Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 12, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 205

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Moose Hide anti-violence campaign

Hon. M. Rankin

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Transit operations centre project in Central

Okanagan

B. Stewart

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and

Biphobia

M. Elmore

Jim Good and Goodsir Nature Park

M. Morris

Karl Featherstone and assistance to families of

firefighters for work-related deaths

M. Starchuk

Jim Hume

A. Olsen

Wrestling accomplishments by Surrey athletes

J. Sims

Oral Questions

Access to family physicians and comments by Health

Minister

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

T. Stone

Resource development projects and violence against

Indigenous women and girls

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Rankin

Violence against Indigenous women and girls and

funding for prevention services

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Rankin

Supply chain issues and access to baby

formula

T. Halford

Hon. A. Dix

Labour dispute in Sea to Sky transit system

J. Sturdy

Hon. H. Bains

Filming of commercial in Lytton

D. Davies

Hon. M. Farnworth

Backlog of cases at employment standards

branch

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Service model change for children with support needs

and funding for autism services

R. Merrifield

Hon. M. Dean

Action on affordability issues

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Reports from Committees

Children and Youth Committee, annual report,

2021-22

J. Sims

M. Bernier

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

S. Bond

D. Davies

Hon. A. Dix

D. Clovechok

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2022

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Shypitka.

Introductions by Members

B. Anderson: Today is a very special day for me. It is the first time that the

StrongerBC Young Leaders Council is joining us in the chamber.

These are incredible young people with diverse experiences, interests and

backgrounds, from across the province, that are joining us here today. Some of the

folks are going to be able to see the opposition side, and some of them are going

to be able to see the government side. So both sides are able to wave to them. I

just want to be able to introduce them all to you right now.

[10:05 a.m.]

We have Alexandra Mandewo from Coquitlam, Andrew Millage from Abbotsford,

Aur Hager from Nelson, Clea Schooner from Bella Bella, Dacian Filipescu from

Victoria, Damon Robinson from Prince George, Emmy Wang from Maple Ridge, Eya

Ibrahim from Victoria, Hamza Dari from Victoria, Harry Bajwa from Surrey, Jacob

Tourand from Kamloops, Jeanna Pillainayagam from Vancouver, Malia Mercado from

Maple Ridge, Maya Provencal from Rossland, Noor Shaker from Port Coquitlam,

Prabhnoor Sidhu from Prince George, Ripdaman Malhans from Delta and Thea Wells

from Kamloops.

Will everyone please give a warm welcome to the StrongerBC Young Leaders

Council members.

Statements

MOOSE HIDE ANTI-VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN

Hon. M. Rankin: Today we will be joined at the Knowledge Pole, on the grounds of the

Legislature, by the organizers and supporters of Moose Hide Campaign Day. Along

with my colleagues, I will walk with the campaigners from Thunderbird Park to

the Knowledge Pole in order to mark this important day. Yesterday colleagues

from all parties joined together on the steps of the Legislature wearing their

Moose Hide pin to show their support for this campaign.

This B.C.-born initiative has grown to be a national campaign,

highlighting the need for men and women to stand up and stop violence against

women and children. This campaign was sparked by a single conversation between

a daughter and her father, Raven and Paul Lacerte, reflecting on the sorrow of

missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Now each Moose Hide pin is an opportunity to spark thousands of

conversations, conversations about our responsibility to keep women and

children safe in our communities, to teach men and boys the true meaning of

love and respect, to tackle systemic racism and advance reconciliation and to

hold each other accountable.

Today I’m proud to wear my Moose Hide pin, one of more than three

million pins distributed by the campaign to date, as a commitment to action to

end violence against women and children. There’s much more work to do. Our

government supports the work of the Moose Hide Campaign Day toward a brighter

future.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Today I have the honour of making three introductions. First I’ll start

with Matilda Colvin. She is shadowing me in the Legislature today. Matilda is a

grade 10 student from Gulf Islands Secondary. I had the opportunity to meet

Matilda at a youth political awareness seminar that was hosted at the Salt Spring

Island Library by Matilda and other students at GISS.

Matilda is interested in debate, interested in volunteering in our

constituency office in Saanich North and the Islands — we look forward to

welcoming Matilda there — and also interested in being here today to see how this

Legislative Assembly works.

Will the members please make Matilda very welcome.

I’d like to introduce Darcy Repen and his family. Darcy is the former mayor

of Telkwa, now a constituent, recently relocated to Saltspring Island. With Darcy

today are Finlay, a grade 6 student — it’s Finley’s first time in the Legislature

— and Jacob, a first-year student at Camosun, with an interest in anthropology,

who has been living in Victoria for the last couple of years. Darcy has been

advocating very strongly to me with respect to some issues around ICBC.

Will the members of the House please make Darcy and his family very

welcome.

I would like to introduce and recognize Bob Peart. Last week Bob’s 50 years

of dedication to the environment were recognized by Nature Canada with the 2022

Douglas H. Pimlott Award. Bob is a resident of Sidney in my

constituency.

I’m blessed with many incredible constituents who are willing to share

their wisdom, advice and guidance with me. I’m honoured to have spent many hours

with Bob over the last few years. He has always encouraged me to stand strong in

my defence of nature, biodiversity and the environment. One question he asked me

several years ago always resides in the back of my mind. He asked me: “If we are

not standing up for the environment, who is?”

[10:10 a.m.]

Will the members of the House please give a warm welcome and

congratulations to Bob on his incredible achievement.

M. Elmore: I’ve got two birthdays in the family that I’d like to share. My nephew

Theodore Roman Henry Aro is turning two years old. He was born on May 13, 2020,

during the pandemic and is now celebrating his second birthday as we’re still in

the pandemic.

Theo is super active. He loves cars and trucks, loves reading. I look

forward to our dinner. We’re going to be celebrating with his parents, Samantha

and Roman, his big sister, Charlotte, and also the proud grandparents, Enrique and

Maria Garcia and Lena Aro.

I’d ask everybody to please join me in wishing Theo a very happy second

birthday.

Second, my goddaughter, Alexandria Clemente, just celebrated her 11th

birthday. Alexi is a grade 5 student. We’re celebrating with her mom, Maita; Paul

Clemente; Alexi’s big brother, Antonio; and grandparents, Yollie and Bernard

Dedrich, Antonio Santiago and, deceased, Bonifacio and Fidalena

Clemente.

For Alexi’s recent self-assessment in school…. And this kind of sums her up

as a young woman. She was asked at school what her plans are going forward. She

said she’d like to be an artist, a scientist and, also, the first duly elected

female Prime Minister in Canada. She does know that Kim Campbell served as Prime

Minister, but she would like to be elected.

I’d like to ask everybody to please join me in wishing a very happy belated

birthday — it was yesterday — to Alexi.

Hon. B. Ma: We are joined today in the gallery, somewhere, by Julia Bilinski. I knew

her as a young volunteer. She came to my campaign at the end of 2016, early 2017.

She worked as a constituency assistant in my office, as well, and, from there,

went on to graduate from UVic with a master of public administration, after

obtaining her degree, from UBC, in psychology and political science.

Over the last several years, she has been living here in Victoria, working

for the Ministry of Health as a policy analyst. We’ve missed her very dearly. I’m

very pleased to note she is now returning to the Mainland to work with Vancouver

Coastal Health as a business analyst.

We’re so proud of you, Julia, from North Vancouver. We’re hoping to be able

to see you back there soon.

Would the House please join me in welcoming her to the gallery.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TRANSIT OPERATIONS CENTRE PROJECT

IN CENTRAL

OKANAGAN

B. Stewart: West Kelowna and the Central Okanagan is one of the fastest-growing

urban areas in the province and, even, in Canada. Over the few last decades,

we’ve seen the region evolve with the addition of UBCO, the expansions at

Okanagan College and modernizing to meet the needs of our residents. One area

we have seen significant expansion in is public transit, with the addition of

bus rapid transit.

Transit is essential in any city. A good transit system connects

neighbourhoods and communities. It enables people to travel, offering

is a critical mode of transportation for youth, students, commuters and

seniors, and it is a benefit to the entire community.

With our region’s current transit operations and maintenance facility

well over capacity, Kelowna has been planning for a new transit operations

centre. It’s a project that has been in the works for a very, very long time.

Just a few weeks ago the project took an exciting step forward. The

Agricultural Land Commission announced it was approving the city of Kelowna’s

application to expand and exclude 16.72 hectares from the ALR for the planned

future transit facility.

[10:15 a.m.]

This is incredibly exciting news and will allow the growth of transit

throughout the Central Okanagan and beyond, while also supporting the goal of

eventually electrifying the entire region’s bus fleet. Investing in transit is

essential for the future of our cities, and this project will make the Okanagan

more connected and a more sustainable community.

While this approval represents just one step forward in a long process,

I am so encouraged to see this vision take shape and look forward to seeing the

positive impact the growth in our transit system will have on our

region.

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST

HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA

AND

BIPHOBIA

M. Elmore: May 17 will be the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and

Biphobia. It was first recognized in 2005, and as of last year, it’s going to

be officially recognized and commemorated by over 130 countries across the

globe.

QMUNITY will be marking this event. QMUNITY is a non-profit organization

based in Vancouver that works to improve queer, trans and two-spirit lives.

They’ll be marking it with their annual breakfast. Looking forward to

that.

The issue of needing to be proactive and ensure we bring an end to

discrimination experienced by folks in the queer, two-spirit, gay, lesbian,

trans community is so critical. When I came out, as a young woman, as a lesbian

when I was 19 years old, I was in tears with my parents. My mom reassured me

she loved me. My sister was mad. She was angry I didn’t tell her sooner. I was

accepted by my family — really, a testament in terms of the need to be

proactive and address the issue so many face.

We know that trans folks experience more discrimination. We know it’s

complex around discrimination against sexual orientation. It’s a continuum

around biological sex, how you’re born. That’s also a continuum — born male,

female or intersex. As well, gender identity, how you feel inside. Gender

expression, how people think you should be dressing, if a woman should be

wearing a tie. All these factor into really accepting people for who they are —

and being, as well, with the perspective of an intersectional lens, with class

or race or other issues that really undermine people.

I’d ask everybody to please join me…. I’m so pleased. I know I can count

on all the members in this House here and all British Columbians to join me in

making sure British Columbia is a place that is safe and that everyone,

regardless of their complexities, which we all have as people, can celebrate,

can flourish and really live great lives here in B.C.

JIM GOOD AND GOODSIR NATURE PARK

M. Morris: Thirty-three years ago, in 1989, a gentleman named Jim Good founded the

Goodsir Nature Park located a few kilometres north of Prince George. At the

time he opened it, he made the following declaration:

“I declare this land of mine as Goodsir Nature Park, named after my

grandfather’s mountain, Mount Goodsir. Its purpose is to focus on all native

plant life throughout Canada, that of our creator. It was built on a janitor’s

salary, and I believe it will stand the test of time for future generations to

see.

“You can’t own a mountain, a river, a moon or the sea any more than you

can own a piece of land with a forest on it. However, in my case, God has

entrusted me with this land to show off his beauty of creation through native

plant life. He has made me a custodian of it to take care of what I have done,

and some day it will be passed on to someone else.”

Devoted to conservation issues, Jim single-handedly built Goodsir Park

as a hobby, personally funding it in addition to raising a family on a modest

salary. A designated Canadian botanical conservatory, Goodsir Park offers 160

acres, highlighting a national collection of plant species. Jim purchased the

land with the intent to create a space where his passion for nature and botany

could be shared with all. He collected the specimens himself, driving across

Canada, sourcing the trees, plants, flowers and other native botanical

species.

Jim proudly provides the park, complete with groomed trails and

information signs, to the public at no cost and gives freely of his time to

guide individuals through both the park and his museum.

[10:20 a.m.]

On Tuesday this week, Jim Good proudly and deservedly received the

community achievement award at Government House, recognizing his lifetime

achievement in making our community a better place.

Congratulations, Jim.

KARL FEATHERSTONE AND ASSISTANCE

TO FAMILIES OF FIREFIGHTERS

FOR WORK-RELATED DEATHS

M. Starchuk: Karl Featherstone was a paid on-call firefighter with Lake Country fire

department when he passed away on October 11, 2020, due to a heart attack as a

result of his work as a firefighter. His son, James, was 3½. His daughter,

Natalie, was two at the time of his passing. The whirlwind his partner,

Bryanna, was going through is unimaginable.

I received a call a few days after the tragic event from Lt. Eric

DeGelder, a Lake Country fire department member, asking me if I could help the

family. I was a WCB advocate for firefighters in B.C. for over 20 years, and I

was sure I could assist the family.

However, I’m not standing here in the House today to speak further to

the tragic details but rather to give thanks to the two levels of government in

their roles of protecting families of firefighters whose passing is recognized

as a line-of-duty death.

Thank you to the British Columbia government for recognizing that

firefighters are occupationally linked to the exposures of fire fighting.

WorkSafeBC stepped up in a very quick manner and provided a multitude of

benefits to Bryanna at a time when her life was spinning out of

control.

Thank you to the Canadian government for the recent enactment of the

public safety officer benefit that saw the Canadian government create a

memorial grant, which is available to families when a line-of-duty death is

recognized.

Last week I found out the family has received this federal grant, and I

found out this week Karl will be memorialized on the fallen firefighter wall in

Ottawa this September. This does not bring back Karl, but it does recognize the

dangers of the job of a firefighter by both provincial and federal

governments.

Lastly, Bryanna, you’ve remained strong throughout this entire ordeal.

Those of us who have been involved along this journey want you to know you’re

not alone.

JIM HUME

A. Olsen: This was prepared by Stephen Hume.

Jim Hume surrendered his seat in the press gallery for the first time in

half a century when he died April 13 at the age of 98.

It’s astonishing to think that Jim began writing about who governs

British Columbia, about how we govern and about why we do what we do before

most members of our present Legislative Assembly were even born.

He was here before the vote was fully extended to women or to religious

minorities. He covered the election of the first Indigenous man as MLA and, 67

years later, the first Indigenous woman. He saw the elections of the first

Black men and women, the first Indo-Canadian, the province’s first woman

Premier, the first Indo-Canadian Premier, the first Social Credit government,

the first NDP government, the first Greens. In all, he covered 21

parliaments.

Jim came to British Columbia in 1948. He arrived on the train to reach

the west coast after the terrible floods of that year in the Fraser Valley. He

was 24 years old, with a wife, a toddler of 18 months and a second child due in

six weeks. When he first arrived in Victoria, although he had papers as a

precision machinist, the only work he found was driving this city’s garbage

scow from the Inner Harbour, past the Legislature buildings and out to sea to

dump the overnight refuse.

He later came to the building to work in the building. “Same job,

different location,” he liked to quip, but that was a joke. He loved the work

and took it seriously.

He loved the Legislature and respected it. He loved the province with

all his heart.

WRESTLING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

BY SURREY

ATHLETES

J. Sims: When I think of sports in Surrey, I think of team sports like soccer,

basketball, hockey and cricket. Today I want to highlight how popular wrestling

is and how many prominent wrestlers come out of Surrey. This past weekend the

Pan American championships took place in Acapulco, Mexico. Eight athletes from

B.C. competed in these matches, and I’m proud to say that four were from

Surrey.

[10:25 a.m.]

The Canadian team brought home 11 medals, including three gold medals

awarded to Surrey athletes. Congratulations to Ana and Karla Godinez-Gonzalez,

sisters who began their training at Earl Marriott, and Amar Dhesi, who started

wrestling at Khalsa Wrestling Club in Surrey. Congratulations to all the other

B.C. athletes who represented us at the games.

The years of training and commitment to the sport start early, and many

start in schools. Schools like Earl Marriott, Guildford Park, Princess Margaret

and Tamanawis have had popular wrestling programs for years. Teachers Tom

Willman, Gina Carpenter and many others donate their time and talent to train

and guide and mentor these young adults.

Dave McKay, another Surrey alumna, a B.C. wrestling hall-of-famer, was

one of the coaches for the games. Wrestling clubs like Khalsa, Rustom and

Breakdown work with kids of all ages and teach them the discipline, agility and

skill required to be successful.

I want the House to join me in congratulating all of the athletes on

their incredible success and good luck in the upcoming Canadian Wrestling

Championships and the Canada Cup next month. I know they will make themselves,

their parents, their community and their sport proud.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

AND COMMENTS BY HEALTH

MINISTER

S. Bond: The Doctors of B.C., representing 14,000 physicians in our province,

took the rare step of issuing a statement yesterday saying how deeply concerned

they are by the Health Minister’s recent comments that nurse practitioners

provide better care than doctors.

Family physician Jennifer Lush says: “It was a profound slap in the face

to every physician. It’s smoke and mirrors, and it’s a strategy to sow seeds of

division rather than focusing on the real issue, which is that we have a crisis

in B.C. of one million people not having access to a family doctor.”

Instead of smoke and mirrors, will the minister today acknowledge the

value of family doctors, end the divisive rhetoric and take action to deal with

a growing crisis of health care in our province?

Hon. A. Dix: The member was there. The first thing I said in answer to a question on

physician assistants was…. “I’m not saying,” I said on the record, “that care

is better.” That’s the case. In fact, family practice doctors are the heart and

the foundation of our primary care system — 6,800 over the last number of

years.

There are 600 more family practice doctors in B.C. than there were

before. There are also — and we talk about nurse practitioners, who have, also,

a very significant role — 400 more nurse practitioners. They are working

together to provide primary care.

The reason I don’t think that is…. I didn’t say it. I don’t believe it.

I think family practice doctors do an extraordinary job in B.C., particularly

during this period of pandemic, when we transformed the primary care system

together to continue to provide service for people.

Let’s be clear. I say it virtually every day. Family practice doctors

are critical in B.C. They play a key role in B.C., and we need to respect them,

not just by saying so but by doing what we’ve done with primary care networks,

which is giving doctors and divisions of family practice control and

responsibility on the provision of primary care in their

communities.

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

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister.

We should be perfectly clear about who heard the comments and how they

were said. Doctors were watching across British Columbia, and their comments

were based on what they heard, not what I heard. So to be clear, they issued

the statement. They took the rare opportunity to issue a statement about what

this minister said, after watching his Health estimates.

Doctors are upset and angry about what they heard this minister say. As

Dr. Anna Wolak says: “The minister’s comments confirm that we are undervalued

as people and as physicians. It’s an actual gut punch.” Not my words. I was in

the room with the minister while doctors were listening and sending in their

comments.

[10:30 a.m.]

Almost one million people in British Columbia do not have a doctor, and

this minister continues to say every­thing’s okay. Doctors are closing

their practices, and many more have indicated they will do that because they

feel undervalued.

Will the minister get up today and at least acknowledge the impact of

his words and take immediate action to fix the crisis in primary

care?

Hon. A. Dix: In that circumstance…. The Leader of the Opposition talks about

unattachment. There were twice as many unattached people in 2017 as in 2003.

The rate of unattachment increased by 70 percent in that period. What that

tells you is that’s a trend over a period of time. Only once in those 14 years

did attachment get less. There were modest improvements in 2018 and ’19, and

the pandemic’s had its effect.

Every day we should celebrate the work of family practice doctors, and

every day I do so. I understand what it means for our families and for our

communities — and the need to provide care to patients. It’s why under the most

difficult of circumstances in this past year, the year ending March 31, there

were 1.5 million more visits than there were before the pandemic, in spite of

those extraordinary difficulties.

If anything tells you about the commitment of our family practice

doctors to our province, to their patients and to our health care system, it’s

that. I and the government will continue to support them.

T. Stone: The question the Leader of the Opposition has asked, and I will do so

again, relates to the words of this Health Minister in the estimates process,

just down the hall from here. These were his words. He can choose to deflect

around that here this morning. He said what he said, and doctors across the

province were outraged. They were paying attention, and they felt

disrespected.

The questions are about the choice of words and whether they truly

reflect how this minister feels about family doctors and their role in our

health care system. I would remind the minister that, under his watch, one in

five British Columbians don’t have a family doctor. So this really

matters.

Instead of focusing on action to ensure we don’t lose any more doctors

and we don’t have more stories like we profiled yesterday in Ucluelet, that

we’ve profiled in James Bay, profiled all around this province, that we don’t

hear more of those stories…. It’s rather that we see more doctors added to the

system and fewer people being unattached.

Once again, I will point out another statement for this minister. This

one is from the B.C. Family Doctors association, in direct response to the

minister’s words yesterday. “Such comments are disheartening and divisive.

B.C.’s primary care crisis will not be solved by fostering an us-versus-them

culture.”

Again to the Minister of Health, will he stop with this divisive

rhetoric and focus on the action required so that British Columbians have a

family doctor when and where they need one?

Hon. A. Dix: It’s unusual when you get criticized for comments and they don’t quote

the comments, which are pretty straightforward and consistent with what I’ve

said for a long time.

I think what family practice doctors in B.C. want is to promote

team-based care. I know this because in our core family practice and primary

care initiative, primary care networks, we’ve handed the responsibility for the

recommendations and the frame of primary care networks in communities to family

practice doctors.

Just as an example, 160 of the people that have been hired — on the

direction and recommendation of family practice doctors — have supported

patients on issues of mental health and substance abuse care. Why? Because that

assists, first of all, in getting people access to the best possible care, and

it reflects what family practice doctors are dealing with in

communities.

[10:35 a.m.]

What is clear — and this is clear for doctors and nurse practitioners

and nurses and allied health workers, all of whom work in primary care — is

that we’re living in a moment where the complexity of cases has increased.

Therefore, the system we have in place — the system we’ve had in place for a

long time, the fee-for-service system, which depends on volume — is not well

suited to dealing with the increasing challenges doctors face.

This is particularly true of young doctors. It’s why young doctors, in

general, have told us they’re not interested in taking up fee-for-service

practice, and that’s why we’re working closely together with doctors in B.C. to

address these issues.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Let’s take this back up a level. Under this minister’s watch, an

additional 200,000 British Columbians are unattached to family physicians.

There are nearly one million British Columbians now without a family doctor in

communities all across this province. So the actions that this minister has

taken to this point are inadequate. It’s not working.

More British Columbians, thousands more, are at risk of also finding

themselves in the situation of not having a family doctor unless this minister

starts taking the actions that are going to fix that. This is why his comments

yesterday, which again he chose not to address — his words — are so critically

important in this discussion. He needs to acknowledge the disrespect that was

in those words, and he has an opportunity to do so here this

morning.

Dr. Yvette Lu is an award-winning family physician from Vancouver.

Here’s what this doctor had to say about the minister’s words yesterday: “Very

disappointed that the Health Minister does not understand and appreciate the

value of family physicians.”

Or how about this family doctor, Gareth Mannheimer? He calls the

comments “unfortunate and deeply disparaging. They have unmasked the apparent

disingenuous nature of this government.”

Those are not my words. Those are the words of two family physicians

amongst thousands that were disrespected and outraged by the minister’s

comments yesterday.

Will the minister stop dividing people, will he stop with the divisive

rhetoric, and will he commit today to taking action that will ensure that

British Columbians get the family physicians that they need in the communities

where they live?

Hon. A. Dix: I celebrate the work of family practice doctors every day. I celebrate

the work of nurses every day, in the gallery or not. I do celebrate the work of

nurse practitioners, which is the core of the particular answer in question, as

I celebrate the work of family practice doctors. I think that that reflects the

views of people who actually practise medicine in B.C., who want to see the

development of team-based care.

As you’ll recall, other efforts have been tried. The member talks about

one in five. It was one in five at the end of 14 years of Liberal government —

one in five. That was the level of unattachment. It started, in that case, at

one in ten, and it went to one in five in 14 years. There’s no other source of

statistics. That’s from the Canadian community health survey.

They started a program called GP for Me that was supposed to address it.

Things got worse. Then they abandoned that program, and nothing

happened.

What did we do? We started a program to develop primary care networks,

to promote community health centres, to train more doctors in residency

programs, to support and train more nurse practitioners and to build out

team-based care so that health care providers would work together to the extent

of their skills. And that process has been led and supported by family

doctors.

I support family doctors every day. I respect their role. I respect it

so much so that they’ve been key partners in every aspect of primary care

reform.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

AND VIOLENCE AGAINST

INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND GIRLS

A. Olsen: Today is Moose Hide Campaign Day. Today is for Indigenous and

non-Indigenous men and boys to stand against the violence that Indigenous women

and girls face on a daily basis.

We know that violence often occurs at the site of resource development

projects. The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered

Indigenous women and girls found as much.

When a new resource development project comes to town, like Site C,

rates of gender-based violence, child abuse and sexual violence go up. In turn,

substance use goes up. Then the cycle repeats and intensifies.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions knows as much. In 2016, as

a federal NDP MP, she criticized Site C for going through without consideration

for the impacts on Indigenous women and girls. Six years later this government

has doubled down on Site C, Coastal GasLink and others while doing little to

address this violence.

My question is to the Premier. He’s travelling to Site C this week. What

is he doing to protect Indigenous women and girls from the violence they face

as a result of these resource development projects?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to my colleague across the way for drawing attention to the

issues of violence facing Indigenous women and girls every day. He does so on

Moose Hide Campaign Day, which is most appropriate.

We are taking steps throughout the work of the action plan, under the

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, to address violence and

systemic racism in a number of ways, starting with the Police Act, dealing with

Indigenous justice centres and in so many other initiatives to address the

scourge of violence and racism occurring, of course, not just in locations

identified by the member but across our communities, and we will continue to do

so.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIGENOUS

WOMEN AND GIRLS AND

FUNDING

FOR PREVENTION SERVICES

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response.

In June of last year, this government had put just $5.5 million on the

table to support community safety plans commemorating the women and girls who

were murdered and — get this — train their own public service. This was as a

result of the national plan for missing and murdered Indigenous women and

girls. But $5.5 million, frankly, is the equivalent to lost change in a couch

to this government.

Let’s look at what this government was willing to spend more money on in

2021 than on missing and murdered Indigenous people: $7.93 million for seven

advertising campaigns from the government’s communications department, $30

million to mark B.C.’s 150th anniversary into Confederation, an additional $8

billion on Site C, hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil

fuel projects. And in June of last year, this government said more investments

were under consideration.

The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has had close to

a year to consider this additional funding. How much more can Indigenous women

and girls expect for this government to spend in order to protect them from the

impacts of violence?

Hon. M. Rankin: Again, I thank the hon. member for drawing attention to this difficult

issue. In fact, every week across British Columbia, there are an estimated

1,000 physical or sexual assaults against women. As the member would know,

Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately targeted by that.

Our government has supported the Moose Hide Campaign — and the previous

government, as well, since 2011. Our government has provided almost $3 million

and worked with the federal government to provide $4 million more and urged

them to find funding in the private sector.

We have done, as the member pointed out, as part of our B.C.’s Path

Forward response to the report on the murdered and missing Indigenous

women and girls, a community fund grant of $4.5 million. We’re supporting the

Giving Voice campaign, sponsored by my minister’s advisory committee on

Indigenous women and girls.

There’s much work to do to dismantle systemic racism. Our government is

committed to that in a variety of actions. In part, we do so through the

support we have given to provide secure and stable funding for sexual assault

centres. We’ve committed $22 million to do so. There’s an array of initiatives,

through many ministries, to address the scourge of racism and systemic violence

against Indigenous women and girls.

We know this work must continue. There’s much more to be done, but I’m

proud to be part of a government that is investing in so many ways to address

the scourge of racism and discrimination.

SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES

AND ACCESS TO BABY

FORMULA

T. Halford: As a shortage of baby formula is sweeping across North America, parents

are already seeing empty shelves here in B.C. Michelle Wasylyshen of the Retail

Council of Canada says: “Specialized baby formulas that do not have

substitutions have been impacted for the past nine months.” Parents want to

know what is being done to protect our international supply chain and ensure

they can feed their newborn children.

Now, I am sure the minister of state has been briefed and is taking

action. My question is: can the Minister of State for Trade say exactly what

steps this government has taken to ensure that baby formula is still in stock

on B.C. shelves?

Hon. A. Dix: This issue is a critical one for the health of children in B.C. I

appreciate the hon. member raising it. Yes, the government is engaged on this

issue, as we have been through the pandemic.

[10:45 a.m.]

The member will recall, on occasion, special flights having been

chartered in B.C., by the Ministry of Health, to ensure that children get

access to what they need. We’re continuing to pursue those efforts. It’s an

important and critical thing. We have seen — over the last number of years but

particularly since the beginning of the pandemic — some of our traditional

suppliers, including in the United States, restricting access to essential

items. It reminds us of the need to build our domestic supplies of vital

resources.

but the government is engaged, at all levels, in trying to support the health

of children, as we were during the pandemic. We took specific action. Issues

were raised, including issues raised by members of the opposition personally

with me, and action was taken as a result.

I appreciate very much the member raising that question

today.

LABOUR DISPUTE IN

SEA TO SKY TRANSIT

SYSTEM

J. Sturdy: Transit users in the Sea to Sky are suffering from a transit strike

entering into its fifth month, with no end in sight.

Six weeks ago I asked the Minister of Labour to step in so that people

can get where they need to go. Nothing has happened. He hasn’t done a

thing.

If this were happening in the Premier’s backyard or the Labour

Minister’s backyard or the Transportation Minister’s backyard, I’m sure this

prolonged dispute would be deemed to be completely unacceptable and would have

been resolved sometime ago. I think the government knows that.

When will this minister do his job and put these parties into binding

arbitration?

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for raising this issue. I share the concern

of the member for the impact this strike is having on the people of the Sea to

Sky corridor. We talked about this at numerous times.

That’s why I have reached out, my office has reached out, to both

parties on numerous occasions. I personally have reached out to both parties

and encouraged them to get back to the table. They did. As late as yesterday,

they were back at the bargaining table but with no results. The talks broke off

again.

I urged them, again, that the services of the labour board are available

to them. They are only a phone call away, and a mediator is available. We urge

both parties to get back to the bargaining table. That’s where the solution is.

Sitting aside and breaking talks are not going to solve the problem. The

agreement is going to come when they’re at the bargaining table negotiating in

good faith.

FILMING OF COMMERCIAL IN LYTTON

D. Davies: For almost a year, people from Lytton have been living in motels,

waiting to know when they can return and rebuild their own homes.

You can imagine their disgust and dismay when last night, on television,

they saw that a private company had been allowed into Lytton to film a

promotional commercial amid the wreckage of their burned-out homes. The

commercial featured two young girls without protective gear pulling a wagon

through the streets of Lytton to the tune of “Walking on Sunshine.” It has been

completely traumatizing for Lytton residents, who are still barred from

returning to their own homes and rebuilding their lives.

My question. Can the minister explain how this is possible — that a

private company could film a commercial in Lytton before the residents have

been allowed to return home to rebuild their own lives?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I shared exactly the same concern

as the member did when I heard that this had, in fact, taken place.

This was a decision made by the council of Lytton. It is not something

that I would have done. The council of Lytton does make these decisions,

Member. They don’t come and ask the province for permission. Quite frankly, I

found it mind-boggling that that’s what, in fact, took place.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to let the member know that

residents are able to return to their property. What they do have to do is

check with the city of Lytton and make sure that there is protective gear.

Currently there is significant debris removal underway.

[10:50 a.m.]

The province is working very closely with the insurance industry,

dealing with those residents who have insurance and making it clear that the

province — as I have said repeatedly in this House — is paying for the cost

associated with the archaeology work and that we want that done as quickly as

possible so that people can get back and rebuild.

The reality is this. That was a decision made by the city of Lytton, and

it’s not one that I would have made. As I said, I share your concerns about

that as well.

BACKLOG OF CASES AT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

BRANCH

G. Kyllo: There are huge backlogs at the employment standards branch that have

only grown under the NDP’s watch.

Data shows that the number of unresolved cases has increased by 1,000

percent, 50 percent of cases are taking over six months to resolve, and complex

files are taking upwards of a year and a half before an officer is even

assigned to the file. This is hurting employers and employees who are waiting

for a resolution to their problems and can’t get it from this

government.

What is the minister doing to clear the massive backlog of cases that

are waiting to be heard at the employment standards branch?

Hon. H. Bains: Let’s be clear. The backlog at the employment standards branch always

existed under their watch, and it exists today. The only difference is that

under their watch it was hidden.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: The complaints, under their watch, from 11,000 a year, went down to

4,500. Why? It was because half of the employment standards branches were shut

down. Half of the officers were laid off. If that wasn’t good enough, they

threw in a self-help kit. For anyone who had a complaint, they were told: “Fill

out this stack of papers. You’re on your own. Go and resolve it

yourself.”

We are taking action. We’re taking action, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. H. Bains: We have added $14 million, when we formed government, to add more

resources — 35 new officers. As of last year, we added another 24, on a

temporary basis, and more are coming. We are committed to making sure that the

workers who need help when they feel that their rights have been violated can

get the help, when they need it, in a timely fashion.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

R. Merrifield: The NDP has now confirmed that their consultation exercises on their

clawback of autism funding were nothing but a sham.

This week the minister charged ahead and ignored parents by issuing a

request for proposals for the new hub model that will begin next year. This RFP

all but confirms that parents won’t have access to the same level of service,

which will “shift away from the concept of one-to-one intervention.”

When will the minister get serious about listening to parents by pumping

the brakes and cancelling this request for proposals?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question.

It is very important to be listening to families. We’ve been engaging

formally with families since 2019. The ministry has been hearing for years,

from many families, that the current approach of a patchwork access to services

leaves far too many children behind. We’re going to continue listening to

families, service providers, community agencies and Indigenous communities as

we work on the early implementation and as we continue forward with provincial

implementation into 2024 as well.

There’s currently a survey available on the website. It’s available in

five languages. We want to provide lots of different ways to continue listening

to families, and we’re committed to working with families to get this right. We

know that there are far too many families out there who have a worry about

their child, and they want to be able to bring them to a service provider or a

therapist and to be able to be receiving services now — not to have to wait for

a diagnosis.

This is the new system that we’re building. We’re building it in

partnership with families, communities and service providers so that all

children and youth with support needs will be able to thrive.

[10:55 a.m.]

ACTION ON AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

P. Milobar: Inflation is at its highest level in over 30 years right now. Housing,

rents, gas prices, groceries are all higher than ever. Well over half of

British Columbians are now $200 or less, every single month, from insolvency

and not paying their bills.

People have been asking for help now, and they’re not seeing it from

this government. In fact, the only measure this government has done to try to

bring in affordability in the last while was cabinet making sure they gave

themselves a retroactive $20,000 pay raise while the rest of British Columbians

are desperately awaiting help.

Three weeks ago now the Premier was very clear. He said he directed the

Finance Minister to “bring forward initiatives to assist with inflation.” That

was three weeks ago now. Gas alone has gone up another 20 cents a litre in that

three weeks.

Can the Finance Minister give an update on when exactly those

inflation-fighting initiatives will be announced — new inflation-fighting

initiatives?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

As a government, we recognize the challenges for British Columbians,

particularly, certainly, in recent months. We also need to be clear that as

people are coming out of the pandemic, as things are starting to open up, the

increase in inflation, the increase in gas costs and the increase in food costs

are hurting those who are most vulnerable.

I also think that we need to recognize significant steps that we have

been taking and that we are continuing to take. I think around how much more

difficult it would be for British Columbians if we hadn’t been taking the steps

that we’ve been taking over the last five years. I think, based on just some

rough calculations, that British Columbian families….

Let’s think about a family, perhaps, in Surrey. What would be happening

to that family if we hadn’t taken the steps that we took?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. S. Robinson: They would be paying bridge tolls. Kevin Falcon brought those in. They

would be paying bridge tolls of $1,200, $1,400 a year.

Interjections.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: If we hadn’t eliminated MSP, if we hadn’t done that…. That was a tax

that doubled under their watch that we eliminated. That family is now saving

$1,800.

The child opportunity benefit….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s $2,600 in people’s pockets. And free transit for children. So

just that

summary, that’s $7,400 a year in people’s pockets.

Oh, ICBC. Let’s not forget that. I forgot that. Not only are they paying

20 percent less in their annual insurance…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. S. Robinson: …but they’re getting rebates. And the rebates…. The third rebate is

coming this month — the third rebate.

There is absolutely more work to do. We are working to continue to

deliver for British Columbians when they need it most.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

J. Sims: I have the honour to present the Select Standing Committee on Children

and Youth’s annual report, 2021-22.

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

Motion approved.

J. Sims: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

J. Sims: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief

comments.

As members may be aware, the Select Standing Committee on Children and

Youth works to foster greater awareness and understanding of the British

Columbia child and youth serving system. The committee also provides a public

forum for the discussion of reports by the Representative for Children and

Youth.

[11:00 a.m.]

This annual report covers the committee’s work in 2021 to 2022, during

which the committee reviewed three reports from the representative: an

investigative report on the importance of connection and belonging to a family,

culture and community for children in care; an investigative report on the

experiences of children and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, their

families and others who support them; and the representative’s annual report

and service plan.

The committee also began its statutory required review of the

Representative for Children and Youth Act, for which the committee recently

opened its public consultation.

In reflecting on the committee’s work, I would like to thank the

representative, Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, her staff as well as the dedicated

public servants across many, many ministries for the important work that they

do on behalf of children, youth and young adults and their families in British

Columbia.

I would also like to thank all committee members, particularly the

former Deputy Chair, the member for Cariboo North, and the current Deputy

Chair, the member for Peace River South, for their work and dedication to this

committee.

A special thank-you to the legislative staff who support the work of

this committee.

M. Bernier: As the Deputy Chair of this important committee, I wanted to rise to

recognize and thank the representative, the staff and the many public servants,

as well, who work so hard, in front of the scenes and behind the scenes, to

help this committee and to help the people of British Columbia — the young, the

youth and the families — in such a difficult situation in life that many of

them face.

I want to acknowledge the Chair and the members of the committee, who

work so well together on this important committee as we try to make benefits to

help people in the province, and Karan Riarh and everybody else in the Clerk’s

office for the great work that they do to support the committee.

I know that, at the committee, there can be very complex, difficult

discussions that take place. It’s important not only for the committee but for

this House and for the people of British Columbia that we have those

conversations so that we can work collaboratively and collectively to try to

help some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

I’m looking forward to continuing that work as a committee, going

forward for the next year and years to come, with the representative and with

all of the people.

It’s an important time to do a shout-out as well. The lines are now open

— just as a reminder to people — for submissions, as we’re looking at the role

of the representative. We want to ensure that people come forward with their

ideas and their thoughts, as we undertake the statutory review.

With that, thank you, hon. Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call further committee stage on Bill 10, Labour Relations

Code Amendment Act.

In Committee of Supply, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates for the

Ministry of Health.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On clause 5 (continued) .

G. Kyllo: At the end of the day yesterday, I was inquiring with the minister with

respect to what form of notification is provided to the employer when the

employment branch is actually presented with an application for certification.

I’m trying to get some clarity around whether there’s a requirement for some

form of a written acceptance of the agreement or notification, I guess, from

the employment standards branch. The minister had shared that it’s his

understanding that the employment standards branch would notify the employer by

facsimile or by email.

My question to the minister. Is there any form or requirement for an

officer of the company to actually sign or acknowledge receipt of that

notification?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I read the rules for specific applications under

part 3, on

certification, and what the requirements are. It says: “Where a trade union

applies for certification under the code, the trade union shall file its

application in a form set by the board and may at the same time present for

verification membership cards signed in support of the application.”

Then it goes on: “Where an application for certification is made, the

board shall (

a) notify the employer and employees concerned by sending the

employer a notice in a form set by the board, (

b) notify any other trade union

which may have a collective bargaining relationship with the

employer.”

Then it goes on to say: “On receipt of the notification, under the

sub-rule (2)(a), the employer shall immediately post and keep posted a copy of

the notice at its business premises for five consecutive working days, or at

such other place that allows all employees affected by the application an

opportunity to see and examine the notice.”

There is a process that the board has developed, and these are the rules

that they follow. How they do that is left up to the board. We canvassed this

the other day, how they reach out to the employer. Employers now are required

to post that notice in a lunchroom or other places where all employees can see

it. By virtue of that process, the board will know that the notice is posted or

not posted, because there’s a union involved as well. The workers are watching

in that operation. So the board will know whether the notice is

posted.

Once the notice is posted, it’s obvious that the employer has received

it. If it’s not posted, someone from the operation or the union side will

approach the board and say that application was made but it’s not posted.

That’s when the board will take the next steps, whatever the steps they may

take, to reach out to the employer, go to the premises, whatever the process

they have in place. They have those processes in place. That’s how this whole

process works.

It’s not that the notice was sent, everyone forgot about it, and the

employer didn’t even know anything about it. There are a number of steps that

must take place under the rules. If the board is advised that the notice is not

posted when they send the notice to the employer, the board will know. Then the

board will take the next steps to ensure that the notice is posted, to ensure

that the employer has received the notice.

G. Kyllo: The minister did read into the record the requirement, but I have one

additional question around that. Are there any limitations with respect to the

days of the week or the time of day by which the employment standards branch

would actually provide that notification to the employer?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I read the rules that the board followed. The understanding between the

parties, the union that applies for certification, the board…. The expectation

is that upon receipt of the application for certification, once the board

confirms that there is a legit application, they will advise the employer

immediately, without delay. That’s the process they have followed, and I

haven’t heard any complaints about that.

By the way, I’d just like to correct the member. It’s all under the

jurisdiction of the labour board. Occasionally, they may utilize employment

standard branch officers. But it is the authority — under the labour code to

the labour board — which follows through the application and then the process

following that.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that additional clarification from the minister.

As we talk about moving away from the two-step process and relying

solely on the card-check system…. If I’m correct in hearing the minister’s

response, it’s that there is no legislative or regulatory requirement that

clearly sets out or states the day of the week or the time of day when the

labour board would actually be providing that notification to the

employer.

I appreciate the labour board likely will take every effort, as the

minister has indicated, to provide that notification immediately. But should

that application come in on a Friday afternoon, as an example, and the labour

board receives it, if they were to provide that notification to the employer on

a Friday afternoon at four o’clock, it’s my understanding, from the minister’s

response, that there’s no regulatory requirement around the timing.

A notification could be provided to an employer at four o’clock on a

Friday afternoon, and there would be nothing that would put that offside with

respect to the regulation or legislation. To the minister: if you could just

confirm that for me.

Hon. H. Bains: The advice that I’m receiving is that the scenario that the member has

laid out… If the Labour Relations Board office closes at 4:30…. They have

working hours. They close at certain times.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’m just using this…. If they close at 4:30, as an example, and the

application is received at, say, four o’clock, if they have time to examine it,

they’ll send the email out to the employer before the closing time. If they

don’t have time, then they will send it at the opening of the next business

day. So if they open the following day at nine o’clock, then they will come in,

and that’s the time. They will send the notice to the employer out at that

time.

Those are the kinds of mechanical operational issues that they have. I

don’t dictate them. I think they are…. I have full confidence in the operation

of the board, the quality of the service that they provide and the due

diligence that they do. They have responsibilities both to the employer and to

the union, so they have to take a balanced approach — what is

reasonable.

If they have time, if logistically they can deal with the application

and there’s time to send it out, they’ll do it. If they don’t have time, then

they’ll come in, in the morning, at the opening of the next business day, and

they’ll do it at that time. That’s the way my understanding is.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister providing that real-world example of the

potential for an application for certification to be provided from a union to

the labour board on a Friday morning or a Friday afternoon.

Providing there are enough working hours in the day, it is conceivable —

and legislatively and regulatorily, I guess, accepted — that the labour board

could provide that notification as late as 4 p.m. on a Friday. I just want to

confirm that that is correct, that I’ve heard the minister accurately represent

the ability and authority of the labour board to provide notification to an

employer, as late as 4 p.m. on a Friday, and that that would be

acceptable.

Hon. H. Bains: They will notify the employer if it’s practical to send the notice out

before the closing hour, whatever the closing hour is.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the minister confirming that.

The notification to the employer can be undertaken either through

facsimile or by email. I certainly stand to be corrected if there’s any

additional requirement, but it does not appear — and it’s certainly not my

understanding — that there’s a requirement for the labour board to actually

receive acknowledgment of receipt of that email or a receipt by the company of

that facsimile notification. It’s certainly plausible that it’s Friday

afternoon, and a notification comes into a corporation, by email or fax.

There’s no requirement that the company provide written or even verbal

confirmation of receipt of that notification.

Could the minister confirm that just by simply putting that notification

on a fax machine and sending it to the company or by emailing a document to the

company, that in itself would suffice, or satisfy the requirement of

notification to the company?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The practical part of this is all managed by the board. Understand that

once the application is made, notice is sent to the employer. Then the board

needs an employees list from the employer. They will find a way to reach out to

the appropriate person in the operation. Without confirming the employees list

compared to the applications made and the cards signed, they cannot

proceed.

There is a process for a labour board officer to reach out to the

employer and make sure that those arrangements are made. That’s how this

process works. Again, I leave it to the labour board. They are the ones who

manage this process.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that additional information from the minister. I think I’d

like to come back to timing in a moment.

The minister references the employment list. We’ve had discussion about

the requirement for the labour board to reach out to the company to acquire or

to obtain a copy of a current employee list from the company. Obviously, that’s

incredibly important under a card check, because it’s that list by which the

labour board would actually review the list to determine eligible employees and

then correlate that with the membership cards that were submitted by the union

representative.

With respect to the employment list that the labour board would be

seeking, is there, written either in legislation or in regulation, a

requirement that that employment list come directly from the company, either by

email or by facsimile? Is there a requirement for an officer of the company to

sign or in any way attest that that is a true copy, a current list or indeed an

accurate list which reflects all company employees?

Hon. H. Bains: The board actually orders the employer to provide the employee list.

It’s not anybody else; it’s the employer. They must contact the employer who is

affected by this application and receive the employee list from the

employer.

G. Kyllo: Great. It may seem a bit nuanced with respect to how that list is

provided, but the list is incredibly important, as the minister is aware. He’s

nodding. He’s acknowledging the importance of that list.

My question, though, is: is there a requirement for that list to come

from a signing officer of the company or the corporation? Is there a

requirement, either in legislation or in regulation, that requires an officer

of the company — somebody duly authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation

— to provide and furnish that list? Or could that list be sent in from a

payroll clerk, as an example? Would that, indeed — just the furnishing of that

employment list — satisfy the requirement under the act?

Hon. H. Bains: I don’t think it’s the government’s job to regulate who in the

corporation must provide certain documents. It’s up to the employer. The

employer will decide who is the person in charge of dealing with that

particular case and the application. If they choose to allow a clerk to send

the list, that’s their prerogative. If they choose that the president will do

that, that’s their prerogative. Some of them have an HR department. They may

ask the HR officer to provide it. It is left up to the employer, but the list

must come from the employer’s authorized person.

[11:30 a.m.]

G. Kyllo: When that list is submitted to the labour board, is there a requirement

for the labour board to collect or maintain or in any way document who within

the corporation furnished or provided that list? Or is the fact that a list

could come in from a fax machine from that company to the labour board…? Would

that, in itself, satisfy the requirement, or is there any other form of written

acknowledgment that this is, indeed, a true list?

The reason I’m asking the question is that the request will come in. It

could be late on a Friday. The owners of the company may not be around, may not

be accessible, may not be aware. There could be anybody in a company that could

potentially walk past the fax machine, see a fax coming in and just respond to

that by providing an employee list and faxing it back to the labour board,

thinking they were doing the right thing.

I’m trying to make the determination: is it entirely plausible that that

list could come in from anybody at the corporation and not necessarily any

senior management personnel or an officer of the company?

Hon. H. Bains: There’s a definition of who the employer is under the code. In the rules

that I read, that the employer must do this — then they must fall within the

definition of the employer. The board will ensure that has happened.

Now, the board…. It doesn’t just end — that they receive the document

and, all of a sudden, certification is granted. No, there are a number of steps

after that. The board must do due diligence to make sure that the list is

legit. There usually is more than one phone call or meeting between the

employer and the board, more than one meeting or conversation with the

organizers or the union representative.

If, during the discussions, the board finds there are some concerns

being raised, they’ll investigate those to ensure that the list is proper, to

ensure that the cards that are signed and presented to them are proper and

signed within the rules. That’s their role. When they are satisfied that the

list that is provided to them by the employer is the list, then they also are

satisfied that the cards that are presented for certification by the union are

the people who actually signed and match the payroll list provided by the

employer. That’s when they take next steps.

[11:35 a.m.]

Again, if either party believes that there is some concern that the

board is not following through or is considering something they shouldn’t be

considering or neglected something they should consider, there is a process for

them to challenge the board. There is a process for the board then to further

investigate, including hearings, where both sides bring their experts, lawyers

or whoever they want to bring in.

They question each other. They question the documents. They

cross-examine each other, and that’s the process. It’s pretty robust, and

that’s the process that is followed by the board. It’s not something new being

created. It’s there for a long time. I have not heard any issues by either

parties that there are some issues, some flaws, in that process of determining

the application is legit, determining that the list that is provided to the

board by the employer is legit, and then the board will make decisions based on

those.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that additional information.

The minister references the employer, and he’s indicated that the labour

board must notify the employer and that there’s a definition which determines

who the employer is. Can the minister provide, maybe, the definition of

“employer,” and who at a corporation would be deemed to be constituted as the

employer and able to act on behalf of the labour board?

Hon. H. Bains: Under the definition

section of the code, the employer means: “a person

who employs one or more employees or uses the services of one or more dependent

contractors and includes an employers’ organization.” So that’s the definition

that has been there for a long time, and that’s the definition they will

follow.

Any time they contact the employer, they want to make sure that they

have contacted the right person. An employer can challenge that they didn’t

contact the right person. There is a process for that. An employer can

challenge that the list that they’re using is not their list.

Everything is in place to do the due diligence that the labour board

does all the time. So that process is quite robust, because like I said, the

board’s responsibility is to both sides. They are a neutral body in here, and

they want to make sure the natural justice prevails. In order to do that, they

have the procedures and policies in place for them to follow, under the

regulations under the code.

G. Kyllo: In the definition that the minister just read into the record, it

includes, basically, anyone in the organization. So from the definition that

the minister has provided, it is my understanding — and I certainly stand to be

corrected, if the minister feels otherwise — anybody in the corporation,

anybody working for the company, would be able to furnish the list to the

labour board, and that would satisfy the requirement of the labour board. Can

the minister just clarify that that is correct?

Hon. H. Bains: The definition of employer means someone who employs people. It’s not

anybody who is employed by the employer, as the member has said, that I think I

heard. Also, I want to draw the attention that we have canvassed extensively in

the past few days, again, the process relating to application.

[11:40 a.m.]

“The board must, in respect of an application for certification under

this part, (

a) make or cause to be made the examination of records and other

inquiries, including the holding of hearings it considers necessary to

determine the merits of the application for certification.” The board has that

requirement, and they follow through it very diligently.

Like I said, I have not heard any complaints about the board not

delivering those responsibilities they have by either party. That process, in

my view, is not in question.

They follow it through. Both parties understand that, parties to the

certification, and the board will ensure that the right person at the

employer’s operation is reached. They will make sure that the list is legit

that is provided to them. They’ll make sure, on the union side, that the cards

signed are the people who actually signed and then signed under the rules and

the procedure that was set out.

Once they have done their due diligence, that’s when they take the next

step.

The Chair: I want to remind the House that we are, indeed, on clause 5. The

Chair has allowed considerable leeway in terms of discussion and questions

far beyond this clause. I would remind us that we are on clause

Recognizing the member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I always appreciate your

advice.

The questioning around the process and manner in which the employment

list is obtained from the corporation, the notification requirement — the

notification for a company to post a notice for all workers to see — is

definitely part of the bill and actually speaks directly to this particular

section.

As a follow-up, when the minister provided the definition…. The

definition that was provided, including…. I believe he had indicated a member

of the organization, and any employee would be considered a member of the

organization.

I don’t want to belabour the point, but the point I’m trying to make is

that there is the potential and the opportunity for a list to be provided to

the labour board, certainly by somebody other than a signing officer of the

corporation. It is not unreasonable for the potential of a list to come in, a

list to be sent from a corporation into the labour board by fax or by email, by

anyone in the organization.

It does not appear, or I certainly haven’t heard that yet from the

minister, that there’s even a requirement for the labour board to document who

that list was received from within the organization. The labour board could

potentially receive a list from the fax number of the company as late as three

or four o’clock on a Friday afternoon without anybody’s name attached, with no

guarantee or certainty that any senior management or an officer of the company

were actually even aware that that list was furnished to the labour

board.

I want to make sure. The minister has spoken about the rigour around

which this process unfolds. Unfortunately, I’m not hearing that rigour, that

rigorous process.

If there is a requirement for any list being furnished from the

corporation to be attested to and signed off by a senior officer of the

company, I’m satisfied. But if that does not exist, I certainly believe that it

is not a rigorous process, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the potential of

a list to be furnished to the labour board to satisfy the requirement of the

labour board without the knowledge of a senior manager or an officer of the

company.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: My understanding is that it’s the legal obligation on the employer to

ensure that the right list is sent and by the appropriate people. The board

must be satisfied that the list is legit and that it came from the

employer.

There are offences if someone knowingly sent the wrong information. It

is an offence. It’s the employer’s responsibility to make sure that the list is

sent to the board, that it is legit and also that it is by an authorized

person.

G. Kyllo: What efforts does the labour board take to ensure that the list provided

by the company, from the company’s fax machine or from an email…? What efforts

does the labour board undertake to ensure that that list is accurate? In

receiving that list from the company, is there a requirement to understand who

that list was furnished by? Is there a requirement for a signature from an

officer of the company that’s dated? Or is it just simply a list that could

come in on a fax machine, from the fax number of the company to the labour

board?

Is it only inacceptable, from the labour board, if that fax comes in

with an employment list with nobody’s name, nobody’s date, no verification of

who it came from? It’s simply furnishing that list and the labour board

office…. Would that satisfy the requirement of the labour board that a list has

been received from the company, and would the labour board be able to look at

that list in order to make their determination?

The minister had referenced the examination of documents. I appreciate

there’s a requirement of the labour board to examine the membership cards that

might be submitted and to also examine the employment list.

When examining the list, I think it’s really important to understand

that it is an employee list that has come in from the fax machine from a

company. Is that list — without a name, without a signature, without a date,

without any clear indication or understanding from the labour board on who,

specifically, from the company sent that list…? Would that satisfy the

requirement of the board, under the current legislation or

regulation?

Hon. H. Bains: I answered that question, Mr. Chair.

G. Kyllo: From the minister’s, I guess, non-answer, I can only assume that that

is, indeed, correct. From the labour board’s position, there’s no legislative

or regulatory requirement for the labour board, in any way, shape or form, to

verify that that list that is being sent to them has come from an officer of

the company, senior management of the company. There’s no requirement to verify

with a follow-up phone call, speaking to the president or the owner of the

company. The only requirement and obligation of the labour board is to receive

that list, and that list would be examined, based on face value.

Hon. Chair, the minister talked extensively about the rigour around the

process. Sadly, I don’t see any rigour.

[11:50 a.m.]

A list could be sent to the labour board by anybody in the organization,

without any requirement that an officer or senior management of the company is

even aware that this request has come in. A list could be sent in to the labour

board, from the fax machine of that corporation, and that, unto itself, would

satisfy the requirement of the labour board.

That, I believe, is deeply troubling, for a number of reasons. One is

that the potential for a certification consideration by the labour board will

have significant impacts on the relationship between the corporation and the

employee — probably one of the most significant impacts, positive or negative.

We don’t need to determine whether it’s a good or bad move. Just the sheer fact

of a certification of workers in a corporation would have the most significant

impact on the relationship between employees and the employer.

There is no rigour, no regulatory or legislative requirement — and we

certainly haven’t even seen any internal policy within the labour board — that

would in any way, shape or form guarantee or confirm that an officer or senior

management within the company is even aware that this certification process is

underway. I am incredibly challenged and saddened that the smallest effort is

not undertaken and the smallest policy or procedure is not established, whereby

a list that’s being furnished from a company needs to be attested to and maybe

even notarized by a senior officer of the company.

That would, then, give the labour board confidence that the list that

was furnished to them was submitted by a senior officer of the company,

somebody that has signing authority. If there were any concerns around the

validity or the accuracy of that list, at least the labour board would be able

to go back to that individual and say: “Ted, your signature is here. What do

you mean that this isn’t a true and accurate copy of that list?” But the labour

board doesn’t even have to make an inquiry as to who the list came

from.

How would the labour board even be able to make a determination that

there has been an offence filed or that a wrong list or an inaccurate list was

provided? Even a detail as simple and simplistic as that is not part of either

the current regulation or the legislation that is being presented before this

House. I’m absolutely dumbfounded that that lack of process actually

exists.

I certainly have some additional follow-up questions, with respect to

timing and the importance of that timing, and I’m certainly looking forward to

continuing this debate after lunch.

The Chair: Just to be clear, the question has been asked a number of times, and

the answer has been given a number of times. The Chair does suggest that

repetition is becoming a problem on this particular point. I would ask the

member to look at further questions that are not about the exact same

subject that we’ve been focused on for a considerable amount of time with

responses from the minister and questions given back and forth.

I do note the hour, and I thank the member for noting the

hour.

If the minister would like a response, there is the appropriate

time.

Hon. H. Bains: I answered that question.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $25,308,645,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition.

S. Bond: Thank you. As I will repeat, these estimates will last longer than my

title. So we will continue.

Interjection.

S. Bond: That’s right. I’m training the minister now to call me the Health

critic.

Thank you very much. Thanks, again, to the staff. We appreciate all of

the hard work that’s done. We can tell by the bucketloads of binders that they

lug in every day.

This morning I wanted to give some of my colleagues an opportunity.

Obviously, there’s a big, long lineup. We’ve managed to try to choose some of

the regional issues that are a significant priority for us.

I’d like to, Madam Chair, cede the floor to my colleague from Peace

River North.

D. Davies: I was going to also make mention about the binders. I don’t think I’ve

ever seen this many binders in estimates before. It must be lots of

information.

Interjection.

D. Davies: There you go.

Thanks to the minister and my colleague for allowing me a few minutes

here to ask a couple of questions. It’s certainly important that I do get on

the record for the residents of not only Peace River North but the entire

northeast.

I know that we’ve been talking about the HR plan. There is a shortage,

without a doubt, of health professionals in the northeast — Fort St. John, Fort

Nelson.

[11:10 a.m.]

Some of the stories I hear…. They’re short of lab techs in Fort Nelson.

There’s a job posting for a 0.4 lab tech. It just doesn’t make sense. No one is

going to leave somewhere else in the province to move to Fort Nelson to go do a

0.4. I’m hoping that some of these dialogues are trickling down to create some

innovative ways to get people into these communities that are farther away,

more remote.

My question is not only around lab techs, but our nurses, our doctors,

especially for the smaller, more remote communities like Fort Nelson. To

attract…. We’ve heard a little bit about the HR plan that is coming. What

specifics in that plan will there be for these smaller, more remote

communities, such as Fort Nelson?

Hon. A. Dix: I just wanted to express my appreciation to the hon. member, in

particular, for some of the work that we’ve done together, during the pandemic,

in the northeast. He and his colleague from Peace River South have been

important advocates for their communities but also for the needs of public

health in a pandemic. I want to recognize that here today.

The member will know that there are a number of significant measure that

have been taken, of course. We’ll go through some of them; some of them are on

the record. I don’t want to take up all the time of his colleagues.

The initiative around increasing nursing spaces, for example, has a

focus. New programs, including in his constituency, are very important. I think

training registered nurses and health sciences professionals in the North will

help us keep people in the North. That’s a critical, important point: 602 new

spaces. We also have identified changes for internationally educated nurses.

We’ve had a very significant response, I should say, since that announcement

was made. Some of our effort is to focus that on jobs available in communities

from around the province, whether it be Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or 100

Mile.

I would say, in my meetings with the mayor and council in Fort Nelson,

at UBCM, our meetings with the mayor and council in Fort St. John — Mayor

Ackerman and others — that when health care workers come, they are very, very

significantly welcomed. We also are looking…. On nursing, that’s significant.

Very shortly, you’ve seen the changes and the additional programs with respect

to the training of health sciences professionals in the North and around

B.C.

That work, and increasing allied health spaces in terms of spaces, in

terms of training — which is a critical component of what we need to do — is

coming as well, as they are. As the member will know, many rural and remote

communities benefit from the practice-ready assessment program for doctors, and

16 of those spaces every year, in each intake of those places, go to rural B.C.

and rural programs. I believe that that program can be advanced.

It presents some challenges, as the member will know, for communities,

because they tend to be three-year stints. The hope is — in some cases, this

occurs — that people will stay in those communities. Nevertheless, while

they’re there, that’s significant support and care. The provision and the

addition of nursing spaces, of ambulance paramedic spaces — and the fact that

in addition to everything else, Northern Health has conducted a mass

vaccination program, a contact tracing program and support program —

demonstrates a commitment to the North. I think that this is

something.

We’ve had a little bit of this discussion, for patients in the North,

around issues of surgery. We’re looking at specific action. In British

Columbia, in many areas — for example, orthopedic surgeries — we’re number one

in Canada. I’m very proud of that, as the member would understand. We’ve gone

from low to high. But we haven’t made that progress in Northern Health because

of the issues of last year, where, essentially, we saw ICUs filled up across

Northern Health.

We are looking at specific actions so that we don’t have a surgical

program that, overall, is number one in Canada but where people in Northern

Health have more difficult access to care. One of the things I’m really proud

of in the North is access to diagnostic care. As you’ll be aware, MRIs in

Canada, on average, in 2017, were 62 per 1,000, on average. In the North, they

were 23. We’ve added new MRI machines, funded and supported by staff that have

reduced those wait times and increased access, doubling access to MRIs in the

Northern Health Authority.

[11:15 a.m.]

We have to take these steps on all health sciences professionals,

ambulance paramedics. The health care assistant program has been very

supportive to support care homes in the North, especially during the COVID-19

pandemic. We’ll be talking about that in more detail on Monday. All of those

efforts — HCAP, health sciences professionals, doctors, nurses…. We’re not

waiting to take those actions.

Finally, I’ll just say…. I’ve briefed the member on this. He’ll know

about it, so I won’t talk about it in greater detail. Our provincial rural

retention incentive, which goes to many workers in his constituency and across

the North — from October to December 2021, 785 employees benefited; from

January to March ’22, 803 employees benefited from that program. And there is a

series of other programs.

Who did that include in those lines? Registered nurses, registered

psychiatric nurses, licensed practical nurses, health care assistants,

community health workers, medical laboratory technologists, and so on. These

are some of the measures we’re taking, along with working with

communities.

The final thing I’d say is this. The member would know that there’s a

relatively new — it doesn’t feel new anymore — hospital in Fort St. John. There

will be a new hospital in Dawson Creek. There will be a new tower in Prince

George. I know it doesn’t matter to his constituency, but also Terrace and Fort

St. James, right?

I think that part of it is demonstrating our commitment to communities

in the North, and in communities such as Fort Nelson, that means looking at….

What we have to look at is continuing to find ways to support families who do

have to travel for care. The issue of maternity in Fort Nelson is something

I’ve talked to the member about many times.

It’s very challenging for the region, because the demand isn’t such to

make it easy to provide services there. But the impact on families can be large

when people have to travel for care, particularly for things such as maternity

care.

I think there’s an expectation, when you’re in Fort Nelson, that there’s

not going to be a cancer centre in Fort Nelson. But I do think that we have to

look at improving travel, improving our supports for families, as well, for

travel. That is a reality for many people in the North who travel for care but

also in the Interior Health Authority. We have to do better in supporting

that.

I think I’ll leave it there. I know the member may have a

supplementary.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. I could go down a number of rabbit holes from many

things that you said.

What this member does know is that wait times in our hospitals are

longer. In Fort St. John, we’re hearing stories of six-, eight-hour wait times

in emergency.

It’s no news to you that one in five British Columbians doesn’t have a

family doctor. I’m one of them in Fort St. John, and I hear the stories all the

time in my constituency office and in Fort Nelson that we don’t have the health

care professionals we need in the North to serve the area.

The wait times. We know those wait times for specialty surgeries is

long. I’ve written you recently. I just got a response from you; I’m preparing

a response back. But it still comes down to a robust plan that is going to get

bums in seats, doctors in our communities, nurses in our

communities.

I was very excited to hear the announcement recently about the

orthopedic surgery in Fort St. John, the internist. Exciting to hear surgery, a

new surgeon, general surgery in the Fort St. John Hospital. Those are exciting

to hear, but we can’t get general practitioners into our community.

My next question is very specifically around these specialists. We want

two orthopedic surgeons in Fort St. John. We want an internist in Fort St.

John. We want another general surgeon in Fort St. John. These are very

specialized people. How are you going to get them into Fort St.

John?

Hon. A. Dix: I think Northern Health is doing some good work on the issue of surgery.

I appreciate the member’s supportive comments about the review we did of

orthopedic care in the northeast, because what you want to do is create work

flows.

[11:20 a.m.]

What do surgeons want to do? They want to perform surgeries. They want

to help people. They want to do that work. You have to create circumstances

where they’re going to be able to do that in a community.

Part of that change and that reform, which was not without its critics,

as the member will know…. I think what it does is create a much better

opportunity for recruitment. We’re confident about that — that the measures

we’re putting place will allow us to do that.

We have made strides on diagnostics and on surgery, but they were

greatly affected in the North by the COVID-19 pandemic. I talked to the Leader

of the Opposition about this yesterday. I would say, without judgment, that

when 160 people had to be moved out of ICUs, 125 of them positive with

COVID-19, that was the health system responding in the best possible way, which

is by getting people the care they needed — not minding the decimal points but

getting people the care they needed and that supported the North as

well.

I think we have to continue to…. I don’t think the challenges in the

North, while extraordinary in September and October and November and December

of last year…. They continue to be serious challenges.

We need to respond on capital. We need to address health human resources

issues in the North. We need to create opportunities to hire people, not with….

The member talked about the 0.4 medical technologists. Well, that situation

also applies to surgery, with the reason and the underpinning of the reform

that took place in the northeast around orthopedic surgeries. I think doing all

those things will help.

I really appreciate the support we’ve received from Mayor Ackerman, from

Mayor Bumstead for these initiatives. I think it’s excellent. There’s really a

team approach to these issues, whatever the sometimes partisan debate that

takes place. There’s a real team approach with the outstanding leadership in

Northern Health, led by our CEO there, Cathy Ulrich, who is really committed to

communities and who has a long experience in the North. We’re going to continue

to work through those problems.

I think, at its core, we need to train more people in the North, we need

to have programs like the ones we’ve put in place last year, and we have to

create positions that are going to be attractive to people who come and work.

That includes primary care.

Finally, with respect to Fort St. John and primary care, the member will

know that the primary care efforts…. The deputy minister, Mr. Brown, spent a

little bit of time in Fort St. John, I think, around developing the primary

care models, dating back seven or eight years, on the challenges in Fort St.

John. There’s obviously continuing to be issues there, and those issues have

been in place.

As the member rightly notes, one in five British Columbians in 2017. We

made a little bit of progress, and the pandemic has affected us again. It’s

still one in five. We’ve got to do better.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister, for your response. I do agree. There have been a lot

of great things we’ve worked on. I certainly don’t want to downplay that, but

we have a long ways to go.

One of the questions that I know myself…. We had spoken on the phone….

It seems like quite a while ago, maybe about a year ago or so. I believe the

mayor of Fort St. John and some others were on the phone. I know other

communities have chimed in, in regards to how do we do things

better.

One of the questions that came out of that was an audit, an audit of

Northern Health to look at best practices. How are things able to be improved?

I know, like I say, myself and others have called on this ministry to do an

external audit to Northern Health. I’m wondering if the minister has taken any

more of that into consideration.

Hon. A. Dix: I do want to put this in context. First of all, I have to say that there

is a lot of scrutiny on Northern Health. I don’t think there’s a health CEO in

British Columbia who receives more scrutiny and has engaged with more

communities than the president and CEO of Northern Health, Cathy Ulrich,

someone in whom I have full confidence.

If you look at the numbers, at the metrics of what’s happened the last

number of years, the very significant proposals that have been put forward and

taken forward by Northern Health on capital — which, I think, in their scope,

are unprecedented and really demonstrate the strength of the Northern Health

Authority — the impact on the surgical strategy….

[11:25 a.m.]

There’s more to do, but the impact on that is substantial, an increase

of 127 percent. Imagine that, in Northern Health, with a pandemic in the middle

of it, an increase of 127 percent in the number of MRI exams. Action has been

taken, since those calls for an audit, on issues of recruitment and retention

and on issues of health care recruitment, led by Northern Health.

What I said to people is that I think action is required. I think

Northern Health has a lot of scrutiny, so I don’t support, at present, any

external audit. I have full confidence in our outstanding board chair in

Northern Health, Colleen Nyce, and our outstanding CEO in Northern Health,

Cathy Ulrich. I think the truth is that there are real challenges to delivering

health care services in the North. We’re responding to those challenges

together.

What I’m always for is working with members of the opposition and

opposition communities. This is just what we’ve done. The member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke knows this. When issues are raised by opposition members, we

respond, and Cathy Ulrich responds, in, I think, an open and forthright way

always, responding to the needs of communities and of mayors and councils who

have real concerns and are also contributing a lot to the health care process.

We’re going to continue to do so.

In my view, Northern Health has performed well, and an external audit is

not required. There’s a lot of scrutiny on it already, as you know, every day,

in every community, from Fort Nelson to Fort St. John, in his riding, to all

the communities in between.

I would say that I think Northern Health has faced something that I

don’t think very few organizations in government or anyone else has faced in

the last year. They’ve had outbreaks of COVID-19 in communities of 100 people,

where half the people in the community — that was at the time of the delta

variant — got sick with COVID-19. They responded with resources, effort,

passion and support in the member’s riding and in many others.

I just want to say, here and now, that I’m very proud of Northern

Health. That doesn’t diminish in any way the challenges that people are

raising, that Mayor Ackerman, Mayor Bumstead and others who’ve raised these

issues are raising. I don’t diminish those at all, but I also have real

confidence in our team in Northern Health.

D. Davies: I’m not going to go further down the corporate audit. I do believe that

that is an important thing, and we are going to continue to call for that. To

me, it’s good practice, anyway, to have those external eyes looking in at how

these organizations operate. It was no different than when I was in city

council. We did a corporate audit on our corporation, our municipality. It

gives you good things to move forward with. I’ll leave that one there. I know

I’m already at, probably, my time.

I do have one final question that I do want to ask. That’s about Air

Ambulance helicopters and such. Through the province, there are designated air

ambulance helicopters. Parksville, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George,

Kamloops — all these areas are all covered off by a designated air ambulance

helicopter, except the northeast. There are ad hoc contracts, which aren’t the

same as having a designated helicopter.

We have miles of highway. The Alaska Highway, pretty much the majority

of it, goes through my riding of Peace River North. Most of that’s very remote

— great distances to either the Fort Nelson or the Fort St. John hospital.

There’s no cell service, for a big part. So when a call does come in, if

there’s a motor vehicle incident on a highway, often, it’s already an hour or

so after the accident has happened. Time is of the essence.

Things are busy right now within the resource sector, and in the oil and

gas sector. The forestry sector is fairly busy, mining…. You name it. It’s busy

up in the northeast, but we don’t have a designated air ambulance. There’s a

difference between designated and just having it ad hoc. The ambulance folks

have to go out to the airport. They’ve got to get an orientation to the

equipment. They’ve got to find out where the equipment goes, every time they go

out.

[11:30 a.m.]

That’s a very important time when they should be in the air flying to

where they need to be, rescuing that person or getting that person medical

help, as opposed to having a designated machine that’s designed and fitted for

the equipment so the paramedics can go out, get on the aircraft and go to the

scene. Is the minister looking at having a designated air ambulance for

northeastern B.C.?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much to the member for his question.

I think he will understand that there has been an unprecedented

investment — this is not something anybody is happy about — both on the

operating side and on the infrastructure side, in Air Ambulance in our

province. This happened, as the member will know, during the COVID-19 pandemic

— dedicated air ambulances. Nine airplanes were added; five helicopters were

added. We’ve made that change, partly because of COVID-19 — the fact that we

needed, often, to move people who were far away from the critical care they

might need closer to a hospital in advance. We put that system into place in

April. We announced it on April 20, 2020.

We’re currently looking at all those issues around air ambulance. Our

chief medical officer at B.C. emergency health services is looking at those

questions to see how the allocation works, how it works for communities,

against the calls we receive.

I’d just note this. It was obviously extraordinary last fall. We hope

not for a repetition of that. If you look at air ambulance transports by health

authority, you see, from the Northern Health Authority, more air ambulance

transports, by a very significant margin this past year, than any other health

authority — 3,338 transfers from Northern Health. We’ve, of course, added

resources in Prince George. This argues this position.

I tend to leave it to the experts in these areas, who understand the

response, including the medical director at BCEHS, as to how they should be

positioned to best serve the region. The distances, even within the member’s

riding, are simply vast. So how you situate, in responding to calls, is

important.

Just so that you will understand, last year we had 8,337 air ambulance

transports across B.C., and 3,338 of those were in Northern Health. Next was

Interior Health, which has, obviously, many more people but is different than a

very large health authority. It had 2,168.

This has been a massive venture. We’ve increased, very significantly,

our air ambulance component. I will take the suggestions and recommendations of

the hon. member forward to BCEHS as part of their review. Now that we’ve added

all that, we have to say: “Well, did we make the right decisions on

allocations, on our contracted allocations, on our direct BCEHS-owned

allocations?” I’ll take the member’s comments and forward them to the medical

director at BCEHS.

D. Davies: To close…. I don’t need a response, but I would like a response

following this. A follow-up from your office would be good.

Not to mix up with air ambulance…. Obviously, there’s lots of movement

from the hospitals in the North to larger medical centres. This is more

specifically the emergency, critical care. You know, it’s the helicopter

landing on a highway, picking up a patient, bringing them to Fort St. John to

get that next level of care. I think that’s what people are asking. If your

office can keep me in the loop on those discussions, on what is happening, that

would be greatly appreciated.

Hon. A. Dix: Just to the hon. member, to note, that’s exactly what we’re talking

about. The majority of air transport in the North is to the North, as he’d

understand. There was a very significant increase, around COVID-19, in the fall

of last year.

Overall, the vast majority of those 3,338 air transports were people, as

the member says, being picked up in the North and going to northern facilities.

This wasn’t movement from Dawson Creek to Vancouver, although there’s always

some of that for particular types of care that might only be available, say, at

St. Paul’s or so on.

[11:35 a.m.]

The vast majority of air-ambulance transports in the North are exactly

what the member says: they go from the North to the North. What we’ve done —

and what has happened, I think, significantly — are significant improvements to

the service. We felt, and I felt, that we needed to do that with COVID-19. You

needed to be able to move people more quickly, and sometimes move people in

advance of them being critical, if they were vulnerable and they had COVID-19 —

especially the delta variant and the previous variants — and then the COVID-19

that we had in 2020, all of that.

That’s why the changes were made. Now that we’ve done that, then we’ll

hope that we’ll have less of that, but we’ll see what happens this fall with

COVID-19. We’ll continue to take steps and do that review. That’s the reason

for it. It was a huge addition in resources, and now we’ve got to talk about

the best ways to allocate those resources. We’ll keep the member informed. I

think it’s the medical director and the team at BCEHS that needs to look at the

calls and decide where the place is for everybody in the North to get that

service.

D. Clovechok: I just want to thank our critic and our Leader of the Official

Opposition — one of the last times I’m going to be able to do that — for this

opportunity.

To the minister, I just want to say: thank you for working with me so

closely on the mass vaccination clinics in Invermere and in Golden. You were

very open and very quick to respond to that. I certainly, certainly appreciate

that on behalf of my community, because it was a breath of fresh air for so

many people. It seems like light years ago that that happened, but it was very

important.

I don’t have a lot of time, and I wish I did have a lot of time. The

minister will know that the border communities are very unique in many ways.

They’re small communities, and they’re attached to Alberta in so many ways.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the minister will know — I actually had met

with him several times about this — that I had met with Tyler Shandro, who at

that point was the Minister of Health in Alberta. Of course, that has changed

now, to Jason Copping.

Nonetheless, I’d just like to have a bit of an update from the minister.

The minister will know that Golden has a hot stroke protocol, an MOU with the

Foothills Hospital; it works very, very well. Has there has been any movement

on that transborder hospital issue? We are beginning to have overcrowding in

our facilities. I’ll get to that in my second question.

Has there been any movement between the two provinces in discussions? I

know that Alberta has kind of put up a bit of a wall, but we need to break that

wall down to service our patients better. Have we gotten anywhere, or are we

going to go anywhere with that?

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for his intervention. As he knows, we worked

together on some of the vaccination issues and also some BCEHS issues. I very

much appreciate the work we do together. Of course, he’s welcome into my office

any time. Hopefully, we’ll have a chance for a longer discussion on some of

these issues.

I want to be really clear, especially today, that this is without

judgment on Alberta. On wait times, on some key surgical items, they’ve fallen

behind British Columbia, and Alberta — in a general sense, on hospitalizations

— faced a more difficult COVID-19 than we did in B.C. They did.

[11:40 a.m.]

The consequences of that were real in Alberta hospitals. It meant that

many of the arrangements that had been made were made more difficult, not just

for people in B.C. but for people in Alberta — and, of course, equally for

people in B.C., in periods where non-urgent scheduled surgeries were

delayed.

The challenge, I think, in the member’s constituency — I think he would

agree with this — is that the really positive impact on wait times in Kelowna

is still a big challenge. If you live in his constituency, it’s Interior

Health, but it doesn’t feel like service is as close to home as it needs to be.

While some of that service is obviously provided in communities across the

Kootenays in regional hospitals, it’s still a significant challenge.

One of the things that we’ve done is that we have worked on issues, in

particular, around time-sensitive, life-limb and threatened-organ emergencies

along the B.C.-Alberta border. This followed discussions between B.C. and

what’s called Alberta Health Services. They have one health authority in

Alberta — another interesting reform. They’ve agreed to continue to provide

services for this. The member will know this, of course.

By the way, the traffic isn’t all one-way, although obviously, the

bigger health centres tend to be closer to the member’s riding than the ones in

B.C., and equally for Alberta. We are also working on the issue of non-urgent

elective surgeries. It’s a little more challenging for people. For some people

in border communities to Alberta, it might be more convenient or, I say, in a

real sense, very convenient — especially if you’re needing orthopedic surgery,

for example — to travel a shorter distance.

I suspect it’s unlikely that a lot of that will change soon, given the

circumstances in Alberta. They’re going to focus on orthopedics, where there

are longer wait times than we have in B.C. That’s a challenge. The good news is

that we’re improving wait times, but some of the opportunities that might have

been there in Alberta aren’t there.

We’re also working on a new memorandum of understanding to address these

issues more broadly. That includes work in Northern Health, Interior Health,

BCEHS and Alberta. We’re going to continue to work with them on those issues.

That’s what we’re doing now.

COVID-19 had a big effect on some of that movement, as you might expect,

because of the circumstances in the hospitals in B.C. and in Alberta. Officials

have been working together with them on those issues, on a daily basis, on an

individual-case basis. This work happens every single day — with Interior

Health, with the Ministry of Health and with Alberta Health Services — to deal

with individual cases that, obviously, require care either in Alberta or in

British Columbia.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I understand the constraints with that. I’ve spent a

lot of time speaking with Alberta doctors and with our doctors through the

Columbia Valley. Of course, Golden has got their own hospital, which needs a

new one, as the minister well knows. That is likely, hopefully, going to

happen.

Our doctors are actually referring patients to the doctors in Alberta

who are willing to accept them. The doctors that I have spoken to at length in

Alberta, whether they be oncologists or heart specialists — you name it — the

speciality medical folk there, are willing to take these patients, but the

administration won’t allow them to.

Every one of those doctors, to the person, has said that this is a

political issue in Alberta that needs to be solved, politician to politician. I

just share that with the minister. I don’t expect an answer for that, but the

doctors are willing to accept. We’re paying our bills when we get

charged.

It’s not that we’re not writing the cheques; we’re doing that. The

doctors in Alberta are more than willing to accept, especially, patients who

live in our area and who’ve had heart surgery in Alberta at the Foothills.

Their doctor is there, and they can’t access that doctor, which doesn’t make

any sense to them. It’s kind of hard to defend that. Just know that the doctors

in Alberta are willing to take our patients, but the administration — i.e.,

political interference, or whatever you want to call it — is not allowing

that.

I am going to move along, and I am going to take the minister’s offer to

meet and talk more about this stuff, absolutely.

[11:45 a.m.]

One of the things that we’ve really seen in the East Kootenay Regional

Hospital and, of course, in the Invermere Hospital…. The minister will know

we’ve got eight beds in that little hospital and some amazing nurses and

amazing doctors. But it’s overcrowding, and one of the reasons that it is

overcrowding is that, one, it’s an unforeseen result of COVID.

We had massive numbers of people who are second-home owners move from

Calgary to the valley to spend COVID in a smaller area, when it was at bad as

it was, and they decided to stay. We’ve got Albertans who are actually…. If you

cut your hand and need stitches and you know you need to seek medical care but

it’s not critical…. What they’re doing is they’re actually driving to Invermere

to get that service at our emergency. They’ll have a 12-, 14-hour wait because

they won’t triage, down in the bottom.

Our hospital is taking in Albertans who are driving three hours, staying

at their homes, yet accessing our emergency department. And we welcome them. I

mean, it’s the Canadian medical system. But because of that overcrowding…. I

mean, the Columbia Valley itself has grown, in the last census, 23.4 percent.

That’s a massive amount of growth, which is now putting pressure on that

hospital, on that infrastructure. It’s putting pressure on the doctors and, of

course, the nurses.

We’ve got patients that are in Invermere that should be on their route

to Kelowna, but Kelowna doesn’t have beds for them. So we’ve got heart patients

who need heart attention that are waiting three days to get that

attention.

Then, of course, you already referred to the transportation. I mean,

Angels Take Flight is a private organization, a non-profit that is flying

patients from Fairmont to Kelowna. It was great they stepped up with

that.

I’m wondering. Is there any thought of…? When you think about small

communities like mine, who are nimble and are very efficient…. But we’re

growing at such a fast pace. We’ve got eight beds. Invermere was 160 percent

capacity this last weekend. It was 130 percent capacity yesterday. How are we

going to deal with those growing numbers and the size of these

hospitals?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, I’m going to ask that you move the motion

and keep your answer till after.

Hon. A. Dix: I think because the member’s here, I’m going to be more precise and

concise than usual.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: I know there’s always a call for that. Therefore, I won’t take the bait

from the hon. member to criticize the Alberta Conservative government. I won’t

take that bait. I’m going to leave that aside from the hon. member, because I

wouldn’t want to do that. In fact, I work very closely with Minister Copping on

a lot of these issues.

I think what the member’s saying — I think it’s important; I communicate

this message to my friends in Alberta all the time — is there’s a great deal

more interdependence, a great deal more Alberta to B.C., than they often

recognize. Yes, they do take cases at Foothills and other hospitals and

obviously in the northern border, in the member for Peace River North’s riding.

But there’s a lot of people coming here all the time. That was particularly

true in COVID-19.

I think one of the things I’m looking at is communities such as

Invermere, such as Tofino, such as Whistler — other communities which have very

different populations at different times of the year or even different times of

the week. Where you see a community such as Invermere or even Golden…. You can

understand why people from Alberta want to come — okay, I’ll leave that aside —

to those communities. They’re beautiful places to come, and people often have

properties there.

The challenge in those communities is: how do you staff a community

which might have twice as many people on a Saturday than they did on a

Thursday? That’s something, absolutely, we’re looking at, and I appreciate the

member’s comment about that, bringing that to our attention.

In those communities…. You see it in Tofino as well. We’re looking at

the hospital project there, in meeting that test. We see it, and it has an

impact in Ucluelet and all those communities there, just as it does in

Invermere and Golden and Fernie and other communities close to the border of

Alberta.

That is a key question, and that is recognized. How do you deal with

hospital capacity in those circumstances? We have to think very seriously about

that.

A reminder, Alberta friends, just how many people from Alberta got care

here, especially during COVID-19, and I’m delighted they did.

I’m delighted they did. I think there are too many things dividing us,

and we don’t need provincial restrictions doing that. We’ve got to be open. But

as the member says, it’s a two-way street.

With that concise, pithy, short answer, I would say…

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: I have a spirit of optimism.

…that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 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.