Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 174

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Discover Surrey tourism promotion organization

S. Cadieux

Down syndrome and autism awareness

D. Coulter

Okanagan College school of business and international case competition

R. Merrifield

50th anniversary of Coquitlam Search and Rescue

F. Donnelly

Dementia care facility project in Kitimat

E. Ross

Buddhist Vihara Society and food security initiatives in Cloverdale

M. Starchuk

Oral Questions

Access to family physicians

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

T. Halford

Mask use guidance and Human Rights Commissioner comments on COVID-19 risk for vulnerable persons

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Physician supply and training and foreign-trained physicians

M. de Jong

Hon. A. Dix

Proposed medical school at Simon Fraser University

C. Oakes

Hon. A. Dix

Physician supply and bargaining mandate on master agreement

P. Milobar

Hon. A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Managing

Cybersecurity Risk in the Telework Environment , March

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, At a Crossroads:

The Roadmap from Fiscal Discrimination to Equity in Indigenous

Child Welfare , March 2022

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2021

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 19 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 14 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions (continued)

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

Introductions by Members

A. Mercier: It’s a big day in the Mercier-Makarow household. It’s my wife’s

birthday. Kate Makarow is my best friend, my partner in crime and companion

on frequent road trips.

[10:05 a.m.]

I’ll just say, as an aside, that we met ten years ago at a B.C. NDP

convention. I was the recently nominated candidate for Langley. I think, in

an effort to impress in my opening salvo, I asked her for a $40 donation. I

did not receive the donation, but I like to think that I was playing the

long game.

Will the House please join me in wishing Kate a happy

birthday.

S. Bond: Today I would like to introduce Camille Currie, who is the founder of

the B.C. Health Care Matters group. Camille has been leading the charge. She

is very passionate about ensuring that people have a family doctor, and

about primary care and the quality of it.

I look forward to future discussions with her on the important issue,

and I would ask the House to make her feel most welcome today.

S. Furstenau: I’m so pleased today to introduce Charlene Hogan-Siddon, who is in the

chamber, up in the gallery. Char has been a teacher in B.C. for over 20

years. Spurred on by personal experience and the mental health crisis in

B.C.’s classrooms, she recently returned to school to obtain her master’s

degree in education, with a specialization in social-emotional

learning.

Char loves running, cycling, reading and, most of all, spending time

with her husband, Dave, and her children, Ryan and Stephanie. Stephanie

Siddon is our B.C. Green caucus policy lead on many, many files, and we’re

so delighted that she’s part of our team. They also have two dogs, Theodore

and Abby.

Would the House please make Char most welcome.

P. Milobar: I have a couple of visitors here from Kamloops today. They’re down

taking in the sights of Victoria and thought they would come and be

entertained with question period, as it were.

We have Vanessa Gammel here today, and her 15-year-old daughter — who

is very keen on politics, so I hope it’s an interesting day for them to

watch — Elizabeth is here as well, joining us. Unfortunately, with the way

that scheduling is going today, I won’t be able to join them on their tour

later. But that’s probably a good thing, because my tours are questionable

at best. I know that the professional tour guides around this building do a

much better job.

Would the House please make the Gammels welcome.

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me to welcome a group of students and two

teachers from the Penelakut Island Learning Centre. The Penelakut Island

Learning Centre, on beautiful Penelakut Island, serves the families and

children of the Penelakut Nation.

I want to congratulate them on the great work they did in keeping

students connected to their education during the pandemic and congratulate

them on their start of a new year in person and actually being here in

person. Thank you, Members, for helping me.

A. Olsen: If you were in the B.C. Green caucus office just a few minutes ago,

you would have heard us all singing — very beautifully, actually — happy

birthday to Laura Ferreira, our legislative coordinator.

Laura joined us last fall and is doing an incredible job in keeping my

colleague and I — our calendars, our schedules — in line. I know that Laura

works very closely with the Whip’s offices from each of the parties in

making sure that we know where we should be and when we should be

there.

Could the House please wish Laura Ferreira a very happy

birthday.

T. Stone: We all have exceptional people that work for us and support us, each

and every day, here in the Legislature and also back home. But here in the

Legislature, staff that show up, often, before us and are there after we

leave just do such an incredible job in the roles that they have.

It’s with a great deal of pride that I rise today to make a very

special introduction. Our communications director, Sean Roberts, and his

wife, Michelle, welcomed a beautiful baby boy into this world. Myles

Lawrence Roberts was born on Sunday, March 13 at 8:41 a.m., weighing in at a

very healthy 7 pounds and 5 ounces, but most importantly, with a shockingly

massive amount of hair on this baby’s head.

[10:10 a.m.]

Both Myles and Michelle are doing really, really well. Sean is getting

used to functioning without much sleep, but he will make an exceptional

dad.

I’d ask all the members of this House to please join me in welcoming

Myles Lawrence Roberts to this world and congratulating his wonderful

parents.

J. Sims: I’m rising today to wish someone a happy birthday. I rarely do this,

but I’m going to do this for someone I’ve been with for 50 years. Come June

26, it will be 51 years. It’s for Stephen Sims. He’s celebrating a big

birthday today, but our little Alliya, our great-granddaughter, has made

sure that he has had five celebrations, which started on Friday. His final

celebration will be tonight with a dinner and cupcakes that she is going to

help to make.

Now, there’s a story behind this. The reason he’s having five is

because he was complaining that I’m always out of town or at work on his

birthday, ever since I became an executive member on the BCTF, which was a

long time ago. So she wanted to make sure that he had lots of birthdays and

lots of birthday cakes. Every celebration has to have a cake, has to have

gifts, and she organizes all of that and makes them.

I hope everyone in the House will help to join me in wishing Stephen

Sims a happy birthday. He’s been a wonderful partner all these years, a

tireless supporter and, of course, one of my greatest critics as

well.

R. Merrifield: I’m going to rise and echo the welcome of the Leader of the Third

Party to Charlene Siddon, who is a friend, a constituent, but — a little

known fact — she was also the teacher of special education for my son, who

is now 20, almost 21. Without her help, I don’t think I would have made it

through.

Would you all join me in welcoming her as well.

Hon. L. Beare: I, too, have a birthday announcement. We failed, in this House, to

recognize our Minister of Men­tal Health and Addictions, who had a

birthday this past weekend. Can we all wish her a very happy

birthday.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just want to wish a very happy anniversary to the love of my life.

Happy 22 years — we must have met when we were babies — to my husband, Romi.

He’s an incredible person, the rock in my life and one reason I can still do

this work.

So thank you.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DISCOVER SURREY

TOURISM PROMOTION

ORGANIZATION

S. Cadieux: Surrey is one of the most diverse cities in Canada, and it’s full

of amazing businesses and experiences waiting to be discovered. As the

world begins to open up again, and more and more people are coming to

visit B.C., I’d like to highlight the work of Discover

Surrey.

Discover Surrey is the official non-profit destination management

organization for the city of Surrey. It’s experiencing a period of

revitalization. It’s got enthusiastic new leadership, a small but

productive team, and they’re continuing to work diligently to increase

the awareness of tourism opportunities in Surrey and increase the number

of overnight visitors during these challenging times.

Whether you’re looking for good food, local shops or beautiful

nature walks, Discover Surrey can point you to the best that Surrey has

to offer.

In July of 2021, Discover Surrey launched the Spice Trail. It’s a

collaboration of over 75 multicultural restaurants and spice retailers

in Surrey. The Spice Trail’s interactive map can lead you to local

businesses featuring food from all corners of the world, from south

Indian dosa to Jamaican patties to Korean dumplings. The trail features

restaurants from each of Surrey’s six neighbourhoods and includes

everything from fine dining options like My Shanti in South Surrey to

quaint family-run businesses like Malaysian Hut in Guilford.

Destination Think recently put Surrey on their top 15 most-loved

destinations in Canada for 2021, based on their tourism sentiment index.

Surrey’s amazing food options were certainly one of the main reasons

that people love to visit the city.

[10:15 a.m.]

I would say to come for the food, but if that doesn’t interest

you, you might like the South Fraser bird and ale trails, celebrating

Surrey’s natural birding areas and award-winning craft breweries, or

maybe you’d want to visit the new Indigenous carving centre that will be

open in the winter of 2022.

At any rate, there is no doubt the Discover Surrey team will have

lots to do, as B.C.’s fastest-growing city will soon be B.C.’s

largest.

Keep up the great work, Ange Chew.

DOWN SYNDROME AND AUTISM AWARENESS

D. Coulter: There’s a lot to recognize and celebrate. World Down Syndrome Day

was on March 21. April is Autism Acceptance Month, and April 2 is World

Autism Awareness Day.

All these days are a reminder that people with Down syndrome and

autism possess a wide range of abilities and make valuable contributions

to B.C. communities every day. This is an excellent opportunity for all

of us to celebrate the achievements of adults and young people affected

by Down syndrome and autism and to spread awareness of the barriers that

many may face today in B.C.

World Down Syndrome Day was created to raise public awareness,

promote inclusivity and encourage the well-being of those living with

Down syndrome. It’s been recognized by the United Nations since

The month of April is Autism Acceptance Month. It includes

observances to highlight folks living with autism spectrum disorder and

the impacts on families. It is also an opportunity to celebrate the

unique perspectives of those living with ASD.

As a society, we have to continue to push for inclusion and

understanding and the well-being of people with Down syndrome and

autism. We need to, every day, strive further to support and ensure

inclusion for people with disabilities in any way we can. This is all

our responsibility.

I’d also like to acknowledge the tremendous contributions of

service providers, agencies and advocacy organizations that work hard

every day to provide services and supports to children, youth and their

families and adults across B.C.

I’d ask all British Columbians and this House to join me in

recognizing and celebrating World Down Syndrome Day, World Autism

Awareness Day and Autism Acceptance Month.

OKANAGAN COLLEGE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

AND INTERNATIONAL

CASE COMPETITION

R. Merrifield: I am so proud of the entrepreneurial spirit that is in Kelowna, so

I’m really, really excited to celebrate a huge accomplishment in our

community that really exemplifies this spirit in an extraordinary

way.

For the first time in the 17-year history of the Scotiabank

International Case Competition, a business school has recorded back to

back gold medals as Okanagan College climbed to the top of the podium

again last month.

Interjection.

R. Merrifield: Exactly.

Hosted by Vanier College in Montreal, the real-time Case

Competition attracts teams from across Canada looking to test their

knowledge and skills. Okanagan College students Tamzin Birch, Bryan

Cresswell and Cole Stregger represented the winning team coached by

Blair Baldwin, Mark Ziebarth, Caroline Gilchrist, Dan Allen and Nakita

Edwards.

Tamzin Birch, one of the gold medal winners, reflected on her win,

saying: “I am honoured to have shown to Canada that our business school

has a unique approach to learning. The dedication of our coaches helped

us think better, collaborate and develop creative solutions for complex

problems.”

The team says the double gold performance demonstrates the success

of the applied learning model offered by Okanagan College’s school of

business.

Business professor and coach Mark Ziebarth celebrated the school’s

success by saying: “Preparing our students to compete against the best

and brightest across Canada is a hallmark of the Okanagan School of

Business. We embrace the challenge of punching above our

weight.”

Congratulations to the team, coaches and to Okanagan College for

the great work of representing the entrepreneurial spirit of our

valley.

50 th ANNIVERSARY OF

COQUITLAM

SEARCH AND RESCUE

F. Donnelly: Fifty years. That’s how long Coquitlam Search and Rescue has been

saving lives in our area. I’m pleased to rise and speak about this

volunteer organization in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, which has been

performing these valuable services for half a century.

[10:20 a.m.]

Coquitlam Search and Rescue was founded in 1972 after a search on

Burke Mountain revealed there was no local rescue team in existence.

Since then, the group has grown to 45 active volunteers who make 30 to

40 rescue operations annually, including mutual aid calls to other teams

in the Lower Mainland and other areas in B.C. and Washington state.

Based in Coquitlam, they also serve the communities of Port Coquitlam,

Port Moody, Anmore, Belcarra, Burnaby and New Westminster.

Coquitlam SAR carries out inland, water, wilderness and urban

search and rescue operations in an area bounded by Indian Arm, Pitt

Lake, Garibaldi Park and the Fraser River. Over 1,700 square kilometres

in size, it includes some of the most rugged and inaccessible terrain in

the southwestern region of British Columbia.

Coquitlam SAR has seen year-over-year increases in task volume for

the past three straight years. With im­proved access to Pinecone

Burke Provincial Park and a growing population, it is anticipated call

volumes will reach over 100 operations per year by 2030. Given this

increased demand, Coquitlam SAR is now looking for a new location in

northeast Coquitlam to build a headquarters and store their

equipment.

Our community is very thankful and proud this valuable public

safety organization and dedicated group of vol­unteers exists in

our community.

I ask the House to please join me in congratulating Coquitlam

Search and Rescue on their 50th anniversary.

DEMENTIA CARE FACILITY

PROJECT IN

KITIMAT

E. Ross: The Kitimat General Hospital Foundation has been working hard in

their efforts to build a dementia care home in Kitimat. They’re

continuing with their mandate to raise money for the dementia care

village. The Kitimat Valley Housing Society will oversee the design and

construction of the dementia care home and is the body that will provide

governance for the facility once it’s operational.

The Haisla Nation is represented on the board along with the

Kitimat Community Services Society,which will manage the facility when

it’s up and running. They have had setbacks but are encouraged by the

community, pri­vate sector and government interest to

date.

The meetings with various groups to share plans and get feedback

about the project have been positive, and the community response has

been very enthusiastic. It’s obvious that many families have been

touched by dementia and that they are aware that this important facility

will not only provide appropriate care for people with dementia but will

result in more beds becoming available at Mountainview Lodge and fewer

acute care beds being occupied by seniors waiting for long-term-care

beds.

The concept under which this facility will operate is termed a

quality-of-life model. Most of us are familiar with risk aversion.

Quality of life means some reasonable risk is acceptable. It improves

the quality of life. The overall objective is to have this facility to

be as much of a home to the people who live there as humanly possible,

because leaving one’s home to move into an institution is always

traumatic, in a host of different ways.

Finally, strategies to make life meaningful and engaging are

important to all of us and is the goal of Kitimat dementia care village.

All of this is designed to avoid the confusion that often is a part of

the dementia resident’s life and experience, because dementia is cruel

and unrelenting, and there are no effective ways to prevent, cure or

slow its progression.

I ask that this House look at and support the efforts and

initiatives all across B.C. that are striving for facilities that make

life less stressful for those afflicted with dementia and for their

families.

BUDDHIST VIHARA SOCIETY AND FOOD

SECURITY INITIATIVES

IN CLOVERDALE

M. Starchuk: Last month I attended the Buddhist Vihara Society, known as BVS,

property that is in my riding. They asked how they could better support

local community events, including a food bank, senior services and other

community activities in the Cloverdale–Port Kells area. I met with the

BVS assistant treasurer, Eraj Liyanage, to learn about the society and

the history of the seven acres of farmland in the Port Kells

area.

Picture, if you will, a long driveway, and at the end of the

driveway is a barn. Next to it is a two-storey house and a temple that’s

off to the side. Lining the driveway, on the right, are many planter

boxes where the congregation plants and harvests vegetables throughout

the year.

They spoke of how they could prep food on the site and take it to

the Cloverdale Community Kitchen, where they use their kitchen to cook

the food and then deliver it to the less fortunate, in individual meals.

I was pleased to be informed that BVS and the Cloverdale Community

Kitchen also had a food bank.

[10:25 a.m.]

Instantly we started talking about the possibility of helping out

in the local community and how BVS could possibly produce vegetables and

fruits for their congregation and for the Cloverdale food bank. We

instantly began a conversation regarding the possibility of constructing

greenhouses at the rear of the barn, and that’s where the stumbling

block came forward.

Halfway there’s a stream that divides the property: 3½ acres on

one side, 3½ acres on the other side. The lands on the other side

haven’t been in production for many years. Accessing the back of the

property would be a huge asset to the production of fruits and

vegetables.

Well, I can tell you that talks between BVS and the city have

begun. BVS will now need to determine what kind of engineering is

required to access the rear of the property. Metaphorically speaking,

the bridge at the back of the property will be the bridge to BVS,

providing fresh fruits and vegetables to those in need. It will also be

the bridge to food security.

I hope to report back to the House in the near future to share the

next

chapter of BVS.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

S. Bond: It is estimated that 900,000 people in British Columbia do not

have a family doctor today. That number has actually increased by

200,000 people since 2017. Frances from Victoria says: “I haven’t had a

doctor for over two years. He retired at 92 years of age. As I am now in

my 80s, I can no longer drive all over town to find a doctor, nor am I

willing to stand in line for hours. We should be ashamed that we have

allowed our health care system to fall to such depths.”

Over 12,000 people have signed a petition expressing their deep

frustration and calling on this government to take expedited action.

Camille Currie, who started that petition, is in the gallery today, and

I would urge the Premier and the minister to read the

preamble that she

provided. It is thoughtful, it is compelling, and it provides ideas and

suggestions for the government to take immediate action.

Today will the Premier listen to 12,000 British Columbians and

take the action necessary to ensure that families like Camille’s, like

Frances’s and so many others have access to a family

physician?

Hon. A. Dix: As the member knows, we have been taking action consistently since

I became Minister of Health to address the challenges of primary care,

which is to ensure that people have access to a family doctor, a nurse

practitioner and other health care providers in their community. Primary

care is fundamentally important to us, and I think to everybody in

B.C.

The actions are specific: 27 new urgent and primary care centres;

54 new primary care networks; an increase in the number of family

physicians which is more than any other jurisdiction in Canada per

capita and more than the increase in population; new community health

centres; and more than 800 new FTEs, meaning full-time jobs, assigned to

those primary care networks and urgent and primary care centres. That is

significant action, and more action needs to be taken.

The issues that are raised are a struggle in the community — and

the member will know this — not just in Victoria but across the

province. That’s why we continue to take those actions, continue to add

resources to primary care. We’ll continue to do so, reflecting exactly

what the petition says and exactly what the community says, which is

that we need to improve primary care to ensure people have access to

good health throughout their lives and not just urgent care when they

need it.

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

S. Bond: Well, what British Columbians want to hear today is how they are

going to access a family physician.

We know that longitudinal care helps better health outcomes. So we

can add buildings; we can add supplies; we can add whatever. What we

need to do is to ensure that we are training, that we are looking at how

we are going to have family physicians that meet the needs of British

Columbians.

[10:30 a.m.]

When people don’t have a family physician, the minister knows full

well what happens. They are forced to go to a walk-in clinic, or in many

cases, they end up being treated in emergency rooms. He knows that that

adds pressure to a system that is already under stress.

Here’s what Danielle from Kamloops had to say. “Walk-in clinics

are closing, and there are no alternatives to seeing a physician, aside

from sitting in an emergency room simply to get a referral or a type of

regular screening done to prevent more serious illness.” That’s not an

effective or efficient system, and neither does it provide the kind of

care that families deserve.

Again to the minister, will he today explain to Danielle why she

has to go to an emergency room to receive basic medical care?

Hon. A. Dix: Since 2017, we’ve had more than one million visits to urgent and

primary care centres in B.C., providing team-based care to people in the

community. That is a specific and compelling response to a family

practice shortfall and a primary care shortfall that existed prior to

2017, as the member will know.

In 2013 and just before then, a program called GP for Me was

developed that was supposed to provide a primary care doctor for

everybody. We know that the number of people lacking a primary care

doctor increased when that program was abandoned three years later. So

this is something governments have been working on for a long time. It’s

not that GP for Me didn’t have some successes. It did. But we are taking

those steps.

Urgent and primary care centres, a million visits. Team-based care

is necessary now to provide longitudinal care to ensure that health care

professionals work to the full extent of their skills. More than 800

FTE, full-time equivalent, staff joined 54 primary care networks. It is

significant, and we have to continue to do that work. We don’t do it

just by making pronouncements. We do it in communities, day by day,

ensuring that people have access to the care we need.

Most importantly, the member talked about family practice doctors.

Nurse practitioners are important too. George Abbott, when he was

Minister of Health, started the process of nurse practitioners in B.C.,

but when I became Minister of Health, we were tenth in Canada in their

utilization. We increased the number of positions in post-secondary by

50 percent, and we are changing that now.

T. Halford: The minister can stand up in this House and rattle off facts, but

it’s clear….

Interjections.

T. Halford: If they want to applaud people suffering, that’s on this

government.

It is clear that people are hurting, and they are hurting because

of the doctor shortages we are seeing today. Things are getting worse,

not better, for people like Beryl Andrews from Victoria. I say, and I

quote: “Personal health care used to be a reason people moved to B.C.

Now the lack of it is the reason that people leave.”

What does the Premier have to say to Beryl and the thousands of

others like her that don’t have a family doctor? Why is this government

continuing to go in the wrong direction when it is trying to provide

doctors for British Columbians?

Hon. A. Dix: I say with great respect that nobody understands more than people

with chronic disease the importance of primary care. I understand, and I

understand the struggle people face. It’s particularly, it seems to me,

at different points of our lives.

Sometimes our need for health care is constant through­out

our lives. That’s true of many people with chronic diseases, including

people dealing with mental health and addiction issues. For others, it’s

more episodic. At different parts of our lives, we need a lot of care

and then not for a long period of time.

That’s the importance of primary care in our communities. Urgent

and primary care centres, which we started in 2017, with more than one

million visits, have played an important role in providing people the

care that they need. But they’ve played an essential role during the

pandemic, when their doors remained open for people and provided

excellent care throughout that period, team-based care — doctors and

nurses and nurse practitioners and health care workers of all kinds.

That is the response.

In the 20th century, sole practice family practitioners were the

centre of our primary care system. Now it’s team-based care and the

significant investment — urgent and primary care centres, primary care

networks, hundreds of new staff.

[10:35 a.m.]

If the member is suggesting he’s against that, then he should say

so, but that won’t make things better. We are taking the actions that

make things better in communities. But that there’s more work to do and

that primary care is important, I absolutely agree.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: We’ll say it again: 900,000 people do not have access to a family

doctor in B.C. today. That number has increased over 200,000 since 2017.

It’s getting worse; it is not getting better. There are 2,600 doctors

nearing retirement across this province. When these practices close,

they are going to have enormous impacts on every single

constituency.

It’s people like Elaini from Nanaimo, who says: “Yesterday my

wonderful family doctor, who is in his 70s, told me that he has to

retire and that so far, he’s not been able to find anyone to take over

his practice. It’s going to mean another 500 people without a family

doctor.”

Can the Premier tell Elaini how she and her community are supposed

to cope with losing their family doctor?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the member’s making the case as to why these initiatives are

absolutely necessary. We need, absolutely, to attract family practice

doctors for the future — and nurse practitioners, nurses, health

sciences professionals in community and health care workers supporting

primary care. All of those things we need to do and to continue to

recruit the next generation of health care workers.

How do you do that? You do that by doing it, and that’s precisely

what we’re doing. One million visits to urgent and primary care centres,

54 primary care networks, more than 800 FTEs associated with that,

supporting primary care, an activity that had not taken place before.

Would it have, it would’ve been better. But it had not taken before, and

that’s important. Hopefully, the member supports that.

New community health centres, because many new family practice

doctors — the ones that are coming into the system — do not want to run

businesses in the same way that current family practice doctors have for

a long time. So we are moving from one path, which is fee-for-service,

to many more alternative payment arrangements.

These are all of the ways we have to do. We have to, in other

words, pursue a primary care plan that’s coherent, such as the one that

we’re pursuing, in order to provide the very care that the member talks

about. Because it is a moment when your longtime family practice doctor

decides that they want to retire or have to retire. That is a major

moment. So we need all of these actions and more to address the

situation in the coming years.

MASK USE GUIDANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMISSIONER

COMMENTS ON COVID-19

RISK FOR VULNERABLE PERSONS

S. Furstenau: On March 16, the Human Rights Commissioner sent a letter to the

provincial health officer indicating that the removal of provincial mask

mandates places the greatest burden on the most vulnerable in British

Columbia.

The Premier has publicly stated that COVID-19 is an airborne

virus. Masking is one of the least restrictive and effective ways to

mitigate the spread of this virus.

The commissioner said in her letter: “Given the benefits of the

mask mandate for thousands of marginalized people and the minimal impact

on those who are asked to wear one, the balance at this time favours

continuing the mask mandate.” The letter states again: “Lifting the mask

mandate will do disproportionate harm to those who are already

marginalized.”

My question is to the Premier. In a pandemic, what does his

government owe to the people — and those who live with them — who are

medically vulnerable or immunocompromised?

Hon. A. Dix: In British Columbia, we have, under the Public Health Act, an

independent provincial health of­ficer who has worked — and done,

I think, extraordinary work — in the pandemic, balancing these very

issues. Careful consideration is given to public health measures so that

they don’t, as we say, interfere in people’s behaviour more than is

necessary by the requirements of the pandemic. That is what Dr. Henry

has done consistently.

The decisions around the provincial mask mandate — there was very

significant notice given that those were under consideration. In fact,

there was some criticism, even here, that we were taking too long to do

that. The provincial health officer gave that due consideration,

including all of the questions that the member raises.

[10:40 a.m.]

I would say this, though. Those who are clinically vulnerable have

been more the focus of our efforts as a government and of the provincial

health officer’s efforts than anywhere else in Canada. No one has

focused, in terms of vaccination, on the clinically vulnerable as

effectively and as substantively as we have, and we will continue to do

that, continue to reflect the evidence and continue to support public

health in their important decisions to balance these

considerations.

I very much appreciate the letter from the Human Rights

Commissioner. It’s an important point of view to be expressed, but it’s

a point of view that is not new to the provincial health office, the

provincial health officer. Obviously, there’s some disagreement there

between one position and the other, but I can assure her that the focus

on the clinically vulnerable will continue to be the principal focus of

this government as we continue to deal with the COVID-19

pandemic.

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

S. Furstenau: As the Human Rights Commissioner points out, the clinically

vulnerable now are deprived of choices — choices to use public transit,

choices to send their children to school, choices to operate in public —

because the risk to them is so much greater.

The Premier has tasked his government with tackling systemic

discrimination. It is in the mandate letter of the Minister of Health.

Yet our Human Rights Commissioner has said that the sudden removal of

the mask mandate will have profound effects on vulnerable people. She

says: “While many of us have the good fortune to simply move on with

life, thousands of British Columbians will be left behind because of

their age, disability or other protected characteristics under B.C.’s

human rights code.”

She continues: “The mask mandate is not about eliminating risk. It

is about sharing the risk burden across society rather than transferring

it to a marginalized or medically vulnerable minority.”

My question is to the Premier. The Human Rights Commissioner is

saying decisions of this government are harming the most vulnerable

people in our province. What is the Premier’s response to the Human

Rights Commissioner?

Hon. A. Dix: That we’re doing just the opposite, and the evidence over this

pandemic demonstrates that.

We have given focus, from the beginning of the pandemic, to those

most clinically vulnerable in long-term care, people who are clinically

vulnerable in the commun­ity. It’s been reflected in every aspect

of the COVID-19 response, and it has because of the ethical values and

approach of our provincial health office and our provincial health

officer and the ethical approach we’ve taken in British Columbia to

these questions. That will continue today to be the case.

Decisions around restrictions or guidelines are ones that are

taken very seriously by the provincial health of­ficer and by our

government. Throughout the pandemic that has been the case, and it

continues to be the case.

Of course, it is a balance between the impact of measures on

people, including all people in B.C., of the measures themselves, and, I

would say, the impact of those measures on the pandemic. That balance

has been kept in B.C. The results can be seen in the outcomes we’ve seen

in B.C., particularly amongst those clinically vulnerable.

I’m very proud of the work done by Dr. Henry in balancing these

questions. I continue to be. Since the pandemic is not over by any

stretch, we’re going to continue to have to do that in the days and the

weeks and the months to come.

PHYSICIAN SUPPLY AND TRAINING

AND FOREIGN-TRAINED

PHYSICIANS

M. de Jong: I listened carefully to the exchange a few moments ago between the

Health Minister and my colleagues. It strikes me that the minister is

either overlooking or wanting to avoid a key aspect to the challenge

we’re all confronted by.

When we’re facing a serious shortage of family physicians, it

seems clear that the response needs to include at least two things: we

need to train more family physicians here in British Columbia, and we

need to be more aggressive in recruiting internationally trained

physicians. We’re doing neither in British Columbia right

now.

[10:45 a.m.]

For hundreds and hundreds of British Columbia’s best and brightest

young people, this is what happens. They apply to medical school in

British Columbia. They can’t get in because there are not enough spaces.

They apply to internationally renowned medical schools, spend hundreds

of thousands of dollars, and they get trained. They get trained at those

institutions. Then they want to come home and practise here in B.C. as

doctors, and they can’t. Because the process for having their

credentials recognized is so incredibly complicated, it takes years and

years and years.

There are delays in writing the exams that they need to write.

There are delays in entering the clinical assessment programs. Then, if

they get through that, the chances of them securing a residency in

British Columbia is virtually nil. So they give up. Everyone in this

House knows it and has a story to tell about how they just give up and

go elsewhere.

My question to the minister is: when is the government actually

going to take steps to address those key fundamental issues of training

more doctors here in British Columbia — and more aggressively — and

removing some of the bureaucratic obstacles to British Columbians who go

abroad to get trained and want to come home and practise as doctors in

B.C.?

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know…. He says nothing has happened. When I

became Minister of Health, 6,218 family practice doctors; today, 6,852,

which is a significant increase — more than the increase in population

growth. But the nature of family practice is changing, and we have to

address significant issues around that. For the member to get up and

say, “Well, nothing is happening,” when, in fact, we’re seeing an

increase in the number of family practice doctors, is

incorrect.

The member also talks about internationally trained doctors, and

this is also true of internationally trained nur­ses, where the

barriers of entry into the Canadian health care system are difficult. We

are taking steps, and you will see those steps, particularly across

health professions, in the coming months.

This is not as simple a question, as the member will know, because

the member was Minister of Health. He will know that the very measures

in place to provide accreditation to doctors are largely on the

international scene — the same as they were under his government. But we

need to take steps.

That’s one of the areas we need to take steps to address the

health professionals we’re going to need for the future, and the

government absolutely intends to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, with the greatest respect, I think the minister is still

avoiding the fundamental issue here, which is why aren’t we training

more doctors in British Columbia?

The previous government — the one we hear a lot about from the

other side — doubled the number of medical training facilities in

British Columbia and created medical training spaces right across

British Columbia. Now, maybe it wasn’t enough. Maybe it wasn’t enough,

because the decade prior to that there had been no increase. We’re in

jeopardy of repeating that scenario yet again.

That’s for the people that want to get trained in British

Columbia. But there are so many stories…. Debbie Atkins contacted us

from Parksville. She has a relative who is a pediatric specialist who is

today working at a hospital in Switzerland. Internationally trained,

internationally credentialed at a world-leading institution. Wanted to

come to British Columbia. But it was made clear to him that it would be

years before he would be able to put his talents to work in British

Columbia.

The minister stands up — and I’m sure he will do so again in a

moment — and says: “Oh, you’re exaggerating.”

Why aren’t we training more doctors in British Columbia when the

need is so apparent, and why aren’t we taking steps to eliminate the

bureaucratic hurdles to taking world-leading physicians who want to come

to British Columbia and letting them practise in British Columbia and

easing the burden faced by now close to a million British Columbians who

need a family physician?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, I think the member will appreciate…. I think

the issue is so serious that we won’t get into a discussion of

records.

We were tenth in Canada in the number of nurses per capita when I

became Minister of Health. We were tenth in Canada in the number of

nurse practitioners in British Columbia when I became Minister of

Health. We were below the average. We’re at the average in terms of

family practice doctors.

[10:50 a.m.]

We’re seeing a change in circumstances and the nature of family

practice. We’re responding to that. The way that we’re responding to

that is a significant reform of practice, which includes team-based

care.

The very doctors that the member talks about — those trained in

British Columbia and those trained elsewhere, the young doc­tors

coming into the system — want a different kind and a different style of

practice, and we are making significant changes in the system to address

that.

All of these measures, all of these opportunities for primary care

and the expansion out to team-based care, are important. We are going to

need more family practice doctors in the future, and that will require

training in British Columbia. It will require a new medical school in

British Columbia. It will require other steps, and it is absolutely our

intention to do so.

But for the member to, I think, suggest that action hasn’t been

taken — when such dramatic action has been taken to respond to this

question that had been building for a long time with no action — is

incorrect. We are taking that action, and we’ll continue to.

PROPOSED MEDICAL SCHOOL AT

SIMON FRASER

UNIVERSITY

C. Oakes: Well, it is clear that we need to train more doctors. As my

colleague mentioned today, the minister is avoiding the very specific

questions that we have around the training purposes. So maybe we’ll try

a different minister.

The NDP are not helping the situation, because they’re breaking

their promise to build a medical school at SFU’s campus in Surrey.

Despite promising one in the last election, there has been absolutely no

funding for a medical school in Surrey for two consecutive

budgets.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, why is she breaking the

NDP’s promise to fund a medical school when there are nearly one million

people without a family doctor in the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: The Minister of Advanced Education and I are, in fact, putting the

effort required into what will be a major project, but there are two

sets of things the member will understand. A new medical school is

necessary to address the situation into the future and, I believe,

provides some innovative new opportunities. That’s important, and that’s

something the government is hard at work on, on the one hand.

On the other hand, there’s addressing the situation that has been

described by herself and her colleagues now, which will involve a whole

set of other measures. And the government is doing both.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

C. Oakes: The government continues to be all talk and no action on this.

I’ll quote SFU’s news release from last October: “Over the next several

months, it’s hoped that the province will green-light development of a

business case for the proposed school.” But here we are months later —

no business case, no budget, no hope to address the doctor shortage in

British Columbia.

Again to the Minister of Advanced Education, please provide the

House a clear timeline and dollar figure for a medical school in Surrey,

or is this just another broken promise?

Hon. A. Dix: With great respect, you know, across British Columbia — and this

is particularly important in rural and remote communities in the

interior of the province, where these issues are even, I think, more

keenly felt than they are in urban sectors — significant action has been

taken and continues to be taken in many communities. For example, in

Quesnel, there’s an urgent and primary care centre where there wasn’t

before.

There are two sets of things that we need to do. There are two

sets of things. I agree it’s not just in rural and remote areas, but

that’s a priority. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition would agree with

me that addressing issues around doctors in rural and remote communities

is a high priority for us. It must be a high priority for her. So one

does not exclude the other is what I’m saying to the Leader of the

Opposition.

The government is proceeding on numerous tracks. We are taking

steps to improve access to internationally trained health professionals

to come into the B.C. market, because in many areas, frankly, the system

that’s in place provides an impediment. It creates a financial

disincentive, and this is particularly true of nurses. It provides a

structural disincentive. There are two processes, a national and a

provincial one, in that case — and why we need to take those

actions.

With respect to the SFU medical school, it’s a commitment in the

government’s four-year plan, and we intend to meet that commitment

during this mandate.

[10:55 a.m.]

PHYSICIAN SUPPLY AND BARGAINING

MANDATE ON MASTER

AGREEMENT

P. Milobar: It’s very clear we’re seeing a shifting of resources from clinics

and doctors’ offices to the urgent pri­mary care centres. But the

net result…. The minister can say, “It’s not,” all he wants, but the

fact of the matter is that we have 200,000 more people in this province

without access to a family doctor than when they formed government. It’s

closing in on one million people without a doctor because it’s just been

a shifting of resources around, not an added capacity to the

system.

We’ve heard about the struggles around access to education, access

to training and access to foreign credentialing. It’s a layering of

frustrations to physicians generally that is leading to them also

seeking out early retirement and also lower workloads.

Another example of this frustration is the current physician

master agreement, which was ratified in 2019. It’s the payment model

that is obviously critical for keeping family doctors and is one of the

most cited reasons for doctors closing their doors over the last while.

But despite this fact, the agreement expires on Friday. We have no idea

what the status of negotiations is or even what the bargaining mandate

is.

This is the first time since the ’90s that the public sector

negotiating mandate has been suppressed. Not surprising, I guess, given

that this is the government that has been cited as the most secretive in

Canada.

My question to the Finance Minister is one that’s quite simple.

What is the negotiating mandate for the 2022 phys­ician master

agreement so we can stop losing the critical physicians that are in

short supply already?

Hon. A. Dix: The member knows that the signature initiative in the primary care

plan, our primary care networks across B.C…. Every primary care network

was proposed by local divisions of family practice, including doctors.

In other words, there has never been this level of working together in

consultation as there is now.

Does that mean…?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the first urgent and primary care centre was in Kamloops. It

aligned with it the ability for new doctors to come and practise in

primary care in Kamloops. In fact, it’s one of the most successful of

its kind in North America — in Kamloops.

I’m happy to show the numbers, happy to show the num­bers

anytime — anytime. That work…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …in Kamloops….

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m happy to provide the numbers. In fact…

Interjections.

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

Hon. A. Dix: …if the member stays around after question period in this place —

I don’t want to refer to that, because we all have much business around

the place — I’d be happy to provide them to him this morning, between 11

and 12. I’m happy to provide them, because the numbers are so good. I

tell you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: Urgent primary care centres — I’m surprised, because I’d

understood that they were supported by members of the opposition — have

been essential in this period of pandemic. The doors of those urgent

primary care centres have stayed open, where it’s not been virtual care.

They’ve played a essential role. The member seems to dismiss one million

visits, but one million visits are a lot of visits with people in

British Columbia.

With respect to issues of collective bargaining…. I don’t know if

this is new or news to members of the opposition, but collective

bargaining should take place at the bargaining table, and it

will.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report

Managing Cybersecurity Risk in the Telework Environment , and

the Representative for Children and Youth’s report At a Crossroads: The

Road Map from Fiscal Discrimination to Equity in Indigenous Child

Welfare .

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to present the 2021 annual report of the Forest Appeals

Commission.

[11:00 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 18, the Supply Act. In

section A, Committee of Supply, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: For those members who are leaving the chamber, I’d ask you to do that

quickly so that we can move on with the business of the day. We’ll just take a

minute.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 18, Supply Act (No. 1), 2022, be read a second

time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2022. Bill

18 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations for approximately the first three months of the ’22-23

year while the House completes debate of the appropriations presented in

the ’22-23 estimates.

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is

required to ensure continuation of government services until the final

supply bill comes into force. Bill 18 also provides one-third of the

combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the ’22-23 estimates for

disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and

other financing requirements.

The one-third authorization provided for in relation to these

disbursements is higher than the proportion authorized in relation to

ministry operations, as the disbursements described in schedules C and D

are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher

level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that

will be made under these schedules.

Bill 18 also authorizes the full amount of the disbursements

referred to in

schedule E of the ’22-23 estimates.

Schedule E of the

estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of and transferred to

specific programs for entities. There is no impact on the operating

results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of

this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the

accountabilities and allocations outlined in the ’22-23 estimates. The

final supply bill for the ’22-23 fiscal year will incorporate these

amounts to ensure it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be

given to government in that fiscal year.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 18. Not a whole lot of

comments. It’s a pretty straightforward bill that happens every year. I

will say that this year I was pleased to see we’re back to the normal

routine. If we recall last year, the budget was delayed two months and

was not actually presented until we were already into the fiscal

year.

Everything was a guess when we came to this bill last year, to

keep the doors of government open on April 1.

Whereas this year, because

the budget was presented when it was supposed to be, we see that this is

actually built on the percentages based on the budget as presented and

as is being debated through estimates in other chambers in this

building, as we speak.

[11:05 a.m.]

In that regard, not a lot of apprehension, obviously, around this.

The opposition, of course, will be supportive of this phase to keep the

doors of government operating, and we of course reserve our right to

question and scrutinize and potentially vote against either all or parts

of the budget, but not this

part in particular.

We look forward to this moving along and making sure that the

doors of government continue to operate as the fiscal starts so that the

public can be reassured that in fact their services will continue and

other programs they may rely on will continue unhindered as

well.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much. This is the shortest debate I think I have

ever participated in, in this House. I appreciate hearing that the

members opposite are going to support this budget bill, which is a good

thing.

With that, making sure that operations can continue while we

continue debate on the budget that I presented last month, I move second

reading of Bill 18, Supply Act (No. 1), 2022.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 18 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 18, Supply Act (No. 1), 2022, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call second reading, Bill 19, Employment Standards Amendment

Act.

BILL 19 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.

Over the past two years, the pandemic has made it very clear just

how important it is to protect the health of workers, their families and

B.C.’s workplaces. A critical part of protecting the health of workers

is the ability for workers to stay home when they are sick and not to

lose wages.

Nobody should be forced to make that decision to go to work sick

or stay home and lose wages. That’s why last May we passed legislation

to ensure that all workers covered by the Employment Standards Act could

take paid sick days when they need them.

As you know, we began with three days of temporary paid leave for

COVID-related illnesses, and we supported businesses by reimbursing them

for those wages up to $200 per worker per day until the end of 2021.

Following extensive consultations, we laid out changes last fall to

ensure that the minimum standard would be five paid sick days for all

workers covered by the Employment Standards Act, including part-time

workers.

That standard came into effect on January 1 of this year. I’m very

proud that B.C. is the first province in Canada to legislate this level

of paid time off for workers who fall ill.

Since coming into effect, we have heard from business groups and

labour organizations and workers regarding two specific concerns about

implementation of the legislation. We have listened closely to those

concerns, examined the issues that have been raised, and we are now

proposing two amendments to the Employment Standards Act to address the

concerns, through Bill 19.

First, the act currently says that the annual entitlement for paid

sick leave is based on a worker’s employment year. That is their start

date. In other words, employment year requires an employer to use a

different date for each employee’s annual use of paid sick

leave.

However, we heard from business associations that it is

administratively challenging to use an employee’s start-date anniversary

to determine when their five days’ paid sick leave entitlement begins

and ends each year, which means having to have tracking for all

employees individually, separately, which is administratively very

cumbersome. This change standardizes the annual entitlement period for

all employees and means employers will not have to track separate dates

for each individual employee based on the start date of their

employment.

They also noted that, as the legislation is currently written,

some workers could be entitled to take ten days of paid sick leave in

[11:10 a.m.]

For example, if a worker’s employment year ended May 31, with the

new employment year starting June 1, the employee could take up to five

days of paid sick leave between January 1 and May 31 of this year and

then be entitled to another five days as of June 1 until the end of the

year.

The business associations have told us that they would prefer the

simplicity of using the calendar year for determining when the annual

paid sick leave begins and ends. So the first amendment in the bill is

to amend

section 49.1 of the Employment Standards Act to read “calendar

year” instead of “employment year.” It is a simple change and one we are

happy to make to help employers adjust to the new sick leave

entitlement. It may also assist employees in keeping track of their own

entitlement.

The second amendment is a little more complicated, and frankly, it

is disappointing to me that we need to do this. The standards laid out

in the act, for the most part, are the minimum requirement that

employers and workers are expected to follow. Usually collective

agreements have built on those standards, improved upon them, through

the bargaining process. A number of provisions are listed in the act

under a meet-or-exceed clause.

That clause says that for those named provisions, such as hours of

work, overtime and annual vacations, if the collective agreement

provisions, when considered together, meet or exceed the requirements in

the act, then those provisions replace the standard of the act for the

workers covered by the collective agreement. This allows unions and

employers to negotiate unique provisions outside of the employment

standards requirement, as long as they meet or exceed the provisions in

the act.

Effective January 1, this year, permanent paid sick leave was

added to the meet-or-exceed clause as one of those main provisions. But

we have recently heard concerns that there are employers who are taking

the position that since their existing collective agreement

paid-sick-leave provisions, when considered together, meet or exceed the

act’s minimum entitled five days, then the sick leave provisions of the

act do not apply, even if some workers are receiving less than five days

of paid sick leave or none at all.

There are two or three different examples that come to my mind.

There are employers who are taking the position that since they have

long-term disability, short-term disability plans, they believe that

they are meeting or exceeding, although in order to qualify for either

one of those benefits, there is a waiting period for three to five days.

I think that defeats the purpose of the act that we brought in January

The second example is sometimes called 90/10 — that if the

majority of the workforce enjoy five days or better under the collective

agreement but there are 10 percent who do not, who could be casual

employees who come in to replace those full-time workers, they are

arguing that their collective agreement language meets or exceeds the

Employment Standards Act, leaving a number of workers without paid sick

leave.

That was not the intention. We were very clear that all workers in

British Columbia under the Employment Standards Act are entitled to five

days. The reasons were very clear. We have seen the importance of having

workers stay home when they are sick, during the pandemic. I think those

are some of the real issues that we are trying to deal with, with

this.

There are also worries that the arbitrators may rule that the

employees are entitled to the full five paid days, as established in the

employment standards. But then again, one employer could take the

position that if they lose the argument of the arbitration, then the

five days will replace all other benefits that they enjoy under the

collective agreement, such as short-term and long-term disabilities.

That was not the intent of the act that we brought in last

year.

To strengthen the paid sick leave entitlement and ensure that all

workers covered by the Employment Standards Act receive that benefit,

the second part of these legislative changes will remove paid sick leave

from the meet-or-exceed clause in

section 3 of the act. That way,

eligible workers who do not currently receive at least five paid sick

days under their collective agreement will now be entitled to this

benefit.

This is the right thing to do. The benefit of paid sick leave — we

have canvassed this in this House quite a bit — includes a healthier,

happier and more productive workforce. Those benefits far exceed the

modest cost of the workers taking a sick day when they need

it.

[11:15 a.m.]

The amendments in this bill are aimed at simplifying and

strengthening the new paid sick leave entitlement that we brought in at

the beginning of this year. We have listened to the concerns that have

been brought to us from both workers and employers. We examined the

legislation to see if improvements could be made, and this bill is the

result of that work.

I look forward to the debate.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Shuswap.

Sorry, member for Shuswap. We’re having a problem with the

sound.

We’ll take a two-minute recess in order to deal with the technical

difficulties.

The committee recessed from 11:16 a.m. to 11:18 a.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: I will recognize the member for Shu­swap and also indicate

to the member that the technical difficulty was on this end, not your

end.

G. Kyllo: Excellent. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

It’s always a privilege to speak in the chamber, albeit remotely

today, specifically in second reading debate on Bill 19.

As the minister had indicated in his opening remarks, I and the

entire B.C. Liberal caucus are also in agreement that workers should not

have to choose between taking home a paycheque or potentially having to

go to work ill. So we’re very supportive, overall, of the bill. However,

it is unfortunate that there was apparently a lack of consultation or

work done at the front end, the original tabling of this bill back on

May 13 of last year.

As supportive as we are and as happy as we are to see these

amendments, it is unfortunate that the minister is having to walk this

bill back into the House in such a short time frame in order to make

remedies of some of the missed opportunities of getting this bill right

when it was originally tabled last year.

[11:20 a.m.]

I think part of it has to do with the fact that although the

initial bill that was tabled last year, Bill 13…. Government took almost

16 months before they brought forward this very important legislation to

provide the opportunity for paid sick leave in the province of B.C.

There was a significant delay, at the outset of COVID, when there was an

opportunity for workers to actually receive the benefit that is provided

under the paid sick leave legislation — a full 16 months of delay before

the bill was initially tabled last year, in May.

As the minister had actually confirmed during our bill debate last

year, there were only about four weeks of consultation, very limited

consultation, before the bill was actually tabled. I think that the lack

of consultation, the lack of work in tabling the original legislation

last year, is why we’re back here now with these amendments.

There is also another concern that was brought forward. That has

to do with a bit of the inequity that exists between part-time and

full-time workers in the province. The current legislation does not

distinguish between part- or full-time employees. Unfortunately, what is

provided in the original legislation is that a part-time employee that

may be working for as many as two or three different employers would be

entitled to, in essence, ten to 15 days of paid sick leave,

whereas an

employee that works for a single employer is only entitled to five days

under this legislation.

I think that that inequity continues to exist. This was brought

forward to the minister’s attention last year, yet the minister has

failed to take the opportunity to provide that clarity and remedy that

discrimination that exists within this piece of legislation.

The minister, in his comments…. Obviously, the first portion of

this bill that sets forth the anniversary date on the calendar year is

very important. I heard from a number of constituents extremely

concerned about the anniversary date being on the employment date of the

employee. As the minister indicated, an employee that, as an example,

might have been hired on May 1 of 2021, on January 1 would be entitled

to the full five days of paid sick leave, as they would have satisfied

the 90-day employment requirement, but on their anniversary date of May

1 would be entitled to an additional five days.

Many employers were indicating that in fiscal 2022, the cost

burden or the number of paid sick days available to employees, under the

troubled legislation, was actually double — twice as much as what

government had set forth in establishing the five paid sick

days.

We’re happy to see that that clarification is being undertaken as

part of this bill and, as well, the second piece — where, as the

minister had indicated, the exemption existed, because of the lack of

clarity with the legislation, where employers may have a short-term

disability program available for employees. Their

interpretation of that

was that it would actually exceed the requirement in the Employment

Standards Act and, therefore, were not providing those immediate paid

sick days.

I’m certainly happy to see that these remedies are being tabled

here today as part of Bill 19, but I just want to re-express my concern

about the significant delays that came about in the initial tabling of

the legislation in May of last year and then also about the lack of

work, the lack of consultation, which has led to the necessity of this

amendment bill being tabled here this week.

With that, I think I’ll reserve a bit more detailed conversation

to committee stage as we move forward. Again, I’m certainly happy to see

that a paid sick leave program is available in the province of British

Columbia.

Maybe I will just end it on this note. Just as a reminder for

those that might be listening from home, the Premier and the minister,

both on record in the news media, had expressed a number of times how,

during the pandemic, businesses have really been struggling financially,

that businesses were not able to take on any additional cost during the

pandemic.

[11:25 a.m.]

As much as there is certainly a necessity for this bill to provide

that support for workers, the challenge remains that this bill does put

additional cost burden directly on the backs of B.C. employers, which is

very contrary to what the minister and the Premier had actually shared

with British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further members, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the critic for his comments. We debated all those

issues that he brought up during the bill debate on Bill 13.

On a couple of areas that he mentioned, I just want to address

that we canvassed that particular area, I recall clearly, about

part-timers working for more than one employer. I made it clear, but I

want to make it clear again today, that you are entitled to your paid

sick day only on a day that you take off when you are scheduled to

work.

If you’re working at employer A and you work one day there and you

become sick the next day, if you were not scheduled to work, then you

are not entitled to the sick pay. If they go and work at employer B,

where they are working part-time, the same thing applies there. If they

are sick, they’re staying home. But if they were not scheduled to work

at employer B, C or a number of employers where they were working, they

are not entitled to it. I just want to make that clear.

The other part the member mentioned was that we took 16 months.

Also, the member will know, we took a number of initiatives before we

brought Bill 13. The first thing we did was that we brought in

job-protected leave for all workers in the event they were sick due to

COVID. Then we brought in three unpaid days. Then we brought in three

paid days, with the government reimbursement program of $200 per day per

member.

Then also at the same time, we said that we would bring in a

permanent solution, because we were working with the federal government.

That was also a part where the Premier went and talked to the federal

government. We were able to convince them and work with them when they

brought in those sick leave programs, although we identified to them

later — both myself, with my counterparts federally, and my other

colleagues — that there were a couple of flaws in their

program.

Then the federal government took the position that the provinces

had to come up with their own solutions when it comes to paid sick days.

That’s why we brought in Bill 13.

With that, I just want to thank the member again for the support

that was expressed, because it is the right thing to do, as the member

has said.

I now move second reading of Bill 19.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 19.

Motion approved.

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

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 19, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time

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

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I now call second reading of Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act,

If I could just suggest a two-minute recess while the minister

makes her way into the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: We will recess for two minutes, giving the minister time to rush

into the chamber.

The House recessed at 11:29 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We are currently looking at second reading on Bill 14, Wildlife

Amendment Act, 2022.

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022, be now read

a second time.

British Columbia feels a deep tie to wildlife. We share the

responsibility to protect the diverse range of wildlife for generations

to come. Since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples have cared for

wildlife with Indigenous laws, values and stewardship traditions that

sustain communities and cultures. These long-held relationships with

wildlife and ecosystems have created a rich Indigenous knowledge that

extends into the deep past.

Since provincial legislation governing wildlife management began —

dating back to game ordinances created in 1859 — Indigenous knowledge,

rights or interests have not been appropriately addressed. It is time to

begin to bring the alignment of the Wildlife Act with Indigenous

practices and ensure we are incorporating Indigenous knowledge as well

as western science to inform Wildlife Act decisions.

As part of the development of Together for Wildlife strategy, the

First Nations–B.C. Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Forum was created

in 2018. First Nations participants in the forum reflect the views,

values and interests of regions throughout British Columbia.

Working together, the province and Indigenous members of this

forum co-developed the intentions paper that formed the foundation of

this bill. The province consulted extensively with First Nations,

Indigenous-led organizations and others on the policy

intentions.

The foundational laws for managing wildlife in B.C. came into

effect almost 200 years ago. Updates to laws over the years have

reflected the changing nature of wildlife management in response to

social values, common law and scientific advancement.

For the first time, the legislation is being amended to integrate

Indigenous perspectives. This bill is a first step in demonstrating

government’s commitment to reconciliation under the Wildlife Act and is

an important step as we move towards co-management of

wildlife.

Our government recognizes that Indigenous peoples have maintained

reciprocal relationships with the land and wildlife and that their

governance systems embody an intrinsic sense of responsibility to

effectively steward the land and wildlife.

We believe that our co-management regime must be built on trust

and mutual respect. That is why this bill requires decision-makers to

use Indigenous knowledge in wildlife management and ensure that

knowledge is only used with the consent of the contributing First

Nation.

Indigenous knowledge about wildlife stems from a knowledge system

that emerges through observations and interactions with the environment,

often through generations of experience. Indigenous knowledge is deeply

embedded in the culture and traditions of Indigenous peoples and must be

respected and incorporated when decisions about wildlife management are

being made under the Wildlife Act.

Because Indigenous knowledge is a core part of Indigenous

identity, it is also critical that knowledge shared is respected and

treated confidentially. Proposed amendments will establish that

Indigenous knowledge provided by a First Nation can only be used for the

purposes for which it was provided.

Furthermore, any Indigenous knowledge provided will only be

permitted to be disclosed under strict circumstances. Prior to

disclosing Indigenous knowledge, the First Nation will be given a

written request of the anticipated disclosure. If permitted, those

disclosing the knowledge will have the discretion to impose conditions

and sanctions on further disclosure of that Indigenous knowledge by the

recipient.

The significance here is that the amendments will establish that

by default, Indigenous knowledge will only be used for the purpose for

which it was provided and will not be further disclosed. As such, the

proposed amendments related to Indigenous knowledge both affirm the

value of Indigenous knowledge and provide a mechanism by which the

knowledge can be used in decision-making, thereby affirming and

respecting traditional ways of knowing and Indigenous laws.

[11:35 a.m.]

These amendments will support reconciliation, improve the

knowledge that we have about wildlife and habitat, and provide valuable

input into management decisions that will improve stewardship outcomes.

This bill will also provide a framework that allows government to enter

into agreements with First Nations on traditional hunting

practices.

These agreements will allow government to align its laws with

pre-existing or new protocol hunting and sheltering agreements, where a

host nation permits hunting by guest nations within the host nation’s

territory. As a sheltering agreement could have the affect of varying

versions of the Wildlife Act, this amendment is needed to enable the

host nation’s protocols and laws to prevail in specific

circumstances.

These agreements have the benefit of broadening opportunities for

collaborative management, clarifying the legal standing of some wildlife

practices, and contributing to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples by

recognizing traditional practices.

Finally, these amendments will come into force on Sept­ember

1, 2022, to allow the province and the forum time to finalize Indigenous

knowledge and sheltering operational policies. This will allow for the

smooth implementation of this important work.

Changes to the Wildlife Act will ensure that Indigenous knowledge

is being used to improve wildlife stewardship as we go forward. These

amendments support implementation of the Together for Wildlife strategy

and are an early step on government’s commitment to align the Wildlife

Act with the principles of the Declaration Act and to improve

collaboration and information-sharing with First Nations. They address

and respect Indigenous rights and interests, support their ancestral

knowledge of wildlife and will lead to better decisions on wildlife

stewardship.

We recognize these amendments are just a start to the process of

aligning the Wildlife Act to the expectations set out in the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, but they are a

significant step in the right direction. We will continue to learn and

do more to advance co-management with our shared interest of stewarding

wildlife that are of great importance to all British

Columbians.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to the

debate.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for her opening comments on this

bill.

I have to admit. It was an interesting process trying to get a

briefing on this bill. The government decided to call this bill up for

debate the day after it was introduced. The opportunity for a briefing

for myself and other members…. It was about a week and a half before I

finally got a chance for a briefing, but I’m happy that we did get a

chance for a briefing. Like I say, it was unfortunate that that was the

process that we had to go through.

Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister when she says B.C. has a

unique connection to wildlife — I’m paraphrasing that — because it’s

true. When you think about British Columbia and our history — history

before Europeans came around, and history after Europeans came and

settled in the area — wildlife was a critical component. It was a food

source for families, all families, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike,

as this province grew and became what it is today.

It does have this unique perspective, I think, for many people in

the province about wildlife. The management of wildlife is a very

important factor. As a matter of fact, it’s so important that it

actually supersedes in terms of environmental values over even things

like treaties and other agreements that are in place, because management

of wildlife is a critical component for British Columbia.

I think it’s great that we’re opening the doors up to that

management to see Indigenous knowledge become part of how we manage

that. I think that is actually an important step.

It’s something, actually, that we started some work on, back when

we were in government. As a matter of fact, we had joint groups between

the Wildlife Federation, with several different guide-outfitter groups,

with First Nations, with governments of course. We created that

framework to start having this discussion about managing

wildlife.

Once again this is a step further now in terms of management and

in terms of officially incorporating that Indigenous knowledge into the

management. But when I look at this and when I think about what Bill 14

does…. I just want to read one of the components in here of this bill

that makes me kind of wonder a little bit.

We are talking about managing wildlife, and we’re talking about

government having that responsibility to manage. It says here, with

regards to the sheltering agreements: “…in respect of hunting in the

traditional territory of the host first nation, authorize a guest to (

i) do anything that is prohibited under this Act, or (ii) omit to do

anything that is required to be done under this Act.”

[11:40 a.m.]

In other words, the management of wildlife is no longer governed

by the act under the sheltering agreements. It makes me wonder: what

exactly is the government trying to do with this? We’ll, of course, get

an opportunity to explore this in detail when we get into committee

stage.

We have

an act that’s the responsibility of the Crown for a value

in this province that I think we all appreciate and we all want to see

as healthy as possible. We have rules in place to ensure, and to try to

ensure, that we are managing wildlife to the best of our ability, that

we’re making it sustainable and that we’re dealing with issues of

conservation. Now we’re introducing

an act that says all that can be

ignored. I’m not quite sure what government’s intent was in bringing

that in.

I want to take a step back, though, and talk a little bit about

the sheltering in this. I’ve had lots of engagement with First Nations,

and I was minister when there was a court case that went through with a

member, who lives in the United States, of the Syilx First Nation, which

is part of the Okanagan Alliance. It’s a nation that no longer has

residents in British Columbia, so under the Indian Act, it’s considered

extinct. Obviously, their territory comes into British Columbia. Like I

say, they were part of the Okanagan Alliance long before British

Columbia and Canada and the United States were countries.

That court case was of an individual who came up from the States

and hunted without a licence in British Columbia in what was considered

their traditional territory, and he was charged. The court came through

and agreed that this individual should not have been charged because

they have the right to hunt.

So the idea of sheltering agreements, I think, is actually not a

bad idea. Many First Nations I talked to often worked with neighbouring

First Nations, and they had agreements in place, and there was trade

that went on. There was the allowing of people to come into their First

Nation to be able to harvest as part of an agreement. It was part of

respecting the Elders, respecting the clan leaders, the Hereditary

Chiefs, and having that ability to be able to do that

sharing.

The idea of a sheltering agreement, I think, is not bad because it

reflects what First Nations have done historically — the idea of any

nation that has traditional territory coming into or a claim for

traditional territory. Perfect. It makes sense doing this. But to not

have the conservation values enshrined as part of that — that British

Columbia can sit down and work with First Nations and include Indigenous

knowledge as well as science and other groups of concerns…. I wonder

what it is we’re trying to drive with that.

In addition, when it talks about a governing body, this bill

doesn’t talk about whether it’s elected or hereditary. I understand

different nations approach things differently. I’m reminded of one

nation in the area I represent, in Nechako Lakes. They have what’s

called a keyoh system. I think within that one nation, there

are 105 different keyohs .

Each one of those is headed up by a family. There’s a family

that’s in charge of that particular area. I guess the question is: is

that family capable of doing a sheltering agreement within their area,

which is part of a much greater area, of course, as part of the area

that’s covered by a nation? How do those things work in terms of the

governing structure of entering into these agreements and the process

around it?

The bill is very unclear in terms of just how that structure needs

to be formalized and set up. For me, when I look at this, I think:

“Okay, like I say, I don’t have a problem with these agreements, but the

technical components of how these will be structured seem to be pretty

vague.” That, to me, is definitely concerning.

Going along with the declaration that this government has been the

most secretive government in Canada — not our declaration; the

declaration from the media that have done that — I guess it makes sense

that certain components of this are to be kept in secret or are not to

be revealed in terms of how it will be done.

[11:45 a.m.]

One of the other principles, I think, that needs to be thought

about in terms of wildlife management….Wildlife is a Crown asset. It’s

owned by the Crown. We allow for guide-outfitting, where guides have an

opportunity to harvest a certain number of animals. We allow them to be

able to sell those hunts — to come in. Of course, it has to be reported.

The hunts, the animals that are taken and the agreements and things are

put in place.

We allow, of course, resident hunters to go out. First Nations

have rights under

section 35 to be able to hunt. These sheltering

agreements provide an opportunity for a First Nation to create a

financial arrangement over and above, outside of the sheltering

agreement, between the host nation and those coming in to hunt, without

having to report it.

I wonder. What’s the intent on that? If there is an arrangement

there, whether traditionally it was a swap of salmon or other types of

things for moose meat…. I get that that was done historically. But why

is that not being reported? Why is that not needing to be included as

part of an agreement in terms of how these interactions take

place?

I’m not sure why. Maybe that was just an oversight, not thought

about, or maybe it’s intentional. When I think about a Crown asset that

potentially is being sold through some type of agreement, why would that

not be reported?

When I think, also, about managing wildlife, and when I think

about how government sets the limits of animals that can be harvested….

They look and take this information in to look for the future, in terms

of LEH opportunities or other open opportunities. It’s disturbing to

think that those limits don’t need to be followed here. How many animals

are being harvested? Is that being reported? How does that influence and

impact in terms of the decisions that are made as part of this? Why are

there not those sorts of values that should be looked at? Why is that

not included as part of how these agreements are structured?

We’ve seen, for example, in wild salmon, when wild salmon are

harvested, that the quotas are set by the federal government, and First

Nations have a right to take a portion of the quota. It’s their right to

hunt. It’s their right to fish. I don’t have a problem with that. That’s

section 35. That needs to be addressed. Where is that when we come to

wildlife? How do we manage through those sorts of issues?

It needs to be managed. If we are going to manage wildlife

properly, if we’re going to be dealing with the values of conservation,

if we’re going to be thinking about wildlife as it was defined and as

it’s being talked about in the courts, as a provincial asset, how is

that managed?

I fully support and understand Indigenous knowledge coming in. But

why don’t we have a reporting mechanism? Why don’t we have the same

sorts of limits and restrictions that we would, say, on things like wild

salmon?

I fully understand, as well, Indigenous people and their

traditional knowledge and wanting to keep that knowledge confidential. I

understand the need to do that. For ex­ample, there are many

historical values that First Nations have — whether it is areas that are

considered sacred for them, whether it’s areas that have been for

burial, whether it’s areas of traditional use — that they want to be

able to keep confidential.

Part of that is why many things, for example, in the archeological

acts looked at…. Those sorts of values are kept secret. In treaties,

those sorts of things are kept secret and kept from the general public

to protect the integrity of those values.

I’m having a struggle. I’m trying to understand why Indigenous

knowledge associated with wildlife management is not being made public,

because when we’re talking about a provincial asset, when we’re talking

about wildlife management, we have many people around the province who

are interested. As the minister has said, it’s unique — our unique

connection as people of British Columbia to our province and to

wildlife. But we’re saying that some knowledge is going to have a gate,

and only certain people will have keys to that gate. We want people to

say, “This is how it’s going to be managed now,” but not understanding

why.

[11:50 a.m.]

That secrecy will create problems. It’ll create challenges and

issues as people struggle to understand what has changed, why things

have happened, and that. If we truly want to have reconciliation,

particularly for things like wildlife that is this provincial asset that

is, as the minister said, unique — and this connection of all British

Columbians too — surely we should be transparent and open about the

values that come in and are part of managing this act, are part of

managing such an important asset for the province as our

wildlife.

Once again, I fail to see why this government has de­cided

to be so secretive on this issue. Like I say, I understand the need for

many Indigenous values to be kept confidential to protect the integrity

of those values. I just can’t understand why that’s being applied to

Indigenous knowledge associated with wildlife management. I’ve got a

number of questions, obviously, to the minister associated with that

component.

Much of the act, of course, goes in and talks about that and the

ability to disclose that and the process around it. But like I say, I

just fail to understand why those components are in there. Maybe there’s

a good reason for it. But certainly the minister should be able to

defend that, as to why they have taken this approach of

secrecy.

I think where there are people that like to hunt and fish for

sustenance, to help feed their family…. Many families do that — First

Nations, obviously. Indigenous people in this province have done that

from time immemorial in terms of the values and what they

need.

Wildlife has that unique connection, and it needs to be managed

transparently. People need to understand what we’re doing on the

landscape. We’re seeing, in many areas of the province, wildlife in

decline, particularly ungulates in decline. We’re seeing areas where we

have predators that are increasing. We’re seeing lots of challenges as

we’re seeing development on the land base and these

components.

We all need to come together. All of us need to come together to

be able to manage through these issues to the best of our ability. We

need to be able to accept the best science. We need to be able to accept

Indigenous understanding and knowledge. We need to be able to bring this

together, to be able to make sure that we have viable wildlife for not

just our generation but many generations to come.

This bill is a step away from transparency. It’s a step away from

us being able to work together to be able to achieve those goals that I

think everybody in this Legislature likely agrees on: the goals of being

able to have the values of conservation, the values that are important

for the people of British Columbia.

With that, like I say, in looking through this, I can’t understand

why there’s so much secrecy, why there is information that’s not being

shared, why there isn’t the need for reporting and why we don’t have the

act itself that needs to be followed in these agreements. I can’t

understand that, because this is a Crown asset. It’s a Crown

responsibility, and everybody needs to play a role.

I look forward to going through this in committee stage. I look

forward to the opportunity to ask and go through questions. I know

there’s a number of other members on our side that have some comments

that they want to share on this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It will be interesting to see if there are any members on the

other side that also have any comments on this bill or whether or not

they’re just going to be pushing this thing through with a veil of

secrecy, which tends to be this government’s pattern with most things it

does.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $24,602,000

(continued) .

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister and staff.

I think yesterday we left off…. We were touching on the ICY teams.

Just to follow up from some of the minister’s comments yesterday, can

the minister advise what staff positions remain unfilled in the Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows school district? What funding has been distributed to

the district, health authorities or communities for this team to

date?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Madam Chair, sorry for the delay.

I want to recognize…. I’m sorry for the length of that. This

partly is explained by…. Yesterday the executive director responsible in

this area, Lori MacKenzie, came in on her holiday and joined us in

estimates to be able to provide this detailed information. I also want

to introduce to the panel our assistant deputy minister, Francesca

Wheler, who wasn’t with us when I first did introductions before the

break. We are managing without Lori MacKenzie.

In response to the member’s question, the unfilled positions in

the Maple Ridge integrated child and youth team are one program leader,

which is a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions position; one

clinical counsellor, which will be within the Ministry of Education; one

family peer support staffer, which will be hired by the health

authority; and one Indigenous services family support worker. That

employer is to be determined. We are re-evaluating how that position

will be co-created. All the funds have been disbursed to the employer

organizations.

[11:15 a.m.]

I’ll say just again, for those who are listening…. Integrated

child and youth teams are a transformative and innovative approach. It

hasn’t been done before. It’s a substantial piece of policy development

to have all ministries come together and deliver services from all these

different employer groups together.

It has been slower than we anticipated — particularly because the

people implementing it have been necessarily diverted to fighting two

public health emergencies — but we are working with these first

communities to really make sure that the model works very well and is

fully staffed up before we expand it to the next 15 communities that

we’ve committed to in the province.

T. Halford: That is a fairly sizeable number of vacancies. I think the news

release that was put out here on July 8, 2019, said: “The

integrated service delivery model will be implemented in the Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows school district by December 2019.”

In the minister’s opinion — based on those vacancies, I would

suggest that that’s not fully implemented yet — what level of

implementation is this particular one at?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I just described four vacant positions. There are 16 positions

that are filled and functioning. We have got the Maple Ridge ICY team as

in stage 6 of six stages of implementation. That means that existing

team members and access points — for example, the child and youth mental

health intake clinics, youth substance use — have begun getting consent

for information-sharing.

Cases have been reviewed and are being reviewed by teams in

case-review meetings. Wait-lists have been re­viewed, and

children, youth and families have been offered services as applicable.

All team members have been hired and trained, with the exception of the

four that I mentioned. Concurrent disorder clinicians are seeing clients

through referrals from the health authority.

That is the stage that the Maple Ridge ICY team is at.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister. So the minister can correct me if I am

wrong — my math is not always good — but it would suggest that that

Maple Ridge facility is operating at 75 percent staffing capacity, based

on the numbers that the minister’s tabled.

Can the minister do the same for Coast Mountains, Richmond,

Okanagan Similkameen and the Comox Valley — the positions that remain

vacant, and in the minister’s opinion, what stage of implementation

those specific ones are at?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll just give this for the member’s option. Doing the next four

will take four times as long as the first one took. For each of them,

we’re pulling out those pieces.

It’s up to you, Chair, and to the member, whether you’d like us to

undertake to provide that or whether you’d like to just do this, bit by

bit, here now.

T. Halford: I think we’re going to be coming back after lunch. Would that be…?

Could the minister table that when we get back from the lunch break at

1:30?

The Chair: I see agreement.

T. Halford: I thank the minister and the minister’s staff for that.

Just on the remaining questions I have on the ICY teams, in the

2022-2023 ministry service plan, the 2023-24 target for the number of

school districts with integrated child and youth mental health and

substance use teams at a minimum in implementation is only 15, not the

20 as promised in the Pathway to Hope.

It seems that the target is frozen for the following year with no

further increases. Can the minister explain why the cutback on her

promise to implement 20 of these teams, and if the minister is not

considering any acceleration for these teams, given that we are

obviously in a health crisis?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As I described in an earlier answer, implementation of the ICY

teams is a new model. It’s a transformative, innovative approach. It has

required substantial policy development to bring together the work of

multiple ministries, their collective agreements. It’s important

work.

I can see why it hasn’t happened before. The people

in­volved in implementing were necessarily diverted to fighting

two public health emergencies. We’ve heard in other conversations in

other areas of health care delivery in this estimates debate,

particularly yesterday, of challenges that some health authorities and

service providers are having on both recruitment and

retention.

That is why the commitment is still to a full 20 ICY teams across

British Columbia, but the changed timeline reflects the reality that

we’ve experienced, particularly through the two years of COVID, of

having some delays in implementation.

We are changing some of the implementation based on what we’ve

learned from the earliest, Maple Ridge–Pitt Mea­dows, working

across ministries with an assistant deputy ministers committee to remove

some of the barriers. But again, we are delivering service in the first

ICY teams.

I’ll mention also, though, that the work delivering supports to

youth did not stop while we’re building the ICY teams. Especially with

additional spending around COVID, there was a lot of new spending shored

up. This past year we’ve opened 30 youth substance use treatment beds,

provided millions for the mental health in schools strategy, launched

the Foundry B.C. app, which has free counselling, same-day or sometimes

next-day appointments and much more to support youth mental

health.

I agree with the member’s characterization. The need is great. The

delays in implementing ICY teams have not prevented our ability to

continue to expand services available for young people.

T. Halford: The April 26, 2021, budget — while we were in both pandemics,

right? I quote:

“Integrated child and youth teams will be located in 15 additional

communities and hire 350 full-time workers across all health

authorities, for a total of 20 throughout B.C. Integrated child and

youth teams will receive new workers in communities where teams are

currently being established. These are Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, Comox,

Richmond, Coast Mountains and Okanagan Similkameen.”

We’ve heard from the minister today that we haven’t, in terms of

hiring, met those expectations for Maple Ridge. I’ll wait until after

lunch to hear how we’ve done on the other communities.

The goal was 20 in the service plan, the ’20-21 here. The

2022-2023 target was 15. The 2023-24 target is 20. The 2022 service

plan, the 2022-2023 target, 10. The 2023-24 target, 15. The 2024-2025

target, 15.

[11:30 a.m.]

It’s clear here, when you compare the two service plans, that,

obviously, the 2022-2023 target of 15 in 2021 was now reduced down to

ten. The 2023-2024 target, 15 — that’s been reduced by five. So in the

service plan, I would say that that’s a cut. I don’t know how else to

characterize it, but the budget is showing that it’s cut by

five.

Now, the comments made in the budget and by the minister in the

House and in other estimates last year…. The target was 20. That has

changed, and the minister has given rationale for why that has changed.

It’s here in the service plan that it is now not 20; it is 15. When we

look at other comments that have been made in terms of targets, it’s

quite clear that the ministry is not keeping up.

I understand the minister’s comments around the pandemics, but

these measures were made last year, when we were in, obviously, both

pandemics. So can the minister clarify, in such an important time, when

we need these, that we’re all going to agree that we need these teams?

They’re of utmost importance in our communities. But in the service

plan, it seems that it is not the priority that we would want it to be,

for we are seeing a reduction. We’re seeing targets not met, and now

we’ve actually seen a reduction.

I applaud the transparency, but it’s quite troubling that this

ministry is now failing in terms of these ICY teams — one, not getting

them properly staffed, and two, not meeting the targets that they have

talked about in numerous press releases over the last two, three years.

I find that troubling. I find that disappointing. I would expect that

the minister maybe shares that frustration.

Can the minister explain that reduction in targets — the 2023-24

target, that was seen in the service plan ’20-21, of 20, and how that’s

been now reduced to 15?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: So I’ll say again, same budget for ICY teams. Same target. A more

realistic timeline based on what we’ve learned about two years of the

pandemic and what a hit that has been on health care staff at every

sector, whether they’re teachers, whether they’re health authority

employees, whether they’re MCFD child and youth counsellors.

I wish that it were so. I wish that these were all up and running.

I share the member’s inclination. But I will not mislead children and

families about how quickly the ICY teams in each of these communities

will be up and running based on the experience we’ve had in the last two

years.

[11:35 a.m.]

That’s why I asked, in our service plan, to have the target

implementation dialed back. If we can implement faster than the service

plan says, 100 percent we will. That’s what everybody on my ministry

team wants to have in place.

As I said in an earlier answer, this is a partnered

ap­proach. The integrated approach to this team-based service

delivery is key, but it hasn’t been done before in this sector. We can

only go at the pace of our partners. Operationalizing that team-based

approach, as I’ve said in previous answers — and I’m trying to be just

as clear and transparent as I can about this — hasn’t gone as quickly as

we would like, and there are very understandable reasons for

that.

So the bigger picture — $40 million has been committed by our

government to create these 20 altogether ICY teams across British

Columbia. There’s been no change to the funding. The work is happening

on the ground as quickly as it can. We know there is more to

do.

So again, in the meantime, we’ve continued to fund other supports

aimed particularly at children and youth — for example, unprecedented

funding for eating disorder support, both to the Looking Glass

Foundation but also to all five health authorities; and, also, a

landmark $53 million in early psychosis intervention, because we hear

again and again if we invest early when problems are just starting to

emerge, we may be able to set young people up for a lifetime of good

mental health.

That work continues, and we’ll continue to push the ICY teams out

to full implementation as fast as we can.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer. We’ll come back to the

ICY teams, I think, post lunch.

Moving on to Foundry. Of the eight Foundry centres announced in

June 2020, how many are open and fully operating? When I say “fully

operating,” I mean with full staff.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question. Foundry centres are a

one-stop shop for wellness supports and social services for youth aged

12 to 24. The physical centres youth can walk into, or they can also

join virtually — to join online drop-in sessions, talk to someone in

person through online chat or by telephone.

[11:40 a.m.]

There is access to primary care, counselling, addictions care,

mental health. It’s extremely broad and also has a significant element

of family support as well. It’s one of the many actions that we’re

taking to build that system of care for mental health and substance use

services for young people but one that has really been particularly

impactful. Already, Foundry centres have opened in 11 communities:

Vancouver-Granville, North Van, Prince George, Campbell River, Kelowna,

Abbotsford, Ridge Meadows, Victoria, Penticton, Richmond and

Terrace.

The additional eight Foundry centres are Burns Lake — for Burns

Lake, the lead agency is Carrier-Sekani Family Services; Comox Valley,

where the lead agency is John Howard Society; in Cranbrook, it’s the

Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Child and Family Services; in Langley, the partner is

Encompass Support Services Society; the Squamish partner is Sea to Sky

Community Services Society; in Surrey, it’s Pacific Community Resources

Society; in Port Hardy, it’s North Island Crisis and Counselling Centre

Society; and in Williams Lake, it’s Cariboo-Chilcotin Child Development

Centre.

These eight all have been slowed, the same as for ICY teams, by

the impact of the pandemic — which has af­fected construction,

supply chains, hiring — in every way. I had a very helpful and detailed

briefing just last week with Steve Mathias, who is the lead for Foundry,

assuring me that they’ve moved as fast as they could through the

pandemic but that there were logistical and mechanical pieces that have

meant that the Foundries did not open as quickly as any of us would have

hoped for. The global pandemic had an impact.

During that time, as the member well knows, we instead launched a

virtual platform — and then, following that, launched an app, which had

been five years in development, in my understanding, designed for and by

young people. It had very interesting returns, so far as tracking who

had been willing to walk into a physical Foundry centre versus who was

more willing to engage online. So we learned something from that

experience, that move of mental health and counselling services

online.

Of those eight that I mentioned, I am very optimistic that five of

them will open in this calendar year. We’ll certainly keep fingers

crossed that all those timelines are met and that we have this very

significant expansion of services to meet that demand.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that level of detail. I think the

troubling notion here is that the announcement came in June of 2022.

Obviously, none are open. When we look at the eight…. We talk about

transparency, and I get the partner agencies. But when we look at

Carrier-Sekani, there was an

article in March 2021 that states the

organization was seeking a location to build, meaning the centre may not

be open for another 18 months, approximately summer 2022, for

Carrier-Sekani.

When we look at the Cariboo-Chilcotin Foundry centre — the

minister is correct — hosted by the Cariboo Chilcotin Child Development

Centre Association, the website says it’s on track to open in spring

2022. When we look at the Comox Valley centre, it says: “Coming soon.”

It also says: “Spring 2022.” When we look at the East Kootenay Foundry

centre, we see an opening date of early 2022. For the Langley Foundry

centre, the website says: “Expected to open spring of 2022.” The Port

Hardy Foundry centre: not open.

My question to the minister would be: when can the community

expect the centre to be fully operational?

[11:45 a.m.]

I’ll go through the other ones now here as well. The Sea to Sky

Foundry centre website there says: “Opening summer 2022.” For the one in

Surrey, the Pacific Community Resources Society, no opening is given.

There’s no target there that we see publicly. There’s a majority here on

the websites that are publicly available that have “Opening spring of

2022.” And I think, from the minister’s previous answer, that that is —

we’re already in spring — highly unachievable that we’re going to see

those targets get met.

Does the minister, on those specific eight, actually have targeted

deadlines that communities could rely on to know when they are likely to

be open? Based on what the minister is saying today, and based on the

Cariboo-Chilcotin Foundry centre…. If somebody goes on there and looks

at it, and it says it’s opening in spring 2022, that’s not correct.

Well, based on the minister’s answer, I would assume that that’s not

correct.

Can the minister, on those eight sites, actually give specific

timelines on when those Foundry centres will be open and

operational?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Today is the 28th of March. Spring began on March 21. And as I

said in my previous answer, five of those eight, I am confident, will be

opened this calendar year. It sounds like the member is reading off the

Foundry website, which is all public information.

We are very optimistic that the 2022 dates that Foundry itself is

advertising will be met, and we want these services open as fast as

possible. There’s not a reason in the world that we would want either

ICY teams or Foundry to come on a day later than they have

to.

They’re all fully funded by our government, and we are counting on

the services that they deliver. But the pandemic has been a tremendous

setback for operators, for construction in every element, and we will

all celebrate the day that young people are able to walk in the doors of

these eight new Foundry centres.

Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.