2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Members' Conflict of Interest

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill M216)

Horgan

Victims of Crime Compensation Act, 2008 (Bill

M217)

Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Health risks for firefighters

Cantelon

Women's Campaign School

Hammell

Accessible playground in

Coquitlam

I. Black

Haida Heritage Centre

G. Coons

Green-powered street light in

Steveston

J. Yap

Doug Stead

Thorne

Oral Questions

Premier's compliance with

conflict-of-interest guidelines

Gentner

Hon. M.

de Jong

L. Krog

Horgan

Government support for forest

workers

Trevena

Hon. C.

Hansen

Conroy

Simpson

Funding for Buy B.C. program

C. Evans

Hon. P.

Bell

Respite services for disabled

children

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Funding for cultural curriculum

in B.C. schools

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Bond

Petitions

B. Simpson

L. Krog

Tabling Documents

Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, annual report, 2007

Petitions

S. Fraser

R. Chouhan

G. Coons

Committee of the Whole House

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25) (continued)

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Reporting of Bills

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

Third Reading of Bills

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

Second Reading of Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26) (continued)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Patient Care Quality Review Board

Act (Bill 41)

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Chouhan

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)

Robertson

Hon. B.

Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

(continued)

C. James

Hon. G.

Campbell

[ Page 12965 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to introduce to the

Legislature today His Excellency Yong Gaun Koh, High Commissioner of Singapore

to Canada. The high commissioner is based in Singapore, where he is the chairman

of the Central Provident Fund Board.

Accompanying him is Mr. Chin Kwok Foo, consul general of Singapore

based in Vancouver. I ask the House to make them both feel very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. S. Hagen: Today I had the pleasure of having lunch

with four residents of the Comox Valley: David Lewis, who is the executive

director of the Truck Loggers Association, and his son Sterling, and Mark Fisher

and his son Liam. They are seated in the gallery now.

The interesting thing is that David actually bought a package of

having lunch with me at a Rotary auction — actually paid money to a charity to

have lunch with me. So would the House please join me in making them feel very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest

Amendment Act, 2008.

J. Horgan: I move introduction of the Members' Conflict of

Interest Amendment Act, 2008, and that it be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to once again introduce the

Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act. This bill establishes clear

conflict-of-interest rules for public officeholders.

It takes two major steps to change the existing members' act,

including extending the provisions of the act to deputy ministers and government

appointees, including ministerial staff and advisers to those in charge of the

public sector entities. These appointees will be prohibited from improperly

benefiting from their office, and it would prohibit them from operating a

business, taking another job or office or serving as a consultant while holding

a public appointment.

The bill will also oblige members of cabinet, parliamentary

secretaries and deputy ministers to place their assets in a blind trust while

they hold that position, in place of the existing reporting provisions. This

provision arises out of the ruling last year where the Conflict-of-Interest

Commissioner suggested that such a change be made.

This would bring British Columbia legislation in line with

conflict legislation at the federal level and will assure British Columbians

that officeholders in B.C. are fully accountable for their actions.

In his last report to the Legislature, outgoing

Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner H.A.D. Oliver stated the following: "Recent

experience indicates that consideration be given to the inclusion of political

staff, including ministerial assistants, chief of staff in the office of the

Premier and deputy ministers in the list of persons subject to the Conflict of

Interest Act."

I couldn't imagine a better endorsement, but Mr. Oliver goes

further and recommends that government deal with the substance of my proposed

legislation as a matter of public business.

Absent any government initiative on this matter, I move that this

bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill M216, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2008,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VICTIMS OF CRIME COMPENSATION ACT, 2008

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Victims of Crime

Compensation Act, 2008.

M. Farnworth: I call the Victims of Crime Compensation Act,

2008, and I move first reading now.

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth: It's a devastating and emotionally jarring

experience to be harmed by another's criminal act. It's senseless and profoundly

unfair that innocent people die and are seriously injured simply because of such

unfortunate circumstances beyond their control.

While programs and services are in place to rehabilitate criminals

and those who conduct criminal acts, to protect the public from being victims of

crime, we need to be doing more. This act recognizes the importance that many

people don't just get up and go back to work the next day after being a victim

of a violent criminal act. This act recognizes the emotional trauma and

long-term physical pain that many people experience when these systems fail.

Victims and families deserve to be recognized and to have programs in place that

can assist them through their traumatic ordeal.

Hon. Speaker, what this act does is put in place a system similar

to what exists in the province of Quebec whereby victims of crime and their

families are eligible to take up to a two-year unpaid leave of absence from

their work and not have to worry about returning to their place of employment —

that they are able to do so.

[1340]

[ Page 12966 ]

This recognizes the trauma that many people go through. It

recognizes that you don't just get up and go back to work the next day. The

process of healing can take a considerable amount of time, and worrying whether

you're able to return to your place of employment should not be part of that

trauma.

This act has come about through a lot of work and consultation

with victims of crime groups. I'm very proud to stand here and table it in this

House today. It's time that we recognized victims' rights.

I move that this bill be placed on the order paper for second

reading after today.

Bill M217, Victims of Crime Compensation Act, 2008, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) HEALTH RISKS FOR FIREFIGHTERS

R. Cantelon: I rise today in the House to talk about the

respect both sides of this House have for the commitment and bravery that our

firefighters show on a daily basis in our communities. The events that have

unfolded in Prince George in the last day and a half frankly make the words that

I've prepared pretty trivial.

The industrial fire that they're facing is the worst type, the

worst case of fires that firefighters have to face. The fumes are toxic, and

they recognize that going to a fire like this puts them at risk immediately and

in the long run. The toxic fumes that they are exposed to, both in breathing and

through the skin, are the worst kind of exposure that a firefighter has. Yet up

there every firefighter meets the call, and they're there on duty bravely

fighting that fire. We should all salute them today for what they do.

It was a very happy event, in addressing those concerns, that

today the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services announced a future

extension, which began in March 2005, of coverage of cancers that are a result

of long-term exposure to these kinds of risks. Effective immediately, testicular

cancer has been added to the list that doesn't require justification for

treatment. Today we, the government, announced that lung cancer in non-smokers

would also be covered.

I can speak confidently. These resolutions were passed unanimously

by both sides of the House, and I'm sure we can look forward to their support.

I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work of the executive of the

firefighters that have brought these things to pass. Secretary-treasurer Harold

Hoyming, vice-president Tim Baillie and president Al Leier have been working

hard to achieve these benefits for their members.

In my constituency Chad Parker, Ron Daley, Brian Wood, Mike Rispin

and Bill Eggers have been tireless in persisting forward with the case to make

this for all firefighters. So let's all support what the firefighters have been

doing.

WOMEN'S CAMPAIGN SCHOOL

S. Hammell: There's a unique school tooling up this weekend

that addresses a unique problem. The non-partisan Women's Campaign School will

be held at SFU Harbour Centre, with the opening reception being hosted at the

home of a former member of this House, Joy MacPhail.

This school is the longest-running school of its kind in Canada

that teaches women the skills to run successful election campaigns. I have spent

time in North Africa and in the Middle East working with women candidates who

are trying to find their voice in the political system. Every time I speak about

women's participation outside of Canada, I am clear that my home country does

not have an exemplary record around including women in our political culture.

In Canada women constitute 51 percent of the population, yet the

number of women elected to positions across Canada remains less than 25 percent.

This Legislature just breaks 20 percent, and we have never elected, in an

at-large election, a woman as Premier of a province or as Prime Minister. This

record does not put us anywhere near the top of the list of countries that

acknowledge that the way for women to be recognized is through a collective

voice heard within the circles of government.

The Women's Campaign School hopes to encourage and inspire women

to assume leadership roles in political life. Some of the courses include

campaign strategies and securing the nomination, and some of the speakers

include our current Minister of State for Childcare, who has always been a

strong supporter of this school, and Penny Priddy, former B.C. NDP MLA and

cabinet minister. Both are honorary chairs of this school.

This school is one important strategy to address the lack of

women's voices. Let's wish all the women participating in that school much

success.

[1345]

ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUND

IN COQUITLAM

I. Black: On June 19 in my riding there's going to be a

very, very special ribbon cutting. We're going to open a park, a very special

park. It's special for two reasons. It's special because of those who will use

it, and it's special because of those who made it a reality.

Carlie Collins came home from teaching one day, musing that one of

her students was left out from one of the most important things that children do

— play. So she turned to an organization in our community that has a long and

proud history of proving their motto, "Serving the community's greatest need."

The Kinette and Kinsmen members of Coquitlam formed a plan that

involved the provincial and municipal government and then took on a mission of

ensuring that the mentally and physically challenged are included in our

community, in their community.

The Coquitlam Kin Accessible Playground at Towne Centre in

Coquitlam will do just that. Children who are physically or mentally challenged

will have

[ Page 12967 ]

the use of playground facilities specifically designed to their specific

needs. Children of all ages and abilities will have the opportunity to play

together in this inclusive playground.

Whether children are visually impaired, autistic or paraplegic,

the equipment design of this safe and accessible playground will cater to

everybody. In fact, it'll even provide opportunities for parents in wheelchairs

to play alongside their able-bodied kids.

It will include high-back swings with straps, a circuit with high

and low points, and two ramp accesses. Additional features include transfer

points to help people using wheelchairs and a creative marine structure with a

variety of strength and ability options.

The Kinette and Kinsmen members and the clubs have a long, long

history of community service in Coquitlam, raising funds for everything from

Eagle Ridge Hospital to Big Brothers Big Sisters and the Kinsmen Foundation

itself, to name but a few. This is yet another permanent reminder of the

importance of this organization and the tireless efforts that they show day

after day.

I'd like you to join me in saluting them for their ingenuity,

their tenacity, their compassion and their citizenship. Let's hope the kids have

fun too.

HAIDA HERITAGE CENTRE

G. Coons: I don't think there is anything more refreshing

than having a moment to speak about an exciting event that is happening in one

of my communities. I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about the grand

opening of the Haida Heritage Centre at Qay'llnagaay, which will take place on

August 23 in Skidegate.

The 53,000-square-foot centre replicates a traditional Haida

seaside village, the village of Qay'llnagaay, or the sea lion town, which once

stood on the site. It's a series of longhouses connected by interior walkways

and atrium spaces.

As the location of the newly expanded Haida Gwaii museum, with its

many exhibits and artifacts, this expansive multipurpose centre houses a

multitude of cultural treasures. Exhibits featured in the museum deal with

contact and conflict, the potlatch and the repatriation story, as well as a tree

gallery and natural history exhibits.

Even far more breathtaking is a canoe house, home to the

Lootaas , a 50-foot Haida war canoe carved by the late Bill Reid for Expo 86

and paddled from Vancouver to Skidegate, as well as its modern sister the

Looplex , which is made of fibreglass.

If you like food, as I've noticed most of us in the House do,

you'll be as excited as I am to visit the eating house where visitors learn

about the preparation, presentation and preservation of traditional foods as

well as a chance to try delicious Haida cuisine.

Even if these were the only services located in the centre,

there's plenty more to get excited about. One of the most intriguing and

exciting parts of the centre is a carving shed, which gives Haida carvers the

opportunity to work on larger monumental projects such as canoes and totem

poles. In the last three years, three dugout canoes were carved from start to

finish.

I'd like to join the Skidegate band Chief Councillor Willard

Wilson in praising the Haida Heritage Centre and welcoming you, my colleagues,

and people from across the province to its grand opening on August 23. I'm sure

you'll be stunned not only by the beauty and magnitude of the centre and the

culture it showcases but also by the warmth of Haida hospitality. You'll be sure

to get a big Haida thank you, Há'waa , from all the Haida.

GREEN-POWERED STREET LIGHT

IN STEVESTON

J. Yap: They say an ill wind blows no good, but in my

riding of Richmond-Steveston the wind, whether it is ill or not, can blow good

things. As members know, everyone is trying to do their part to reduce

greenhouse gases and help our environment. My community of Richmond is at the

forefront of changes to help us become carbon-neutral.

[1350]

On May 14 a street light was erected in Garry Point Park in

Steveston, which will be powered 100 percent by green energy sources. The

technology used will be a combination of solar and wind power that will send the

power to a battery pack, lighting a 70-watt LED light from dawn to dusk — the

same amount of power provided by a standard light. The system lighting the park

is called the Innoair 600PV, and it's from the Vancouver-based company

Innovative Air Solutions.

Although there are some solar-powered systems in place around the

province, this is the first wind-solar hybrid to be tested in Canada. As we know

all too well, southern B.C. can count on wind more often than sun. In fact,

after testing this light for several months, it will be determined whether or

not this light could function with only wind power.

Most people look at green alternatives as more expensive, but

these lights come at a price which is 25 percent less than the standard street

light. They also do not require any electrical cables, no proximity to a power

grid, and have longer-lasting lights attached. The elimination of cables is

predicted to cut down on metal thieves tampering with infrastructure. The

testing of this light will continue for the next few months, and if successful,

these lights could be popping up in other important Richmond locations and,

hopefully, expanded to other B.C. communities.

Thank you to Michael McLennan, co-owner of Innovative Air

Solutions; Richmond city council and Mayor Malcolm Brodie; and Robert Gonzalez,

general manager of engineering and public works, for this innovative green

alternative for all British Columbians today and in the future.

DOUG STEAD

D. Thorne: I rise today to talk about Coquitlam

entrepreneur and outspoken child abuse activist Doug Stead, who has just been

invited to be the keynote speaker at the University of Cork in Ireland at a

conference dealing with child abuse and the role that tech-

[ Page 12968 ]

nology plays in its proliferation. The message that Stead brings is that we

are in the midst of a global pandemic. His area of expertise is around how

pedophiles use technology and how they are early adopters of this technology.

Stead owns Coquitlam's Tri-M Systems, a very successful high-tech

firm. He says that people like him have been inventing and making a lot of money

on technology but that some of the earliest adopters of technology are the

criminal elements. Because of this, he says that all the people who have been

making lots of money and doing well in technology should maintain, as he does, a

personal obligation towards combatting this criminal element — the people who

use technology to exploit young children.

Frustrated by what he perceived as the total inaction on the part

of law enforcement and government at the time, Stead established the

organization Entrepreneurs Against Pedophiles with six other tri-city

entrepreneurs about two decades ago. This group has funded on-line training of

RCMP officers and published a child's life skills book, which has also been used

to help with psychological profiling in the prison system. They have worked

extensively with municipal, provincial and federal law enforcement.

Doug Stead is also working alongside corporations like the Bill

Gates Foundation, Visa and Mastercard in trying to make the public more aware of

these serious issues. He believes that increased public awareness will result in

the kind of political awareness that is necessary to bring more resources to the

allocation of prevention, deterrence and treatment. Government attention and the

allocation of resources are necessary for future generations to have better life

outcomes.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S COMPLIANCE WITH

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

G. Gentner: Sometime between May and July of 2005, the

Premier bought shares in Terra Energy Corp. The Premier's Terra shares were not

held in a blind trust or a non-self-directed mutual fund or RRSP plan. On

October 26, 2005, while holding shares in Terra Energy, the Premier signed

order-in-council 787, which gave potential tax breaks for pipeline developments

to companies like Terra Energy. The Premier later sold his shares in Terra for a

profit.

Can the Premier tell this House what steps he took, if any, so

that he was not in a conflict of interest when he signed order-in-council 787?

[1355]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. If

the member has an allegation he wishes to make, he can avail himself of the

Office of the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, which is there to serve all

members of the House and which all members of the government abide by strictly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: As a legislator in British Columbia, I find the

time line here somewhat troubling. It appears that the Premier bought shares in

a company, brought in tax breaks for that company and then sold his shares for a

profit.

My question to the Premier is: who did the Premier clear this

apparent conflict with before signing the order-in-council?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can assure the hon. member that the

Premier and every single member of this government and this government caucus

take their obligations pursuant to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act very

seriously and abide by those requirements.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

G. Gentner: If the Premier takes it seriously, why won't he

stand up here and defend these so-called allegations?

Interjection.

G. Gentner: We're talking about the highest office in this

province. The highest office in this province cannot be compromised. When

questions were raised by my colleague the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca about

the Premier's handling of Alcan when holding shares in the company, the Premier

said then that it was all okay because those shares were part of an RSP. His

excuse was that someone else was managing his Alcan shares, but that wasn't the

case with his Terra shares.

So I'll ask the Premier again. Why didn't the Premier protect

himself and British Columbians by placing his Terra shares in a blind trust?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has quickly crossed the

threshold and begun to make allegations. If he has allegations to make, he

should first of all avail himself of the proper avenue and take the matter to

the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, an office that serves all members of this

chamber. Instead he chooses, as is typical of this member and this opposition,

to make allegations — unsubstantiated allegations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can assure the member and every member

of this House that this Premier and each member of this government understand

their obligations under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and abide by those

obligations.

L. Krog: Well, if the Premier takes his obligations

seriously, then he should answer this House. The

[ Page 12969 ]

Members' Conflict of Interest Act is clear. It states: "…a member has an

apparent conflict of interest if there is a reasonable perception, which a

reasonably well informed person could properly have, that the member's ability

to exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function must have

been affected by his or her private interest."

The Premier's decision to sign an order-in-council that benefited

Terra Energy certainly appears to, at the very least, give a perception of a

perceived conflict of interest. So the simple question to the Premier is: why

did he sign that OIC knowing that he held shares in Terra Energy?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I can actually understand this

member's hesitation to make these sorts of allegations in writing or to pursue

them with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, because each time he has done

so in the past, he has failed. Each time he has done so in the past, he has been

the recipient of a withering attack in reply from an officer of the Legislature

or someone as esteemed as the deputy to the Attorney General.

[1400]

So if the member has an allegation to make, there is a route

available to him and to the opposition to make it. Their refusal to avail

themselves of that option tells me that they are more interested in what they

have done throughout the life of this parliament, and that is rake muck and

besmirch the reputation of individuals.

I can assure this House that this Premier and this government take

their obligations under the act seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I would have thought that this government wouldn't

welcome another investigation to be added to the lengthy list already.

Let's be clear here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: The Premier bought shares in Terra. Then he signed

an OIC bringing in tax breaks for pipelines, which increased the profits of

companies exactly like Terra. Then he sold his shares. How can the Premier claim

he's not in a conflict?

Hon. M. de Jong: The recurring theme from not just this

member but this opposition is that they want to be the judge, jury and

executioner. It must be….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It must be remarkably inconvenient for the

hon. member to have to come to terms with the fact that there is a legislative

officer called the members' Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, who is in place

to address matters such as this. Now, I understand that it is inconvenient,

especially when you've got the record of this member of constant failure, but

the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member has an allegation that he

would like to make and to be taken seriously, then perhaps he should begin by

availing himself of that. In the meantime, I again assure all members of the

House that this Premier and this government take their obligations seriously

under the act and fulfil their obligations under the act.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to hear from the minister of

defence, who when on this side of the House had no qualms about making

allegations about anything that passed between his ears. What we're doing

today….

As the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner has told me and other

members of this House, individuals are accountable for their actions. The office

is there to receive information, dispense with it and put it into disclosure so

that the public has an understanding of what individuals are doing.

In this instance we have the Premier signing an order-in-council,

making a private company more profitable — a company that he held shares in. Six

months after signing the order-in-council, he disposed of those shares —

presumably making a profit. In anyone's understanding and in Mr. Hughes's

understanding of the act, that is an apparent conflict.

So my question is to the Premier. Will he stand in this place and

defend himself and tell us why he signed the order-in-council to make his

company more profitable?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member wonders why he and his

colleagues aren't taken seriously. It is because time and time again, they make

these spurious allegations within the confines of this chamber where they enjoy

a privilege that doesn't exist outside those doors.

If the member wants to make that kind of allegation, make it

outside. File the complaint. In the meantime, understand that each member of

this government abides by their obligations under this act, including the

Premier.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Individual members in this House are accountable

for their actions. My question through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier is: was

he aware when he signed order-in-council 787 that he had shares in Terra Energy

and that signing that order-in-council made

[ Page 12970 ]

that company more profitable and, therefore, shareholders more money? Was he

aware of that when he signed the order-in-council — yes or no?

Hon. M. de Jong: Typically, this member does not want to be

accountable for taking the appropriate step and filing that assertion with the

officer that is appointed by each and every member of this House. Why? Because

it's far more convenient politically to stand in this chamber and make spurious

allegations, as they have time and time again. That's why British Columbians

don't take this member or this opposition seriously.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FOREST WORKERS

C. Trevena: North Island College has just announced its

involvement in retraining forest workers who have been thrown out of work

because of this government's inaction. Under the government scheme, each worker

is allowed up to $5,000, which is a one-time payment for just one year. But if a

person needs to upgrade to get on to a retraining program, the money just covers

the upgrade costs, or if the training program runs two years, they won't be

eligible to get any costs covered in the second year.

I'd like to ask the minister responsible whether he'll guarantee

that people who have lost their jobs due to this government's complete failure

to manage the forest industry at least get fully compensated for all upgrading

and retraining they need to get the job.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am very pleased that we have this program

that has been rolled out in a matter of only a few days. I compliment the public

servants that have worked tirelessly to make sure that this program is available

to forest workers around the province as we speak.

They can go on line and apply for these funds. It does provide

them with up to $5,000 for covering tuition costs for programs of their choosing

around the province, so it is a big plus. We've had great feedback from forest

workers who recognize that it's going to help them get access to training that

they would not have got access to otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: We are actually talking about a one-time

payment for one year, and we're talking about people who live in rural

communities. I'm not sure that the minister realizes this. This government has

not just mismanaged the forest industry; it's also slashed funding to the higher

education, which means there is less college funding available. So for North

Island College, we've seen cuts that have particularly hit hard the Port Hardy

campus, which means people would have to go to Campbell River or further south.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he will commit to ensure that

the forest workers already displaced from their industry receive compensation

for travel to their retraining and for the accommodation they would need for

their retraining, so they can take full advantage of any retraining package.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, just to correct the member,

North Island College has not received a cut. They are receiving more money in

this fiscal year from the provincial government than they've ever received in

the history of this province.

Second….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: So we are working to make sure that forest

workers who have been displaced from the industry around the province get access

to tuition support. They get access to bridging to retirement if that's what's

important to them, or they get access to short-term jobs in forest-dependent

communities around the province.

That's what this government is working for — working to support

displaced forest workers and at the same time making sure that we work around

the world to improve markets for B.C. forest products so those workers are going

to be back at work at the earliest possible opportunity.

K. Conroy: According to the community development

assistance program for unemployed forestry workers, the definition of a forestry

worker is one who's been impacted on or after May 1, 2007. What about the

unemployed forestry workers who were affected prior to that date? What about the

workers who were affected when the current crisis started in the fall of 2006?

What program is this minister going to offer to those workers, who were some of

the first to suffer for some of this government's forest policies?

[1410]

Hon. C. Hansen: We recognize that there are some forest

communities going through transition around the province. That is exactly why

this government put in place $185 million for the Northern Development Trust.

That's exactly why this government put in place $50 million for the Southern

Interior Development Initiative Trust and $50 million for the Island Coastal

Economic Trust — to make sure that those communities can actually map out their

economic future, to create new jobs and new industries and new opportunity

[ Page 12971 ]

to replace those that may be lost in the forest downturn.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Let's take a look at some of those communities:

New Westminster, Powell River, Port Alberni, Prince George, Midway, Mission,

Vernon, Lumby, Squamish, Nanaimo, Maple Ridge, Kelowna, Lytton.

Only some of the communities in this province were affected? All

of those communities — all of them — have forestry workers who were affected

prior to May 1, 2007. They don't qualify for the federal government funding, and

most of them don't qualify for the other funding that you're talking about….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Because they've already applied, and they don't

qualify.

These workers are being left out in the cold. This government —

what are they going to do about it? Is this just collateral damage, and you're

just going to let them suffer for your policies?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, if you look at some of the

unemployment rates around the province…. Let's go back to 1998 in the Kootenays,

when the unemployment rate was 12 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the opposition may want to listen

closely, because these are important numbers that they should actually pay

attention to. In 1998 in the Kootenays, the unemployment rate was 12 percent.

The latest unemployment rate, for April of 2008, was 2.5 percent.

Let's take the Vancouver Island region. The member for North

Island was asking the question earlier.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. C. Hansen: In 1998 the unemployment rate was 9.7

percent, and today it's 4.6 percent. I could use example after example, region

by region where the unemployment rates are dramatically lower today than they

were during the 1990s.

People are getting jobs in British Columbia today. We know that

some forest families are suffering. That's exactly why we're working with them.

We're getting them tuition support. We're supporting those communities, and

we're going to make sure that they, too, can enjoy the dynamic economic

prosperity that we see in British Columbia today.

B. Simpson: I wonder what the unemployment rate is in

Mackenzie or Fort St. James or Chetwynd or Midway or Campbell River. I wonder

why we're not getting those statistics. This minister keeps talking about these

trusts that no forest worker can apply to, and the minister knows it full well.

The minister stated twice in this House that the Premier directed

that every dollar of the $129 million from the federal government go to forest

workers. But the minister must know that $11 million, at least, will go to

overhead costs. That's $11 million that is not going to forest workers.

The $118 million that's left, the minister knows, is a paltry sum

relative to the need that's out there for forestry families and for communities

— paltry. This government has abandoned forest workers who lost their jobs. How

else would you describe it to cut the date off…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

B. Simpson: How else would you describe it — to cut off

workers before May 1, 2007? That is shameful. Surely the Premier must see…

Mr. Speaker: Member, pose the question, please.

B. Simpson: …that this fund is inadequate. Will he commit

today to put provincial resources to this crisis?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, just to continue on with some of

the regions around the province. This member for Cariboo North will be

interested in knowing that in 1998, the unemployment rate in the Cariboo was

14.5 percent. Here we are ten years later, and the unemployment rate is down to

7.7 percent.

The difference between….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The difference between the opposition and

the government is that we are travelling around this province bringing hope to

forest workers around British Columbia. The opposition members

[ Page 12972 ]

are going into communities and spreading fear and spreading lack of hope

about the future, when in fact those communities have good futures.

We're going to support them. We're going to work with those forest

workers, and we're going to bring them some reason to be optimistic about the

future.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: What this government is spreading is false

hope. This minister said in this House today…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …that this program has been rolled out. I

phoned Enquiry B.C. today. They told me that the office hasn't even opened yet,

and all they can do is refer people to the webpage. It's the same dead end. The

Minister of Forests says that it was supposed to go live November 15. The

government has known for five months of getting this program, and they still

don't have a plan. They still don't have a strategy. The minister knows full

well from the discussions that are occurring with industry and workers that this

fund is not enough. They know that full well.

So my question is to the Premier. Rather than cutting workers off

May 1 of 2007, will the Premier make sure that every forest worker that needs it

is eligible for this fund, every community that needs it is eligible for this

fund? Will the Premier top this fund up so that this crisis is addressed by this

province as well as the federal government?

Hon. C. Hansen: In less than seven days after this fund was

rolled out, we had an on-line system where individual forest workers could go

and apply for tuition assistance. That is active now. That is working now.

In less than five days after this was announced, we had officials

from the Ministry of Economic Development, from the Ministry of Forests, from

the Ministry of Community Services, who were in the communities of Mackenzie and

the community of Fort St. James working with those communities to make sure that

these dollars can flow as fast as possible to the benefit of those individual

forest workers.

FUNDING FOR BUY B.C. PROGRAM

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

StatsCan now says that British Columbia is the only province west of the

Maritimes to lose money in agriculture last year. We lost $117 million. The

minister — to his credit, I think — said that it would be a good idea to stop

being commodity producers, aim for a niche and brand our products to sell to

ourselves.

You know, hon. Speaker, I've been trying to get Buy B.C. back for

a long time. The minister has got hundreds — the Minister of Finance too…. You

probably have file cabinets full of people asking for Buy B.C. back. The farmers

want it back. Investment Agriculture said that they want it back.

I suspect that the reason we can't get Buy B.C. back would be

because to bring it back would be to suggest that something that happened in the

decade of the 1990s was a good idea.

So hon. Speaker, just…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: …in case I might be right, I'd like to use

question period to do a bit of a deal, only through you.

[1420]

If I was able to guarantee that I would not and my leader would

not and some 30-odd people on this side of the House would never say, "I told

you so," would the Minister of Agriculture then be able to reach back, take the

very good, affordable idea that makes B.C. products saleable in our own market

and reinstate Buy B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the member opposite seems to be

fixated on Buy B.C., and I understand why that is. It's because during the

1990s, everyone in B.C. said goodbye to B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Please sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we're not continuing until there's

silence.

RESPITE SERVICES FOR

DISABLED CHILDREN

N. Simons: Suzana and Jeff Pekrul's daughter Kaitlyn has

severe disabilities, including microcephaly, severe developmental disabilities

and sleep apnea — all requiring 24-hour care. Both parents work full-time.

They've been doing the best they can to care for their daughter.

Last November her condition took a turn for the worse. They've

been advocating, and they've been successfully advocating with doctors and

health professionals that they need more respite care. But they've been waiting

for six months after being promised another reassessment. It's very difficult

for families in this circumstance to advocate, and we should not be put in the

situation of having to advocate for each one of these families individually when

it's this government's policies that fail them all at once.

[ Page 12973 ]

Will the minister commit to looking into this situation and all

the other situations of desperate and vulnerable families to ensure they get the

respite they need to care for their children?

Hon. T. Christensen: I will agree with the member that

respite services are a critical service to many families across our province.

That's why over the last number of years we've seen an increase in the resources

available to support respite. We have a host of programs that are supported by

the Ministry of Children and Family Development, as well as Community Living

B.C., to try and ensure that we are assisting families in meeting the needs of

their children — whether it's supported child development, whether it's the At

Home program, whether it's respite that is supported at Canuck Place, whether

it's respite in-home or out-of-home.

There are a host of services. I am more than pleased, in

individual cases that that member or any member of this Legislative Assembly

brings to my attention, to look at what we can do to further support, day in and

day out….

Whether it's Community Living B.C. staff or staff at the Ministry

of Children and Family Development, we are working with families to try and

ensure that we are supporting them to raise their children as best they can.

FUNDING FOR CULTURAL

CURRICULUM IN B.C. SCHOOLS

J. Kwan: China has offered financial assistance to the B.C.

Liberal government. The funds are to be directed to the Ministry of Education to

develop Mandarin and cultural courses in B.C. schools. These courses will become

part of the grades 10, 11 and 12 official curriculum.

I want to make sure that the development of B.C.'s curriculum is

not for sale. Can the Minister of Education tell this House: how much money will

B.C. receive from China? Will the minister confirm that the development of this

B.C. curriculum for B.C. students will not be influenced by China, by the

Beijing-funded Confucius Institute or by the Chinese Language Council

International?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that I've heard as I've

travelled across British Columbia, particularly from parents and their students,

is that in British Columbia families want the opportunity for their children to

learn new languages. Mandarin is certainly one of those.

[1425]

This government has a relationship-building opportunity with

China. We are going to make sure that we work with BCIT to create a course that

meets the expectations of British Columbia curriculum. But we look forward to

developing strong and important cultural relationships that will bring benefits

to both students and British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

D. MacKay: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. MacKay: I think most of us have watched that program

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? A couple weeks ago I was in the community

of Houston at the Twain Sullivan School, and I went through a question period of

my own with the grade 5 students. Let me tell you, these kids are getting a

great education.

They're joining us in the chamber today. I should mention the fact

that when we went through our question period at the Twain Sullivan School, the

behaviour of the students in that classroom was quite a bit different than what

we see in this chamber here. I just want to compliment those children, if

they're upstairs right now.

With us today we have Ann Harness, who is the teacher of these 26

grade 5 students, accompanied by 12 students from the community of Houston.

Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Simpson: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

B. Simpson: I have a petition here with 2,489 signatures

collected by the Dogwood Initiative, demanding the Forests Minister's

resignation for his continual betrayal of the public trust through forest

privatization schemes.

Hon. B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that Mr. Bob Chisholm, my

immediate predecessor as MLA representing Chilliwack, and his wife Janet are

here in the legislative precinct. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Krog: I ask leave to file a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

L. Krog: It's a petition calling for the suspension of

rules and regulations around locally produced, fresh-laid, free range farm eggs

and to allow their sale outside farm gates, signed by nearly 300 citizens of

Gabriola Island.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to table the 2007 annual report

for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

[ Page 12974 ]

S. Fraser: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I present a petition with hundreds more

signatures from British Columbians demanding laws be brought forward for safe

antifreeze.

R. Chouhan: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Chouhan: Residents of Metro Vancouver are presenting

this petition asking for affordable transit — public transportation.

G. Coons: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

G. Coons: It's a petition from some 428 residents of Prince

Rupert to put an immediate halt to any and all drilling for coalbed methane in

the Sacred Headwaters of our most pristine rivers the Skeena, the Nass and the

Stikine.

Mr. Speaker: Just a reminder to members when they're

presenting petitions. You cannot lay a charge of any nature or of any kind when

you're presenting a petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Just an additional reminder to members to

attend to the personal effects in their desks during the course of the week. It

helps the staff at the completion of the session.

In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate of Bill

25, Health Professions Amendment Act and in Committee A, continued estimates

debate — for the information of members, Committee of Supply, the estimates of

the Office of the Premier.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH PROFESSIONS (REGULATORY

REFORM) AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

section 17.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 17

standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 17 (c), by adding the text shown as underlined :

(

c) in paragraph (

g) by striking out

" ,

functions " and substituting " ,

powers " and by adding " the registrar,

deputy registrars or other " before " officers ",. ]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: Sorry, just briefly on the amendment — maybe the

minister could explain. We'll zip through these quickly, I think.

Hon. G. Abbott: The addition of the term "powers" is to

ensure that it is clear that the authority exists to the college. And "the

registrar, deputy registrars or other" added before "officers" is, again, to

clarify the officials who have those powers under the act.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

section 18.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to move the amendment to

section

18 standing in my name on orders of the day.

SECTION 18 (e),

by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the text shown as underlined:

(

e) in subsection (6.1) by striking out

" , (l.4), (

m) or (n) " and substituting

" or (l.4) (1.3) " ,. ]

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

section 19.

[1435]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to move the amendments to

section

19 standing in my name in orders of the day.

SECTION 19 (d), (

e) and (g), by deleting the text shown

as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(

d) in subsection (2.1) (

a) by striking out " the

health profession " and substituting " a health profession "

and by striking out " jurisdiction " and substituting " province

or a foreign jurisdiction " ,

(

e) in subsection (2.1) (

b) by striking out " the

health profession " and substituting " a health profession "

and by striking out " jurisdiction " and substituting " province

or a foreign jurisdiction " ,

(

g) in subsection (3) by striking out " If an

applicant " and substituting " Despite subsection (2), if

If a person applying for registration ", by striking out " that

an applicant " and substituting " that a person applying ", by

striking out " register the applicant " and substituting " grant

registration to the person " and by striking out " set limits or

conditions on the practice of the applicant. " and substituting " impose

limits or conditions on the practice of the designated health profession by the

person. ",. ]

[ Page 12975 ]

SECTION 19 (h) , in the proposed

section 20 (4.4) by

deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(4.4) Limits or conditions imposed in

accordance with subsection (2.1), (3), (4.2) or (4.3) may be different

for different registrants within the a class of restricted registrants or provisional registrants , as the case

may be ., . ]

SECTION 19 (j),

by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(

j) by adding the following subsection:

(7) If the registration committee

decides, under this section,

(

a) to refuse a person’s application for

registration, or

(

b) to grant a person registration for a limited

period or with limits or conditions imposed on the practice of the designated

health profession by the person,

the registration committee must, within 15

30 days of making its decision, deliver written notice to the person

respecting the decision and advising of the person’s right to apply for a review

of the decision under

section 50.54 or to appeal the decision to the Supreme

Court, as applicable.]

On the amendments.

A. Dix: Just briefly, this is a package of amendments. The

one key amendment here — maybe the minister could speak to it; I don't think we

discussed it yesterday — is the shift from 15 days' notice to 30 days' notice.

As I understand it, this is a reflection on…. I think it's the

final of the amendments here, which is to 19(j)(7). Well, it's the existing act.

Anyway, it's one of the several amendments that shift the notice time from 15

days to 30 days in making a decision. I presume what this is, is just a

reflection of the practical realities of minute-taking and of ensuring that, in

fact, the information isn't rushed. It's actually accurate.

I think this was a reflection of number of colleges who made this

case, and it seems reasonable to me. Maybe the minister might comment just on

that element of the amendment. I think there is…. I may have the amendment wrong

here, but I think it's the final of the amendments to

section 19 which talks

about within 30 days of making its decision.

Hon. G. Abbott: The change just reflects the meetings

schedule that the colleges have.

Amendments approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

section 20.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name to

section 20 in orders of the day.

SECTION 20,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

20 The following

section is added:

Notice to applicant for certification

20.01 If a college has established one or more

classes of certified non-registrants and the person or committee authorized

under the bylaws of the college to certify persons as certified non-registrants

refuses an application for certification, the person or committee must, within

15 30 days of making that decision, deliver written notice to

the applicant respecting the decision and advising of the applicant’s right to

request a review of the decision under

section 50.54.]

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name to

section 22 in the orders of the day.

SECTION 22 (c),

by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the text shown as underlined:

(

c) by repealing subsection (2) (

a) and

substituting the following:

(

a) entering into agreements with one or more governing

bodies respecting

(

i) the interjurisdictional practice of the health

professions,

(ii) the recognition of another governing body’s

procedures for and results from the assessment and verification of the

credentials, competencies or other qualifications of persons educated or trained

in another province or a foreign jurisdiction,

(iii) the implementation of a trade agreement, as it

relates to labour mobility, prescribed by the minister, and or

(iv) any other matter related to the labour mobility

of health professionals;, and. ]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: I wonder if the minister could clarify the purpose

of the amendment, just for the record.

Hon. G. Abbott: These amendments are very minor. It is just

adding "a" for clarity in the one section, changing "or" from "and" in another

and adding "and" at the end of the amendment.

Amendment approved.

section 22 as amended.

A. Dix: On

section 22 as amended, we're talking about

interjurisdictional agreements between colleges and the approval of the minister

in that regard. I wonder if the minister can tell us what kinds of agreements

we're talking about here, just so that we can be clear on that. I think this

would be agreements in terms of establishing national standards or regional

[ Page 12976 ]

standards. What kinds of agreements are we talking about here?

[1440]

Hon. G. Abbott: These relate to interjurisdictional

agreements between provinces. So for example, the College of Pharmacists in

British Columbia has a mobility agreement with the College of Pharmacists in

Ontario. Similarly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons in British Columbia

has a mobility agreement with the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Ontario.

Section 22 as amended approved.

section 23.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on

orders of the day to

section 23.

SECTION 23 (b ), by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the text shown as underlined:

(

b) by adding the following subsection:

(1.2) If a board appoints a deputy registrar or deputy

registrars under subsection (1), the board may , by bylaw, authorize the

deputy registrar or deputy registrars to perform some or all of the duties and exercise

some or all of the powers of the

registrar set out in the bylaws, subject to any limits or conditions

specified in the bylaws ., . ]

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

section 26.

A. Dix: In this case, I just wanted to clarify the intent

of this

section with the minister. It's adding the term "unethical conduct" in

its definition. It's sometimes a challenge with these amendment bills, but I

just want to clarify the import of this section.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that the term "unethical

conduct" should have been in there from the start, so it's housekeeping to add

it back in.

Sections 26 to 34 inclusive approved.

section 35.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 35 standing

in my name in the orders of the day.

SECTION 35,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Section 34 is repealed and the following

substituted:

Notice of disposition

34 If the inquiry committee disposes of a matter

under

section 32 (5) or 33 (6) (

a) or (b), the inquiry committee must, within

15 30 days of disposition, deliver to the complainant, if

any, a written

summary of the disposition advising the complainant of the right

to apply for a review by the review board under

section 50.6.]

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

Section 36 approved.

section 37.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 37 standing

in my name on orders of the day.

SECTION 37 , by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Section 36 (1.1) is repealed and the following substituted:

(1.1) If a consent or undertaking given under

subsection (1) relates to a complaint made under

section 32 (1), the inquiry

committee must, within 15 30 days of the consent or

undertaking being given, deliver to the complainant a written

summary of the

consent or undertaking advising the complainant of the right to apply for a

review by the review board under

section 50.6.]

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

section 38.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the orders of the day to

section 38.

SECTION 38,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Section 37.1 is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (3) (

a) and (

b) and substituting

the following:

(

a) the inquiry committee must make an order consistent with

the proposal, and the order is considered to be an order of the discipline

committee made under

section 39, and, and

(

b) by repealing subsection (6) and

substituting the following:

(6) If the inquiry committee accepts a proposal under

subsection (5), it must make an order consistent with the proposal, the order

is considered to be an order of the discipline committee made under

section 39,

and

section 38 has no further application to the complaint or matter that is

the subject of the hearing.

(6.1) Section 39 (3) (

a) to (

c) applies to an

order made under this

section as if the order had been made by the discipline

committee.]

[1445]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: I just wanted to ask the minister to explain the

amendment.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that this is housekeeping for

the purposes of greater legal certainty.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 12977 ]

Section 38 as amended approved.

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 40 standing

in my name in orders of the day.

SECTION 40, by adding the following paragraph:

(c.1) in subsection (9) (

a) by adding

" made

under subsection (2 ) " after " stay the order ", .

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

section 41.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the orders of the day for

section 41.

SECTION 41,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

41 The following sections are added:

Unprofessional conduct in another jurisdiction or while practising as

a registrant of another college

39.1

(1) If the discipline committee learns

that

(

a) another college established under this Act or a

body in another province or a foreign jurisdiction that regulates a health

profession in that province or foreign jurisdiction has found, either before or

after the registrant was registered under

section 20, that the registrant

committed

an act that, in the opinion of the discipline committee, constitutes

unprofessional conduct under this Act, or

(

b) the registrant has admitted, either before or

after the registrant was registered under

section 20, to another college

established under this Act or to a body in another province or a foreign

jurisdiction that regulates a health profession in that province or foreign

jurisdiction, that the registrant committed

an act that, in the opinion of the

discipline committee, constitutes unprofessional conduct under this Act,

the discipline committee may, without issuing a

citation under

section 37 or conducting a hearing under

section 38, make an

order under

section 39 (2) respecting the registrant, and

section 39 (3) , (5)

and (7) to (10) to (9) applies as if a determination had

been made under

section 39 (1) by the discipline committee.

(2) The discipline committee may take

action under subsection (1) only after giving the registrant the following:

(

a) notice of the proposed action, in accordance

with the bylaws;

(

b) a copy of the record of the relevant decision or

findings made or action taken by the other college or body;

(

c) an opportunity to be heard, which may be limited

to a hearing in writing.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a certified copy

of a record of the decision or findings made or action taken by the other

college or body in respect of a registrant is proof, in the absence of evidence

to the contrary, of the findings made or the action taken, without proof of the

signature of the person purporting to have signed on behalf of that college or

body.

Consideration of past action

39.2

(1) Before taking any

action respecting a registrant under the following provisions, the registrar,

inquiry committee or discipline committee may consider any action previously

taken under

Part 3 respecting the registrant:

(

a) in the case of the registrar or the inquiry committee,

section 32, 32.2 or 32.3;

(

b) in the case of the inquiry committee, sections

section 33 or sections 35 to 37.1;

(

c) in the case of the discipline committee,

section

38 (8), 39 (2), (5), (8) or (9) or 39.1 (1) .

(2) The registrar, inquiry committee or

discipline committee may, in applying subsection (1), consider

(

a) any action under

Part 3 respecting the

registrant that occurred or was recorded before the coming into force of this

section, or

(

b) any action, similar to an action that may be

taken under

Part 3, that was taken by the governing body for a health profession

under a former enactment regulating the health profession.

Public notification

39.3

(1) Subject to

subsection subsections (3) and (4) , the inquiry committee

or discipline committee, as the case may be, must direct the registrar to notify

the public of the information set out in subsection (2) with respect to any of

the following actions:

(

a) an action taken under

section 32.2 (4) (b),

32.3 (3) (b), 33 (2) or 35 (1); ,

(

b) a consent or undertaking given under

section 36

(1) in relation to a serious matter; ,

(

c) a consent order made under

section 37.1 ; ,

(

d) a determination made under

section 39 (1)

(

a) to (d), or ;

(

e) an order made under

section 38 (8),

39 (2), (5), (8) or (9) , 39.1 (1) or 44 (1) or (2) .

(2) The following information must be included in

the notification required under this section:

(

a) the name of the registrant respecting whom or

the health profession corporation respecting which the action was taken;

(

b) a description of the action taken;

(

c) the reasons for the action taken.

(3) In the following circumstances, the The

inquiry committee or discipline committee , as the case may be, must

direct the registrar to withhold all or part of the information otherwise

required to be included in the public notification under this

section in

the following circumstances :

[ Page 12978 ]

(

a) the inquiry committee or discipline committee considers

it necessary to protect the interests of the complainant, if any, in the matter ,

or another person, other than the registrant, affected by the matter ;

(

b) the complainant, if any, in the matter , or

another person, other than the registrant, affected by the matter, has

requested that the notification not contain information that would tend could reasonably be expected to identify the complainant or the other

person .

(4) In the case of a determination made

under

section 39 (1) (e), the discipline committee must direct the

registrar to notify the public in accordance with this

section if the committee

is satisfied that

(

a) the interests of the

complainant, if any, in the matter will not be prejudiced by public notification

of the determination, and

(

b) the public interest in public

notification of the determination outweighs the privacy interests of the

registrant respecting whom the determination was made.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), in the case

(

a) an admission by a registrant that he or

she suffers from a condition described in

section 33 (4) (e), or

(

b) a determination made regarding a

registrant under

section 39 (1) (e),

the inquiry committee or discipline committee, as the case may

be, must direct the registrar to withhold all or part of the information

otherwise required to be included in the public notification under this

section

if the information could reasonably be expected to identify the registrant or

personal health information of the registrant respecting the condition.

(5) In the case of a determination made

regarding a registrant under

section 39 (1) (e), information respecting the

registrant must not be withheld under subsection (4) unless the discipline

committee is satisfied that the privacy interests of the registrant outweigh the

public interest in public notification of the information.

(6) If information respecting a

registrant is withheld under subsection (4), the public notification must

indicate that information has been withheld.

( 5 7 ) The

notification required under this

section may be made by posting a notice

on the college website.

Funding for therapy and counselling

39.4

(1) A board must establish

a program for its college to provide funding, in accordance with the

regulations, for therapy and counselling for a person who has been

psychologically or emotionally harmed as the result of professional misconduct

by a registrant while the registrant was providing services to the person.

(2) A person is eligible for funding under

subsection (1) only if

(

a) the discipline committee has made a finding that the registrant committed

professional misconduct with respect to the person while the registrant was

providing services to that person, and

(

b) the requirements prescribed by the minister are met.]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: Just to let the minister know, we're going to focus

primarily today on the amendments. I think we've been well briefed on other

parts of the bill. These are obviously key amendments that maybe the minister

can take us through. We had a little discussion on this earlier, so we're not

going to dwell on it too long, but there are some key questions here.

I think we're taking the amendments as a group here, so I'll ask

the minister to kind of lay out the government's thinking with respect to these

amendments.

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the House allowing us a few

moments to go through this long section. I'm advised that in terms of the

amendment for 39.1, this is a housekeeping amendment that clarifies which

subsections of 39.1 would apply to an order.

I'm advised, with respect to 39.2, that this is in one instance a

grammatical correction. It also adds a substantive change in that it adds a

section which provides the legal authority for a disciplinary committee, for

example, to look at the prior record — I guess would be the best way to put it —

of the practitioner. I don't mean a criminal record. So it allows the

disciplinary committee or others to look at what had occurred in the past and

makes clear the legal authority to do that.

In 39.3, again, the phrase that is substantively important here is

39.3(1)(

b) and the phrase is "in relation to a serious matter." Again, this is

the phrase that would make a distinction between a serious matter and a minor

matter in relation to the gravity of the matter, as we had discussed at some

length yesterday. And 39.4 does not change at all, even in a minor way. It is

just in there because of the changes that had been made to the other subsections

of 39.

A. Dix: Sorry. This is

section 41, but we're talking about

section 39. So I'll just make myself clear. Is it the case that one of the

amendments here — I just want to clarify — allows essentially a witness in a

case or someone who witnessed a complaint to also have their identity withheld.

Is that what I understand?

I'm talking about the amendments to 39.3(3)(

b) that state that a

complainant "or another person, other than the registrant, affected by the

matter, has requested that notification not contain information that could

reasonably be expected to identify the complainant or the other person." Is

that, in fact, one of the amendments here?

In other words, intent would be to protect the identity,

obviously, of the complainant, if there was a case

[ Page 12979 ]

of misconduct, say, and there's someone else who is a witness to the event

whose relationship with the complainant, I assume, is such that it would allow

you to identify the complainant. Am I correct to say that's one of the

amendments here, or am I on the right amendment?

If that's the case, that sounds like an appropriate amendment. In

other words, the intent here is to ensure that people who are not directly

involved in the case might be witness to the case and have their identity

protected. Am I on the right amendment?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, the member is.

[1455]

A. Dix: What that would do would be to ensure that — I

don't know — if some event took place involving whoever it involves and if

another person is a witness to that…. How will that kick in? How will their

identity be protected? Can they request to have their identity protected? Would

it be automatically protected? What would the circumstances of that be?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that

the complainant may request that. An innocent third party may request that, and

if neither of those things occurs, the committee may still consider whether the

interests of the complainant need to be protected, even if that anonymity is not

requested.

A. Dix: So that provision is kicked in by a request from

the complainant or the witness or the innocent third party in any event —

however you would describe it. I just wanted to explore a little bit what we

explored yesterday, because we're on the right

section now. It's the definition

of "serious matter."

We had this discussion yesterday, and we chose a couple of

examples. It seems to me, in just reviewing different colleges and their cases

and so on, that there's actually quite a range of matters that aren't defined

under the act as serious matters. Serious matters mean, as I understand it….

Well, it says here in the legislation that it "means a matter which, if admitted

or proven following an investigation under this Part, would ordinarily result in

an order being made under

section 39(2)(

b) to(e)." That's what it says.

That

section refers to matters that have resulted in the following

disciplines: limits or conditions on their practice, suspension of registration,

the imposition of limits on the management of their practice during suspension

or a cancellation of registration.

It seems to me, in discussing this matter with people at the

college, that they're actually matters that are not defined as serious but quite

significant matters, which might result in mandatory training or mandatory

counselling that falls short of serious matters. I guess I want to ask the

minister about that, because yesterday we were talking about this issue of not

delivering enough babies under the act, and I think I gave the example of a cell

phone going off during a counselling session.

There's actually quite a range of matters here that aren't

serious. In a sense, this definition of serious means that how serious is

defined…. It's not really in the legislation; it's defined by the colleges

themselves, you know, by their decision. They're creating the framework of what

is serious by their penalty.

I wanted to ask the minister about the discussion of that, because

it seems to me that here we're talking about, in some cases, instances or

problems with a given practitioner that might be quite — I'm going to try and

use another word than serious — interesting to a member of the public who might

want access to that information and make a decision about a particular

practitioner. That might be interesting to them, but it doesn't reach the level

of seriousness required here.

I guess I'm asking whether…. Looking through the case files, if

there was an incidence, for example, where significant punishment was put in

place, in a sense, or significant problems took place with a practitioner, a

person under a given college, and say that person was ordered by the college

amongst other things to required counselling or something, but no limits were

placed on their practice, that might well be a serious matter. It would be the

college that would essentially be, by virtue of their punishment, defining it as

not serious.

[1500]

So I just want to ask the minister if he's satisfied with that

definition, because in a sense, this is one of the most significant amendments

he's putting forward, or whether he thinks the colleges need more guidance than

that which is contained in the legislation in order to define "serious."

Hon. G. Abbott: Sometimes I am fascinated by the Byzantine

complexity of all this, but I'll do my best. Let's begin with

section 26, which

defines "serious matter." It means "a matter which, if admitted or proven

following an investigation under this Part, would ordinarily result in an order

being made under

section 39 (2) (

b) to (e)."

Then, we go to

section 39(2)(

b) to (e). It reads: "If a

determination is made under subsection (1), the discipline committee may, by

order, do one or more of the following…." So only one of these is necessary,

although multiples of them may exist:

"(

a) reprimand the respondent; (

b) impose limits or

conditions on the respondent's practice of the designated health profession; (

c) suspend the respondent's registration; (

d) subject to the bylaws, impose limits

or conditions on the management of the respondent's practice during the

suspension; (

e) cancel the respondent's registration; (

f) fine the respondent in

an amount not exceeding the maximum fine established under

section 19 (1) (w)."

I think the member was asking about an instance…. Would it

be possible in an event of this sort that the practitioner, presumably to try to

skirt the possibility of public notification, agrees to go into counselling but

doesn't have practice suspended? Well, I'm advised that the historical practice

of the college is that one does both. You get suspension of practice as well as

a commitment to enter into counselling.

[1505]

[ Page 12980 ]

The change that will occur with the passage of this bill is that

if the complainant is dissatisfied that the college has not recognized the

public interest in terms of public notification of a practitioner — again, in

the instance where the licence has been suspended and/or they've gone into

counselling for the condition — the complainant will have the opportunity to go

to the review board and say: "This does not meet the interests of the public.

There must be notification here." The review board will have an opportunity to

look at that and, I guess, effectively adjudicate whether the college has made

the right determination around that point.

A. Dix: But isn't there just…? What's required, I gather,

is both suspension and a limit on practice. Are there not cases where, in the

absence of a suspension, a limit on practice is provided?

Let me give you an example. Someone decides, legitimately, that

the person can continue to practise. The college decides the person can continue

to practise, but there are limitations on that practice put in. For example,

someone else has to be in the room. This is one of the cases that were put

forward. I'm not referring to a specific case. So the college says, "You can

continue to practise massage therapy or chiropractic or whatever you're doing,

but someone else has to be in the room when you're practising," for whatever

reason that is. But there's no suspension.

First of all, does that happen? I think it has. Secondly, is that

sufficiently serious to be viewed as serious under the act? I guess that's what

I don't understand. If it says "serious" and a limit on practice…. I want to

sort of see what the definition or the limit is on that definition of "serious."

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that the set of circumstances

that the member sets out would trigger public notification, with the exception

of the circumstances noted — again, mental health, etc.

A. Dix: And that would be the case even if there was a

continuation of the practice. In other words, suspension of practice means some

sort of limitation placed on the practice. Is that what I'm to understand by

"suspension"?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer, I understand, is yes.

A. Dix: Just with respect to the issue of avoidance of

publication based on sort of personal health issues of the member of the

college, of the practitioner, is the minister not concerned…? I mean, not

everything has to do with everything else. Is the minister not concerned that

that will become a defence that will be used to protect not the complainant but

protect the person who is committing, essentially, the offence under this act or

committing the deed that requires, in some fashion, punishment?

Is he concerned about the balance? Does he think that, in fact,

the appeal process is sufficient to ensure that the balance on this issue of

disclosure isn't weighted too much in favour of the practitioner?

I guess the reason I ask is that while it's true that the

practitioners in all these cases have serious interests — and this may be used

to assist them, in fact, in getting over those conditions — I think it's also

true to say that it's very, very difficult in all of these cases for anyone to

bring forward a complaint, particularly a complaint of a serious nature.

So in a sense, the complainant also has interests and will find it

difficult to pursue that interest. Asking them, in a sense, putting the onus on

them to appeal…. I guess the question is: is that the right approach, given that

the complainants in many cases, one would imagine, is going through something

very difficult themselves?

[1510]

Hon. G. Abbott: The hypothetical case the member cites….

Again, I guess that ultimately we do have to have a measure of trust that the

judgment of the college disciplinary and other committees will be sound. Is it

possible that, notwithstanding that sound judgment, on some occasion they might

deviate from good sense? Well, I suppose that is theoretically possible.

However, again, I think the context of that decision-making is very important.

We would be in a situation where, first of all, the practitioner

would have to have one of the demonstrable conditions which are set out in the

act — that is, mental health, the physiological issue of a brain tumour or

something like that, or a compelling addiction issue that caused a deviation

from patterns of acceptable behaviour.

Further, before even that theoretical possibility reared its head,

there would be removal from practice of the practitioner. There would have to be

a commitment to the appropriate form of treatment or therapy, which would be

geared to remedying the physical or mental or other condition that affected the

practitioner.

In terms of sort of understanding the context of protectionism

that is embraced in the hypothetical model that the member puts forward as well,

we have to consider that there are also public members or public representatives

on those college authorities. They're not all representing the practice that,

presumably, the practitioner is a part of as well. In the last instance, there

is also the matter of appeal by the complainant to the review board. Should some

error of judgment have been made, hypothetically, they could be called to task

for that.

So I would say that I am comfortable with this. I think the

safeguards around these things are sufficient that we will get the outcomes that

we hope and anticipate that we will get. Again, I suppose that I would have to

weigh what I think is a very modest risk around the hypothetical scenario the

member has put forward against the risk that would be inherent in not having

these amendments.

I do think that in the absence of these amendments, there is a

heavier risk that an individual practitioner who is affected by a compelling

physiological condition or a compelling mental illness or addictions issue might

be doubly shamed and stigmatized, when that was not the outcome which we sought.

[ Page 12981 ]

Amendment approved on division.

section 41 as amended.

A. Dix: I just have a question now, back to the main

motion. It's around the provision of counselling for victims. I'm just going to

ask this question because the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in their

letter to the minister, asked the question. I just wanted to make sure that they

got the right answer.

They said: "With respect to the specific wording of subsection

39.4(2) — i.e., eligibility for funding under this provision, 'Funding for

therapy and counselling' — we note that the current wording would exclude

professional misconduct with former patients and question whether this is the

intention." Is it the intention?

[1515]

Hon. G. Abbott: We have just a little doubt about exactly

what question is being asked. We think that the letter is asking about former

registrants. It is not the intention of the act that it apply to former

registrants. Hopefully, we've answered the question, but we're just a tiny bit

in doubt about whether that was the intention.

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member.

A. Dix: So 39.4 reads that the "board must establish a

program for its college to provide funding…for therapy and counselling for a

person who has been psychologically or emotionally harmed as the result of

professional misconduct by a registrant while the registrant was providing

services to the person."

So it is, I think, the intent, as I understand it. And that's the

question here, I guess, by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They say, and

this is under (2): "A person is eligible for funding under subsection (1)" —

which is that

section I just read — "only if (

a) the discipline committee has

made a finding that the registrant committed professional misconduct with

respect to the person while the registrant was providing services to that

person, and (

b) the requirements prescribed by the minister are met."

I guess the question would be whether a member of a college who

wasn't formally providing services under the act, but may meet a former patient,

is still a member of the college or may be defined as a member of the college —

but is not providing services technically and still commits the misconduct. I

think that's what the college was asking. It's really a question from them.

I'd be happy, by the way, on this…. I'll send over the letter of

the College of Physicians and Surgeons — just to make sure. Further, beyond

this, this seems like a very good innovation.

One of the complaints just on this section, one of the questions….

Ontario put a maximum, I think, on the amount of funding. The college has had

some concerns about this. It seems, though, to be the right approach. Did the

minister consider the concerns expressed by some of the colleges seeking a

maximum or a limit on this? And presumably — and I would agree with him — he

rejected those limits. But did that discussion take place, and why did he reject

the limit — which I have to say I agree with?

[1520]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I understand the member's question.

This is about a professional acting in a professional capacity. It would not

involve a practitioner outside of a professional capacity and a relationship,

for example, with a significant other of some sort. So I think that's what the

question was, and I think that's the answer — the professional acting in a

professional capacity.

The second point around limits. That's not an issue that's

addressed in this legislation. I don't believe there's been a discussion yet

with the colleges around whether there should be limits. If there are limits

established, they would have to be established by regulation.

Section 41 as amended approved.

section 42.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 42 standing

in my name on orders of the day.

SECTION 42,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Section

40 is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding

“or 39.1” after “39” and by striking out “or the

board may appeal” , and

(

a) by repealing subsection

(1) and substituting the following:

(1) A college, a respondent described in

section 38

(2) or a registrant described in

section 39.1 (1), aggrieved or adversely

affected by an order of the discipline committee under

section 39 or 39.1 (1),

may appeal the order to the Supreme Court., and

(

b) by repealing subsections (4) to (6) and

substituting the following:

(4) The petition commencing an appeal under this

section

must, within 14 days of its filing in the court registry, be served on

(

a) the college, effected by service on the

registrar, if the appellant is a respondent described in

section 38 (2) or a

registrant described in

section 39 39.1 (1),

(

b) the respondent or the

registrant ,

if the appellant is the college, and

(

c) the complainant, if the matter relates to a complaint.

(5) Only the persons required to be served under

subsection (4) (

a) and (

b) may be parties to an appeal.]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: Just briefly, I just want to make sure I understand

the amendment. I don't think it's particularly significant. Maybe the minister

could just let me know.

[ Page 12982 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: My apologies. We weren't quite able to hear

the member's question there.

A. Dix: Just on the amendment, the purpose of it. It looks

like housekeeping. I just want to make sure that my understanding was, in fact,

correct.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that the changes in this

section are purely housekeeping.

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Sections 43 to 47 inclusive approved.

section 48.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendments to

section 48

standing in my name on orders of the day.

SECTION 48,

in the proposed

section 50.53 (1) (

c) by deleting

the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(

c) on application by a complainant under

section 50.6, to review a disposition of a complaint made by the inquiry

committee under

section 32 (3) , or 33 (6) (

a) to (

c) or 37.1 ;.]

[SECTION 48, in the proposed

section 50.54 (12) by

deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(12) The review board must, no later than 15

30 days after making its order under subsection (9), deliver a

copy of the order to the parties to the review.]

[SECTION 48, in the proposed

section 50.55 (2), (4),

(5) and (6) by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as

underlined:

(2) If a complaint made under

section 32 (1) or an

investigation by the inquiry committee under

section 33 (4) has not been

disposed of under

section 32 (3) or 33 (6) within the period prescribed by the

minister, the inquiry committee must, not later than 15 30

days after the expiry of the prescribed period, deliver written notice of

that fact and an expected date of disposition to the following:

(

a) the registrant under investigation;

(

b) the complainant, if any.

(4) If the inquiry committee has not disposed of the

complaint or the investigation by the expected date of disposition set out in

the notice required under subsection (2), the inquiry committee must, not later

than 15 30 days after that date, deliver written notice

of and reasons for the delay, a new expected date of disposition and the right

to apply for a review under

section 50.57 to the following:

(

a) the registrant;

(

b) the complainant, if any;

(

c) the review board.

(5) The new expected date of disposition referred to in

subsection (4) must not be later than 30 45 days

following the date of the expected date of disposition set out in the notice

required under subsection (2).

(6) If the inquiry committee has not disposed of the

complaint or the investigation by the new expected date of disposition set out

in the notice required under subsection (4), the inquiry committee must, within

15 30 days after that date, deliver written notice to

that effect to the following:

(

a) the registrant;

(

b) the complainant, if any;

(

c) the review board.]

[SECTION 48, in the proposed

section 50.57 (1) by deleting the

text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(1) A registrant or any complainant may

apply to the review board for review of a complaint or investigation described

section 50.53 (1) (

b) no later than 15 30 days after

the date on which the notice required under

section 50.55 (6) is delivered to

the registrant or complainant.]

[SECTION 48, in the proposed

section 50.58 (2) by

deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(2) The review board must, within 15

days of receipt of the application, deliver written notice of

the action taken or to be taken by the review board with respect to the matter

(

a) the inquiry committee,

(

b) the registrant, and

(

c) the complainant, if any.]

[SECTION 48, in the proposed

section 50.6 (9) by deleting the

text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(9) The review board must, no later than

30 days after making an order under

subsection (8), deliver a copy of the order to the parties to the review.]

On the amendments.

A. Dix: We have a number of amendments here that maybe,

just quickly, the minister can take me through. I don't have any significant

questions about it, except that it seems to make this 15-to-30-day thing

consistent through the act. If that's the case, that's the question I have, and

it is with respect to these six amendments that we've packaged together here.

Hon. G. Abbott: These amendments are strictly housekeeping,

again reflecting the matter we discussed earlier — taking the 15 and making it

30 to better reflect the meeting

schedule of the college.

[1525]

Amendments approved.

Section 48 as amended approved.

Sections 49 to 59 inclusive approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 59.1

standing in my name on orders of the day:

SECTION 59.1, by adding the following

section under the “Health

Professions Amendment Act, 2003” heading:

59.1

Section 17 of the Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, S.B.C. 2003, c. 57, as it enacts

section 25.2 of the

Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183, is amended by adding the

following subsections:

[ Page 12983 ]

(5.1) In the case of a suspension under subsection (3) or

(5),

section 39.3 applies as if

(

a) the suspension were an action specified in

section 39.3 (1), and

(

b) the board were the inquiry committee.

(6.1) For the purpose of subsection (6) (b),

sections 39 (2) (

b) to (e), (3), (8) and (9), 39.3 and 40 apply as if the board

were the discipline committee.]

Amendment approved.

Section 59.1 approved.

section 60.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 60 standing

in my name on orders of the day.

SECTION 60,

by deleting the text shown as struck out:

Section 17 of the Health

Professions Amendment Act, 2003, S.B.C. 2003, c. 57 ,

as it enacts

section 25.5 of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183,

is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) (

e) by adding

“established

under

section 19 (1) (t)” after “committee”, and

(

b) by repealing subsection (2). ]

Amendment approved.

Section 60 as amended approved.

Section 61 approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the addition of

section 61.1

standing in my name on orders of the day.

SECTION 61.1, by adding the following section:

61.1

Section 17, as it enacts

section 25.6 of

the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183, is amended

(

a) in subsection (8) by striking out “

section ”

and substituting “ sections ” and by striking out “ applies ” and

substituting “ and 39.3 apply ”, and

(

b) by adding the following subsections:

(5.1) In the case of an action taken under subsection (2)

(

c) or (4) (

d) or (e),

section 39.3 applies as if

(

a) the action were an action specified in

section

39.3 (1), and

(

b) the registrar or executive committee, as the

case may be, were the inquiry committee.

(6.1) If the executive committee orders under

subsection (6) (

b) that the inquiry committee cease an investigation under

section 33,

(

a) the order is considered to be a disposition,

under

section 33 (6) (b), by the inquiry committee of a complaint, and

(

b) section 34 and

Part 4.2 apply as if the

executive committee were the inquiry committee.

(6.2) If the executive committee orders under

subsection (6) (

b) that the inquiry committee delay undertaking an investigation

under

section 33,

(

a) the executive committee must, no later than 30

days after the order is made, deliver written notice of and written reasons for

the delay to the complainant, and

(

b) section 50.55 (2) to (6) does not apply.

(6.3) If an investigation is delayed in accordance

with subsection (6) (

b) and the inquiry committee does not dispose of the

complaint within the time prescribed by the minister,

(

a) section 50.53 (1) (

b) applies as if the inquiry

committee has not disposed of the complaint within the time required under

section 50.55,

(

b) the inquiry committee must, no later than 30

days after the expiry of the prescribed time, deliver to the complainant written

notice that the complaint has not been disposed of, the reasons for the delay

and the right to request a review under

section 50.57,

(

c) section 50.56 applies as if the date of expiry

of the prescribed time were the new expected date of disposition which would

have been set out in a notice otherwise required under

section 50.55 (4), and

(

d) section 50.57 (1) applies as if the date on

which the notice under paragraph (

b) is delivered to the complainant were the

date by which a notice under

section 50.55 (6) would otherwise have been

required to have been delivered.]

Amendment approved.

Section 61.1 approved.

Sections 62 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 67 standing

in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 67,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 34, as it enacts

section 50.3 (2)

of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183, is

amended by striking out “reserved action to a registrant”

and substituting “restricted activity to a registrant, or the

authorization of a registrant to perform a restricted activity under the

supervision of a registrant,”. repealed and the following

substituted:

(2) A registrant of a college may only

(

a) delegate a restricted activity to a registrant of

another college, or

(

b) authorize a registrant of another college to

perform a restricted activity under the supervision of the authorizing

registrant or another registrant of the authorizing registrant’s college

if the delegation or authorization is made in accordance with

the bylaws of the other college.,. ]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: I wonder if the minister, in this case, could just

briefly explain the amendment.

[ Page 12984 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised this amendment is intended to

produce greater legal certainty around supervision and delegation.

Amendment approved.

Section 67 as amended approved.

Sections 68 to 70 inclusive approved.

section 71.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to the act standing in

my name in orders of the day to

section 71.

[SECTION 71 (b), by adding the text shown as underlined:

(

b) by repealing paragraph (

b) and

substituting the following:

(

b) fulfilling the conditions or requirements for

registration as a member of a college whose registrants are authorized by a

regulation under

section 12 to perform the restricted activity, and the

restricted activity is performed under the supervision of a registrant of a

college specified for the purposes of this paragraph by the board for the

college for which the person is fulfilling the conditions or requirements for

registration, or.]

Amendment approved.

Section 71 as amended approved.

section 72.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 72 standing

in my name in orders of the day.

[SECTION 72,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 37, as it enacts

section 52.1 of

the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183, is repealed and the

following substituted:

Restriction on use of terms

52.1

(1) A person who provides

a service described in, or whose work is described by, the definition of “health

profession” in

section 1 must not use any of the following in association with

or as part of a title describing the person’s work or in association with a

description of the person’s work, unless that person is a registrant of a

college and uses that term in accordance with any regulations of the minister

and any bylaws of the college:

(

a) the term “regulated”, “registered”, “licensed” or

“certified”;

(

b) an abbreviation of a term set out in paragraph

(a);

(

c) an equivalent in another language of a term

listed in paragraph (a).

(2) Subject to

section 12.1 (3) and despite

subsection (1) of this section, a person’s use of a term, abbreviation or

equivalent referred to in subsection (1) in association with or as part of a

title describing the person’s work or in association with a description of the

person’s work is not a contravention of subsection (1) if

(

a) the person is a member of an organization or a class of persons

specified in a regulation of the minister and uses the term, abbreviation or

equivalent in accordance with any limits or conditions specified in the

regulation, or

(

b) the person is authorized by a body in another

province or a foreign jurisdiction, that regulates a health profession in that

other province or foreign jurisdiction, to use the term, abbreviation or

equivalent in association with or as part of a title to indicate membership in

that body and, in using the term, indicates

(

i) whether the person is authorized to practise the

health profession in the other province or foreign jurisdiction, and

(ii) the name of the other province or foreign

jurisdiction.

(3) A person using a term, abbreviation or

equivalent as described in subsection (2) (

b) may use the term,

abbreviation or equivalent only for the purpose of indicating whether the person

is authorized to practise the health profession in the other province or foreign

jurisdiction.

( 3 4) A regulation under

subsection (2) (

a) may prescribe limits or conditions on the use of a

term, an abbreviation of a term, or an equivalent of a term in another language,

as referred to in subsection (1).]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: Just on the amendment, this is a restriction on use

of terms amendment. I think we had this debate earlier, but perhaps the minister

can explain this amendment.

[1530]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. This is the issue

that we discussed at some length yesterday, where a health professional from

another jurisdiction…. A physician from Albania, for example, comes to British

Columbia to teach — to do something unrelated to being a health professional in

Albania.

I said Albania, didn't I? Or Alberta? Albania — less

controversial.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure. Alberta wouldn't apply.

Albania does, though.

So they come. They're allowed to keep the moniker "Dr.," but they

are not allowed to practise.

Amendment approved.

Section 72 as amended approved.

Sections 73 to 75 inclusive approved.

section 76.

[ Page 12985 ]

A. Dix: This

section adds the authority for a pharmacist to

renew a prescription in accordance with a therapeutic interchange program or a

protocol approved by the governing body of a hospital or the board of the

College of Pharmacists of British Columbia. I just want to make sure we

understand, because we're talking in this area of very significant changes in

some ways.

I wanted the minister perhaps to take us through this section. It

may be the last section, in fact, that we need to talk about today.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: This is the

section of the act which

provides the enabling authority for a pharmacist, subject to future

determination, to be able to renew prescriptions. This enables that possibility.

It doesn't actually produce the ability to renew prescriptions, but it will,

subject to the College of Pharmacists developing appropriate bylaws which can be

approved in consultation with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It could

permit that.

A. Dix: It would appear, in talking to the college, that

that process is well along the way. Does the minister, as a last question…? Or

it seems to be moving forward anyway. This is obviously required as part of

that, but they're making considerable progress. I think that's, in a general

sense, a very positive thing. Is it reasonable to expect that that might be in

place by the end of this year?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member's characterization of

those discussions is appropriate. There has been significant work undertaken by

the College of Pharmacists and by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in a

consultative fashion.

[1535]

We're optimistic that these changes will be concluded in a timely

way. There is still much work to be done, so it's difficult to predict a precise

time frame for it at this point.

Sections 76 to 86 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

HEALTH PROFESSIONS (REGULATORY

REFORM) AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 25, Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act,

2008, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. G. Abbott: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

HEALTH PROFESSIONS (REGULATORY

REFORM) AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 25, Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act,

2008, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill 26,

intituled the Health Statutes Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

Hon. G. Abbott: When we were last discussing this bill, I

had just begun my concluding comments around second reading of Bill 26.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I hope that for the viewing audience, the move from committee

stage debate on Bill 25 to second reading debate on Bill 26 isn't overly

jarring. I presume everything is good. The looks of puzzlement are….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: As I was saying, yes.

There were many things said and many assertions made during the

second reading comments of opposition members in respect of Bill 26. There are

three areas in Bill 26 that need to be noted. One is changes around the

Emergency and Health Services Commission, which were not addressed in second

reading comments apart from brief reference to them by me in introducing the

second reading debates. I'm happy to leave that one alone.

There was also some discussion around

section 49. As I mentioned

in my introductory comments to Bill 26,

section 49 allows government to be more

transparent in respect of issues that have been adjudicated by the Medical

Services Commission. I'll only be, I guess, a bit more political on this,

because I did hear some quite political comments from the other side in respect

section 49 and what we were attempting to do here.

[1540]

The aim here is greater transparency.

Section 49, which really

almost entirely limits disclosure in the current legislation of issues which

come before the Medical Services Commission, I think is inappropriate in

relation to current public expectations around freedom of information.

[ Page 12986 ]

In fairness to the former NDP government that put

section 49 in

place in 1995, I would note that we now have the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, which actually balances out a lot of these things.

When

section 49 was initially put in place, that was not there as a kind of

measure of what the appropriate balance between freedom of information and

protection of privacy should be.

That provision, though —

section 49 — has continued to be in

effect right up into this moment, despite substantial amendments to the Medicare

Protection Act in 1996 and perhaps even at other dates as well.

One of the novel arguments that I heard by the opposition Health

critic around

section 49 was that

section 49 was not an issue in the 1990s

because there wasn't private care, extra billing and so on. That is, I think, an

utterly novel and quite uncompelling assessment of that situation. I know

members opposite get quite uncomfortable when I note this, but the fact of the

matter is that much of the major private clinic development occurred under the

NDP's leadership in the 1990s.

For example, the Cambie Surgery Centre, one of the largest private

facilities in the province, opened in 1996. The False Creek Centre opened in

1999. False Creek is also one of the largest…. In fact, Cambie and False Creek

are undoubtedly the largest of the surgical centres in the province of British

Columbia, both developed in the 1990s. There were some 24 other private clinics

that were developed in the 1990s as well.

So I find it all a bit rich when I hear for…. It felt like days on

end. Perhaps it wasn't, but I think it actually was days on end. It was. Some

members who also had to listen to that debate for an extended period of time

confirm that that debate went on for a very, very long time, was tiresome in the

extreme and probably proved very little at the end of the day except that

hypocrisy is alive and well on the benches of the opposition. Clearly, those

private clinics did open during the 1990s.

The opportunity for injured workers from what was then the Workers

Compensation Board…. The ability of those injured workers to access those

private clinics was a practice that was developed in the 1990s, and I'm not

saying that's wrong. We've continued that practice, and we will continue that

practice as well.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I think it became tiresome in the

extreme to hear over and over again from members of the opposition about some

kind of conspiratorial effort on the part of this government to move to private

care in the province when, in fact, all of that work was done in the 1990s. So I

think that's an important point to note, but I won't belabour it apart from the

extent to which I have belaboured it at this point.

A. Dix: Let us be the judge of that.

Hon. G. Abbott: The good spirit of the committee stage

debate on Bill 25 remains, and that's a wonderful thing.

[1545]

One of the things that I heard…. I believe the current Leader of

the Opposition made this pronouncement at a national CUPE convention or maybe a

provincial CUPE convention in Vancouver not so many weeks ago. This is really at

this point turning to the issue of Bill 29 and the many inflammatory and quite

extreme arguments that I was hearing around the purpose of this bill in relation

to Bill 29.

One of the things I heard from the opposition leader was that,

should the NDP be elected in May of 2009…. I know that's a frightening prospect

for many, but there will be an election, and it will be interesting, and it will

have an outcome. So one of the things the Leader of the Opposition pledges to do

is to completely move back in time to an era where we had a very hidebound,

inflexible bureaucratic model of delivering care, hospital services included, in

this province.

So just to give you a couple of examples of what back to the

future would mean, were we to see that situation returned in the province. We

would, for example, see this…. This is what happened in the 1990s with the

inflexible model we had at that time.

The B.C. Women's Hospital needed to reorganize some of its

maternity staff and beds into three wards rather than four to reduce overtime

and achieve greater efficiency. The change would not have reduced any nursing

staff or patient beds. However, the collective agreement prevented the hospital

from simply moving nurses from one ward down the hall to another.

Instead, the hospital was forced to go through the lengthy and

disruptive process of issuing notices of layoff and requiring the nurses to

apply and compete for the relocated positions. A simple move that should have

taken a few days instead took four months. That was simply a reorganization

within B.C. Women's Hospital, and the challenges that were imposed by that

remarkably inflexible bureaucratic model that existed.

A second example. I can give many more examples of what the

inflexibility produced, but given my constant aim to be brief in these matters,

I will just…. [Laughter.]

The members opposite laugh. I can't imagine why my attempt at

brevity would produce that. I'm well known to be brief among my members on this

side, I know.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, maybe not, I guess. Perhaps I

shouldn't pursue that any further.

But a second example: St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver experienced

a temporary nursing shortage in November. Because collective agreements prohibit

the transfer of nurses between hospitals, the emergency department was forced to

close temporarily, resulting in patients being shunted to other facilities.

Rather than staff being moved to meet the needs of patients,

patients were forced to move to where other staff were available. Again, just a

second example of how a kind of hidebound, inflexible model simply does not work

for this province.

I know, as well, that there were many inflammatory impressions

provided by members opposite around the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. But

I want to quote from a couple of the paragraphs in the judgment,

[ Page 12987 ]

just to give you some sense of how the Supreme Court of Canada actually

viewed this matter in relation to the view that was advanced by the opposition.

So paragraph 134, and this is from the majority judgment in the

Bill 29 case. This is page 78:

"It is true that the government was facing a

situation of exigency. It was determined to come to grips with the spiralling

cost of health care in British Columbia. This determination was fuelled by the

laudable desire to provide quality health services to the people of British

Columbia. Concerns such as these must be taken into account in assessing

whether the measures adopted disregard the fundamental

section 2(

d) obligation

to preserve the processes of good faith negotiation and consultation with the

unions."

Further, paragraph 144 of the judgment, page 81: "We agree with

the respondent that the health care crisis in British Columbia is an important

contextual factor in support of the conclusion that these objectives are

pressing and substantial."

[1550]

Further,

section 146:

"We reject the argument that the government's

objective is stated too broadly. The government states its objectives in terms

of one main objective (improving health care delivery) pursued by way of

several sub-objectives (enabling health authorities to focus resources on

clinical services, enhancing the ability of health employers and authorities

to respond quickly to changing circumstances and enhancing the accountability

of decision-makers in public health care). Even if it is accepted that the

main objective is somewhat broad, the more precise aims of the government are

made clear in the sub-objectives. Therefore, the objective is not stated too

broadly."

Then it goes on from there in paragraph 147 to say: "The

appellants' contention that cutting the costs and increasing the power of

management are also objectives of the legislation has merit."

So those are a few brief notes from the majority decision.

Actually, there's one more I should mention here, and this is actually from

Justice Deschamps in her dissent to the majority decision of the Supreme Court.

Again, I'll just quote briefly from Justice Deschamps: "A growing

and aging population, costly emerging high-end technology and drugs and

complexity in disease patterns have caused an explosion in the demand for health

services in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. In British Columbia health

care costs have been rising three times faster than the rate of economic growth

in the province." That's paragraph 203.

Paragraph 204, and again, I quote from Justice Deschamps:

"By far the largest share of health care costs

are those relating to labour: 'approximately 80 percent of health care costs

are labour costs — the majority being unionized labour costs.' In breaking

these costs down further, the government presented evidence that health

support workers in British Columbia receive higher wages than in other

jurisdictions: support workers are particularly highly paid in comparison with

their counterparts in other provinces, with starting and maximum wages on

average 34 percent and 28 percent higher than the national average."

Then finally, in paragraph 205 from Justice Deschamps: "Based on

this evidence, I consider the crisis of sustainability in the province's health

care system, which this act and the impugned provisions were designed to

address, to be a contextual factor that is of the utmost importance to the

section 1 analysis in the case at bar."

So that, Madam Chair, is just aimed at providing a rather more

balanced view of the Supreme Court decision on Bill 29 than was provided to the

House in terms of the opposition member comments in second reading debate.

I guess the question, really, that the public of British Columbia

is going to have to look at in 2009 is whether they wish to return to the

bloated and inflexible model that characterized health care delivery at that

time, or do they wish to continue on to build on what both the Conference Board

of Canada, the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada and others have rightly

described as the best health care delivery system in Canada?

It is certainly that, but it is also a health care delivery system

that can be improved. Not for one moment would I ever claim that it can't be

improved. In many ways, it can be improved, and in fact, a lot of the

initiatives that were enunciated in the throne speech later found expression in

bills before this House and are intended to build on that very good health care

delivery system that we have and to improve it in a number of ways.

[1555]

Some of those pieces…. And we've just debated in the last couple

of days, some of them. We'll be, later today, debating another one. It is very

important that one of the principles that underlines our moving forward with

health care delivery in this province is that we have respect for all health

care workers in every part of the health care delivery system.

We know, for example, that in 2006 — and not a single member of

the opposition mentioned this, surprisingly — we were able to enter into free

collective agreements with over 300,000 public sector workers in the province of

British Columbia. That number included every health care delivery worker in a

public sector union in British Columbia.

That had never been done before. I don't believe there was ever an

occasion when that many public sector health unions were able to enter into free

collective agreement with the government of British Columbia. It had not been

done before, and I think it's graphic evidence of the respectful relationship

that exists between the government of British Columbia and the public sector

unions, including health care unions in the province of British Columbia.

One of the things that we have been able to do subsequent to the

2006 agreements is that government representatives have been able to sit down

with leaders from the Hospital Employees Union, the B.C. government employees

union, the B.C. Nurses Union, the Health Sciences Association and their

respective bargaining associations. We have been able to sit down with them and

work through issues revolving around the three sections of Bill 29 that the

Supreme Court of Canada has ordered repealed. We were able to work through those

difficult issues over a period of months.

[ Page 12988 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I do want to thank the leaders of all of those health care unions

and bodies for their patience and persistence in moving through the often very

difficult issues that were engaged around that. I also want to thank the

leadership from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and others, and

from the Health Employers Association of B.C. for the very capable and

thoughtful way in which they managed the government's issues through those very

difficult negotiations.

I think it is very much a credit to all of those who worked so

patiently through those difficult negotiations that we were able to see those

teams emerge with an agree