Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 9, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 201

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Low Carbon Fuels Act

Hon. B. Ralston

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Teaching and anti-racism contributions of Lloyd

Edwards

J. Sims

Nursing Week and support for nurses

S. Bond

Aboriginal Head Start child care centre in

Langley

M. Dykeman

Volunteer fire departments

C. Oakes

Andrew Savin and hosting of Ukrainian refugees in

Chilliwack

K. Paddon

Abbotsford International Air Show

B. Banman

Oral Questions

Nurses’ concerns on conditions at hospitals and

government action on issues

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

K. Kirkpatrick

Nurses’ working conditions and culture

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Nurses’ concerns on conditions at hospitals and

government action on issues

L. Doerkson

Hon. A. Dix

P. Milobar

R. Merrifield

Conditions at East Kootenay Regional

Hospital

T. Shypitka

Hon. A. Dix

Nurses’ concerns on conditions at hospitals and health

human resources strategy

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Transportation Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Mental Health Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

T. Halford

Hon. D. Eby

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Mental Health Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Anti-Racism Data Act

Hon. D. Eby

T. Wat

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Anti-Racism Data Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation (continued)

M. Lee

E. Ross

Hon. M. Rankin

D. Ashton

D. Davies

MONDAY, MAY 9, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: It is, of course, Nursing Week in British Columbia and in Canada, and there

will be lots of nurses here through the week representing organizations and

representing nursing. I think everyone in this House can agree that nurses have

done extraordinary work. They do every day, but particularly during the two public

health emergencies we’re facing now, exceptional work in every part of B.C., in

every community.

It’s my honour to introduce, visiting us today, Aman Grewal, the BCNU, B.C.

Nurses Union, president; Adriane Gear, the B.C. Nurses Union vice-president;

Sharon Sponton, the BCNU treasurer; Aida Herrera, the executive councillor for

occupational health and safety; Michelle Sordal, the executive councillor of

pensions and benefits; Katharine Kitts, from BCNU communications; and Jim Gould,

who is the BCNU CEO. I wanted to wish all of these people welcome. I look forward

to seeing them this week during Nursing Week.

I’ll ask all members to applaud for this important week every

year.

S. Bond: I’d like, on behalf of the official opposition, to join with the Minister

of Health to express our incredible gratitude to all those involved in the nursing

profession in British Columbia. They have done an exceptional job. We want to

welcome them here to the gallery today.

[1:35 p.m.]

We know there are many issues that need to be raised and need to be

discussed. So certainly, we do want to welcome them warmly and thank them for the

incredible work they do in communities right across British Columbia.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the gallery today is Doug Hooper, who is director of policy

and regulation at Advanced Biofuels Canada. Advanced Biofuels is a national

industry association established to promote the production and use of clean fuels

in Canada. Doug has long been a champion of clean fuels and has been working with

the province on the development of low-carbon fuel policies since 2005.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: I would like to welcome some special guests from the Chartered Professional

Accountants of British Columbia who are joining us here today. Joining us in the

gallery are Lori Mathison, the president and CEO; Jamie Midgley, the executive

vice president of regulation and registrar; and Kerri Brkich, the vice-president,

external affairs and communication.

The Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. regulates the practising of

accounting on behalf of the B.C. government. With over 38,000 members and 6,000

candidates, they are one of the largest professional associations in the province.

CPABC carries out its primary mission to protect the public by enforcing the

highest professional and ethical standards and contributing to the advancement of

public policy. CPAs contribute to the solid financial foundation that B.C.’s

modern economy relies on. They also help maintain a quality, sustainable and

equitable business environment that benefits all British Columbians.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

M. Dykeman: Nineteen years ago my life was changed for the better. Quite interestingly,

May 9, 19 years ago, was Mother’s Day, and I received the best Mother’s Day gift

one could ask for. My son A.J. was born.

I really wish I had believed people when they told me how quick it would

go. I was totally unprepared. I had no idea what I was doing. I had never even

babysat, so I was surprised that they let me go home with him. But it worked out.

He’s still here. He’s quite happy. I have to say I have the most generous, kind

and wonderful son anyone could ask for. He’s in school to become a high school

counsellor. He works at the YMCA right now, and he’s just one of the kindest

spirits I have ever met.

I’m wondering if the House could please join me in wishing my son A.J. a

very happy birthday.

K. Kirkpatrick: As a chartered professional accountant myself, I would like to welcome, as

the Minister of Advanced Education has, three special guests from the Chartered

Professional Accountants of B.C.: Lori Mathison, president and CEO; Jamie Midgley,

the executive vice president of regulation and registrar; and Kerri Brkich, the

vice-president, external affairs and communications.

Thank you for letting me into your profession. I’ve just been so impressed

with CPABC and all the work that you do. Thank you for being here

today.

J. Sims: It’s an absolute delight to introduce to this House my youngest

granddaughter, Jessica Sims. I have waited to introduce her on this particular day

because this is Nursing Week.

She qualified as a nurse in the month of April, and in May, she started her

nursing career at the Nanaimo Regional Hospital. She’s an amazing young woman who

knew very early which career path she wanted to choose. While still in high

school, she started doing her university courses and carried on working to earn

her spending money as well. I’m very, very proud that she is joining a very noble

profession of serving and care.

I want to say to everyone who chooses nursing and who is in the nursing

profession today: thank you, thank you, thank you.

Hon. B. Ralston: Since being introduced over ten years ago, with little precedent to draw

upon, B.C.’s low-carbon fuel standard has been the single largest contributor to

meeting our CleanBC targets. In a few minutes, I will be introducing a bill

intended to ensure that the low-carbon fuel standard will continue to be

successful in the future.

[1:40 p.m.]

Today in the gallery we are joined by some of the people from the low

carbon fuels branch in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation who

have worked hard to create this bill and are here to witness its introduction.

They are Dr. Michael Rensing, director, low carbon fuels; Jennifer Kroll, manager,

compliance and enforcement; Anna Ringsred, acting manager, verification; Amy

Teucher, acting manager, policy planning and legislation; Joel Zushman, senior

policy analyst; and Caitlin Moran, policy analyst.

I want to thank them for the work they do and ask the House to make them

feel very welcome.

A. Mercier: I just would like to introduce two folks that I’ve got here with me in the

precinct today, my constituency assistants, Dawn Fidler and Jennifer Loftus. They

are two of the hardest-working, most dedicated people that I know. I can

truthfully say I couldn’t do my job as the MLA for Langley without

them.

Will the House please give them a big round of applause.

S. Furstenau: In the gallery today is Lia Schulz. Lia was here with a group of youth from

CPAWS last week, and she took me up on the offer for a shadow day, the most

efficient person to ever take up that offer. We’re delighted to have her join us

today.

Lia moved here from Germany in 2013 and just graduated from UBC in Sciences

Po with a political science and geography degree, and we’re delighted.

Would the House please make Lia feel most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LOW CARBON FUELS ACT

Hon. B. Ralston presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Low Carbon Fuels Act.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act. This bill

creates the Low Carbon Fuels Act, replacing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act.

The new act will modernize the low-carbon fuel standard to support

CleanBC’s fuel carbon intensity reduction targets, will expand the act to

include new categories of fuels, such as aviation fuels, and enable utilities

to reinvest credit revenues into projects supporting electricity in

transportation.

I will be pleased to elaborate on the nature of those amendments during

second reading of this bill.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered

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

House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TEACHING AND ANTI-RACISM

CONTRIBUTIONS OF LLOYD

EDWARDS

J. Sims: On Saturday, April 30, the building that the Surrey Teachers Association

calls home officially became the Lloyd Edwards Building.

Lloyd Edwards emigrated from Trinidad and Tobago in the 1950s and began

his teaching career in the early ’60s. He was a teacher in the Surrey school

district for over 30 years, 25 of those spent at one school, Princess Margaret

Secondary.

In the early ’70s, he noticed that students of South Asian descent were

facing incidents of racism in the school. Recognizing the growing issue, he

acted. He set up a committee against racism and began engaging students in

discussions about racism. Five years later the first South Asian student

president was elected at Princess Margaret.

In 1975, at the annual general meeting for the BCTF, he raised the issue

of racism in our schools. The result was the creation of the federation’s

anti-racism program. Edwards worked actively with the program, delivering

workshops for teachers in every corner of the province. His legacy continues.

The Surrey Teachers Association, under President Jatinder Bir, has initiated a

racial equity assessment, and the BCTF is working on a new anti-racism and

anti-oppression office.

[1:45 p.m.]

Lloyd Edwards was elected president of the Surrey Teachers Association.

He was a champion for small class size. In 1974, he led over 100,000 teachers

to the Legislature. As a result, teacher locals across the province negotiated

a reduction in class size and the hiring of close to 4,000 teachers. At 90

years young, Lloyd Edwards continues to be an activist and a leader in

anti-racism.

Thank you, Mr. Edwards, for fighting racism, creating a platform for

discussion and creating change.

Thank you Surrey teachers, BCTF and all teachers across the province for

all you do to build more just and inclusive classrooms.

NURSING WEEK AND SUPPORT FOR NURSES

S. Bond: If there’s anything that the past two years have taught us, it is the

importance of our health care system and the courageous, dedicated people that

keep it running — those who provide outstanding care, even in the most

challenging circumstances.

This week is National Nursing Week, a time to honour and recognize the

incredible nurses, nurse educators and nursing students here in B.C. and across

the country — the people who have always made sacrifices for our safety, the

people who have provided care for us and our loved ones during some of the most

difficult times in our lives.

Long before the COVID-19 pandemic and the stress that came with it,

nurses were already our health care heroes, working long hours in a physically

and emotionally demanding job to look after the health and well-being of

British Columbians. Over the past two years, their commitment to care has not

wavered, and nurses have continued to look out for the people of this province,

even during the most stressful times.

This year’s theme for National Nursing Week is: “We answer the call.”

Because our nurses always do. Amid staffing shortages, overwhelmed and

overcapacity hospitals and the day-to-day demands of the job, thousands of B.C.

nurses have continued to answer the call, and we are so grateful for that. They

went to work so that we could stay home.

We must ensure our gratitude extends beyond words to action. I hope we

can all work to ensure that our B.C. nurses feel appreciated, are valued and,

most importantly, have the resources they need to continue in their invaluable

roles.

We know that right now so many of our health care workers are burned

out. We must work together to make sure that they are getting the necessary

support, because they have always answered the call to support us in our time

of need. It is our turn to listen and answer the call to action.

ABORIGINAL HEAD START

CHILD CARE CENTRE IN

LANGLEY

M. Dykeman: Earlier this month I had the honour of attending the grand opening of

the Aboriginal Head Start child care centre at Parkside Centennial Elementary

School.

Thanks to the support of the Aboriginal Head Start Association of

British Columbia, Indigenous children in Langley will have access to 24 free

child care spaces. The centre will have six full-time staff and receive visits

from community Elders and infant development workers, creating a warm and

loving space for Indigenous children to build strong connections to their

culture and communities, supporting both children and their

families.

This centre would not have been possible without the tireless dedication

and hard work of the Lower Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society, under the

leadership of CEO Katie Pearson. For 22 years, this organization has been

supporting Indigenous families in Langley, offering housing services for

at-risk and homeless Indigenous people and families, supporting parents through

COVID-19 and now leading the creation of a child care centre.

I would also like to acknowledge Brandon Gabriel, of the Kwantlen First

Nation, for contributing his artwork to the centre. Together, with Lekeyten

Gabriel and Jonas Bige, Brandon designed and carved a pole which will stand

outside of the child care centre.

Recently the Minister of Education and I visited the centre and saw

firsthand the passion that Katie Pearson, Lorie McDonald, Chef Millie and the

rest of the team have.

Thank you again to the Aboriginal Head Start Association and the Lower

Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society and to the talented artists and everyone else

whose hard work made this child care centre possible. I am so honoured to have

attended the blessing ceremony and the grand opening.

I look forward to watching your facility grow and thrive for many years

to come.

[1:50 p.m.]

VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS

C. Oakes: I’m excited today to rise in the House to bring attention to the

incredible volunteer fire departments across British Columbia.

Cariboo North constituents are fortunate to have these incredible

volunteers in our communities. They are there for us when we need them, often

at our most difficult time.

Volunteer fire departments in rural areas supply so much in the way of

service, including public information and education, disaster response and

emergency operations, in addition to fire fighting, wildland protection, first

responder and traffic control to otherwise unprotected areas.

Many of these departments in small, unincorporated areas raise revenue

through bottle drives, garage sales and grants. Like so many other

organizations, COVID-19 has had an impact on the revenue of these very

important departments, and they depend on support to pay insurance, purchase

equipment for training and ensure that all their members are trained according

to the requirements of the B.C. Wildfire Service and to the training standards

and protocols established, also, by the B.C. emergency health

services.

I want to highlight today that the Horsefly volunteer fire

depart­ment is celebrating their 30th anniversary of the department with

a special event to be held this annual Father’s Day with a pancake breakfast.

The Horsefly volunteer fire department is an unincorporated volunteer

department that provides all levels of emergency services in the community of

Horsefly and surrounding area. They provide fire protection, assist B.C.

Ambulance on medical calls, wildland fire protection, vehicle incidents and

rescue calls, whether it be on the river, ice, lake or in the mountains. They

also provide public education about fire smarting and safe living.

They have done so much. Check out their Facebook page to help them

celebrate their 30th anniversary. I know each of the volunteer fire departments

spend much time in all of their communities.

Let us all say thank you to all of the incredible volunteers in fire

departments across British Columbia.

ANDREW SAVIN AND HOSTING OF

UKRAINIAN REFUGEES IN

CHILLIWACK

K. Paddon: Later today a plane will land in Abbotsford, and Andrew Savin will

arrive in B.C. Andy, who was born in Pershotravensk, Ukraine, is to be

Chilliwack-Kent’s newest resident.

When the war on Ukraine began, Andy was just finishing up temporary work

in Poland. Just four days before he was supposed to fly home to his parents in

Poltava, the attacks began. Andy found himself in Poland with more than 2.5

million Ukrainians displaced and fleeing the attacks, without a job, an

apartment and no way home.

His brother, who is a pastor, as well as his mom and dad, made the

decision to stay in Ukraine — a difficult decision, as the city is surrounded

by conflict. But the fighting is still far away. Andy, however, needed a new

home, a safe space. So he went online on Facebook and eventually found an

instant connection and bond with Bradley Gionet of Chilliwack-Kent.

Facebook has been a powerful vehicle to support those in need. A local

Facebook group — Chilliwack Emergency Host Families — originally started to

support people during the atmospheric rivers, floods and landslides in November

and has evolved and repurposed into a place for potential hosts, employers and

Ukrainians to connect.

The visa came, the plane took off, and now Andy will have a place in

Bradley’s multigenerational home for as long as he needs. He has already had

job offers for when he is settled and ready, and he is now part of

Chilliwack-Kent and the growing community of Ukrainians being homed in our

area.

When asked why B.C., Andy said: “When you can’t come back home and don’t

have enough knowledge about other countries, when you pick the place where you

stay, you can only trust your intuition and believe in the peo­ple’s

kindness. I met a good host family that accepts me as part of their own family.

That gives me confidence that I will be safe for as long as I need, and no

matter what.”

To Andy and the other individuals and families who are being hosted by

community members across Chilliwack-Kent and beyond, I say welcome.

To Bradley and all who have opened their homes and hearts, I say thank

you.

ABBOTSFORD INTERNATIONAL AIR SHOW

B. Banman: The Abbotsford Air Show is in full this August 5, 6 and 7. After two

years of restricted and re­duced events, B.C. residents are excited to

witness every­thing this showcase has to offer in its full

capacity.

The Abbotsford Air Show is not only an important piece of Abbotsford

history but of B.C.’s history as well. The first air show was held in 1960,

attracting about 15,000 spectators, and went on to become the biggest air show

in Canada by 1965.

[1:55 p.m.]

In 1970, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau officially recognized the

Abbotsford Air Show as Canada’s national air show. In 2014, USA Today

named Abbotsford one of the top-ten best air shows in world, and that same year

the International Council of Air Shows recognized Abbotsford as one of the best

civilian air shows in North America. Currently the Abbotsford Air Show is

consistently listed as one of the top-three best air shows in the world — not

too shabby.

Today I would like to urge everyone to block off August 5 to 7 on their

calendars and attend this historic event that is such a huge part of B.C.’s

history, especially the first day of the show. Friday, the twilight show, from

three to 10 p.m., is chock full of events you don’t want to miss, such as the

Hot Air Balloon Glow, the Drone Light Show and the Fireworks Finale.

I was there, myself, last year at the twilight show and got to

experience pilots that set off fireworks from their planes while doing

aerobatic displays. There’s nothing like watching the afterburners of an F-18

when you take a look at Mount Baker as its backdrop. It’s truly

amazing.

B.C. has had a tough year, and Abbotsford has had more than its fair

share of negative events. But this is something all British Columbians can come

together and enjoy. From ground displays to high-flying aerials, the Abbotsford

Air Show has something for everyone in the family.

I urge everyone to come out and enjoy it with me. Come see the

Abbotsford Air Show again or for the very first time.

Oral Questions

NURSES’ CONCERNS ON

CONDITIONS AT HOSPITALS AND

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

T. Stone: I think we can all agree that B.C.’s health care system is in crisis. We

recognize National Nursing Week this week, and as we do so, we also acknowledge

that burn­out of health care professionals and, in particular, nurses has

reached a level never seen before.

In the gallery today, demanding action from the government, include B.C.

Nurses Union President Aman Grewal. Aman recently said: “On a daily basis,

nurses are facing an unmanageable number of patients who need care, and despite

all of their very best efforts, they’re watching their patients suffer. Nurses

are burnt out. It’s reached a point where many are telling us they just can’t

do it anymore.”

My question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier tell the nurses in

the gallery here today what he is going to do to take action to address the

concerns of these nurses and the dire situation which is unfolding in B.C.’s

hospitals?

Hon. A. Dix: I agree with the hon. member that nurses have done extraordinary work,

not just in the last two years but every day in our province, supporting

patients often at their most difficult moments, and that these have been

exceptional and difficult moments for our health care system — the public

health emergency that is the COVID-​19 pandemic, the public health

emergency that is the overdose public health emergency.

Both of these have put, in particular, extraordinary pressure on nurses.

That’s why you’ve seen the government take, in the last number of weeks, often

in consultation with the B.C. Nurses Union, I think exceptional steps to

address the need to have more nurses in our province.

As the members on the other side and all members will know, B.C.

historically has had some of the lowest rates of nursing in Canada per

population. We’ve made some moves to change that significantly in the last

number of years.

We have led Canada in the recruitment of new LPNs. We’re third in Canada

of the ten provinces in recruitment per capita of new registered nurses. We

just added 602 nursing spaces, which is significant. We’ve added 299 net new

surgical nursing positions since the beginning of the surgical renewal

commitment. And of course, we’ve taken action to make it easier for

internationally educated nurses to join our outstanding team of nurses in

B.C.

These are all steps we’re taking now to support nurses, in the future,

and get the nurses we need for the coming generations of people in

B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, there’s no quibble from the official opposition — and I think

British Columbians, generally — when the minister says nurses have done

extraordinary work. They really have, in every hospital and every health care

setting across this province. We are all extremely grateful for the efforts of

nurses.

[2:00 p.m.]

Nurses don’t deserve what’s happening to them today. Nurses deserve

action on burnout and workloads and their safety concerns, and nurses deserve

action from this government on the dire situation which is unfolding in our

hospitals.

Frankly, the efforts that the minister just mentioned are simply not

good enough. This is a two-term government, and the results don’t match the

rhetoric, especially with respect to our hospitals. Our system is in crisis.

Tomorrow there will be 250 nurses on the lawns of the Legislature, demanding

action from this minister and this government.

One nurse recently described “feelings of moral distress, panic,

sobbing, making errors and knowing it is not only me. How many will leave

because of burnout? Will it take a death or serious effect on a patient before

things change? We need nurses, and instead we’re losing them every single

day.”

Will the Premier stand up and tell the nurses in the gallery today when

the NDP rhetoric on health care in our hospitals will be matched by action and

results?

Hon. A. Dix: I think the member agrees with me. I would note that with respect to

LPNs, we were last in Can­ada per capita. In 2017, we were below standard

in terms of registered nurses. This has an impact.

Yes, significant steps have been in place for some time now to increase

the number of nurses. Clearly, we need to do more. That’s why the government

has taken the steps that I described in the last number of weeks alone to

significantly increase the number of nursing spaces in our province.

Nurses contribute at every level. We’ve, as the members will know,

doubled the numbers of nurse practitioners in B.C., principally in primary care

and all over the health care system. We were last in the country in 2017. We’ve

doubled those numbers. We have increased the role of nurses in primary care

networks. Between nurses and nurse practitioners, 450 new nurses in primary

care. We were below standard in terms of nursing and care in 85 percent of our

care homes in 2017. Now we’re above standard. I think all of these are

significant changes.

We’re going to have to do more. We have to train more nurses, and we

have to support what is obviously an issue around attrition for nurses in our

health care system, particularly after these extraordinary two

years.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, apparently what the minister is describing is just simply not

working. Nurses are speaking out about this crisis happening under this NDP

government. Adriane Gear of the B.C. Nurses Union is here in the gallery today.

She says: “One thing that we want the Premier to know is that nurses are

exhausted. We are burnt out. We need you to step up and do something. We are

done asking. We need you to listen, and we need you to take full action to help

us.”

My question is: will the Premier speak to the nurses in the gallery and

across the province and tell them what he is going to do to step up and do

something?

Hon. A. Dix: We did and have described…. By the way, when we announced 604 new

nursing spaces in B.C., we were there with the B.C. Nurses Union. When we

announced changes for internationally educated nurses, we were there with the

B.C. Nurses Union. We’re working with the B.C. Nurses Union every day. They do

exceptional work representing nurses in our province.

Of course, I’ll be meeting today with representatives of the B.C. Nurses

Union, as we continue to work together to address what has been an

extraordinary period in health care in B.C.

I think British Columbians can be proud of our public health care

system. Proud of how it has responded to COVID-19. Proud of the work of health

professionals and health care workers dealing with the other public health

emergency, the overdose crisis. Proud that we’re no longer substandard in 85

percent of care homes in terms of staffing. Proud that we no longer lay off

women workers, but we give them rights in the workplace. Proud that we have

added 600,600 workers in that sector through HCAP and other

programs.

[2:05 p.m.]

We obviously, we clearly, need to do more. I meet with nurses on a

regular basis. I hear from them. I hear their concerns about the quality of

work, about the pressures, of violence in the workplace, about the challenges

they face. We’re going to continue to work with them to address those issues so

that we don’t just recruit more new nurses but that we, of course, every day,

support the ones that are working in B.C.

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

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister’s pride is not enough to make change. This crisis is

hurting nurses, and it’s hurting patients. Eighty-two percent of nurses say

their mental health is suffering, and 74 percent report that patient care has

been compromised.

This is what one nurse says: “I haven’t worked days or evenings for over

two months without being short-staffed. This is a crisis. We are all getting

burnt out, and corners are being cut. It’s unsafe.”

Will the Premier get up and tell nurses here today what he is going to

do to take action to fix this crisis?

Hon. A. Dix: At every level, we are investing in our health care system. I described

specific actions that were taken in consultation with the B.C. Nurses Union. I

know that one tends to ask the question regardless of what the answer is, but

really, those are specific responses now and in the future to support

nurses.

We have to continue to do so. That means getting nurses the best

facilities. That’s why there are 16 major health capital projects. It means, in

long-term care, ensuring that residents and nurses have the support they need

to deliver the care that must be given in long-term care. That means increasing

community nursing, which changed dramatically as a result of the pandemic but

also increased in terms of visits, dramatically, in 2018, 2019 and

’20.

Of course, in acute care, where we feel the problems and nurses feel the

problems that the member describes so passionately and so personally, we need

to continue to take steps to both ensure that we have the staffing we need in

our acute care hospitals and the supports we need for the staff that are

working in those hospitals today.

NURSES’ WORKING CONDITIONS

AND CULTURE

S. Furstenau: As we recognize National Nursing Week, I think it’s important to also

recognize that, in British Columbia, nurses here are facing some of the worst

working conditions in the country. Staffing shortages put patients at risk, and

nurses face the emotional toil.

Nurses are being denied personal protective equipment. A 2021 report

from the B.C. Nurses Union found that over two-thirds of nurses interviewed

were thinking of leaving their profession in the next two years. They’re

leaving due to burnout, bad workplace conditions and stagnant

salaries.

B.C. Nurses Union president Aman Grewal has said that nurses are “not

allowed to share this reality openly.” The minister will deny that there’s a

gag order, but the reality is clear. Nurses are afraid of being reprimanded for

speaking out about the state of health care and their working

conditions.

My question is to the Minister of Health. What is he doing to address

the culture of fear within health care?

Hon. A. Dix: All health authorities have whistleblower protection rules, as they

should. All professionals in those health authorities have a duty to bring

forward issues. They have a professional duty to, one that they and we take

very seriously. There’s simply nothing in place that stops people from speaking

out. That’s as it should be in a democratic society.

I think our nurses in B.C. have very eloquent spokespeople — I think

we’ll hear them this week — who bring forward their issues all the time and

represent nurses with passion and determination. B.C. can be very proud of its

nurses and very proud of the B.C. Nurses Union.

We’re going to continue to work — it’s fundamental and important to me,

something I worked on for many years — to support people working in health care

and their right to speak out. It’s important to me that people have the right

to do so. It’s also very important to me that we recognize the value of the

public health care system, the exceptional work done by that system by any

standard, national or international, that you want to put forward, over the

last couple of years. The credit for that is due to our nurses, our doctors,

our health sciences professionals, our health care workers everywhere in

B.C.

[2:10 p.m.]

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

S. Furstenau: I think it’s really important to recognize that a culture impacts the

people that are working within that culture. What I asked the minister about

was the culture of fear that nurses and health care workers have in terms of

speaking openly about their working conditions. I know that that is an

experience that nurses and health care workers are having. They reach out to

us, and they speak about it.

It’s not the minister saying that people have a duty. It is the reality

that there is a culture of fear.

My question to him was specifically about what he is going to do to

address that culture of fear, particularly in light of the conditions that

nurses are facing right now — stagnating wages, the cost of registration fees,

the cost of parking, the cost of living. Nurses are being emotionally,

mentally, sometimes physically abused at work, and 82 percent of BCNU members

say that their mental health has worsened and that they feel

unsupported.

I’m going to ask the minister again. What does he intend to do to

address the culture of fear that exists for nurses not wanting to speak about

their working conditions?

Hon. A. Dix: I think nurses are never, in my experience, shy of expressing their

views to me directly about their concerns with the public health care system.

They continue to do this both when I visit facilities and when I meet with

their representatives. I would expect that to continue.

We have just been through and are living through a pandemic that

continues — where there are, as of last Thursday, about 550 people in hospital

with COVID-19, where we have a public health emergency that is the overdose

crisis. I think the member would understand that typically, certainly prior to

2017, we had lower than the Canadian average per-capita number of nurses in

B.C. We were last in LPNs. That has a significant impact now, when the pressure

is on and we need supports.

I think the reality has been extremely difficult for our health sciences

professionals, our health care workers, our nurses, our doctors, everyone in

health care. The reality has been extremely difficult. I think they have

responded exceptionally well.

We are going to continue to support them with more resources, recruiting

more nurses, making it easier for people to become nurses, creating more

nursing spaces, allowing for people within the profession to seek new forms of

education, including becoming nurse practitioners.

I think those are extraordinary successes that nurses themselves have

achieved. We have to continue to do that work every day to support them. That

will be what I will be continuing to do and, I think, everyone involved in

health care will be continuing to do.

NURSES’ CONCERNS ON

CONDITIONS AT HOSPITALS AND

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

L. Doerkson: With all due respect, I think we’re hearing from all levels in this

field that what the minister is doing here is not working. Nurses continue to

speak out about the health care crisis.

I want to quote another one: “Our system cannot keep operating like

this. We can’t care for that patient in chronic pain. We cannot comfort the

daughters sitting by their dying father. We cannot hold the hand of a lonely

patient who has just been told they have terminal cancer. When nurses cannot do

their jobs, it doesn’t just hurt the nurses. It hurts the patients.” This is a

heartbreaking quote from another nurse in this province that is afraid to be

named.

Will the Minister of Health do his part and tell the nurses here today

when he is going to do his job and fix this crisis so that they can do their

jobs?

Hon. A. Dix: There are no nurses in B.C. who don’t recognize that we were

dramatically under the Canadian average in terms of nursing in 2017. The facts

are that in very challenging circumstances, I would say, including two major

public health emergencies, the nurses who are working in our system have done

an exceptional job.

We’ve added and we’re leading the country in the recruitment of new

LPNs. We’re leading the country in the recruitment of health care

assistants.

[2:15 p.m.]

In many places in health care, we were operating below standard, and

we’ve raised those standards, particularly in long-term care. The member talks

about not doing things. Six hundred and two new nursing spaces. Changing and

taking down the barriers stopping internationally educated nurses to come and

be members of the BCNU and join nurses in B.C. in providing great care in

B.C.

I absolutely hear the voices and concerns of nurses all the time. They

communicate with me, and I talk to them. I hear the challenges they’ve gone

through in the last couple of years, in particular, but really throughout

recent years in their careers.

We need to — as the member, I think, rightly says — do more to support

them. That includes more in the workplace to ensure that they aren’t subject to

violence, more in the workplace to support nurses. That’s what we’re going to

continue to work with the BCNU and other people in nursing to do.

P. Milobar: The minister seems to want to point a finger everywhere but in the

mirror. The reality is that under the NDP, health care spending has dropped to

just 7.3 percent of GDP compared to 8.1 percent not that long ago. It’s

important because the system is failing, and we’re hearing that time and again

today.

Over the weekend, the emergency department in Clearwater was closed yet

again, further impacting the emergency department in Kamloops. So it’s no

surprise that the stories of crisis continue to be told at Royal Inland

Hospital in Kamloops.

Here’s what an emergency room physician had to say about this weekend:

“Yesterday evening when the night shift came on, there were three ER nurses.”

Only three, Mr. Speaker, coming on to the shift — three. “All 40 beds in the

department were occupied. Another 40 patients were in the waiting room. It’s so

far from safe that it’s hard to even remember what safe looks like.”

Three ER nurses for 40 people needing critical help, with 40 more

waiting, and the minister keeps saying how proud he is of the health care

system right now that he’s in charge of.

We’re proud of the workers. We’re not proud of this minister’s

outcome.

When is the Premier going to act so that nurses and patients finally get

the support they actually need?

Hon. A. Dix: The exceptional actions that have taken place throughout our health care

system over the last two years have resulted in some of the best outcomes in

the world with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s the work of nurses, and

the member is right to say they deserve credit.

I have to say this. When you look at what’s happened with nursing in

B.C…. The members opposite talk about the numbers of nurses. LPNs, up 11.9

percent. Registered nurses — not my numbers, the college — up 15.1 percent from

2017 to 2020. Registered psychiatric nurses, up 16 percent. Nurse

practitioners, up more than 100 percent. Those are the numbers. That’s what has

happened.

Is that sufficient? I don’t think so. That’s why we’re adding more

nursing spaces. That’s why we’re making it easier for internationally educated

nurses to come.

Where the members do need to reflect, it seems to me, is on the

situation that we had in 2017 — why that was the case. If the member is

actually suggesting that the previous government invested adequately in health

care, he is sadly mistaken. How could it be that the vast majority of

long-term-care homes…? And yes, thankfully, we took action to correct this in

advance of the pandemic.

I’m talking about health care assistants and LPNs and registered nurses.

Eighty-five percent of care homes below standard. The member is talking about

that record. Yes, we took action to change that, and we’re going to continue to

take action to support nurses.

[2:20 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Well, we increased health spending every single year of government. We

had doubled it from $10 billion to $20 billion by 2017.

I find it disappointing that the minister responds to the stories that

we’re bringing from the nurses with empty statistics or with rhetoric. Nurses

are facing severe staffing shortages and stress without help from this

government.

I heard from a 20-year OR nurse this weekend, who said that her

co-workers at the hospital are severely stressed. “Emergency has one LPN for 54

patients. She’s in tears. This place has completely fallen apart.”

Will the Premier act now to fix this system in crisis?

Hon. A. Dix: When you add a significant number of nurses every year, some specific

actions taken — this is an extraordinary profession — that’s not empty. That’s

real. Those are people, and they matter if you are looking for care. They

matter if you’re looking for care.

I would say to the hon. member that on the very issue of LPNs — where,

you know, last in Canada — we’ve made significant progress. We have to make

more. We simply have to make more, because the demands on nursing and acute

care and long-term care in the community continue to grow.

Our need and support for nurses, with an aging population, will continue

to be there. That’s why we’ve taken specific action — specific action

supported, by the way, by the BCNU — to increase nursing spaces. We took

specific action to train surgical nurses when we engaged in the surgical

renewal plan, a net increase of 299 surgical nurses. That may seem like a

statistic, but it means a lot when you need surgery. It means a lot when you

need surgery.

We took specific action now, with the additional nurse practitioner

positions at Thompson Rivers University. We’re going to more than double the

number of nurse practitioner positions, and we’ve more than doubled the number

of nurse practitioners.

I think these are significant steps that have been taken. We absolutely

have to do more. The health care system has responded to extraordinary events

with strength. We need to help the health care system now, and that’s precisely

what these measures are intended to do.

CONDITIONS AT

EAST KOOTENAY REGIONAL

HOSPITAL

T. Shypitka: The minister is failing and knows it.

Today the head of the emergency department at East Kootenay Regional

Hospital, Dr. Fraser Bowden, is speaking out about the crisis. He says: “I feel

it is my duty to inform you of the incredibly dangerous, unsafe and

unacceptable conditions that currently exist in our hospital. Yesterday morning

there was literally not a single bed to see actual emergency patients. We had a

patient with a gastro-intestinal bleed that collapsed in the waiting room while

waiting to be seen.”

Question, quite simply. When is the Premier going to wake up and take

action?

Hon. A. Dix: It’s been two years of taking extraordinary action. I think it will be

two years continuing to take more extraordinary action to support our nurses in

the system.

These are — I think everyone would acknowledge this — extraordinary

times. The response of the system in providing care to people has been

exceptional, and there are real challenges facing the system, particularly, on

occasion, in some regional hospitals. The member refers to East Kootenay in his

question.

I think that our staff teams, under the circumstances, are doing

exceptional work and that we have to continue to support them. How do we do

that? By recruiting more nurses, by adding resources in emergency rooms, as we

have in Kamloops, as we have in many communities. We’ve just got to continue to

do that work.

We were — all members of the House will acknowledge this; the statistics

are just the statistics — under-nursed as a population in 2017. We’ve been

taking action every year to improve that, and we need to continue to take that

action. I’m glad to have the support of the hon. member when we do

that.

NURSES’ CONCERNS ON

CONDITIONS AT HOSPITALS AND

HEALTH

HUMAN RESOURCES STRATEGY

S. Bond: While the minister stands up day after day after day in this House,

nurses are finding the courage to stand up and tell British Columbians the

frustration, the anger and the fear that they feel.

[2:25 p.m.]

Here’s the fact. Nurses are being asked to do more with less every

single day. They have said to this minister repeatedly that their physical and

mental well-being are at risk.

The one thing I will agree with that the minister said today is that

clearly he and this Premier need to do more. He’s had every opportunity to do

it. He can continue to look in the rearview mirror, but this situation is on

his watch.

Let’s be clear. Nurses are frustrated, angry and fearful. When they have

the courage to speak up, what they want to know is that this minister

acknowledges the state of the system that they are forced to work in and see

ongoing action by this minister.

I would urge the minister to listen carefully to this nurse today. “We

are burnt out. We are tired of witnessing the suffering that we are witnessing

on a daily basis due to inappropriate staffing levels in all departments. We

are fearful for our patients. We are fearful for ourselves.”

This is a two-term government. They’ve made a lot of promises about

health care, and they have failed to deliver on even the most basic

promises.

I’ll be really interested to hear the minister’s answer to this. He

promised and the Premier promised that there would be a comprehensive health

human resources strat­egy. The last time we heard about that, it was

going to be tabled in the fall. The minister should look at the calendar. It’s

May 2022. There is no plan.

He can stand in this chamber and talk about adding nurses. What we want

to know — nurses want to know, British Columbians want to know — is: where’s

the plan? What specific action will he take to continue to add nurses to a

system where people feel afraid, angry and desperate?

Hon. A. Dix: I’ve taken the member through the fact of the matter, which is that we

were at the bottom of the list for nursing in 2017, that we’ve significantly

added not just new nurses but net new nurses in that time and that we continue

to take specific steps with a human resource plan.

Adding seats in post-secondary, 602 of them — that’s the plan. Doubling

the number of nurse practitioner spaces — that’s the plan. Doubling the number

of nurse practitioners — that’s the plan. Adding, through the HCAP program, in

the midst of a pandemic, more than 6,000 positions — that’s the

plan.

Interjections.

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

Hon. A. Dix: These are specific actions taken to address the health human resources,

and they have had a real impact on the ground. Still, because of the

circumstances we’ve all been going through together, there have been,

obviously, enormous challenges facing the health care system, so we’ve got to

continue to take action.

Members come up, question after question, and say: “What are you doing?”

We are adding nursing spaces. “What are you doing?” Making it easier for

internationally educated nurses. “What are you doing?” Adding resources to

emergency rooms. “What are you doing?” Adding resources to long-term

care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. A. Dix: “What are you doing?” Adding resources in the community. We’re going to

continue to do that….

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call third reading on Bill 16, Transportation Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 10, the Labour

Relations Act.

In the Birch Room,

Section C, Committee of Supply, the estimates to date for

the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. When they are finished, we

will then start with the Ministry of Health estimates.

[2:30 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 16, Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage, Bill 23, Mental Health Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — MENTAL HEALTH

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On clause 4 (continued) .

T. Halford: In follow-up from Thursday, is the Attorney able to explain what the

estimated time frame would be? Once the rights adviser is sought, how long

would that be — a few hours? Would it be a couple days?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined again by Wendy Jackson, executive director, legal access

policy division, justice services branch; Shannon Gibson, senior policy

analyst, legal access policy division, justice services branch; and Sharna

Kraitberg, legal counsel, legal services branch. All in Ministry of Attorney

General. I thank them in advance for their assistance.

During the engagement, obviously, those with lived experience wanted

rights advice to be delivered as quickly as possible. Our expected time frame

is likely within 24 to 72 hours. Some requests, for example an initial

admission request, may receive higher priority or a faster response

time.

[2:35 p.m.]

Any specific timelines will be set out in the Mental Health Act

standards, so there will be standards set. Any specific timelines on how soon a

rights adviser must meet with the patient, after receiving a request, will also

be set out in the service contract that’s signed with the organization that

provides that service.

We do expect that limited rights services will be available during

extended hours, evenings and weekends, because admissions do happen 24 hours a

day.

S. Furstenau: Just one question on this clause, 34.3(2). It says a director must ask a

patient if they desire contact with the rights adviser. My question for the

Attorney General is: what if the person is incapacitated or otherwise

determined to be unfit? Could a near relative contact the same rights adviser

under these circumstances, or another designated person?

Hon. D. Eby: The right to access the rights adviser is held by the patient. If, in

the case of a person under 18, a child patient agrees, the parent or guardian

may attend the meeting with the rights adviser, with the patient. However, the

patient may also select another support person to attend the meeting with them

or may choose to attend the meeting alone.

The legislation is focused on establishing rights advice service for

patients, to understand their rights under the Mental Health Act. There is a

form that near relatives receive that does include some information about

rights and the process. But there’s currently no intention to include a right

for parents or near relatives to meet with the rights adviser, and it’s not in

this legislation.

Certainly, there’s a recognition that parents and near relatives would

benefit from this kind of advice, but our current focus is on the patients. We

understand that a rights advice service is likely to produce materials for

family and other near relatives — brochures, information sheets, websites, and

so on — but it’s not planned that this legislation creates some kind of broad

right to have a separate meeting with a rights adviser.

I hope that’s of assistance to the member.

T. Halford: Clause 4, 34.3, makes clear that a request from a patient can be orally

or in writing. So can notice from a director be orally or in writing or

both?

Hon. D. Eby: We will be working with health authorities on a form that is required to

be completed to indicate that this process was followed, and it will be

devel­oped concurrently with practitioners to make sure that it’s

practical but also, for the protection of the patient, that there’s a

record.

Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

T. Halford: Can the minister provide examples of what is expected to be a rights

advice service — so just examples of what would constitute advice being

given?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The bill that’s in front of the House sets out a statutory minimum, in

terms of the advice that must be provided. The member will find that at clause

8.08, which adds a new section, 51, to the Mental Health Act. In that section,

it goes through that a rights adviser “must make reasonable efforts to explain

and discuss” the following topics with patients.

First, processes and timelines involved in involuntary admission.

Second, the impact on the patient’s ability to move around or leave a mental

health facility. Third, how involuntary status impacts the need for consent to

treatment. Fourth, the patient’s rights under the Mental Health Act.

Now, those rights we went through the other day are contained on form 13

of the Mental Health Act, which is provided — a physical copy — to the patient.

But under this proposed section, the rights adviser would go through these

rights as well and explain them to the patient. Examples are the rights to

contact a lawyer, to be examined regularly by a doctor to see if involuntary

admission still applies, to apply to the review panel, to apply to a court on

various matters and to get a second medical opinion. So all of those are the

minimum.

Beyond that, we do believe that there may be a range of additional

topics that might be addressed, depending on the patient’s questions, areas of

interest and level of understanding. So it’s not a limitation. It’s just the

floor. This is the minimum that a rights adviser must endeavour to try to

ensure the patient understands.

S. Furstenau: On subsection 45, further to this: “The Attorney General may make one or

more agreements with respect to providing rights information and related

services to patients.”

I’m just curious about the funding for this and when this service would

be automatically triggered. Would there be the potential for the burden of

funding being placed on the patient?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There will be two phases to implementation here. Phase 1 is: by request,

the patient will have to indicate that they want to have this rights advice.

Phase 2: a notification will go to the rights advice service on admission, and

then they will contact the patient, regardless, and the patient will then have

the opportunity to tell the rights adviser whether or not they wish to hear the

information that the rights adviser can provide.

It’s difficult to project the volumes, for phase 1 especially, where we

don’t know how many people will say: “Yes, I do want this kind of advice.” And

for phase 2, this is a new service. We know the number of admissions that we

see in the province — about 28,000 total; about 20,000 unique admissions. We

don’t know how many of those people will take up the proactive offer of the

rights advice service.

The Ministry of Finance has given us access to contingencies for this

and next fiscal year. Our current projection — which is completely dependent on

the service provider, their implementation and any challenges that they face —

is that phase 1 would last a year and that in year 2 we would be implementing

automatic notification.

Again, this is a new service, and there are some systems to work out,

both with the service providers and with the health authorities. But that is

our target. It will depend very much on the uptake by patients of this service

— how much it’s going to cost. So that’s why we’ve been given contingencies

access at this stage.

S. Furstenau: Just for clarification, the cost of this won’t be on the patient. It

will be covered entirely by the system?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct. The cost of this will not fall to the patient. It will

be borne by government and British Columbia.

S. Furstenau: In subsection 47, it indicates that it requires a director to give

notice of an event to a rights advice service as soon as practicable following

a request by the patient or following the occurrence of a prescribed event. The

advice service is only triggered when someone requests it or in prescribed

events. Could the Attorney General explain what qualifies as an

event?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In this proposed

section of the bill, an event means a request.

Obviously, that’s where the patient asks for it. That’s phase 1. Phase 2

includes request, so there will be automatic notification at certain event

times, but the patient can still request the advice at any point.

The prescribed events in our engagements indicated two points of

notification. One is on initial admission. Now, there are some challenges with

initial admission. Sometimes people are not quite in a state to be able to

receive advice or make a decision about whether or not to receive advice. The

other day we did canvass regular obligations of checking in after that initial

notification for the point at which the person is ready to receive and

understand the option of rights advice.

The second point is release into the community but still under

conditions. So they’re living in the community, but they’re still under

conditions. They’re still an involuntary patient, technically, even though

they’re living in the community just before release so that they can understand

the terms of the release — that they are still an involuntary patient — and the

process for oversight and regulation of that process.

At this stage, those are the two events that we anticipate are most

likely to be prescribed events in the regulations. But I do want to advise the

member that staff have told me that they would like to do further engagements

and consultations on these two points to make sure that there are not other

points that could be included in the regulations or clarifications about those

two to ensure that it works properly from the perspective of people with lived

experience about the most appropriate times for notification.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the Attorney General for that. That helps explain.

Subsection 48 says it requires a director to reasonably try to make a

private space with appropriate furnishing and equipment for a rights adviser to

communicate with patients. A director must also facilitate the communication

between a patient and rights adviser, including accommodating special needs of

a patient and providing the rights adviser personal information related to the

patient.

Can the Attorney General explain what qualifies specifically as a

“reasonable effort” for the director? If they tried to connect the patient to

the rights adviser once, does that count? If they call and leave a voice mail

or leave no voice mail, does that count? How is it assured that that reasonable

effort is met?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the pieces of feedback that were received during the engagement

was that the obligations on the director to facilitate communications shouldn’t

be discretionary. This is not a discretionary standard that’s proposed in the

legislation. It’s mandatory. So in 48(1), a director must make reasonable

efforts to provide the space for these meetings.

The balance is, of course, that the situation the person is in — in a

hospital, for example — may not permit a private space and so on for the

communication.

[2:55 p.m.]

For example, if the person is in the intensive care unit or in a cardiac

unit and there may be security or safety concerns that require staff to be

nearby…. That is the operational challenge of simply saying “must provide a

private space.” We know that there are situations when that’s impossible or

would compromise patient care or safety.

What is here is an obligation to make reasonable efforts in the context

of the patient and their health in the facility. This is a reviewable standard,

and it is a mandatory standard.

S. Furstenau: Is there or would there be expected to be a specified time limit to how

long a patient could communicate with the rights adviser?

Hon. D. Eby: It is possible that we may need to set requirements, either minimums or

maximums, for the rights advice service in the service contract or in the

standards. It’s something that staff advise they’re going to have to monitor

because, from other provinces, they’ve heard that these appointments can take

between 15 minutes and one hour, typically. But there is no preconception and

there are no standards anticipated at this stage that would be imposed about

minimums or maximums in terms of the amount of time of these

appointments.

S. Furstenau: Just wondering what the expectation of the meetings would be and whether

they would be supervised by a member of the facility and the implications for

the ability for the patient to speak freely if that were the case.

Hon. D. Eby: The default under this proposed legislation is a private space with

appropriate furnishings and equipment, including communications equipment for

rights advisers to communicate with patients.

The descriptor of “private” there sets out the default of what the

director must make reasonable efforts to provide. To depart from that, the

director would need to have a reasonable reason for doing so. I outlined some

of those: the health condition of the patient that requires medical staff to be

nearby, or there could be security or safety concerns that require facility

staff to be nearby. But the default is a private space for private

communications.

S. Furstenau: Could the Attorney explain what specifically is meant by communications

equipment and whether the expectation is that the province would be providing

this equipment to the wards?

Hon. D. Eby: The province will provide the equipment that’s necessary. It might be as

straightforward as a tablet. There might be something more involved. But we

antici­pate most meetings between patients and rights advisers will take

place virtually. The first-line mode of communication will be video conference.

Telephone communication will be acceptable.

In-person will be delivered in certain circumstances, such as if the

patient has a disability or medical condition that makes communication by

virtual means difficult or if attempts to provide virtual rights advice service

have failed.

[3:00 p.m.]

During consultation, the facilities were canvassed about the space and

technology available to support virtual communication. They advised that they

had that. Some facilities did indicate that they may have more work to do in

terms of identifying a private space but that they did have the technology

available for virtual communication with a rights adviser.

S. Furstenau: Currently patients are not typically permitted to have their own cell

phones, so would it be the expectation that communication would only be through

these communication means that are provided?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s correct. It would be through the provided medium.

S. Furstenau: I’m going to go backwards a little bit. Just in terms of making sure

that all of these expectations are being fulfilled, what are the anticipated

mechanisms for compliance-checking?

Hon. D. Eby: Staff have put together a comprehensive evaluation plan. It involves

qualitative and quantitative measurements. The qualitative information will be

gath­ered through surveys, likely interviews, targeted at patients,

family members, rights advisers and facility staff. Quantitative measurements

will include the number of requests, when in the process requests are made and

response times for requests for rights advice.

There will be an auditing function within the health authorities. The

new forms that will be developed in partnership with the health authorities

will include, potentially, an indication for when a patient has requested or

not requested rights advice. The updates to forms are likely to include a

yes-or-no indicator for the patient when they receive that form about their

rights to indicate whether or not they want that advice.

An additional form will be required when a request has been made, and it

will indicate when the request was made and submitted, as well as when it was

complete. These forms will create a paper trail that will be able to be and

will be audited by the health authorities and will be available for external

audit, as well, by oversight agencies like the Ombudsperson’s

office.

S. Furstenau: This is my last question before I hand it back to the critic for the

official opposition.

[3:05 p.m.]

Just on subsection 54, the Offence Act “does not apply in respect of

this Part or the regulations made under

section 55.” Can the Attorney explain

what the implications of that are and whether it means that if a director does

not comply with the requirements set out in this act, that director does not

commit an offence?

Hon. D. Eby: If a patient doesn’t get access to rights advice service, it is possible

that that patient could judicially review the director or the staff decision

that prevents them from accessing that service. There could be additional

reports and accountability through offices like the Ombudsperson’s

office.

I will, on the advice of staff, refrain from speculating about liability

of the province in relation to failing to provide rights advice, but I can

advise that the director and staff are protected from liability through the

operation of the Mental Health Act, so they would not be able to be

sued.

The Offence Act relates to administrative penalties for failing to meet

obligations, and this

section disapplies the Offence Act. So fines would not be

paid by the director or by staff under the Offence Act. Administrative

penalties would not be administered against them for failing to provide rights

advice, but that does not mean that there aren’t accountability

mechanisms.

T. Halford: Just on subpoint 49. What types of cultural and translation services

will be provided to ensure communication with the adviser and the patient will

be done in a culturally respective manner?

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to Indigenous and racialized people in the province, in

line with recommendations received during consultations, the following measures

are planned to make the rights advice service accessible to Indigenous peoples

and racialized people.

[3:10 p.m.]

The rights advice service will be connected with existing resources and

supports within the designated facility’s health authorities and broader

community. This could include services for Indigenous peoples or services like

interpretation services through the provincial language service, the Provincial

Health Services Authority.

Individuals will be able to include any family member or other support

person they would like in a meeting with a rights adviser. That could include

extended family, community members or other supports.

Mandatory training for rights advisers will include trauma-informed

approaches, cultural safety, intercultural competency, anti-racism,

decolonization and intergenerational trauma. The rights advice service will

have inclusive hiring practices and encourage applications for rights adviser

positions from those who identify as Indigenous peoples or racialized people.

Also, people with lived experience in the mental health system will be

encouraged to participate as well.

Additional consultations with Indigenous peoples and organizations are

planned for the implementation phase, to ensure informational materials and

referral and support processes are culturally appropriate and that the rights

advice service is accessible.

T. Halford: On subpoint 50, would the Attorney General be able to give examples of

prescribed information or materials that a rights adviser must

convey?

Hon. D. Eby: The front-line source of information for a patient will be the modified

form 13, which is the notification to involuntary patient rights under the

Mental Health Act. It will be modified to include, should this bill pass, the

rights of access to a rights adviser. On the back of that form, there is a list

of information about reasons for involuntary admission, how to contact a

lawyer, renewal certificates, review panel information, what judicial review is

and how it works, how to appeal to the court and a second medical

opinion.

As we discussed, these are all rights that will be canvassed by the

rights adviser. We also anticipate that the contracted service provider will be

working with the Ministry of Attorney General to develop a range of

informational and communication materials. This could include brochures,

information sheets, website content, posters and videos. We expect that the

materials will be adapted for a range of audiences based on age, developmental

ability and cultural background. We also anticipate that certain materials will

be translated into different languages.

T. Halford: Would this mean that this

section — that you’d have to give patients all

the prescribed materials to meet that standard? Or could a rights adviser

hypothetically give a patient one of the prescribed materials, and then meet

that threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: The legislation sets out the baseline information and advice that a

rights adviser must give in the new

section 51, which is in clause 8.08 of the

bill. That standard is not met by simply handing over a brochure or pulling up

a website for a patient to read. The statute explicitly says that there must be

reasonable efforts to “explain to and discuss with the patient all the matters

described in this section.”

[3:15 p.m.]

T. Halford: Under this section, when it says “must explain and discuss effects that

the event may have on the patient’s exercise of autonomy,” how is this

confirmed to have happened? Does a director supervise? How is that event

confirmed to have taken place?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve canvassed the evaluation plan that would be implemented to

determine — through interviews and surveys with patients, facility staff,

family members — how this process is working. So that is one way that that is

going to happen.

From a legal perspective, by putting in legislation that a rights

adviser must explain and discuss the effects that this event may have on the

patient’s autonomy: “You have been involuntarily admitted; this means that you

will not be able to do these things in your life,” is really us trying, in the

statute, to explain that not every person that is involuntarily admitted will

have the same level of understanding about what’s happening. The rights adviser

is going to have to adapt the information that they have about the system to

the patient’s level of understanding.

profound mental health issue, and maybe a physical health issue that brought

happen does not meet the standard. It must be reasonable. That reasonableness

standard includes taking into consideration the particular situation faced by

the patient in front of the rights adviser.

T. Halford: Moving on to subpoint 55, what would be an example of possible training

or qualifications?

Hon. D. Eby: This isn’t a requirement, but it is our understanding that the rights

advice will primarily be pro­vided by non-lawyers. Lawyers are certainly

welcome to participate in the rights advice service with the contracted service

providers, but it won’t be a requirement to the service contract.

In most other provinces, that’s the way it works. In New Brunswick and

Alberta, many rights advisers have a social work background, for example.

Individuals can be referred to a lawyer or advocate if a mental health review

board hearing or court hearing is requested.

We expect that the rights advisers will have qualifications and

background in health services, social services or community mental health and

experience working with people with serious mental health issues. Ideally,

rights advisers will also have diverse backgrounds, and the training that they

receive will bring all of the rights advisers to a standard in terms of

understanding what their obligations are and topics such as cultural safety and

trauma-informed approaches.

Specialized training or qualifications may be required above and beyond

the person’s background and the standard training for certain groups of

involuntary patients — for example, children and youth, and patients with

developmental disabilities. Mandatory training, as we have discussed, will

include trauma-informed approaches and cultural safety approaches as

well.

[3:20 p.m.]

T. Halford: Thank you to the Attorney for that answer.

What would be an example of when a director is authorized not to give

notice of an event when a notice is otherwise required?

Hon. D. Eby: This

section relates to phase 2 of implementation, where there’s

automatic notification.

When we set out when notification must happen, it seemed useful to

perhaps have provisions — and more work will be done in engagement on this —

when notification may not have to happen.

As a rights advice service, to get notification that someone has been

admitted, and then you make efforts to attend and to offer the service to the

individual and you find out that that person is in a coma, or it’s functionally

impossible for that person to communicate, it might feel that that is a waste

of time and resources and that the hospital should be able to identify that

this is not someone who is going to benefit from a rights advice

service.

The current standard for someone who is in a situation where it’s

impossible for them to communicate or in a medical coma or whatever the

situation may be is that the hospital must reassess every 12 hours whether the

person is ready to hear and understand about their rights and the situation

they find themselves in as an involuntary patient of hospital. This is an aim

to be, if it’s possible, more practical about not calling out rights advice

service for people who can’t use it.

Also, we’re going to have to engage in more consultation on any

regulation about this before we implement it, because we do want to make sure

that people do have that opportunity for rights advice. We don’t want that

creep of: “Well, maybe the person is not quite ready for that rights advice.”

There is some balancing to be done here.

T. Halford: On subpoint 55(2)(c), second bullet in, it says: “events associated with

a type of process or a set of circumstances.” Can the Attorney describe what

process or set of circumstances, beyond what has been described in the rest of

the bill, that a director would have to give notice of, as per this

section?

I guess I’ll just put my follow-up on there as well. Would that include

being required to notify a relative if the patient is under the age of

19?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This relates to the ability to prescribe events where, for the phase 2

process, the director must give notice to the rights advice service that this

event has happened involving this patient so that the rights advice service can

reach out. Our current expectation is that that would be the point of

admission.

The second is where the patient is about to enter into an extended

community leave for the reasons I outlined earlier. This is not what already

exists under the Mental Health Act in terms of notification to near relatives.

Those are set out in sections 34.1 and 34.2.

So 34.1, under the Mental Health Act, relates to notice to a patient

under 16 years of age. Pardon me; 34.1 is not relevant to this.

The notification is under

section 34.2, which is advice to a near

relative. That

section of the Mental Health Act requires as follows: “The

director must send to a near relative of the patient a written notice setting

out the patient’s rights under sections 21, 23, 24, 25 and 33 immediately after

(

a) the admission of the patient to the designated facility…or (

b) the

admission and detention of the patient in the designated facility….” The

director must do so in the prescribed manner, which is a form called form 16

notification, to near relatives.

Those provisions do exist in the act, but that is not what is created

under sub 55(2)(c).

T. Halford: Will the records that the director or rights advice service do keep be

captured under FOIPPA?

Hon. D. Eby: Those would be, on our understanding, the medical records of the

patient, and the patient would be able to access them. If they weren’t able to

just get copies from the facility directly — many of the forms are designed to

be handed to the patient at the time of admission or when the patient is able

to receive them — then they could get copies through the freedom-of-information

process, because the medical records belong to them. But they would not be

accessible to members of the public because it’s private medical

information.

T. Halford: On subpoint 55(2)(f), what would be an example of an additional duty

that may be imposed on a rights adviser that’s not included in this

act?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We have gone through the baseline obligations that the legislation

imposes on rights advisers. This

section creates the ability for additional

obligations to be placed on rights advisers through regulation.

We’re approaching this as a new service, an iterative process where we

will roll it out. We will gather feedback through the evaluation process, and

that feedback may indicate to us that there needs to be other obligations

placed on rights advisers.

The member asked for an example. An example could be that rights

advisers must refer to other legal services in certain circumstances, as just

an example.

The idea is that we’re in this process where we’re refining and

improving the service as we go forward. This creates the ability for us to

respond to concerns without having to go back to the full House and amend the

legislation to impose additional obligations on rights advisers.

T. Halford: On subpoint 52(3), a rights adviser can disclose personal information to

a director if they believe it’s relevant to the patient’s exercise of their

rights. Is there any constraint on what a director can do with this

information? If a director is associated with the mental health facility, could

they use that information from a rights adviser to make care decisions? This is

kind of the thesis of the question there.

Hon. D. Eby: Sub 52(3) relates to the ability of the rights adviser to release

personal information to the director, but only if the rights adviser is of the

opinion that the information is relevant to a patient’s exercise of the

patient’s rights under this act.

This would be information like the patient has had an initial medical

assessment, but the patient would like a second opinion. They would like a

second medical opinion, so that release of information to the director is

consistent with the exercise of the right to a second medical opinion. They may

provide that information if they wish, but that is a limitation on the ability

of the rights adviser to disclose personal information. It must be to support

the rights adviser’s opinion that that information is relevant to exercising

the patient’s rights under the act.

Clauses 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — MENTAL HEALTH

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 23, Mental Health Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage, Bill 24, Anti-Racism Data Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — ANTI-RACISM DATA ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:38 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call a recess while we wait for staff and the

minister.

The committee recessed from 3:38 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome, Members. We’re dealing with committee stage of Bill 24,

Anti-Racism Data Act.

Would the minister like to introduce his staff and make some

statements or…?

Hon. D. Eby: I would indeed, Madam Chair. With me are a handful of the public

servants that worked on this legislation. I want to recognize their significant

efforts on this and, in the chamber, the Parliamentary Secretary for

Anti-Racism Initiatives as well.

With me is Angela Cooke, associate deputy minister of housing and

multiculturalism, Ministry of Attorney General; Hayden Lansdell, assistant

deputy minister of digital platforms and data division, Ministry of Citizens’

Services; Milan Singh, director of anti-racism policy and multiculturalism,

Ministry of Attorney General; Colleen Rice, director of justice policy, policy

and legislation division, Minister of Attorney General; and Beth

Col­lins, director of data policy and legislation, B.C. Stats, Ministry

of Citizens’ Services.

On clause 1.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister and also the five staff for taking the time to

come and enlighten the community of racialized individuals as well as the

Indigenous community and the community of Black people about such an important

act.

I hope the minister can bear with me. I have no legal background, and

some of the clauses might have some legal implication. I’ll try to ask

questions on behalf of the com­munity. Most of them are not legal

experts.

On clause 1, did the act draw its definition of public harm from another

jurisdiction, and, if not, how did it come to be defined under this

act?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The origin of the term “community harm” is the Grandmother

Perspective report prepared by the Human Rights Commissioner. The idea

behind community harm is that in British Columbia, we have very good

legislation to protect against individual harm in terms of the release of

information. But where the opportunity was to increase trust with communities,

especially racialized communities and Indigenous communities, and Indigenous

peoples, was around the no­tion of community harm.

Being a member of the racialized group, stereotyping and prejudice

against that group can be increased and perpetuated in ways that create group

harm, essentially a community harm. So there are several requirements in the

legislation to identify, prevent, mitigate and minimize this community harm. I

imagine we’re going to canvass them in some detail, but they include things

like a committee that will be overseeing this work, made up of racialized

people and representatives of different groups.

The idea is to build trust with groups that have been harmed in the past

through racism and discrimination and ensure the data that’s collected is used

in a way that addresses systemic racism.

T. Wat: I just would like the minister to give me some more concrete explanation

of this community harm. Is there an example that the minister can cite? I know

that it will be fleshed out further, but this is extremely crucial, the word

“harm.” Is there a legal definition that the minister can further explain, and

can the minister cite more examples?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill itself contains the legal definition of community harm. It

means “racism, prejudice, stereotyping, bias, stigmatization or other harm to

which a group of persons is likely to be exposed.”

T. Wat: Under the definition section, the act defines the director as “the

director of statistics appointed under the Statistics Act .”

Under which ministry does the act sit? If this not under the purview of

this minister, would there be consultation? Has consultation been done with the

relevant minister?

Hon. D. Eby: To my left is Hayden Lansdell. He’s the assistant deputy minister of

digital platforms and data division in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. He

is also the director under this legislation. He has been directly involved in

the development of this legislation and many community engagements on these

issues.

T. Wat: Under the

definitions section, “Indigenous governing entity” and

“personal information” are defined as having the same meaning as in the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Can the minister summarize what consultation he has done with the

Minister of Citizens’ Services?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The Minister of Citizens’ Services and I — and the Parliamentary

Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives as well as the public service — engaged

in multiple consultations with Indigenous governing bodies, including nations

themselves; political leadership, through the First Nations Leadership Council,

with whom this legislation was co-developed; and Métis Nation B.C. Indigenous

peoples were very involved in the development of this legislation.

T. Wat: Under the definition section, Indigenous peo­ples are defined as

having “the same meaning as in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act.”

Can the minister summarize what consultation he has done with the

Minister of Indigenous Relations?

Hon. D. Eby: At a staff level, the public service officials involved in developing

this legislation had a close working relationship with the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation staff. At a political level, I had

multiple meetings with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

on this. All briefing materials were shared with him so that he was aware of

issues as they arose, and informed, and we could engage on them.

T. Wat: Am I right to get the minister’s response as saying that the minister

has not directly consulted with the Minister of Indigenous

Relations?

Hon. D. Eby: No, I was trying to give specific examples of that engagement and

consultation. The minister was involved, was consulted on issues as they arose

in the legislation, and the ministry staff within that ministry as

well.

T. Wat: “Public body” in the act is defined as having “the same meaning as in

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.” In the future, will

the minister be consulted if there are changes to the list of public bodies in

the act?

Hon. D. Eby: The director under this act is from the Ministry of Citizens’ Services

and is also engaged in that role at the Ministry of Citizens’ Services in

relation to any changes to “public body” under the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, which that ministry also has responsibility

for.

The Ministry of Citizens’ Services would be engaged in any changes

related to public body, and by extension, because of the incorporation of the

director into this legislation, directly in this legislation as well. By

default, that ministry would be consulted and the director under this act would

be consulted, because it’s the same person involved in both

processes.

T. Wat: The initiative to the changes to the list of public bodies — will that

come from this minister or come from the Minister of Citizens’

Services?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: If a new public body were to be added to the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, that would be done by the Ministry of Citizens’

Services. The initiative for it could come from anywhere.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

It could be a recommendation from the Ombudsperson, for example, or the

Information and Privacy Commissioner. Then Citizens’ Services would do that

work. But it’s also the same if a public body were added to this legislation.

That work would also be done by the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

The Chair: Member.

T. Wat: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Minister, which public bodies will and won’t be included?

Hon. D. Eby: On day 1 of implementation, all ministries in government will be

captured under the legislation. There are, I’m advised, almost 3,000 various

public bodies in the province. The expansion of the application of this act, as

we work through initial implementation at the ministerial level, will be

directed by community organizations and engagement with them about which

sectors they wish to start with.

The approach we’re taking in this bill is very similar to the Public

Interest Disclosure Act bill, where we started with core government and then,

as we worked out all of the implementation, expanded in concentric circles to

agencies and public entities outside of core government.

T. Wat: Just to confirm, will institutions such as public universities be

included in the act?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, public universities could be included. Public post-secondary

schools could be included. But they will not be included immediately. They will

be part of the public bodies that we will take the lead from community on in

terms of priorities, where they would like to focus their attention.

Other examples would be health authorities and school boards. The

initial work, though, will be within ministries of core government.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

T. Wat: How does the minister define “systemic ra­cism,” and how does the

minister’s definition compare with other jurisdictions?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Through our engagement with communities, we learned two important things

about the def­inition of “systemic racism.” One is that it looks

different for different communities. The other is that it can change over time.

So there are many terms in legislation that are not specifically defined,

because they’re taken to have the meaning within the context of everyday life

in British Columbia. So it’s not unusual to have an undefined term.

When you couple that with the feedback we had from communities — that

anti-Indigenous systemic racism would look different than anti-Black systemic

racism and anti-Asian systemic racism — trying to define the term would

unnecessarily exclude certain communities from participating and benefitting

from the legislation.

T. Wat: This

section alone gives the public bodies broad powers to collect data.

How much work has gone into def­ining the language in this clause so as

to make sure that data collection is done for its intended purpose?

Hon. D. Eby: Many of these answers are going to sound similar because so much of this

is informed by our engagement with racialized communities and Indigenous

communities, First Nations and leadership.

Through our engagement with communities, there were 70 different

organizations as well as an online survey done about what information is needed

and what information people feel comfortable providing and what forms of data

collection should be undertaken. That engagement and that information will

inform how and what information is collected. So that’s the first safeguard.

We’re led by the engagement with community.

There is also a committee set up in the legislation, which we’ll get

into at some point, made up of representatives of racialized communities to

provide support around this data standard as well as data directives and any

analysis that’s done on the data to make sure that the work stays on focus in

terms of minimizing the risk of adverse outcomes and promoting the work of

eliminating systemic racism and advancing racial equity.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

T. Wat: How will an individual be informed that their personal information is

being collected voluntarily? Will it be verbal, or will it be in a long

iTunes-style online sheet?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We anticipate that this will be very similar to the requirements under

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Commonly, when

information is collected, these notifications are written on the form or the

document that collects the information itself. It’s certainly possible that

these could be read out to an individual, but, most likely, they’ll be on the

form itself that collects the information.

It is also possible that there is information collected indirectly, and,

certainly, there are occasions where people are notified through public posting

— sometimes a physical posting on a wall, sometimes a public posting through a

website — that data will be collected through the process that the person is

participating in.

T. Wat: In what instances would data not be required to be directly collected

from an individual as referred to in subsection 2?

Hon. D. Eby: This refers to the work of comparing the data that’s collected, the

demographic data about people in a community with, for example, program data —

like maybe data that’s collected through a post-secondary in­stitution or

a school or a school board — to determine how that program is working and

whether the results are representative of the data that was collected through

the community. In that case, the primary data collection would be the

demographic data that’s collected.

The secondary data would be the data that’s collected through the

program. Those two sets of data would be compared in order to determine the

outcomes of the program and in an attempt to identify barriers to the

participation or equity of various groups.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

T. Wat: Can the minister provide a specific example of when data will be shared

with another public body?

Hon. D. Eby: We anticipate that there may be data sets collected by a program that’s

delivered by an external public body, like a Crown corporation or a board, that

would need to be, in order to realize the benefits of this legislation,

compared with data collected by core government — for example, the Ministry of

Citizens’ Services.

This provision would allow that Crown corporation, for example, to share

disaggregated data with the Ministry of Citizens’ Services for the purposes of

that comparison I talked about earlier, where Citizens’ Services has the

primary demographic data and the program data comes from an external public

body, and then Citizens’ Services can do that comparison work of determining

the outcomes of the program, identifying systemic racism and advancing equity

by identifying the barriers to the participation of groups or differential

outcomes for different groups.

[4:15 p.m.]

T. Wat: Can the minister provide an example of when data will be shared with an

Indigenous governing entity?

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of pieces. One is these authorities that we’re discussing

already do exist in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The idea is when nations are responsible for delivering particular services to

their members, whether it’s education or justice or health care, they may need

access to this information for their own work around ensuring that they’re

delivering the program in a way that is representative.

It will really be up to the nations to let us know what information

they’re going to need here — or the Indigenous organizations. But we can

anticipate that in provision of these services, they may wish to either

disclose information to government or have information come back to them, so

this provision provides the authority for that to happen.

T. Wat: How will the disclosure of information being shared, as outlined in

subsection 2, be done? Will it just simply be a notice being published, or will

individuals be notified as well?

Hon. D. Eby: In this situation, likely, notification would be made through the B.C.

Stats website. There would be public notification made. The individual would

not be notified.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity. I’m kind of bouncing back and forth

between the different rooms here.

I’m not sure if the minister has answered this question in previous

sections, but I’ll ask it here if not. Throughout this clause 4, it references

systemic racism, and nowhere in the bill is there a definition of “systemic

racism.” Is there a definition somewhere else that there’s a reference to? Or

how is the minister handling the systemic racism?

Hon. D. Eby: Through our engagement with different racialized groups, we learned two

important things, or at least I did. One is that systemic racism is different

for different groups. Anti-Indigenous systemic racism looks different than

anti-Black systemic racism, looks different than anti-Asian systemic racism,

and so on. The second is that it can change over time.

[4:20 p.m.]

There are many terms in legislation that are not specifically defined.

Instead, we put it into legislation so that it stays relevant to the context in

which it is used. For those two reasons, we made the decision not to define

these terms so that this legislation stays relevant not just over time but also

for particular groups and so that groups do not feel excluded by a particular

definition that is not realistic to the systemic racism that they may be

experiencing.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

T. Wat: Under what circumstances would subsection (1) not apply — for example,

the disclosure income for the purpose of qualifying for income

assistance?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection (2) relates to government programs that are intended for

particular racialized groups or individuals. It may require that person to

declare that they’re a member of that group or that they’re an individual for

whom this program was designed to provide benefit. So that information is

required in order to determine eligibility for that program.

Otherwise, the intent here was to prohibit public bodies from saying:

“You have to provide this information.” They are not allowed to make that

requirement or obligation on individuals, because the idea behind this whole

act is building trust around the voluntary disclosure of information, around

benefitting individuals and groups. That trust is compromised by an obligatory:

“You must disclose in order to get a benefit.”

I hope that clarifies subsection (1), which says that the service can’t

be withheld, with subsection (2) that says that sometimes we do need that

information for certain programs.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

T. Wat: Was this

section drafted with the foresight that certain public bodies

may not want to collect data? If so, does the public body need to be provided

with a rationale for why certain data needs to be collected?

Hon. D. Eby: This is really a safeguard in the legislation that we do not anticipate

having to use, but we want to have it here, just in case. The expectation is

that when explained to the public body why this is important, why community

wants this, how it will be used, and so on, they will then participate in the

program, collect the information and do that important work.

In case we meet resistance, for whatever reason, this does create the

ability to direct that public body to take these necessary steps to collect

information, disclose information.

[4:25 p.m.]

For example, I guess you could imagine a scenario with a public body

that doesn’t want to disclose the information because maybe it’s embarrassing

in some way or maybe it doesn’t put them in the best light. That’s exactly the

point of this legislation: not to embarrass anybody or put anybody in a bad

light but to disclose things that are uncomfortable so that we can fix them. So

we want to have this provision here so that we can do the work that’s

necessary.

T. Wat: Under subsection (c), will Indigenous governing entities only be allowed

to have the data of Indigenous community members shared with them, or will

they, in theory, be allowed to access the data of other racialized

people?

Hon. D. Eby: It would really depend on the context of the request. We can imagine

situations where the nation or Indigenous governing body would want information

about their own membership that government held, but we can also imagine

situations where they might want comparator information from the immediate

community that they could use to compare outcomes or participation in programs

or whatever for their own understanding of where additional attention is

needed.

There is nothing in this provision that restricts the information to be

provided to nations or Indigenous governing entities to that entity’s own

membership. It could, in fact, contemplate providing comparator

data.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

T. Wat: Can the minister provide a definition for “variables and values for

personal information”? I know a variable might be the statistical term, but

under this act, is there a legal definition for “variables” and also “values

for personal information”?

Hon. D. Eby: Variables are any characteristic…. One step back. These are terms of art

of people who work in statistics, which means that these are terms that are

specific to that work and are understandable to people who work in the area of

data standards and statistics.

The term “variable” refers to any characteristic, number or quantity

that can be measured or counted. It’s really the broader…. I’m trying to

paraphrase it, but that’s very dangerous when you’re talking about something

that is very specific to a profession. I’ll leave it at that. It’s any

characteristic, number or quantity that can be measured or counted. Examples

include age, income, eye colour.

The value, however, is the actual number itself or the description

itself. For the variable age, the value would be 38 years old. For the variable

income, the value would be $78,000 a year. For the variable eye colour —

self-explanatory.

[4:30 p.m.]

How this works with race-based data is the Canadian Institute for Health

Information, for example, uses indigeneity and race as variables. So for

indigeneity, in their work, the values include First Nations, Inuk or Inuit,

and Métis. That’s for CIHI’s measurements. This is just for example. This is

not how it will work under our legislation. It’s just for understanding the

term.

They have race as a variable as well. The values under that include

Black, South Asian, Latin American, and so on. These terms are important for

understanding what the regulations and data standards can prescribe —

variables. These broad characteristics, numbers or quantities that can be

measured or counted, as well as values and what the specific numbers or

descriptions would be under those data standards.

T. Wat: Thank you for the minister’s detailed explanation. Now I have some idea

of what the variables are and what the value is.

When the census is done, I guess it will be clearly de­scribed on

the variable column and on the value column.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s correct. That’s something we will be working with the

committee on as well.

T. Wat: Under this section, it says that standards would be proposed by the

director. Will the government ultimately have final say over what these

standards will be?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s correct. This is a regulation-making power, which is one

exercise by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet group. The

final regulation is approved by LGIC, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

However, the development and all of the work that leads up to that

moment is done with the committee. It’s done by engagement with racialized

groups, with First Nations, as appropriate, depending on the content of the

regulation.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

T. Wat: Will additional funds be provided to public bodies who are required to

comply with data standards that are brought in by the regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a two-step process around data standards. The first is the

director will publish them. They will be available. Then, before it’s applied

to a public body, there’s a time period which enables government to engage with

the public bodies and determine what’s needed for implementation, what

resources might be needed for implementation or what they have to do — update

their systems or whatever — before it applies to that particular public

body.

Those two steps enable the public bodies to understand that this is

going to apply to them and allows them to do the work and for us to do the work

around if there is resourcing or just simply time that’s required for them to

be able to meet that data standard before it applies to them. That work is

done, and then it’s brought in through regulation.

T. Wat: Has the minister done analysis on the number of FTEs that will be

required by each ministry to comply with this new data collection

standard?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We are structuring this to contain any increase in resources to Ministry

of Citizens’ Services and the Ministry of Attorney General so that other

ministries are not going to need to have an increase in FTEs to respond to

these obligations that brings a couple of benefits to it. The first is,

obviously, containing the program within discreet ministries to ensure

consistency of application. The second is, obviously, cost containment. It’s

more efficient to do it in that manner. That work is underway.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the explanation from the minister. Just wondering, with

respect to any other further consultation that might be done on the data

standards, I think I was clear on the answer, but will the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, will the government, be doing any further

consultation with racialized groups?

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer is yes. The longer ans­wer is that there are

sections coming up that specifically address the obligations of engagement with

the committee and with First Nations on data standards that affect

them.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

T. Wat: Can the minister define “culturally safe collection, use and disclosure

of personal information”?

Hon. D. Eby: There will be a data directive on this definition of cultural safety. It

will be developed in part­nership with racialized communities and with

First Nations.

We do have an initial understanding. We didn’t just put it in there

without understanding, sort of, why it was needed or what we understand at this

stage it means. The In Plain Sight report and Ontario’s data standards

both describe culturally safe environments as including recognition of and

respect for the cultural identities of others without challenge or denial of an

individual’s identity, who they are or what they need.

For example, considering culturally safe variables could mean ensuring

terminology that does not further racialize an individual or group of

individuals by using dated language or that does not cluster distinct cultural

identities together. The In Plain Sight report also recommends

em­bedding cultural safety into government practices.

T. Wat: Can the minister elaborate some more? Sorry, I don’t really quite

understand.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The idea is that — it’s one that is encompassed within the legislation —

the data standards and the data that’s collected through this legislation

should not make individuals or racialized groups feel demeaned, diminished or

disempowered. It should instead facilitate the recognition of and respect for

the cultural identities of others.

That is not something that I just made up here now. That idea comes from

the In Plain Sight report, which was the report done by Mary Ellen

Turpel-Lafond into the health care system, where she found that it was not the

experience of many Indigenous people in the health care system that they were

in a culturally safe place. It was the experience of many people that they felt

diminished or demeaned or disempowered in the health care environment, and her

direction to government was to work better, work harder and be more proactive

in embedding cultural safety into the health care system.

That idea is what we hope to incorporate into the data collection

process. So we will have a data directive that will be developed through

engagement with racialized groups and First Nations and Indigenous peoples on

how we can achieve that goal, which is, in fact, the intent of the

legislation.

T. Wat: I hope the minister can bear with me. Let me cite an example and see how

it would be handled. Obviously, I’m of Chinese descent. For those people — I’m

citing this as an easy reference for myself — if they are feeling that their

ethnicity is Chinese…. But then there are, obviously, Chinese all over the

world. Some might come from Africa. I know so many Chinese Canadians who were

born in India.

Are we collecting this kind of information if your ethnicity is Chinese?

Is it necessary to further ask them whether they are from Africa, from Latin

America or from wherever? Because there’s so much more information that you can

ask. I’m just citing this as an example to understand how deep we want to get

into these kinds of variables and values.

Hon. D. Eby: This is work that we are going to do with different groups, who will

have different perspectives on how far and what sort of breakdown is most

relevant to them in terms of cultural identities.

B.C. Housing, for example, has done some work already. They do break

down geographic origin by continent, for example, to recognize that although,

to the member’s ex­ample, maybe everyone would have previously been

described as of Chinese origin or of Asian descent, that ignores a lot of

different cultural interests, priorities and backgrounds of those individuals

who got clustered into a single group when, in fact, they are distinct

communities with distinct needs.

The goal here is to develop a standard that makes sense for those

communities, that they adopt and understand as a cultural identity and that is

relevant for the purposes of collecting this data.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

[4:45 p.m.]

T. Wat: What’s the threshold for determining whether Indigenous peoples’ rights

or interests are affected by the development of the proposed data

standard?

Hon. D. Eby: This legislation was co-developed with Indigenous peoples in the

province. Essentially, the short answer is that there’s no threshold. This

legislation does implicate the rights and interests of Indigenous

peoples.

A. Olsen: With respect to “the director must consult and cooperate,” can the

minister explain? I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp on what “consult” means,

although maybe… But what is “and cooperate”? To what extent? We know there’s

consultation. There’s consent. Now there’s “and cooperate.” Maybe the minister

can just explain that.

Hon. D. Eby: This phrase, “consult and cooperate,” comes directly from the DRIPA

legislation and is further explored in

part 6 of this legislation that’s in

front of the House relating to data initiatives. The idea is the plain meaning

of the term, that data standards are developed cooperatively with Indigenous

peoples.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

T. Wat: Has the minister seen a briefing note or signed any decision notes

related to new data standards? If so, has a committee been formed for

consultation?

Hon. D. Eby: No, to both questions.

T. Wat: Under this

section of the act, can the minister provide a definition of

“racialized”? Does this apply to groups where a religion is a component, such

as with the Jewish and the Muslim communities?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, you can be racialized as a result of your faith that interacts with

racism. For example, a person who wears a hijab is racialized by operation of

her faith in a visible way. So the short answer is yes.

T. Wat: To elaborate on my asking about the religion, Jewish and Muslim

communities, this might not be related to this clause, but I just want to raise

this with the minister that I looked at the news release that was published on

December 9, 2021. There are 70 organizations that get grants for anti-racism

data engagement, but I have gone through the 70 organizations, and I don’t see

any Jewish communities among the 70 organizations.

I guess the point that I want to raise is that this act has got to be

really comprehensive. We have to make sure that we cover all religious groups,

all racialized groups as well.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that CJA was involved in the pre-consultation

process, and we pro­vided funding through Resilience B.C. for the

multi-faith convener to convene different religious groups to engage on this.

In addition, through the multi-agency consultation, Jewish community groups

were participating in that as well.

I thank the member for drawing this to our attention. I can assure her

that we did hear from the Jewish community through different points in the

development of this legislation.

T. Wat: Thank you for the minister’s response.

I understand that CJA was consulted. Can the minister confirm that the

70 organizations…? I notice there are Muslim and also Sikh organizations, but I

don’t see any Jewish organizations. For the city of Richmond, they represent….

The Richmond Jewish Day School has made two applications, but they were turned

down. For obvious reasons, there must be a reason. They probably don’t meet the

standard. But it just simply boggles my mind that no Jewish groups are being

included in the 70 organizations.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised by the ADM that CJA was invited to apply and that they

advised that they did not have the capacity at that time and had participated

in the pre-consultation process.

[4:55 p.m.]

I want to assure the member that staff did work to en­gage many

different organizations and individuals over multiple sessions, including a

very broad public engagement, and that Jewish voices were certainly present in

the development of this legislation.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the explanation.

On this part, I wonder: why are two commissioners required for

consultation? In this section, subsection (2), the word was used that the

director must consult with two commissioners, but there is less forceful

language requiring consultation with racialized individuals. The following

subsection (3) used the word “may”. Earlier used the word “must.” I guess there

must be a legal definition, between “must” and “may.”

Hon. D. Eby: Sub 11(1) is mandatory. “The director must collaborate with the

committee during the development of a proposed data standard.” The committee,

by definition, is made up of racialized people. That is the first requirement

of the director — that there must be collaboration. It’s a higher standard than

consult. It’s collaboration. In other words, must work with the committee

during the development of the data standard.

Below that, one step below, is: “The director must” — also mandatory —

“consult.” Consultation is different than collaboration. It’s an important

obligation of the director, but it is different. The collaboration is with

racialized people on the committee, and the consultation is with the

commissioners.

The first consultation obligation is with the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act commissioner. That commissioner brings to the table,

obviously, protections and concern around protection of privacy and data and

data standard oversight.

Then the second commissioner is the commissioner appointed under the

human rights code, the Human Rights Commissioner. That commissioner brings to

the table expertise around human rights issues and, in fact, has already

assisted the development of this legislation greatly with her own report on

this. So we want to keep that engagement going with those

commissioners.

The expectation is that in the collaboration of the data standard, the

committee may have suggestions for the director of groups or individuals who

should be engaged with to further enhance the development of the data standard.

This is where subsection (3) comes in. Also, either of the commissioners may

have similar suggestions. The director, on the director’s own motion, may want

to engage with different groups or individuals.

This is just a broad list of enabling authorities for the director to go

out, with the data standard, to these individuals or organizations in

development. The way you can look at it is that it’s a structure which

prioritizes collaboration with racialized people.

The reason I’m really emphasizing that is that the member’s question

seemed to suggest that there’s a higher standard placed in engaging with the

commissioners when, in fact, it’s the reverse.

T. Wat: I just want to get this clear. “Must” is mandatory. That’s my

understanding. “May” can be optional. The director has the choice of consulting

with those individuals who are racialized, and so on and so forth. He doesn’t

have to. There’s no legal requirements for the director to consult with (a),

(b), (c), (d), (e), (f).

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member, in reading this, needs to start at subsection 11(1), which

is a mandatory provision: “The director must collaborate with the

committee….”

Now, the committee itself is, by design, the oversight body made up of

racialized people that provides support and assistance throughout this entire

legislation. So that is mandatory. And if, in that collaboration, this

committee says, “Look, you need to talk to” so-and-so or “You need to outreach

to this organization,” or whatever, as part of that collaborative work,

subsection (3) comes in, so the director goes out and can do that

work.

It would be true if the legislation started at subsection (2), that

“must consult” with the commissioners but “may consult” with these different

groups…. If you read it that way, yeah, that seems odd that you must consult

with the commissioner but you may consult with racialized individuals. But in

fact, it starts at subsection (1), which says “you must” — and not just

consult. You “must collaborate” with this committee in the development of the

data standard.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

T. Wat: Can