, whose office will be established in a way that

will enhance its independence from the rest of WorkSafeBC. The fair

practices commissioner will be appointed directly by the WorkSafeBC

board of directors.

[11:50 a.m.]

The amendments also lay out the purpose and function of the

commissioner: to investigate complaints, by both workers and employers,

of alleged unfairness in dealing with WorkSafeBC, including systemic

issues, and to make recommendations to WorkSafeBC for resolving such

complaints.

By establishing a more independent fair practices commissioner

compared to the current fair practices office, the provisions of Bill 41

will ensure that WorkSafeBC delivers services to and addresses

complaints from workers and employers in a fair, impartial and

respectful manner with more transparency, given a new requirement for

the commission to produce an annual report.

The second amendment that is directly related to confidence,

certainly, and even peace of mind is the issue of independent medical

opinions. The provisions in Bill 41 will allow worker- or

employer-initiated independent medical opinions to be requested as part

of an appeal to the external Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Such

a request will be permitted after the avenues to address medical

disputes at WorkSafeBC and its internal review divisions have been

pursued. The provisions will increase both worker and employer

confidence in the appeal system when the worker’s medical condition is

at issue.

The worker or employer will be able to request that the tribunal

retain an independent health professional. This health professional will

provide additional advice and assistance on the medical issue, which the

tribunal will consider when deciding the appeal. Several Canadian

jurisdictions already provide workers or employers with the right to

request an independent medical opinion. Saskatchewan workers have the

right. In Ontario and Quebec, employers have the right, while in

Manitoba, both workers and employers have the right to request an

independent medical opinion.

I would like to comment also on an amendment that will provide a

financial benefit to certain injured workers. Currently, interest on

delayed compensation must be paid only in very limited and narrow

circumstances. The proposed amendments to the act will add an additional

broader requirement for interest to be paid on compensation owed as a

result of WorkSafeBC’s review division or Workers Compensation Appeal

Tribunal decision where the worker has been entitled to that

compensation for 180 or more days.

This improvement is about providing interest payment to injured

workers who have gone without financial support which they were entitled

to. This is both an important fairness and accountability measure. It is

important to note that in this instance, as well, British Columbia is

currently not in alignment with several other Canadian jurisdictions.

Quebec, Newfoundland and the Yukon have legislative provisions for

interest payments. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario provide for

interest payments by policy.

Finally, I would like to address the last improvement. This

improvement addresses an issue that will be of benefit to workers who

have suffered non-traumatic hearing loss as a result of their workplace

duties and activities but who continue to work, with no loss of income.

The Workers Compensation Act currently caps compensation for this

situation at 15 percent of the total disability. The proposed amendments

will allow WorkSafeBC to increase the cap for non-traumatic hearing loss

without the need for further legislative changes.

Especially, this amendment will remove the 15 percent cap from the

provisions of the Workers Compensation Act and provide the authority to

WorkSafeBC to determine the cap by regulation. It is important to point

out that every other jurisdiction in Canada compensates non-traumatic

hearing loss at greater than 15 percent of total disability. British

Columbia is clearly behind in this respect, and this situation needs to

be addressed by way of these amendments.

This government is committed to a sustainable workers compensation

system, with affordable and stable premiums paid by the employer that

places injured workers at the centre. I can assure all employers

throughout British Columbia that government recognizes the importance of

a WorkSafeBC accident fund that is healthy and sustainable.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The important changes introduced today will not lead to an

increase in WorkSafeBC’s 2023 base premium rate, which was confirmed

last week at 1.55 percent — unchanged since 2018. For 2024-2025, these

amendments and the impact on the premiums…. The board will consider a

number of factors and determine those premiums in the coming

years.

[11:55 a.m.]

Changes over the longer term will be determined by many factors,

including provincial injury rates, return-to-work performances, claim

costs and investment performances. WorkSafeBC’s board of directors

consider all these factors when they set premiums going forward. That’s

what they will be doing going forward in the coming years.

It is important to note that the WorkSafeBC accident fund is

already being used to discount premium rates below the cost of rate, and

this has been happening for a number of years since the funds returned

to an excess surplus position. The surplus in the fund is a buffer to

the volatility of current and future market swings, and it will help

moderate any impact to rates as a result of these amendments.

In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge

everyone who has contributed either directly or indirectly to these

improvements to the workers compensation system. I offer my thanks to

all of the reviewers who have used their knowledge and expertise to

review various aspects of the system and issue their report: Paul

Petrie, Lisa Helps, Terry Bogyo, Jeff Parr, Janet Patterson. Thank you

for your insight and work on these important issues.

I would like to thank all the decision-makers and staff at

WorkSafeBC and the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal for their

continuing work and dedication toward realizing the core mandate of the

workers compensation system every day. Whether it be compensation,

occupational health and safety prevention issues, vocational

rehabilitation or appeal adjudication, I say thank you.

I also wish to acknowledge the work ahead for both WorkSafeBC and

the tribunal to fully implement the changes in this bill. It is also

important for me to express my appreciation to all the workers and the

employer groups and individuals who have brought forth their perspective

and comments. Again, thank you for your input and advice.

Lastly, I would like to personally thank all of the injured

workers and their families and loved ones who have personally contacted

me, the Premier, other ministers and MLAs on both sides of the

Legislature and other levels of government to detail their personal

experiences and challenges.

Many of these people have brought forward to me specific

suggestions on how the workers compensation system should be improved.

Key examples are issues being addressed in Bill 41 around cost of living

adjustment, interest payments, safe and timely return of injured workers

to work, an effective and fair practices process, independent medical

opinions and claim suppression.

When I have relayed these concerns to workers and their families,

I have told them that I would certainly take their suggestions into

consideration when government is in a position to amend the Workers

Compensation Act. For some of those concerns, that day has now arrived,

with the changes we are proposing in Bill 41. At the same time, this

does not mean that our work is done. The government will continue to

listen to concerns of all stakeholders and will review other aspects of

the system over time. The improvements contained within Bill 41 are

important and substantial steps in this continuing work.

With that, I ask all members of this Legislative Assembly to join

with me and this government and support these important legislative

improvements. I look forward to the debate on this bill.

With that, I conclude my comments.

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), 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 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND

OCCUPATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 36;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:29 a.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. Lee: I just want to come back to the minister’s response in terms of

the DRIPA action plan items. Certainly, I had identified in my second

reading speech, as well, items 3.7, 4.8 and 4.14.

[11:30 a.m.]

On 3.17, as the minister and I were discussing, I certainly would

appreciate the offer to have a separate briefing, with the member for

Prince George–Valemount, about the status of the other 21

recommendations in the In Plain Sight report, including

recommendation 24, of course, which does talk about the task team that

has a 24-month period to report back on the items in the In Plain

Sight report.

Turning now to the other two items, action item 4.8, could I ask

the minister to reference that action item and describe how he sees Bill

36 as implementing part of that action item 4.8.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s good to see you

today.

I thank the member for his question. I’m just reminding people

that this is a continuation of a discussion the member and I were having

yesterday. We were discussing these things.

To remind people who don’t have the DRIPA action plan in front of

them and might be listening to us,

section 4.8 is: “In alignment with

the tripartite health plans and agreements, continue to strengthen and

evolve the First Nation health governance structure in B.C. to ensure

First Nations are supported to participate as full and equal partners in

decision-making and service delivery at local, regional and provincial

levels.” Importantly, it continues on, on the need for legislation:

legislation as envisioned in the tripartite health plans and

agreements.”

Specifically, with respect to that, as noted in some of our

previous exchanges — I won’t go over these points in detail, because

we’ve dealt with them a bit before — cultural safety is hard-wired into

every aspect of the regulatory framework in the HPOA.

We sometimes have this discussion in the House; I know I did when

I was an opposition member, and members of the opposition raised some of

these issues. Disproportionately, this bill…. One of the reasons the

bill is longer, I would argue, is that we haven’t moved things into

regulations. These sections, for example, for the most part, are

hard-wired into the legislation. In fact, they’re stated plainly in the

legislation. The regulations

section starts towards the end of the bill.

We’ll have a chance to discuss those.

I think that’s an important principle, when people talk about the

length of the bill. Sometimes bills are reduced in size by moving things

into regulation, as we know, and as the member will know from many

debates in this Legislature.

Cultural safety is hard-wired into every aspect of the regulatory

framework. The guiding principles are critical to that. At

section

14(2), we’ll have an occasion to discuss that. The anti-discrimination

measures in

section 15 make it clear — and this is important — that

discrimination is “misconduct and actionable conduct.” That’s sections 9

and 11(1)(c).

Revamping the complaints process by enabling restorative processes

that could be influenced by Indigenous practices — that’s

section 157

and

section 268(1), as well as enabling support workers and access to

counselling for people that have experienced discrimination. That is in

the legislation.

Clear expectations for regulated health professionals for

providing services ethically, in compliance with anti-discrimination

standards, are set by the regulatory college — that’s

section 72(1)(a) —

in collaboration with “one or more persons nominated…by Indigenous

governing bodies…” or representative bodies — that’s

section

384(2)(c).

Requiring the superintendent to collaborate with one or more

persons nominated by Indigenous governing bodies or representative

bodies when conducting an oversight process that relates to Indigenous

matters — that’s

section 467.

I should say that these additions, to improve cultural safety,

were established with Indigenous leaders in B.C. at both the RFL, which

is important in advance of the drafting stage, and then at the drafting

stage. I think that in that sense the act follows the recommendations of

the DRIPA action plan with our own commitments under In Plain

Sight, and it reflects the way in which we need to work now and

in future.

[11:35 a.m.]

As you know, the DRIPA action plan came in, in the middle of this

process of legislation. We were already well engaged with Indigenous

communities, Indigenous leaders, in our own processes, including related

to In Plain Sight . All that said, those action plan items are

critically important and are reflected in the legislation.

I know that we’ll have an opportunity to discuss that as we go

through the legislation, but we want to have this general discussion

under

section 1, and I appreciate the member’s question.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response. I appreciate that,

again, the minister has shared various specific sections in the act in

front of us that will speak to many of the items. This is, really,

framing in terms of the understanding, as I get through the balance of

my first set of questions here.

So just one other point, then, on the DRIPA action plan, at least.

Could the minister also share some basic overview, again, as to action

item 4.14, which does speak to, of course, increasing the availability

do with the COVID-19 pandemic health? But as to how the minister reads

that action item, “…to ensure access for all Indigenous peoples to

immediate and culturally safe and relevant care closer to home,” there

are certainly elements there that I’m sure the minister is focused on

for Indigenous nations.

Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate the member’s question. This is legislation, of

course, so some of the recommendations of 4.14 are focused on the

delivery of services. By definition, that’s not the role of legislation.

That said, we’ve seen a very significant increase in those services, and

that’s something that I know he and I may wish to discuss and something

he may engage with us to discuss — with response to In Plain

Sight as well.

What the regulatory framework does do, though, is address how

health services are provided — strengthens provisions to ensure they are

provided in a way that is free of discrimination and aligned with

anti-discrimination principles. I think, across the board, that supports

those efforts — those efforts that are really part of, in some cases,

budget processes and other processes with respect to services. But it

also means and establishes very clear rules as to how health

professionals will conduct themselves in that way. And in that way, it

is directly relevant to 4.14 as well.

Obviously, we don’t do that in legislation. I know the member is

very experienced in these issues and understands that.

M. Lee: I would like to just now turn to UNDRIP itself. The minister

referred to, in passing, a significant

section of the bill, which we

will get to when we get to that

section —

section 14 under division 2,

“Guiding Principles.” But just at the outset, given the nature of the

discussion we’ve been having, I appreciate the flexibility of the

minister to have it here.

As I did ask a similar question yesterday in terms of the DRIPA

action plan, could the minister identify, under UNDRIP, which specific

principles are applicable to this particular Bill 36? Obviously,

article

24 would be one, but I’d just like the minister to comment if he

can.

Hon. A. Dix: We went through some of the ways in which we responded yesterday,

so I don’t want to repeat that. But I’m happy to share more information

with the member.

The UNDRIP articles that I think are touched on here are

article

2, which is: “Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to

all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any

kind of discrimination.” UNDRIP

article 3 relates to the right to

self-determination. UNDRIP

article 13.2: “States shall take effective

measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that

Indigenous people can understand and be understood in political, legal

and administrative proceedings.”

The province…. There is more to that, but I’ll….

UNDRIP

article 15.1: “Indigenous peoples have the right to dignity

and diversity of their cultures, traditions, and histories.” There’s

more to that, but the member can refer to that. UNDRIP

article 18, which

is “…the right to participate in decision-making in matters that may

affect their rights.” That’s reflected here, and we can describe the

alignment, but we probably will as we get to the appropriate sections.

If the member has more questions, I’d be happy to deal with it. But in

the interests of time….

[11:40 a.m.]

UNDRIP

article 22.1, which has to do with the particular attention

being paid “to the rights and special needs of Indigenous Elders, women,

youth, children and persons with disabilities.” UNDRIP

article 24, as he

notes, individuals have the right to access, without any discrimination

to all rights and privileges. And

article 24.1, “Indigenous peoples have

the right to their traditional medicines,” which is also maintained and

reflected in the legislation.

Those would be the key, I think, provisions of UNDRIP that are

reflected in different parts of the legislation. I’d be happy to go into

more detail on those items individually. I didn’t want to just say in

each case where we would respond but see where the member wants to take

it.

M. Lee: I think we’ll have the opportunity to talk about the specific

articles of UNDRIP that the minister has identified here.

In terms of the framing of Bill 36, I think that is a good list to

work through as we look at specific items and how they might relate

back. But in view of that list of articles that the minister named, is

it the government’s view, then, that Bill 36, in terms of the

requirement to align the laws of British Columbia, including this bill

as it comes forward, with UNDRIP…? Is the ministry of the view that it

is aligned with UNDRIP?

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s always important, especially in these matters, to be

modest about it. But we feel extraordinary efforts have been made, not

just by us but by Indigenous peoples, to ensure that the principles of

UNDRIP are reflected, not just in one occasion in the legislation, but

across the legislation.

One of the reasons I wanted to focus on all of the different

sections yesterday in response to this — where UNDRIP is reflected,

where In Plain Sight is reflected — is to show that that is

woven through the legislation. I really credit all of the people who

have engaged in the work on this and the consultation on this and our

teams who were open and listening to that work.

I talked yesterday, if people were watching or are watching today,

about the effort to hear and then develop a response and then see if

that response actually met, not just what we think we heard, but what

people wanted to communicate to us.

In addition to that, in the core of the guiding principles of the

legislation is UNDRIP. It’s

section 14(2), and we’ll have occasion to

get to it. But in exercising powers and performing duties under this

act, a person must act in accordance with the following principles, and

one of those is the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples.

In that sense, it’s embedded as a principle in the act, the

guiding principle. But also more than in the guiding principles because

I think a person might legitimately say, “Well, that’s one thing,” but

also in its sections. I think that reflects the work that people

collectively did to make sure that the act reflected the kinds of

principles that we want to see in the legislation.

We are relatively early in the passage of the reconciliation bill.

This is a really powerful effort to reflect that — an important piece of

legislation that touches on people in general, but obviously, Indigenous

people in particular. You see that reflected in the

legislation.

I’m not sure I’ll answer that I think that we’ve done everything

that we could, because there is always more you can do. But I think a

very significant effort has been made here, and I hope that the member

agrees with that.

M. Lee: I must say that I’ve had the opportunity through successive bills

and estimate processes to talk to various ministers of the government

about compliance with UNDRIP and the DRIPA action plan. In the

Minister’s responses here, I can certainly recognize the level of

approach here, which is thoughtful. I do think that the minister did hit

on a question which I will get to in

section 14, at the appropriate

time, around the purpose of the reference to UNDRIP in that particular

section.

[11:45 a.m.]

In going on to identify that there is recognition of the need to

comply with the specific articles, that’s helpful, in the sense that we

can see how that is weaved in, for clarity and certainty, into the

legislation that’s being presented here. I think that we will

have….

If I had to pick one, though, of the list of articles that he

named, the one particular

article I’d like to spend a few minutes on, is

article 18, just to get the sense of the minister, at the outset of this

bill review. If the minister could just give a further explanation,

elaborate on how

article 18 is being met and, perhaps, give some

examples in Bill 36.

Hon. A. Dix: Just to remind people who might be listening to us…. This will be

the last answer. I think that we’re at time here, so that gives me a

chance to give a longer answer. I’m just kidding.

Article 18: “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in

decision-making in matters which would affect their rights.” I want to

make reference to three sections of the bill where this is relevant.

There are others, but three.

Section 19, designation assessment of any profession or occupation

that must involve “Indigenous persons who provide similar types of

health services in accordance with Indigenous practices.” For instance,

the superintendent would not be able to designate Indigenous midwifery,

traditional Indigenous medicine or Indigenous counselling approaches

without consulting the Indigenous persons providing that service in

accordance with their own traditions, values and beliefs. This ensures

self-determination in how Indigenous health and wellness occupations are

regulated.

I’d also referred to

section 288(2), support workers must be

nominated with entities representing Indigenous people.

And

section 384(2)(b), bylaws and rules involving Indigenous

matters must be done with one or more persons representing Indigenous

communities.

Those are three examples, with respect to

section 18, that are

directly relevant to those sections.

I don’t know if it’s the occasion to do it, but having a

discussion…. I referred to, myself, a lot of different sections in this

discussion of the proposed

section 1. It’s part of, hopefully, the

exchange that we can have so the member can deal with that as we come. I

know sometimes he’ll have a certain amount of time and a place, so we

may find an occasion — for example, under

section 14 — to have that

broader discussion as well. I’m open to whatever the member would

like.

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.