Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 3, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 247

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Michael Rensing

Hon. B. Ralston

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Rattan Kaur Gholia

B. Banman

Speaker’s Statement

Sign language

interpretation of House proceedings

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M216 — Land Title Amendment Act, 2022

K. Kirkpatrick

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Brian Cowan

G. Kyllo

Safety of health care workers

J. Rice

Liberation of Netherlands and war remembrance

M. de Jong

Movember fundraising campaign

M. Starchuk

Saanich Inlet

A. Olsen

Poverty and access to menstrual products

N. Sharma

Oral Questions

Access to cancer care services

K. Falcon

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

Government action on issues in health care system and pediatric care

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Access to cancer care services

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

Medical imaging wait times and supply of technicians

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. A. Dix

Access to non-prescription pain medication for children

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

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

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

[10:05 a.m.]

Tributes

MICHAEL RENSING

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m going to invite the House to celebrate the extraordinary

career of an exceptional public servant this morning, Dr. Michael

Rensing.

Dr. Michael Rensing joined the British Columbia public service in

September 2003, in the air protection

section of the Ministry of the

Environment. In November 2007, he moved to the Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Low Carbon Innovation to develop policies and legislation for

renewable and low-carbon fuels.

Throughout his career in the ministry, Michael has supported a

number of ministers in the House for amendments, supported a

parliamentary secretary review of the legislation in 2013 and overseen

regular updates to the regulations as lessons were learned about the

impact of this leading-edge policy. From the beginning, Michael has been

the public face of the government’s low-carbon fuel standard, conducting

stakeholder consultations and building the province’s very positive

reputation as a jurisdiction that supports evidence-based

policies.

With his expert guidance, the low-carbon fuel standard has become

the single largest contributor to the CleanBC roadmap to 2030 targets

and is expected to cut five million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions

by 2030 — fully 31 percent of the amount required to meet the CleanBC

roadmap climate targets. Working with Paul Wieringa, who recently

retired as well, Michael developed the

part 3 agreement program, which

has spurred over $2 billion of investment in clean fuels in British

Columbia in 2020.

British Columbia is now recognized by Canadian fuel suppliers as a

role model in Canada for supporting low-carbon fuel investment and

innovation. In 2021, the B.C. Bioenergy Network recognized Michael’s

contribution by awarding him the first annual bioenergy sector champion

award for outstanding leadership and contribution to the bioenergy

sector in B.C. Michael began his career in the ministry in 2007 as a

program analyst, and he will be retiring as the executive director of

the low-carbon fuels branch.

He tells me he plans to spend the next few years as an adviser to

industry who are working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions

through the use of low-carbon fuels, while spending more time with his

beautiful granddaughter, Audrey.

Will the House please join me in celebrating the

extra­ordinary career of Dr. Michael Rensing.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have two sets of introductions. First, we have some of our GCPE

staff who are in the chambers watching question period today. We have

Caroline McAndrews, who just recently got a lifetime achievement award from

the provincial government for service for 30 years, serving members on both

sides of the House; Scott McKenzie; Angela Soukoreff; Bianca Chu; Lara

Hurrel; Katya Slepian; Tom Laird; and Shantel Esplen. Can the House please

make them welcome today.

I have two special guests from my community today here in the House.

First, we have Mark Gordienko. Mark was the former president of the ILWU.

He’s well known to members of this House. A strong advocate for the women

and men who work on the docks. A strong advocate for resource development —

sustainable, responsible resource development — in the province. He is

retired, and he’s here today.

As well, it’s a bit of an odd couple. He came with a gentleman named

Gurmit Grewal, who is my father-in-law. My father-in-law is a remarkable

human being. He immigrated to Canada, and from all the places he could have

gone, he went to Stewart, B.C.

[10:10 a.m.]

He spent many, many years in Stewart, B.C., working in mining, working

on the big trucks that are needed in the mines up there. Then he was one of

the first South Asian heads of a department in the city of Vancouver. He

served there for 30 years and retired.

These two — I call them the odd couple — became friends when they

volunteered on my campaign and became sign crew members together five years

ago. Now they meet regularly for lunch, they go on trips together, and

they’ve travelled here today to watch question period.

So please can the House make these two amazing people

welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to recognize an important member of the Ministry of Finance

policy team who was sitting here just a couple of weeks ago, helping steward

some legislation through, Shauna Sundher.

Shauna is known throughout the ministry as one of the go-to people on

so much work that we do here to improve policies and services for British

Columbians. You may recall that she was the one who was significantly

pregnant. Well, this week, hours after briefing our team, Shauna delivered

baby Kai. She worked the entire day and then went off and just had a baby. I

know that the whole team is thrilled for Shauna and her family.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing an outstanding member of the

public service and congratulate Shauna Sundher and newborn baby

Kai.

G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a very close friend of mine, M.J.

Whitemarsh, who’s accompanied by her husband, Bill; also her granddaughter

Emma Fisher; as well as a friend, Josh Goodhume.

Emma is quite an accomplished athlete. I understand that in high

school, she was the quarterback of her high school co-ed football team.

She’s an accomplished hockey player as well, playing competitive women’s

hockey throughout her high school. She’s now playing, actually, for Western

University, the women’s team.

Would the House please make my good friend M.J. and her family very

welcome.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In the precinct today, I encourage the Legislature to help me welcome

the members of the Canadian Mental Health Association’s B.C. chapters and

representatives from across the province.

I was so happy to meet this morning with

chapter reps from Nanaimo,

Vancouver-Fraser, Port Alberni, the North, Shuswap, Vernon, Kamloops.

Special thanks to Vernon, which is celebrating five years of operating

Foundry on behalf of the province of B.C.; and the North Shore CMHA B.C.

celebrating its first-year anniversary of operating peer-assisted care teams

for the province.

Please thank them for their work, and welcome them to the

precinct.

Hon. R. Fleming: With us in the precinct today is a new Vancouver Island, Victoria,

resident, who finally saw the light and moved across the water, well known

to many members of this House on all sides because he was for many years the

president of CUPE British Columbia.

I would ask the House to make Mr. Paul Farrow most welcome here today

to watch question period.

Tributes

RATTAN KAUR GHOLIA

B. Banman: Tomorrow I had hoped to be able to announce that Rattan Kaur

Gholia had reached 104 years of age. Sadly, that is not to be. Mrs.

Gholia passed a few weeks ago.

I was going to get up last year at 103, but she had asked me:

“Please don’t. There are so many others that are passing of COVID.” She

felt it would have been inappropriate to celebrate her life when others,

much younger than her, were succumbing to the disease.

Would the House please take a moment to just say may she rest in

peace.

Speaker’s Statement

SIGN LANGUAGE

INTERPRETATION

OF HOUSE

PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, a trial project to provide American Sign Language

interpretation during the broadcast of House proceedings took place this

fall. I would like to thank Hansard broadcasting and Island Deaf and

Hard of Hearing Centre for coordinating professional

interpretation

services for us over the past few weeks.

[10:15 a.m.]

Enhancing access to the work of the Legislative Assembly is valued

by us all, and as such, their important work was greatly appreciated.

Let’s express appreciation to the interpreters and all those who

initiated this special project.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M216 — LAND TITLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

K. Kirkpatrick presented a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act,

K. Kirkpatrick: I move that a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2022, of

which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced

and read for a first time now.

Racial segregation should belong in a history book, not in any

legal document in 2022. Unfortunately, despite being void and

unenforceable, racial covenants are still common on property titles

across British Columbia.

Although I don’t like to read this aloud, it’s a common example of

such a covenant: “No person of the African or Asiatic race or of African

or Asiatic descent, except servants of the occupier of the premises and

residence…shall reside or be allowed to remain on the

premises.”

Such languages are exclusionary, demeaning and incredibly

offensive. So this bill, the Land Title Amendment Act, 2022, would

require registrars to fully remove such discriminating covenants from

land titles. It’s because just striking these unacceptable covenants out

is not enough, as they are still visible and very hurtful to

read.

We must use these tools we have to undo historical wrongs, as no

one should continue to suffer from xenophobia. Hate has no place in our

society.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill M216, Land Title Amendment Act, 2022, 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 25B)

BRIAN COWAN

G. Kyllo: It has been a number of months now since the passing — I said my

final goodbye — of a very dear friend of mine, Brian Cowan, from Salmon

Arm.

Now, 41-year friendships are rare, and I was very blessed to have

had such an amazing man in my life. He was kind. He was thoughtful,

wickedly funny, hard-working and generous of his time. He had a very

keen sense of interest in all things political and a genuinely

infectious smile.

Brian was rich in both family and friends, and if Brian didn’t

know you personally, he took great pride in the fact that he likely was

friends with or knew somebody that you knew. A dedicated member of the

B.C. Liberals for over 20 years and president of a B.C. Liberal riding

association for well over a decade, Brian earned the respect of the

extended B.C. Liberal family.

When it came to fundraising, Brian was an absolute rock star.

Shuswap is not considered the mecca of finance in B.C., but when it

comes to finding sustaining donors, Brian led the charge and had the

highest number of sustaining donors of any riding association in the

province for over nine years.

Our community felt the grief in such a heavy loss, and the

outpouring of love and support is an excellent testament to Brian’s

impact on those around him of what an outstanding man he was. Brian was

an extension of my family and dearly loved by my wife Georgina, our

daughters and grandchildren. Although there is much sadness, we all feel

extremely blessed to have had the privilege and good fortune to have

Brian in our lives.

Brian is survived by his loving wife, Holly, of over 38 years, his

son, Sean, daughter, Lindsay, his son-in-law, Lance, grandson Eli and

many other members of his beautiful family. Brian will remain a bright

light in our collective memories, and I’ll forever cherish all the time

that I spent with my dear friend.

In his memory, thank you.

SAFETY OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS

J. Rice: We all want to feel safe on the job. In fact, workers have a right

to feel safe on the job. Last weekend, an incident in Prince Rupert left

health care workers feeling unsafe and scared.

[10:20 a.m.]

While I am thankful for the quick response from local health

administrators, our local police and security services that meant no one

was harmed, it shows us just how important it is for health care workers

to be safe and secure when they’re at work.

Incidents like this make everyone feel unsafe, whether it’s

doctors, lab techs, nurses, janitors and all workers in a health care

setting. It also means patients feel similar. When a health care worker

is safe on the job, they can spend time and energy focusing on the care

of our loved ones.

A concerning issue is that we know what happened in Prince Rupert

last week was not an isolated incident. Health care workers, whether

they are working at an emergency room or administering vaccines in a

clinic, are experiencing an increase in threats and even

violence.

We’ve listened. We’ve heard these concerns and have come up with

solutions. We’ve made a new shift to health care security to prioritize

staff and patient safety in hospitals across B.C. This new relational

security model means that 320 in-house security staff will be hired, in

addition to 14 specialized violence prevention leads, including in

Prince Rupert.

By supporting health authorities in transitioning their security

teams, hospitals and health centres will have staff that aren’t just

security guards. They are partners in safety. This new model and these

new staff will ensure that people keeping hospitals safe have an acute

awareness of patients and their surroundings as well as how to

anticipate, de-escalate and prevent aggression. When you base your

approach on trauma-informed practice and care, we all have better

outcomes.

We know that health care comes from a team working together. Our

doctors, nurses, radiologists, specialized techs and care aides all have

an important role to play in treating patients. It’s time to remember

that security professionals are a valued part of this team

too.

LIBERATION OF NETHERLANDS

AND WAR

REMEMBRANCE

M. de Jong: My parents were 12 years old in 1940 when the invading Nazi armies

arrived in Holland. For the next five years, they struggled to survive

the grotesque perversions of Hitler’s tyrannical regime.

On May 5, 1945, they were liberated by Canadians who had fought

their way from Normandy up through France and into Belgium, the Scheldt

Estuary, and into the flooded lowlands of Holland itself. By then, my

mom’s family was barely alive. They had survived the last few months of

the war on a diet of ground tulip bulbs and potato peelings. It was the

Canadians that nursed them back to health, gave them food and

freedom.

My parents never forgot that remarkable gift of liberation or the

sacrifice of those who had given it to them. A few years later my mom,

now in Canada, gathered her kids around and reminded all of us that, but

for that sacrifice, we wouldn’t exist as a family. She helped her then

six-year-old son memorize the words of the poem, our anthem of

remembrance in Canada.

She’s 95, and believe me, she still remembers. I hope we all will

for the veterans, all the veterans of all the wars.

In Flanders fields, the poppies blow

Between the

crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The

larks, still bravely singing, fly.

We are the dead. Scarce days

ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved,

and now we lie,

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the

foe

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch, be yours to

hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die,

We will not

sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

[10:25 a.m.]

MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

M. Starchuk: On Tuesday, the member for Shuswap spoke to Movember, a

light-hearted way to raise the serious concerns of men’s health.

Movember raises awareness on men’s mental health, suicide prevention,

prostate cancer and testicular cancer.

The hairy season has arrived. The Movember movement is taking them

all on with patchy, lopsided, itchy, epic ‘staches. Whatever “mo” is

grown in November, those are the faces who will raise funds for

awareness of men’s health.

Men are dying before their time, and the Movember movement is

close to me in a personal way. Prostate cancer is a treatable cancer,

and many men are surviving longer due to research and awareness

campaigns, such as Movember, that’s brought to us. I have many

colleagues that have been diagnosed and are survivors of prostate

cancer, which, unfortunately, is linked to the occupation of

firefighting. I congratulate Jerry, Lowell, Glen, Ross, Tim and Lorne on

their journeys to battle this cancer. I wish them well as they cherish

each day with their family and friends.

Three out of four suicides are men and the second-highest cause of

death amongst men aged between 15 and 44. Unfortunately, there are two

of my former colleagues who suffered from mental health issues who took

their own lives. I will never forget the two days that were announced

when Kevin and Ernie, who had taken their own lives, and may these young

men rest in peace.

With the money raised and funded ground-breaking health projects

for mental health and suicide prevention, prostate cancer and testicular

cancer, those things can all be achieved. There have been 1,250 projects

that have been funded so far through the Movember movement, and now a

nationwide search is on for Canada’s most legendary moustaches in the

Great Canadian Mo Challenge.

Who knows? Maybe the distinguished ‘stache grown by the member for

Kelowna West could be Canada’s next greatest peach fuzz

moustache.

SAANICH INLET

A. Olsen: The environmental degradation of the Saanich Inlet is personal.

It’s a culturally and ecologically sensitive glacial fjord that has

sustained countless generations of my ancestors. This is the place that

I and my relatives belong to.

As a boy, I worked the deck of my father’s fishing boat as

visitors from around the world came to experience the once robust salmon

fishery there. We worked under the dark shadow of the Bamberton cement

plant. It was a heavy industrial site, spewing ash over the

mountainside. By the 1980s, the inlet had succumbed to the pollution,

and the fishers abandoned fishing almost altogether. Our shellfish

beaches have been perpetually closed, herring and fowl harvests just a

memory.

I hung my head in shame. Had I been the last generation of

W̱JOȽEȽP to fish those waters?

What about my children, my nieces and nephews? Quoting a 1996 study

undertaken by the Provincial Ministry of the Environment: “The level of

protection afforded to Saanich Inlet must be based on the most sensitive

human or ecological use. The concept of assimilative capacity must not

be viewed as a pollute-up-to level, but rather as a tool to effectively

direct protection and remediation efforts.”

This summer my father bought a boat, and we returned to the inlet

for the first time in 20 years. After years of limited industrial

activity, the fish and wildlife are returning, and on the National Day

for Truth and Reconciliation, we went fishing. Just a few hundred metres

from Bamberton, my nine-year-old nephew reeled in his first salmon, that

beautiful coho netted by his grandfather.

Any proposals to return to the heavy industrialization of the

Saanich Inlet will be met with fierce resistance. Clearly, this place

needs to be treated for the environmental gem that it is.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

POVERTY AND ACCESS TO

MENSTRUAL

PRODUCTS

N. Sharma: No student should have to miss school, and no employee should have

to miss work due to financial barriers to accessing products which are

basic and necessary.

Sometimes referred to as menstrual equity, period poverty occurs

when British Columbians who menstruate struggle to purchase period

products. Research tells us that half of the people who need period

products in B.C. have struggled to pay for them at some point in their

lives.

In addition, more than 25 percent of them have gone through a

period without having menstrual products at all, and nearly 15 percent

grew up in homes where they didn’t have access to menstrual

products.

[10:30 a.m.]

Imagine the monthly burden this places on too many people in the

province, who are often too ashamed to speak about it.

Everyone who menstruates, including non-binary and transgendered

people, should have access to menstrual products so that they can fully

participate and thrive in daily life.

Our government is fully committed to removing barriers for British

Columbians with lower incomes. In 2018, the province provided $107,000

to the United Way B.C. to support the delivery of menstrual products

through 12 non-profit agencies across the province. Since 2019, all

public schools in B.C. have been mandated to provide free menstrual

products in school washrooms. Students should not have to miss school,

extracurricular activities or sports due to cost.

In May 2022, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction announced a new Period Poverty Task Force. As we speak right

now, it’s their inaugural meeting. Chair Nikki Hill, who is a force,

together with the task force members: Zeba Khan, A.J. Lowik, Tiffany

Ottahal, Kate Fish, Jackie Jack and Lori-Ann Armstrong. They are

gathered together in Burnaby to begin their work.

I want to thank them for their dedication and valuable work. By

working together with our valued community partners, we will continue to

fight to eliminate period poverty for British Columbians.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO CANCER CARE SERVICES

K. Falcon: B.C.’s cancer care system was once recognized, internationally, as

one of the best in the world, but that’s not the reality anymore. We

have plummeting quality of care, and now we have some of the worst wait

times in the country.

In British Columbia, only 20 percent of cancer patients referred

to an oncologist are being seen within the recommended two-week period.

Contrast that with Ontario, where 75 percent of their residents are

being seen within that two-week window. In B.C., the wait time for

cervical cancer screening is an unacceptable six months. The wait for

radiation therapy is the worst in Canada. We are dead last.

On medical imaging, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians

are on dangerously long wait-lists, waiting to be seen. Radiologists

tell us that these delays mean that British Columbians will face a

tsunami of late-stage cancer cases in the years ahead.

My question to the Minister of Health. In their second term as

government, with the health care system failing in so many different

areas, will the minister accept responsibility for these terrible

results that the public is having to deal with every single

day?

Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate…. Perhaps the member forgot the last line of his

question.

What I would suggest is…. Issues around our cancer system have

been priorities in the last two budgets. We have a Minister of Finance

in British Columbia who has led on this question. That’s why, because of

her personal experience and because of her knowledge of the

system….

In the last two budgets, we’ve added resources to our cancer

system in each budget. For example, the $41 million increase in base

funding this year, in addition to our funding for caseload, meant that

we added 36 new oncology positions. These new physician roles, combined

with the 12 we added as a result of the budget in ’20-21, and the 25 new

alternate payment program funded physician positions mean that we’re

building capacity. That’s 115.6 new FTEs.

In addition — and the member knows this, because the failure of

diagnostic care under the previous government is a matter of record — we

have dramatically added to the diagnostic capacity of the province,

including in cancer, with two new PET-CT scanning machines in different

communities so that people in the Okanagan and people on Vancouver

Island can benefit from care that they never benefited from before. In

addition, 17 net new MRI machines in British Columbia and an additional

200,000 CT scans.

[10:35 a.m.]

We are going to continue, with a ten-year cancer plan, to lay out

the necessary resources to deal with the system now but also to deal

with the fact that over the next ten to 15 years, with the increase in

our aging population…. We need to respond by increasing our resources in

oncology and everywhere else to deal with what we will expect to be more

age-related cancer in B.C.

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

K. Falcon: I’m sure British Columbians feel comforted that the minister and

the NDP caucus find it humorous and can laugh at the fact that we have

some of the worst wait times in the country. Actually, it’s no laughing

matter.

Once again, what we see from this member is the total lack of any

private sector background. He still hasn’t figured out that it’s not

what you’re putting into the system. It’s the results you’re getting out

of it that you should be focusing on. The public of British Columbia

expect results, not excuses, not a bunch of numbers that mean nothing in

terms of improved outcomes.

Fayra Krueger is a nurse who was diagnosed with skin cancer and

has endured a gruelling eight months going from one wait-list to another

wait-list and is now stuck in limbo wondering when, if ever, she’ll get

a surgery date. We have now gone from having a world-leading cancer care

system to now having some of the worst cancer care wait times in the

country.

This is what a whistleblower on the front lines of cancer care in

our province had to say about the issue. “Patients are not being seen

within time frames. We are in a crisis. My job lately has just been

rebooking patients weeks to months out and having them crying, yelling,

insulting and beating us down. We are drowning. People are dying. When

you hear the news and they say it’s bad, it’s worse.”

My question is to the minister, who continues to try and tell the

House that everything is actually just quite great, regardless of what

whistleblowers and front-line staff are saying. Patients and our health

care workers have actually had enough.

When is this minister going to understand that empty

announcements, repeating a bunch of data and failing, worsening results

are not the outcomes that British Columbians expect from their health

care system?

Hon. A. Dix: I think the first lung cancer screening program in Canada,

established under this government and supported by our teams at the B.C.

Cancer Agency, is a substantive response. Major investments in two

consecutive budgets, with more doctors and more oncologists, is a

substantive response. Taking an MRI and CT and diagnostic system that

had declined, including under the time when the Leader of the Opposition

was the Minister of Health, is a substantive response.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the former Minister of Health, the Leader of the Opposition,

the only Minister of Health in the recent history of British Columbia,

Liberal or NDP, who saw a decline in the number of registered nurses in

his time in office can talk about outcomes.

Interjections.

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

Hon. A. Dix: At every level of the cancer system, given the aging of our

population, we require and will require more support and more

investment, and that is what we are doing.

The member will know, because he was Minister of Health, that

there was a turnaround leadership at B.C. Cancer for ten years under

their government. We have changed that. We have an outstanding leader at

B.C. Cancer, a Canadian doctor who has led on these issues, Dr. Kim

Nguyen Chi. He is leading our ten-year cancer plan initiatives. He is

leading our efforts to add staff.

Yes, of course there are challenges. But the way you respond is

substantive action, not personal attack. The way you respond is

consistent substantive action, and that is exactly what this government

is doing.

S. Bond: This is not at all about personal attacks, and the minister knows

it. This is about his job, his responsibility to British

Columbians.

[10:40 a.m.]

Where it starts in this House should be an acknowledgment that

when you walk into an emergency room and you are diagnosed with advanced

cancer, that is terrifying. People every day are waiting longer and

longer and longer.

Dr. Christopher Applewhaite is not only seeing people with

undiagnosed cancers walk into an emergency room, but shockingly, he says

that patients are choosing medically assisted death because of

inexcusably long waits for cancer care. Not my words. The doctor says,

“People are just throwing their hands up, going: ‘I know it’s bad, and I

don’t know when I’ll get to see the cancer doctors. I’m just going to

end my life.’”

That’s what the minister needs to hear from British Columbians.

They don’t want to hear numbers. They want to see outcomes. When is this

minister going to stand up and acknowledge that there’s a crisis, that

people are dying while they are waiting, and do something?

Hon. A. Dix: That is precisely what we are doing: taking action. After ten

years of disruption at B.C. Cancer, we have given stability and

resources to that organization — stability and resources. Resources in

the 2021 budget. Resources in the 2022 budget, which means more money

for oncologists and a dramatic increase in our screening programs and

our MRI and our diagnostic programs in British Columbia. It is a fact

that people in Kelowna have access to PET CT scanning in their community

now and didn’t before. It is a fact that people on Vancouver Island have

the same.

The Leader of the Opposition can dismiss those initiatives, but

those initiatives did not take place under the previous government. They

need to be accountable for that. We will continue to take the actions

required to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, opposition members, I take this subject, both

personally and in my ministerial responsibility, very seriously. Surely

we can have a serious discussion about it in the House on this

particular subject without the usual chatter from the

opposition.

The fact of the matter is that we are and will be making

unprecedented investments in cancer care to deliver services to people

on the ground. That is what we need to do as a province. That is our

obligation as a health care system. That is what we are going to

continue to do. You bet that the people of B.C. support that.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I don’t know how many more stories — tragedies that are

happening in this health care system — that it’s going to take for this

minister to acknowledge that he has actually been the minister for two

terms, going on six years.

What matters is outcomes. People receive, in our province today,

an absolutely devastating diagnosis of cancer. They don’t get the basic

medical support that they deserve, and they sit and wait in fear. That’s

the reality. Those are the stories that the Leader of the Opposition

hears and brings to this chamber.

We all know that the longer you wait, the more the cancer spreads.

Dr. Applewhaite says: “I think it’s important to talk about what

patients experience — the uncertainty, the waiting that causes the most

suffering, by far, for people. The distress is palpable.”

What the minister needs to pay attention to is the suffering that

patients are experiencing. It is unimaginable that this doctor says that

in B.C. today it is faster and easier for many people to get medical

assistance in dying than it is to get urgent cancer care.

How many people need to suffer and experience despair before he

will at least acknowledge that he must take urgent action to improve

outcomes for British Columbians?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Urgent action is always required with respect to cancer, and

urgent action is more effective when we improve screening programs.

That’s why we established a lung cancer screening program. The highest

mortality is from lung cancer. Frequently, in the past, across

jurisdictions, for all kinds of reasons, it hasn’t been a priority of

screening programs. We’ve made it one under the leadership of Dr. Kim

Nguyen Chi.

At-home cervix screening pilots are underway around the province

to improve that aspect of screening. With respect to hereditary cancer….

These are very significant questions that we absolutely take action on

and take seriously. We’ve seen referrals to that program, the hereditary

cancer program, increased. That’s why, in 2021-22, last year, we

invested substantial funds, $2.025 million, to eliminate the backlog,

and that elimination is expected to be complete by fall 2022.

It requires action in every element of cancer care — strong

leadership, not inconsistent leadership; investment in research, not

cutting research; adding diagnostic screening, not worst in Canada in

diagnostic screening. Those are results people can count on in British

Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

AND PEDIATRIC CARE

S. Furstenau: We hear, in responses about health care, over and over, about the

inputs going in. We don’t hear about the outcomes that we’re getting on

the ground. Progress has been made on payments to family doctors, but

the crises in health care continue.

The ER in Port Hardy has had closures for months. A senior at

Victoria General Hospital, who recently had a stroke, has had to sleep

on an old couch in the hallway. He’s now being discharged, even though

he was told, only days before, that he needed rehabilitation from the

stroke.

Cancer surgeries are being delayed time and again, leaving people

to get sicker, and their prognosis worsens. To quote from a constituent

in Saanich: “My husband has another three weeks to wait for his cancer

surgery. We have waited weeks already. I see how a tiny melanoma spot on

his head doubled in size within a week.”

Hospitals are discharging people, they’re delaying essential

surgeries, and they’re past their breaking point. On top of it, they’re

preparing for things to get worse. Yesterday B.C. Children’s Hospital

wrote a memo to staff stating that they are establishing an emergency

operations centre, anticipating that things for children are going to

get worse. Nothing is worse for a parent than when you need care for

your child and it’s not there.

My question is to the Minister of Health. What does he say to the

people who can’t get care for themselves, for their elders and for their

children in our health care system right now?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, we are preparing for this fall and winter. Yes, in a global

health emergency, a COVID-19 pandemic, we’re preparing. This was

announced and laid forward.

This was announced and presented to the people of B.C. two months

ago to demonstrate that that preparation is happening, to prepare every

health care facility for what is expected to be — because of what’s

happened, for example, in the southern hemisphere — a more challenging

influenza and COVID-19 season in our hospitals.

So yes, we’re preparing in every health care facility in B.C., and

that is the strength of public health care to prepare for exactly those

things. Every health authority and every hospital is preparing. You bet

they are.

I think the message is, in addition to everything else, the

absolute fundamental importance for everybody to be immunized against

influenza and immunized against COVID-19 with a bivalent booster this

fall, which will assist greatly in ensuring those numbers are lower. It

will also assist in keeping people healthier through what will be a

challenging fall.

The member is correct. We are preparing for that season, as

everyone would expect we would. We did that in 2021, and we did that in

2020. We delivered on those expectations with, I think, some of the best

responses to the pandemic in the world, and we’re going to continue to

do it this year.

[10:50 a.m.]

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

S. Furstenau: Indeed, pediatric units around the world are showing signs of

being under enormous challenge. Montreal’s pediatric unit is being

described like a horror film. Two of their hospitals hit two to three

times their capacity. In Ontario, adult ICUs are accepting teenagers to

help create capacity at pediatric units. Here at B.C.’s children’s

hospitals, surgeries are already being cancelled because of nurse

shortages.

The memo that went out to staff yesterday is asking health care

workers to “show up in a different way, lean in where emerging needs are

the greatest.” There has been a chronic shortage of nurses in hospitals.

Imagine how those who have been working on short-staffed units and are

already struggling with burnout feel when they’re asked to lean in even

more instead of hearing that help is on the way.

My question is to the Minister of Health. What does the minister

say to the nurses and doctors who are being asked to lean in when they

are already exhausted, and to the parents whose children’s surgeries

have been cancelled?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I would say that because of the extraordinary work

of our surgeons and our medical device technicians and our nurses and

our health care workers and our health sciences professionals, we did

more surgeries in September than ever before in British Columbia, in a

pandemic.

I would say that of course we’re preparing for the conditions of

the fall. Of course we are. That is our duty, and it’s our

responsibility. It’s been that approach, led by our health care teams

around the province, that has been effective in previous falls. It will

be a challenge, and we’re responding to it.

I would say that we’ve added 604 nursing spaces this year. I would

say that we’ve changed…. We’ve improved pathways for internationally

educated nurses to work in B.C. I’d say we’ve taken specific action to

address issues in the workplace that are important to the B.C. Nurses

Union and the Hospital Employees Union, like improved security. I would

say that we are absolutely leaning in to support nurses and everyone

else in our health care system.

ACCESS TO CANCER CARE SERVICES

R. Merrifield: I don’t know what the minister was just talking about, because

Kelowna General Hospital sits this morning at 137 percent occupancy,

with 103 ALC patients — no deviation whatsoever. I don’t know about this

preparation for the fall, but it certainly isn’t trickling down to the

Interior.

In fact, my constituent in Kelowna was just told that her mother,

who she cares for, has cancer and only has six months to live, but when

she went to get an appointment for her mother with an oncologist, she

was told that her mom is not going to be able to be seen for three

months. That means that of the six months that they’ve got left with her

mom, half of them are going to be spent sitting on a chair at her house,

waiting for an appointment.

She says: “I have called. I have begged. I have pleaded. I have

explained the situation that she doesn’t have long, and I can’t get

anything done until we get into the cancer clinic.”

How many more families will have to suffer through the last days

of their lives because they are stuck on a cancer wait-list under this

NDP government and this Minister of Health?

Hon. A. Dix: Of course, I don’t speak about individual cases, but when members

want to bring individual cases to my attention, I personally look into

them. I think they know that.

I would say that what is required in our cancer system is the kind

of investments we’re making, taking away a centralized system and

ensuring that there are new cancer centres in different parts of British

Columbia. It’s why, for people in Surrey, when we’re building a new

hospital in Surrey — something that should have happened a decade ago —

we’re also building….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, members.

The Minister of Health has the floor.

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: We’re also building a new cancer centre. I would hope that members

of the opposition would support that.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the Leader of the Opposition, as always, takes these matters

very seriously.

I think what is required is exactly the kind of investment in

screening and support we’re providing. Our health care system is, and

has been, in the midst of two public health emergencies. It has

responded with resources and courage that are second to none, and we

have to continue to do that.

We absolutely engage with individual patients who have struggles

in that health care system, to make sure they get the care they need.

Sometimes — let’s face it — that can be a challenge, but our teams are

working with people everywhere. The strong investment in cancer — not

now but in the last number of years — helps in that regard and will

continue to help as we address these issues over the next ten years,

when we are expecting a significant increase in the number of people

living with cancer because of increases in our population over

What that requires is a health human resources plan. We’ve put one

in place. More nurses; we’re hiring more nurses. We’ve hired 38,000 net

new health care workers over the time I’ve been Minister of Health. We

need to do it again. That means exactly the kind of investment and

teamwork that went into our agreement with doctors this week, exactly

the kind of work and effort that went into our working with the BCNU on

security, exactly the kind of investment that went into our work with

the HEU on long-term care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. A. Dix: We need to continue that work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

MEDICAL IMAGING WAIT TIMES

AND SUPPLY OF

TECHNICIANS

K. Kirkpatrick: This minister likes numbers so much; I’ll give some numbers here.

Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are stuck on wait-lists for

medical imaging. One of the reasons for this backlog is the critical

shortage of medical imaging technologists.

B.C. is the worst in the country when it comes to technologists

per capita. We are dead last under this Minister of Health. Statistics

show that B.C. needs to hire more than 3,500 medical radiation techs

just to meet the national average.

In its second term of government, why is this minister failing to

do the work needed to recruit and retain medical technicians in this

province?

Hon. A. Dix: With great respect to the member, it’s on this issue of diagnostic

imaging, across the board, where more people have been hired than in

almost any other discipline in the province. Why, hon. Speaker? Why? I

mean, the facts are the facts. I know that members of the

opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: There he goes again, hon. Speaker. There he goes again.

We went from near the bottom of Canada in MRI wait times to the

top. That’s the Canadian Institute for Health Information — bottom to

top. In the Northern Health Authority, when I became Minister of Health,

there were 22 MRIs per 1,000. At the time, in Ontario, it was 62. Now

we’ve more than doubled that for people in the North. Medical imaging,

MRIs, CT scans, new PET-CT scanners have improved

dramatically.

Before, under the previous government, they would expect people to

go to a private clinic and pay themselves. Now by running our machines

24-7, they do it in the public health care system.

ACCESS TO NON-PRESCRIPTION

PAIN MEDICATION FOR

CHILDREN

T. Stone: B.C. is the worst in the country when it comes to technologists

per capita, as my colleague just mentioned. We are dead last under this

Health Minister. So when he sits here and talks about going from worst

to best, to best, to worst, he’s completely, completely disconnected

from the reality of what patients and British Columbians are

facing.

[11:00 a.m.]

I want to move to a different health care issue. Across British

Columbia, parents are increasingly stressed trying to deal with a

growing shortage of children’s pain medication like Tylenol and Advil.

The problem is hurting parents like Amber from Victoria who says: “I’m a

single mom that doesn’t drive, and I cannot force my three kids out of

the house to search high and low for Tylenol when they’re

sick.”

Just yesterday the Prime Minister said that the provinces should

be taking action. But we’ve heard nothing from the B.C. Health Minister

about actions that are being taken here to secure a supply of children’s

pain medication.

As more and more kids get sick this fall, parents are stuck

watching their kids in pain while being unable to find the medicines

that they need to give to their children. So a simple question to the

Minister of Health: what is he doing to ensure that parents have access

to the critical pain medication that their kids need as they get sick

this fall?

Hon. A. Dix: Of course, some of these issues are issues everywhere in the

world. They’re issues throughout the United States. They’re issues

throughout Canada and in all jurisdictions in Canada. Health

authorities, especially our teams dealing with children around the

province, are taking steps, of course, to provide supply. But some of

this is about private sector supply chains, so there is a significant

role for the federal government.

I had not heard before the contribution of the Prime Minister to

this discussion. But I can tell you, this is an issue in the past number

of weeks I discussed with his Health Minister and one that all

jurisdictions have to work together on — but also the providers and the

manufacturers of the very medication in question have to work together

on — to improve.

I agree with the hon. member. It is absolutely a priority for

parents and all those in the system. These are issues in terms of supply

that we have worked on in other issues, and he is well aware because it

affected his riding. We have consistently worked during the pandemic,

when there have been shortages, to get care and medication to the people

who need it. But this is an international problem in terms of supply and

one that we have to do everything we can….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. A. Dix: I think we have to do everything we can to address these

questions, working with both the manufacturers and the federal

government to see that that happens.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 36.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

M. Bernier: I’ll speak slowly, with all the noise going on as people

leave.

Mr. Speaker: Member, maybe you can wait.

Okay. Member will continue.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t take great offence because,

normally, when I stand up, I scare away members of the government side,

the NDP.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

But I do appreciate the opportunity to get up and speak to Bill 42

to continue my comments that I started with yesterday. Bill 42, as we

were talking about, is a bill that’s going to allow for increased

taxation under special events and circumstances.

We heard a lot of commentary yesterday around a lot of questions

we have on this bill and the time that’s really going to be needed to

talk about this. But I just want to highlight a few things and some of

the reasons why we’ve been speaking to this bill.

Again, it’s the uncertainty that this government’s brought forward

within the context of this bill and the details that are required to

help alleviate some of the questions I think that we’re hearing out

there in the public. As I mentioned yesterday in some of my closing

comments, really, because of the lack of details specifically in the

bill….

[11:05 a.m.]

So what does constitute an international event? I was talking

about…. In Dawson Creek, when we’re lucky enough to hold the world

junior hockey, is that an international event? When we hold some of the

world curling, is that an international event? We don’t know.

On top of that, one of the things I’m hearing is they want to

bring in this extra tax. We know it was around, I think…. They tried to

frame it around FIFA possibly coming, or coming, to the Lower Mainland —

something a lot of us think is very exciting. Under this legislation, it

will give the designation…. If applied for and if they meet the

criteria, a community like Vancouver can add an extra tax for tourists

for up to seven years.

One of the questions that I have, and why we want to talk about

this, is…. When we get into committee stage and why…. Committee stage of

bills is so important on every bill. Committee stage is important

because we can dive down to answer some of these questions.

Here’s a question that you will want to ask. What constitutes a

tourist? The reason why I flagged that, especially in light of what we

just heard in question period about all the challenges in the health

sector….

To give an example, FIFA is coming. If the city of Vancouver

applies to increase the hotel tax by 2½ percent…. The concept, the idea,

which I appreciate, will be that we can add an extra 2½ percent to hotel

charges to get that extra money coming in and to be able to remit that

back to the communities, as it said in the bill, for extra burden,

infrastructure costs, whatever it might be, because of a special

event.

I do find it interesting — you know, seven years. But here is the

concern that I have. I’m waiting for anybody on the NDP side to stand up

and talk to this bill. Unfortunately, they haven’t. Here’s a question.

All the hotels will be able to apply, let’s say, in Vancouver. Mr.

Speaker would acknowledge this in his riding. So 2½ percent. That’s

great. But my question, again. What’s a tourist?

I know we have St. Paul’s Hospital. I know we have hotels all

around St. Paul’s Hospital. When people from my riding up North have no

choice but to come down for medical appointments and may have to spend

one, two, three, four weeks in a hotel next to St. Paul’s Hospital, are

they now going to be a tourist? Are they going to have to pay an extra

2½ percent on their hotel costs when they’re coming down for important

and life-saving medical appointments? Are they tourists?

Is somebody from Dawson Creek having to pay more now? Is that

going to be offset somehow, maybe by the Ministry of Health? Are there

going to be exceptions? People will be able to go to the counter of the

hotel and say: “I’m not a tourist. Don’t charge me the extra 2½

percent.”

We’re talking about international events and recouping costs. I

get that. Is somebody from Abbotsford, who’s in downtown Vancouver for a

business meeting, staying in a hotel, now a tourist? Are the multitude

of health professionals who move around the province, who will be

staying in hotels, now tourists? Are they going to have to pay more for

a hotel?

These are the things that I just think we need to flag and talk

about because the details aren’t in the bill. In typical fashion, Bill

42 is not much different than almost every other bill we’ve seen from

this government. We always say the devil is in the details, but there

are no details. It’s always: “Trust us. We’re going to make decisions,

behind closed doors later, on what the regulations will be.” No

different than….

[11:10 a.m.]

The Minister of Tourism stood up in this House and said they made

the decision, behind closed doors, to not support or approve or lend any

credence to having the Olympics in 2030, an Indigenous-led process that

everybody was touting. It was the first of its kind in the world. This

government, this incoming Premier…. The Minister of Tourism even said:

“We made the decision, behind closed doors, not to support

that.”

When we’re hearing that information will come later and decisions

will be made behind closed doors, that gives very little comfort to the

people of British Columbia, especially in light of the fact that we are

hearing that, probably later today, this NDP government is going to be

cancelling four much-needed days in this Legislature. For the amount of

bills that they’ve brought forward…. I commend them for bringing

legislation forward. A lot of it has a lot of merit. That’s why we have

these sittings. It’s when legislation needs to come forward.

But it’s also a slap in the face of the democratic process, with

the arrogance of, “We’ll put bills forward, and we’ll just rush them

through and not give time for the public, the opposition, the Third

Party to really digest, understand, scrutinize a bill,” which we need to

remember is around accountability. Now, we know we have the most

secretive government in Canada, who wants to hide from accountability,

but that’s not what this establishment is supposed to acknowledge or

support.

When we look at Bill 42, again, there are going to be a lot of

detailed questions, important questions that need to be asked — no

different than every single other bill that is still on the docket. When

we look again at this specific bill…. I’m hoping we have more time. I’m

hoping the government sees the light to give us that time to make sure

that this bill and others are properly scrutinized.

We’ve already seen bills in this House, in this session, where

this government — I will give them credit — with all good intentions,

have brought legislation forward, and through the questions from this

side of the House, have realized that there were flaws in that

legislation, that changes did need to be made because the details

weren’t quite accurate for what’s going to work on the

ground.

I’m not criticizing the government’s intent. Of course, we want to

see that legislation. What I’m criticizing is the fact that when we are

in this House, the only time we in the opposition, and the public, get

to see a bill is when government has presented it in this House, which

is why we need that time to look at it, to understand it and to ask

those questions. As I’ve said, that’s why we’ve seen, through some of

those questions so far in this session, that we were able to highlight

and fix bills that government brought forward where it wasn’t quite to

the accuracy that was required.

Again, I’ll probably just end some of my commentary on this bill,

because I know we have others that we definitely need to talk to. I just

want to end by talking about, again, the importance within this bill of

the democratic process of this House. We need to ensure we have that

time. We need to ensure, on Bill 42 and others, that we ask those

questions.

This is a technical bill. The Minister of Finance and others, of

course, will talk about the technicality of bringing forward yet another

tax. I know this government likes to add taxes. This one here is a

little different, I would argue, though, on how the process is and how

it will support local governments, regional districts, municipalities

that choose to bring this forward as an option within their

community.

[11:15 a.m.]

But there are going to be those questions that need to come

forward through the democratic process. Maybe when the minister closes

debate, she could…. I know she’s heard some of the questions or

commentary through our second reading debate. Maybe we’ll have a chance

to even address some of those then, before we get to committee

stage.

It’s almost confusing for a lot of people reading it, because of

the lack of details. If Vancouver applies for this tax, does that mean

Richmond can or can’t? What about Whistler, if Vancouver applies? Is it

going to be a regional thing? Is the tax imposed on everybody? What

constitutes an international event? Will the city of Dawson Creek be

able to apply, as I mentioned, when we hold the world juniors, if they

choose to do so?

I want to go back to the details that are needed. In my opinion,

one of the glaring areas is “Who’s a tourist?” I think that’s an

important one. Are we charging this extra tax, if it’s applied in a

municipality, to just people who show their passport and say: “I’m not

from British Columbia”? What happens if…?

We’ve got the Grey Cup coming up. Interestingly, though, if we

already apply the 2½ percent because of an international event, because

of FIFA, does that mean anybody coming for the Grey Cup has to pay as a

tourist now because, even though they’re not here for FIFA, they’re here

for the Grey Cup?

I say this as a big what-if: what if the Canucks actually ever

make it to the finals again?

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The Minister of Finance…. I have a little bit more optimism that

in my lifetime, it might happen again — the Speaker as well. The

Minister of Finance doesn’t think that will ever happen. I’m always

holding on to that Bernier Canucks jersey, that someday I’ll get to wear

it again at a Stanley Cup playoff finals here. We can only hope. But I

don’t want to digress.

The point being…. That’s a big if, if they make it to the Stanley

Cup finals. But if it’s in that seven-year window, does that mean

anybody in British Columbia, maybe from Richmond, who happens to get a

hotel room in downtown Vancouver to cheer on the Canucks is now a

tourist, and they have to pay an extra 2½ percent because it was applied

because of FIFA?

How do we distinguish who pays and who doesn’t? If it’s everybody,

well, that will be the decision of this government, but I think that’s

also needed to be highlighted, the impacts that that is going to have on

British Columbians as well.

With that, I just want to acknowledge and appreciate the time that

I’ve had during second reading debate. Again, it’s important, through

the democratic process of how we operate this House, that we all get the

time to speak to bills, to question the government during committee

stage to ensure that we, on behalf of British Columbians, have done our

job.

It’s no different than it’s the government’s job for the people of

British Columbia to be in this House and to give the time for scrutiny

of the bills that they want to present for British

Columbians.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that I have been listening to the

second reading debate. I’m quite surprised that we spent well over six

hours at this stage, given the importance of committee stage and

answering the questions and given the repetitive nature of this second

reading debate.

The major complaint was concern that there wouldn’t be enough

time, in spite of opening up a second House, to make sure that we can do

the important work, the committee stage work. In spite of that, the

repetitive arguments that I heard time and time again by members from

the opposite side and making sure that we weren’t taking up the valuable

time of the House….

Given that it seems that there’s a general consensus on the value

of this tool, I’m quite surprised that the members opposite used the

argument of needing more time and, while doing that, used up significant

hours — six hours, in fact. I find that a little surprising.

[11:20 a.m.]

However, having said that, how I’m understanding that is that

there’s a desire for what I would characterize as playing games, rather

than doing important work. That’s how I was reading that.

Having said that, I do look forward to committee stage. I do think

that is the most robust part of debating the legislation, in

understanding the impacts. I look forward to doing that conversation and

just want to remind everybody that there’s a lot of excitement about

FIFA coming — a lot of excitement — as there should be. This is a

significant event and a significant opportunity for British

Columbia.

The city of Vancouver has brought forward $5 million to help

defray the cost, but I think there’s absolute recognition that hosting a

number of games for FIFA is going to cost significantly more than that.

They approached the province looking for a tool that would help them

cover off the costs. They’re still analyzing. We’ve done some

preliminary analysis, but we want to make sure that we understand the

real costs. That work is continuing.

I also want to remind the House that this isn’t a new concept. In

2007, the previous B.C. Liberal government brought in a temporary tax

for the resort municipality of Whistler to help them around the 2010

games. So it shouldn’t be a foreign concept to the members opposite,

given that it was their government that brought this forward. This is a

tool that we think will work again.

Having said that, I do look forward to the next stage of debate,

which is committee stage, where we’ll be able to get into the details.

With that, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 42, Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call second reading, Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in

Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT

IN CHILD AND

FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 38, the Indigenous

Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

[Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ was spoken.] I go

by she/her pronouns. I spoke in the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ language to show my

appreciation and respect for the land I’m joining you from today — the

land of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ peoples, now

known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. This bill marks a milestone

for our province and my ministry, and most importantly, for Indigenous

children, youth, families and communities across British

Columbia.

When passed into law, this bill will be an important turning point

that serves to break the cycle of government’s overinvolvement in the

lives of Indigenous peoples in this province. Our government is

committed to reconciliation, and as I said last week, when we gathered

to mark the introduction of this bill, nowhere is this work more

important than in the area of child and family services. We know that

the harms of the colonial system of so-called residential schools and

the Sixties Scoop continue in the current child welfare

system.

The very first five calls to action from the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission are demands for change in the child welfare

system to address the legacies and impacts of child welfare policies on

outcomes for Indigenous people in Canada. For too long, Indigenous

children and youth have been overrepresented in the child welfare

system. Here in B.C., while less than 10 percent of the population,

Indigenous peoples represent 68 percent of children in care. It has been

described as a crisis, and that’s why our government prioritized

immediate attention, through our Declaration Act action plan, to “end

the epidemic of Indigenous children in government care.”

We know that it is in the best interests of children to remain

with their families when it is safe to do so. When that isn’t possible,

the best outcomes for children and youth come from living with extended

family, friends or community members, where they remain connected to

family, community and culture.

[11:25 a.m.]

Our government is committed to reducing the number of children

coming into ministry care, and we have made significant progress. I’d

really like to thank the former minister, now the Minister of Forests,

for the work that she did and for starting our government on this

pathway.

This work has also gathered momentum since the province passed the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in November 2019. I

remember that moment; it was historic. I was sitting here in the

chamber. We had First Nations leadership on the floor, making speeches.

We felt the significance of that moment, and we’re continuing on our

journey.

We’re now seeing the lowest number of children and youth in care

in 30 years and the lowest number of Indigenous children and youth in

care in over 20 years. Through improvements to supports for extended

families and changes to legislation over the past few years, we’ve also

seen a dramatic increase in the number of B.C. children and youth in

out-of-care arrangements. This means that so many more children and

youth are living with family, with extended family or with community

members, close to home and within their communities and their

culture.

However, while we have made progress in providing better supports

and services to ensure those connections are made, our laws have

remained fundamentally colonial in orientation, with a bias towards the

removal of children and youth from their families instead of being

focused on prevention and offering supports.

Changing the foundation and the laws that created a system steeped

in colonialism doesn’t happen overnight, and can’t be done unilaterally.

This bill marks an important step towards that goal of paddling together

in partnership towards a healthier system supporting Indigenous children

and families.

I was so honoured, as minister, to introduce this bill last

Wednesday and to mark the significant milestone of its introduction,

here in this House and in the Hall of Honour, with Indigenous leaders

from across the province, with Elder Shirley Alphonse and mentors for me

like Chief Chipps and Brother Rick of the Scia’new Nation.

I’ve worked with Elder Shirley for well over a decade. She has

been a mentor to me. She has been so generous in sharing her guidance

and her wisdom. She has helped us here in this place in the Legislature

with smudging, with changing culture, with having prayers, with

recognizing traditional territory, with following protocol. So it was

really, really special for me personally to stand with Shirley, for her

to say the prayer and to make her welcome here in my place of

work.

Just knowing the history that we have together and the

significance of this bill made it a truly, very special moment for me,

and I will always remember and treasure that. It was really meaningful

for me to hear Indigenous leaders and community members — including some

who themselves are residential school survivors and former children in

care — and to hear them speak about this legislation, both here in the

House and at the recognition ceremony that we had earlier.

Many spoke and paid tribute to those who had gone before, and they

were also very powerfully talking about future generations as well. I’m

very touched by the fact that we heard a lot that people do recognize

that this is a turning point and that we need to stand and recognize the

history and work together for a different future, for changing the

system now for children and youth in care and for future generations to

come.

This legislation is only possible because of the guidance and

collaboration of Indigenous rights holders, Indigenous governing bodies,

modern treaty nations, Métis Nation B.C. and Indigenous partners,

including the First Nations Leadership Council. We are so grateful to

them for their commitment, their wisdom, their graciousness, their

tireless work and, above all, their patience.

I also want to recognize the commitment of our staff — the staff

of the government, in the Ministry of Children and Family Development —

to this work. It has been a very meaningful and respectful

collaboration. Without the dedication of our staff to building a

different system, we wouldn’t have reached this point.

[11:30 a.m.]

The work that we’ve been doing together, to address gaps and

barriers in our child welfare legislation and laying the path for

Indigenous governing bodies to exercise their inherent jurisdiction,

will mark a historic shift in how child welfare is administered in

B.C.

This proposed legislation, Bill 38, will amend B.C.’s two key

pieces of child welfare legislation — the Adoption Act and the Child,

Family and Community Service Act, or CFCSA — to align with the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples’ objectives. It

will uphold and recognize and reduce barriers to Indigenous jurisdiction

over Indigenous child, youth and family services in British Columbia,

services that include everything from family support to child

protection.

The amendments aim to make space for collaborative decision-making

and improved information-sharing. They enable Indigenous authorities to

administer their own laws respecting child and family services.

Crucially, they will reduce the disproportionate number of Indigenous

children and youth in care.

The proposed amendments will recognize that the CFCSA must be

administered and interpreted in accordance with Indigenous communities’

inherent right of self-government with respect to child and family

services. It will enable Indigenous governing bodies to assume

jurisdiction over child welfare services provided to an Indigenous child

in accordance with Indigenous laws.

It will strengthen collaboration and consent-based decision-making

with Indigenous communities on adoption placements for Indigenous

children. It will ensure that both treaty First Nations and non-treaty

First Nations have equal opportunities to exercise jurisdiction in these

areas.

It will enable information-sharing between the province and

Indigenous governing bodies and help Indigenous governing bodies plan

for and exercise jurisdiction. It will enable joint and consent-based

agreements to be made in accordance with the Declaration Act for certain

powers under the Adoption Act and the CFCSA. It will establish a new

Indigenous child welfare director position in MCFD to provide guidance

and advice to CFCSA directors and their delegates in navigating a

multi-jurisdictional child and family services model.

With these changes, B.C. will be the first province in Canada to

expressly recognize Indigenous self-government in provincial legislation

specific to child and family services and the first province to align

with the historic federal legislation,

An Act Respecting First Nations,

Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families. The federal act, which

came into force in 2020, affirms the inherent right for Indigenous

rights holders to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services

for their citizens, as enshrined within

section 35 of the Constitution

Act.

While our government was already working towards the goal of

jurisdiction, the federal legislation creates a clear pathway towards a

collaborative model where provincial and Indigenous laws coexist. It

outlines a path for how Indigenous governing bodies will exercise

authority through the development of a coordination agreement that takes

precedence over provincial laws.

In B.C., there are four active Indigenous governing bodies on this

pathway and currently working on their coordination agreements. These

agreements are unique to each nation, and they will vary for each of the

Indigenous governing bodies.

Our provincial legislation must be changed to eliminate barriers

to Indigenous governing bodies implementing their jurisdiction. What

that means is that we’re moving from two pieces of provincial

legislation determining child welfare to a future where Indigenous

peoples develop and exercise child welfare laws for their citizens,

regardless of where those citizens live in Canada, and also create their

own models for delivering child and family services.

Changes to the Adoption Act will ensure that Indigenous

communities are part of the adoption process for any children who are

citizens of the Indigenous community. This enables the adoption process

to continue in a partnership between the ministry, adoption agencies and

Indigenous communities.

[11:35 a.m.]

Specifically, these amendments strengthen consultation,

cooperation and consent on adoption placements for Indigenous children;

enable joint and consent-based decision-making agreements and statutory

power agreements, as contemplated in the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act; add Indigenous self-government principles; and

align the legislation with the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples.

This proposed legislation also creates the position of the

Indigenous child welfare director, a position Indigenous partners have

been requesting for some time. The Indigenous child welfare director

will provide advice and guidance in advancing the Indigenous exercise of

child welfare jurisdiction and promoting the harmonization of provincial

and Indigenous laws.

These amendments to the CFCSA and Adoption Act are foundational to

meaningfully transforming the historical legacy of the child welfare

system and to taking immediate action to end the over-intrusion of

government into the lives of Indigenous children and families. This work

is not easy. This legislation is only a first step, but it is a critical

one.

Indigenous peoples throughout the province continue to work with

us on this legislation, and we’re all determined to create a better

future for all generations to come. We are so grateful for the time, the

wisdom, the knowledge, the energy, the leadership, the commitment, the

expertise that every one of them has contributed to these

transformational amendments.

I was so grateful for the all-party support for this bill at first

reading and the speeches made on that day. The words of the Premier were

very powerful, and his commitment to reconciliation has been evident

over the last more than five years. When he spoke last week, he

recognized the need to atone for the impact of the child welfare

system.

We know that we have a lot more work to do, and we’re absolutely

committed to doing that and doing that in partnership. This is a first

step, but this is really crucial.

It’s such an honour to be the minister of this ministry at this

time. We know that this will make a difference. We know that this will

change lives now for children and youth in care, for Indigenous children

and youth in care and for future generations to come.

I look forward to the committee process as well as continued

support for this bill and its passage. As one Indigenous leader told us,

this is a change that has been too long coming, and this bill can’t be

passed soon enough.

Thank you for your time.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 38. The legislation in

front of us is an important step in the ongoing work of reconciliation

and affirming Indigenous peoples’ inherent rights to self-determination

and self-government. It’s long overdue, and it will be a long

process.

Truth and reconciliation mean accountability and recognition of

the actions that we need to take to make things right. Self-government

in child welfare is the right thing. It’s acknowledging the wrongs of

the past, ensuring that we’re all aware of and understand the true

history of Canada’s First Peoples so that we can work together to make

positive changes.

For years, we have torn First Nations families apart. We have

considered child welfare through a European lens. There has been the

purposeful destruction of First Nations family units over the years —

birth alerts, apprehensions for poverty, apprehensions due to

misunderstanding traditional family culture. This has led to a system

that continues to harm rather than lift First Nations children and

families.

By amending these two key pieces of legislation — the Child,

Family and Community Service Act and the Adoption Act — we are taking

the first step on a long pathway. I believe that this could be one of

the most significant and impactful pieces of legislation that I will

have the opportunity to review in my career here in the Legislature. It

will be a significant step in the ongoing work of

reconciliation.

[11:40 a.m.]

Every child matters. Listening to Indigenous nations, on what

tools they need to ensure that they can exercise their rights around

adoption and child welfare, is shown in the multi-jurisdictional models

represented in both acts. The legislation sets out the right for

Indigenous communities to have a choice in which model they choose to

implement. It’s meant to fulfil the federal government’s obligations

under Bill C-92 and amend two provincial acts: the Child, Family and

Community Service Act and the Adoption Act.

In January 2020, the federal Bill C-92,

An Act Respecting First

Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, came into force.

It was co-developed by Indigenous partners, with an expected result of

reducing the number of Indigenous children in care and reforming child

and family services. This was part of a larger commitment to

implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and

the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial

discrimination.

This is also in line with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

of Canada’s calls to action for the federal, provincial and Indigenous

governments to work together with respect to the welfare of Indigenous

children and calls for the enactment of federal legislation that

establishes national standards for the welfare of Indigenous

children.

As child welfare services fall under the jurisdiction of

provincial or territorial authorities, each province will need to

develop, in consultation with their Indigenous partners, legislation

which will meet these commitments, including those made through B.C.’s

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. More specifically,

it addresses two sections of the DRIPA action plan:

“4.16 — Co-develop a B.C.-specific fiscal framework, in partnership

with First Nations, Métis and Inuit, and in consultation with key

Indigenous organizations, to support and move forward with jurisdiction

over child and family services….

“4.17 — In collaboration with B.C. First Nations and Métis Peoples,

and Inuit, continue implementing changes to substantially reduce the

number of Indigenous children and youth in care through increased

prevention and family support services at all stages of contact with the

child welfare system.”

This brings us to the legislation we’re discussing today as Bill

38. Bill 38 deals with an amendment to both the Adoption Act and the

CFCSA, and proposed amendments are very specific to moving our existing

child welfare services and supports to the authority of First Nations

communities.

I’d like to thank our honourable speakers from last week, our

honourable guests: Elder Shirley Alphonse, of the T’Sou-ke Nation, for

her prayers; and Chief Judy Wilson, Chief Jerry Jack and Hugh Braker for

their impor­tant remarks on the significance of Bill 38. I’d like

to quote something that Hugh Braker said to us last week that I think

sums up what we’ll be doing with this legislation: “I say to all sides

that reconciliation is filled with obstacles. It’s filled with

challenges and a multitude of questions, but it’s also filled with

tremendous opportunity — opportunity to make this province a much, much

better place than it has been for the past 100 years. It’s that

opportunity that I ask and plead with all the members to think about, no

matter what side they come from.”

I thank him for these good words that, I believe, set the stage

for what we want to accomplish.

The child is in the centre of everything that we hope to achieve

with this legislation, but there may be obstacles. The ability to

implement this legislation will be difficult, and it’s going to be

filled with many complexities. We already know that in Canada 52.2

percent of children in foster care are Indigenous but only account for

7.7 percent of the child population. This means that over 14,000 of the

30,000 foster children in private homes under the age of 15 are

Indigenous. These numbers are even more significant here in British

Columbia.

[11:45 a.m.]

With the historic significance of this legislation, there are many

details that are yet to be explained. Last week the minister said:

“They” — First Nations — “will need to decide the relationship that they

want to continue having with the ministry, in a positive way, on what

services they want to continue to have from the ministry or from

Indigenous child, youth and family services agencies.”

It doesn’t provide clarity upon what that means. It’s hard to

understand this without understanding services that are being referred

to and how that will work with each individual nation.

The opposition will be asking many questions about various

sections of this legislation and how it will actually work in practice.

We know that the current child welfare system in B.C. fails children and

families. We don’t want the current limitations of the ability for MCFD

to provide services to hinder the rollout of a quality and effective new

system of Indigenous child welfare self-determination.

We will want to know the framework upon which this new system will

work. We are unaware of the financial framework. We’re unaware if

there’s a framework being worked through these cooperation agreements

that will actually set out the capacity that these First Nations will

need to be given or assisted in building before this can become a

reality.

How will there be an equitable transfer of resources and funding,

and how will community be built for those young people off reserve? We

want to know that true, genuine consultation took place with the 204

Indigenous communities in B.C. Consultation is more than sending out 204

letters inviting participation.

On this, I worry. We’re already hearing from First Nations

communities in B.C. that they don’t think proper consultation has

happened, that up to the point where they were actually given the

legislation and read the legislation last week, there have been many

conversations, but there are concerns now that the words are down on

paper.

B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth has been urging this

government to focus on belonging for Indigenous children and to better

help children in government care to realize the valuable connections to

family that are too often damaged by the historic effects of

colonialism, ranging from residential schools to the current child

welfare system. It’s safe to say, and we all know, that the current

child welfare system in B.C. is not working for Indigenous children and

families. It’s so important for us to ensure that the current

limitations in the ministry’s ability to provide services does not hurt

our ability to move to a better system.

Earlier this year a report was issued by the Representative for

Children and Youth, who said that the system of funding child welfare

services for Indigenous kids in B.C. is deeply flawed, and there is an

urgent need to overhaul practices to make data accessible and

transparent. She called the current practice fiscal discrimination and

says in her report that if the province is truly committed to

reconciliation, it has to change this immediately.

So it is behind this backdrop of incomplete data held by the

government that I am concerned the implementation of this legislation

may be flawed, even if the legislation itself may not be. In June of

this past year, the B.C. Office of the Ombudsperson found that the

Ministry of Children and Family Services acted unjustly by failing to

forward federal disability benefits to two grandparents caring for their

Indigenous granddaughter.

Again, does MCFD have the capacity to truly support the

commitments being made here? We have seen sad examples of how the

current MCFD system has failed Indigenous children. We need to look no

further than Noelle O’Soup or Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais.

[11:50 a.m.]

The legislation recognizes Indigenous self-determination for child

welfare and seeks to move from a protection focus to one of prevention

and early intervention support services that will assist those young

people as they’re growing and assist those families in providing

supports.

I’ve heard stories of young people being taken away from their

moms, being taken away from their families, because it was difficult for

those children to come to school in clean clothes. Rather than remove a

child for an issue with poverty, help that family to be able to provide

those services to that child and look at better ways to prevent…. A

washing machine, a doula that comes in and helps to support that family

— it’s more important to do those things up front than the traditional

colonial way of dealing with child welfare.

What this legislation more specifically is meant to do

is:

“Recognize that the Child Family and Community Service Act must be

administered, and it must be interpreted in accordance with the

Indigenous communities’ inherent right of self-government with respect

to child and family services;

“Enable Indigenous governing bodies to assume jurisdiction over

child welfare services provided to an Indigenous child in accordance

with Indigenous laws;

“Strengthen collaboration and enable consent-based decision-making

with Indigenous communities on adoption placements for Indigenous

children;

“Ensure that both treaty First Nations and non-treaty First Nations

have opportunities to exercise jurisdiction in these areas;

“Enable information-sharing between the province and Indigenous

governing bodies to help those governing bodies plan for and exercise

jurisdiction;

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

“Establish a new child welfare director position in the Ministry of

Children and Family Development to provide guidance and advise the CFCSA

directors and their delegates in navigating this complicated,

multi-jurisdictional child and family services model;

“Enable joint and consent-based agreements to be made in accordance

with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act or relevant

powers under the Adoption Act and CFCSA.”

Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reserve my right to

continue my speech and move adjournment of the debate.

K. Kirkpatrick moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND

OCCUPATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 36;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

On clause 29.

S. Bond: On clause 29, I’m wondering if the minister could specifically

articulate for me how this clause is different from the clause that

would deal with this issue in the current Health Professions

Act.

Hon. A. Dix: The impact of this, the import of this…. It takes what’s in the

present act and extends it to the idea of occupation. The present act is

health professions. This act is health professions and occupations. So

that’s the main difference between this section…. Otherwise, it

essentially picks it up. There’s one small difference related to an

aspect of practice, but that’s just really cleaning up the act and the

understanding of the act.

S. Bond: That is what I thought — that it was simply recognizing the new

parts of the act.

Could the minister perhaps try to provide me with an example of a

situation when subsection 29(

d) would actually apply?

Hon. A. Dix: What it really means is that nobody but the health professional

can do a designated activity unless there’s a specific authority to

delegate in the college’s bylaws. That’s the intent. So it’s to make

clear the responsibility of health professionals and that these

responsibilities are not things that can be delegated unless there’s a

specific reason to do that.

Clause 29 approved.

On clause 30.

S. Bond: Obviously, we don’t want people musing, implying that they’re a

physician if they’re not. This

section relates to unauthorized use of

titles. I’m just wondering. Has there been a substantive need for this

clause? Is it simply preventative? Have there been a significant number

of situations that require this clause to be included?

Hon. A. Dix: This is consistent with the current act. Title protection is a key

question. You can imagine, in the community, someone — people do this

occasionally — claiming status that they do not have. Some of the

examples that one might use don’t occur because we have this very

protection. It’s key to it.

[11:15 a.m.]

But we did have a situation a number of years ago — the province

and the college of midwives won the case — where a group of people were

referring to themselves as death midwives. They’re playing a different

role, obviously, and the college of midwives said, “That’s not on” —

that midwives have a very specific role and understanding. That term is

a protected title, and that’s important.

That was under their regulatory authority, and there was a

challenge to that case. Of course, we won that case, but it does show

that sometimes these issues come up. This is kind of foundational to the

current Health Professions Act, but it also would be in the future. The

second you took it out, you would have a major problem. So it’s more

foundational than anything else. Hopefully, you don’t deal with it,

because it exists.

S. Bond: I do appreciate the minister. Throughout our discussion, he has

been helpful enough to refer to what’s current and what isn’t. As you

can imagine, with these many clauses, it’s hard to, often, do them

directly, side by side.

I just do want to confirm that when we get to clause 514 — I’m not

suggesting we discuss it right now — as I understand it, if a person

were to contravene this

section 30 or, obviously, the additional

section

34, they’d actually commit an offence, and there would then be penalties

applied. Could the minister confirm that that’s correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes. A person who violates these sections is committing an offence

under the Health Professions and Occupations Act and may be subject to a

fine of up to $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term of up to two years,

or both. This is a serious thing to do, and the act properly reflects

that.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that additional information. I

appreciate that.

In clause 31, could the minister just explain to me why additional

exemptions related to regulations made by the minister are necessary

here? Perhaps if he could provide me with an example of where and when

this might be utilized, that would be helpful.

Hon. A. Dix: Most importantly, there’s an exception here for giving first aid,

for obvious reasons, if there was an emergency circumstance. Then it

provides an exception for providing first aid and responding as a human

being to the plight of another human being, without being caught up in

the Health Professions and Occupations Act. This really is similar to

the current

section 14 of the Health Professions Act. It does, again,

provide the change. It brings health occupations into the picture, and

it does allow us to make further regulations.

[11:20 a.m.]

Should there be a circumstance that we haven’t thought of

currently…. Again, these are the exceptions we’ve thought of now. Should

there be another one, it allows us to respond to that and not,

presumably, wait for a legislative session or other issue.

It’s a regulation-making power. What we’ve tried to do

consistently, as I said to the member, is do everything we can in the

act now, understand that we may not capture everything that there will

be in the evolution of health care in the future and so provide that

regulation-making power. The intention isn’t to present new regulations,

when we bring the bill into force, on those things. If we had this list

now, it’s in the bill.

Clause 31 approved.

On Clause 32.

S. Bond: I do appreciate that. I think that there’s always hesitancy when,

especially as this is a major new act, and people will need to interpret

and utilize it. So I think that when more is evident in the law, it is

very helpful. I do appreciate that. I mean, opposition and others always

question regulation-making, right? I can remember the minister asking me

those very questions when I was on the other side of the

House.

Clause 32, as I understand it, is updating language that currently

exists in the act. What I’m interested in is that it basically says that

a person can use a title if they are part of “a class of regulated

health practitioners” and if “(

a) the person is in the process of

meeting the requirements and conditions, set under an applicable

eligibility standard….”

I guess my question is: at what point in the process…? How long do

they have to have been pursuing that particular designation? You

wouldn’t want it to happen in the first week or five weeks. Is there a

place that triggers the ability for that person to utilize the

title?

Hon. A. Dix: This allows for what you might call or what is typically called a

provisional licence. That’s sometimes meeting the standards of the

college, so it allows people to work under supervision. One can imagine,

because there are some health professions which require much longer

training than others, that it would be the responsibility of the

college, through its bylaws, to do that for each health

profession.

It might well be different for an optician, where the length of

training is less, than it would be for a nurse practitioner, for

example, where the training, obviously, is long. That’s the

responsibility of the college. It allows the flexibility to have

provisional licensees under supervision, and it allows the college to

regulate exactly the issues raised by the hon. member.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister for his response. Using the

title is one of the aspects of this clause. Obviously, the subsections

describe where they need to be, to be able to do that. I know this is

not new, but can the minister describe what that means in the context of

the health system currently?

It also references that a person may do an activity which has been

described in

section 29 as unauthorized practice. In essence, there is a

permissive part of this clause that allows someone in the process of

getting their designation to perform a particular activity. Could the

minister just speak to what that means, operationally, in the health

system?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I think a good example is, say, a nurse working on a practicum

who’s going through nurse training. As they’re doing their training,

part of the purpose of that practicum, under supervision, is, for

example, to do injections. Obviously, you can’t learn to do injections

unless you do injections under supervision and do that work.

This is, while it seems like an exception, very much part of the

sort of daily work and aspects of people in health care as they train to

become professionals or get accredited in British Columbia.

It adds necessary flexibility to the system. If we didn’t have it,

it would have a very significant, I think, negative effect on the

system. That’s why the provision is there with those

conditions.

Clause 32 approved.

On clause 33.

S. Bond: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your patience.

Clause 33 speaks to extrajurisdictional practitioners. I’m

wondering if…. This clause speaks specifically to the use of titles. Is

there anything else that it refers to in terms of the processing of

credentials or anything? Or does it simply speak to the use of titles by

someone who is an extrajurisdictional practitioner?

Hon. A. Dix: Yeah, I think it is limited to titles.

The reason we have it in there is…. If you’re visiting Ontario or

Charlottetown and you tell someone you’re a doctor from B.C., or vice

versa…. This allows you to do that, right? Otherwise, in theory, those

sorts of things would be limited or outside. So this is why this

particular action, for people, or vice versa, the Ontario law or….

Someone comes here. They’re a doctor from Ontario, and they tell people

they’re a doctor. They are. They’re obviously a doctor from Ontario.

That’s why we have this in place.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

S. Bond: Clause 34 speaks to providing false or misleading information. So

I’m assuming that refers to the fact that someone chooses to call

themselves a doctor or a nurse, and in fact, they are not. Is that

correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

S. Bond: What implications does this have, if any, for people who provide

advice on matters of health and wellness and a variety of other things?

We have people who talk about nutritional programs and physical fitness

and a variety of other things. How does this impact…? Or does it? How is

the misleading information or providing false information ultimately

determined?

Hon. A. Dix: For example, not 20 minutes ago I suggested that people get

vaccinated in B.C. What would be wrong with that is not suggesting that.

The member and I have been on calls where we’ve suggested that people

get vaccinated. She led on that in her community. There’s absolutely

nothing wrong with that, just as advising people to — I don’t know —

swim three times a week, if you’re a swim coach or a fitness trainer….

Nothing wrong with that.

It’s the use of the title. And it’s a restricted activity, right?

You can’t claim you’re regulated, you can’t use the title, and there are

some restricted activities. You can’t diagnose people in a formal way,

in that way, for example. That’s a restricted activity.

[11:30 a.m.]

I don’t think there’s too much confusion. In the course of our

daily lives, someone will come up to us and say: “Boy, it sounds like

you have a cold.” It’s not a diagnosis. We’re not pretending, in that

case, to be a health professional. That’s really the distinction. That’s

what it applies to.

These issues do come up. A significant part of the act is how to

deal with people who then give up their titles and what happens then. As

the member will know from the media, there have been some issues with

certain naturopathic physicians who have engaged in such practices. The

profession is not very happy about that because it damages the

credibility of the profession. So that’s what we’re talking

about.

S. Bond: It’s the direct link to the use of the title that creates the

false or misleading information. I appreciate that.

I just want to confirm, again, that if a person were to contravene

this section…. We talked about 30, but this also would be considered an

offence and, again, come with the penalties that the minister had

outlined.

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

S. Bond: This clause is entitled “Unauthorized acts of corporations.” I’m

wondering if the minister…. I believe that there is a comparable clause

in the current health act. Can the minister describe what the changes

are and why it’s necessary?

Hon. A. Dix: It’s exactly the same, with intent, as

section 45 of the current

Health Professions Act. There is some modernization of the language, but

it’s the exact same provision.

Clauses 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

On clause 38.

S. Bond: Thanks to the minister. He knows I’m madly flipping to try to keep

up here. So thank you for that.

In clause 38, we’re speaking about requirements for licence. I’m

wondering if the minister could describe for me who determines fitness

to practise.

Hon. A. Dix: The licensing committee of the college.

S. Bond: Will each regulatory college have their own standards for what

constitutes ethical behaviour? Or is there a general — universal,

basically — understood set of principles?

Hon. A. Dix: We didn’t insist, in the legislation, on one ethical standard. One

of the reasons for that is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons

has an ethical standard consistent with colleges across the country and

other colleges. That was important, given that physicians frequently

move from one province to another. B.C. benefits from that more than we

lose, actually, historically and now. So that’s the reason for the

engagement.

It will be the role of the superintendent to ensure that colleges

meet the same standard and a general expectation that they meet the same

standard. We decided not to start forcing a rewrite of that now, partly

because of the circumstances of the College of Physicians and Surgeons,

but that would be the intent of the role of the

superintendent.

[11:35 a.m.]

S. Bond: Ultimately, the superintendent will have the responsibility to

ensure that there is at least a degree of consistency across the

colleges and that there is at least embedded that important principle of

ethical conduct?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

S. Bond: I wanted to ask about what the phrase “other qualifications” would

refer to. Obviously, this is really important. It’s a short clause but a

really important one. It’s requirements for getting your licence. In

38(a)(i)….

I like the way the other member, from Langara, calls it little 1

or little 2. I’m going to have to get the proper…. After all these

years.

So anyway, 38(a)(i): “education training, experience and other

qualifications.” Could the minister give me an example of what that

might refer to?

Hon. A. Dix: Even though one could imagine this falling under education and

training, it may be a specific type of certificate that’s required in a

particular college. We can get the member some examples. We don’t have

one now, a specific example, but you can imagine a specific kind of

certificate.

It also allows a college to add other expectations to that, should

they be required for licensees.

S. Bond: The minister is being so brief I don’t even have time to write

down the answer. I’ll have to look it up later.

Interjections.

S. Bond: It is. Let’s keep her moving here.

Also importantly here in, sub 38(b), in terms of requirements for

licence, it speaks to looking at the person’s entire disciplinary

record. So would that include the disciplinary record that may exist

under other regulatory colleges or just to the college that the person

is applying to for a licence?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, it’s the entire disciplinary record. You can imagine someone

seeking a licence who has worked in another Canadian jurisdiction.

There’s a requirement for them to provide all that, and then an ability,

obviously, to check all that. So this is a requirement to review all of

that.

It’s not the requirement to provide that they would be expected,

under the college bylaws, to provide and obviously to provide

information that’s accurate about their application for a licence. So

that’s precisely what we’re talking about. They have to review the

entire record. That would include, if they came from Nova Scotia, what

they did in Nova Scotia.

S. Bond: I’m wondering if the minister could provide for me…. I know this

is obviously not new, but it would be interesting. Again, our

conversations will help shape how people actually interpret this act

moving forward. So sub 38(

b) also speaks to a person’s character. How

does one judge or how does one make a determination about one’s

character?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: If we go to 49 — we’ve just been going around — you’ll see, in the

general licensing bylaws, the provision: “evidence of good character,

including character references and other types of checks and

references.”

It allows a person to check that. Conceivably, some of the things

in the record of discipline might be indicative of that. But there’s

also a requirement to do that. There’s also, in terms of the records and

the requirement to provide records…. We’ll get to that on

section 390,

but that’s linked to that as well, where we go through, in detail, what

a disciplinary record would look like and the expectations of what we

would receive in detail.

These are really important questions, but the character relates to

the potential for a college to seek character references from people.

This provides the basis for that.

S. Bond: I think that’s a practical way to look at how we would look at

character. I appreciate the fact that the minister referenced the

disciplinary record. I would assume that past conduct would also shape

how one one’s character was judged.

I want to just ask about past conduct. I’m wondering: how

expansive is the look at past conduct? Does that include, for example,

and in the world we live in…? Does it include past personal conduct? Is

it professional? Obviously that would be a critical one — professional

past conduct.

But also, in the age we live in, would it, for example, capture

things? I’m wondering how expansive the consideration of past conduct

is.

Hon. A. Dix: Past conduct is really your past conduct in the profession, so

both the actions taken and what you did about those actions. It’s really

more linked to the entire disciplinary record. The past conduct would

have to be proven in things.

under character, potentially, should those issues be questioned.

They’ve done it and then corrected. That’s the way it is.

So that’s where you’d see that realm. But the past conduct is

specific, and it has to be proven. That’s important in these processes.

Really, justice for everyone is dependent on that.

S. Bond: I would agree in thinking about character. Obviously, there may

behaviour, those kinds of things. So thank you to the minister for

that.

I just want to confirm that “other relevant factors” is in that

category of things that we’ve been discussing, that rather than suddenly

having a long list of regulations in addition to this, if there is

something, that would be covered in this in this clause.

Hon. A. Dix: Yeah, that’s correct. It might include the member’s discussions on

practitioner to have done something, established something, on social

media at a different time, that might have got them some attention for

whatever reason, then that conceivably could come up there, but it also

allows the college not to be limited to those things.

[11:45 a.m.]

If there’s something else that’s relevant — we’re talking about,

after all, the licensing of a health professional — then the college

should be able to consider it without looking at the act and saying that

we can’t.

Clause 38 approved.

On clause 39.

S. Bond: I’m not sure we will have time to quite get through all of this

before we get to noting the hour, but maybe I could…. This is a very

important section, obviously. We’re talking about “fit to practise.” It

outlines, in essence, the thresholds that people are measured against in

order to get licensing or if there’s a disciplinary action.

Again, it may be self-evident, but perhaps we could at least put

it on the record. Why is “fit to practise” not applicable to health

occupations? Here, we speak about a designated health profession under

the act. Or is there a comparable

section in

part 4?

Hon. A. Dix: Here, it is health professionals. Health occupations have a

different level of risk. They’re operating under supervision. That’s why

the difference is in place. However, the health occupations are, under

section 200, required to do a number of things. This would effectively

be taken up there. But the reason this is focused on health professions

is because of the level of risk of a professional who’s not operating

under supervision.

If someone is operating under supervision and they’re not able to

assist someone with the task they’re doing, then it would be the

responsibility of their supervisor. If it’s you, and you’re the health

professional, and you’re authorized to do that in person, and you’re not

fit for that, then that’s a different responsibility. That’s the reason

for the difference.

We’ll take up clause 39 unless you’re….

S. Bond: Yes. Could you just repeat the

section for me, please?

Hon. A. Dix: It’s 200. We’ll be back on

section 39 after lunch. With that, I

move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.