Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 204

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)

Wild salmon and steelhead protection and recovery

F. Donnelly

Moose Hide anti-violence campaign

M. Lee

Message of appreciation and marriage proposal

R. Glumac

South Peace Oilmen’s Association

M. Bernier

Cancer awareness

A. Singh

Campaign for neonatal intensive care unit in Terrace

E. Ross

Oral Questions

Access to family physicians

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

J. Sturdy

Review of Mental Health Act

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Implementation of recommendations from Police Act reform committee

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Crime in communities and action on community safety

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Community safety in Vancouver’s Chinatown

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

Crime in communities and action on community safety

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Professional Governance Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Professional Governance Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

R. Merrifield

J. Sturdy

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

D. Clovechok: I’ll get you to indulge me a little bit this afternoon, as I’ve got

two guests here in the gallery. The first guest that I’ll introduce has been

my fishing buddy since she was born. She’s more comfortable in the bush with

a fishing rod and a rifle than she is in the corporate boardroom that she

manages. She’s an accomplished horse­woman. She’s the mother and

mentor for my two granddaughters.

Her Blackfoot name is Áwákaasii aakii, which translates into “deer

woman.” Her a.k.a. is Stephanie. She is the CEO of Tourism Saskatoon. She’s

here on a tourism conference. She’s without question a force of nature. She

followed me in my footsteps in tourism, and she’s going to be the first

woman Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, in my humble opinion. Will

this House please make Áwákaasii aakii feel welcome.

The second guest that I have is a good friend. His name is Frank

Antoine. He’s the chief of the Bonaparte First Nation — he’s up there with

staff right now — and co-founder of the Moccasin Trails, a cultural tourism

company based in Kamloops. He’s the co-chair of Indigenous Tourism B.C., a

member of the Tourism Association of Canada. He’s a public speaker, a great

dad and just a really great guy. If everybody could make Frank feel very

welcome, that would be appreciated.

Hon. S. Robinson: Watching today — either on TV or online; I’m not sure — is Dr. Mark

Seger, who was my children’s physician when they were infants just a few

years ago, sort of like 30 years ago. He’s a family friend, a childhood

friend of my husband’s. He’s someone that I truly admire. He’s hard-working,

was an incredible athlete in his younger years, and his sons are following

in his footsteps. Both of his sons are on the Canadian alpine ski

team.

About ten years ago Mark was diagnosed with ALS. He has committed

himself to be a part of the research of this devastating disease. He’s

working with the ALS Therapy Development Institute in Boston, collaborating

with Google to help develop a speech clarification app called Relate. Now

he’s promoting B.C.’s Project Hope, a UBC professorship with dual clinical

and research roles.

I want to invite all members and anyone watching here to consider

supporting the ALS Society and Project Hope, and I look forward to seeing

Mark in the days ahead.

C. Oakes: It is rare for some of us in rural British Columbia to have groups of

constituents come and visit, and every time we do, it uplifts us and we’re

incredibly grateful.

I have a number of different constituent groups that have been in the

Legislature, having lots of meetings. The first I want to recognize today is

the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance, Chief Lebrun of Lhtako Dené and Chief

Squinas of Lhoosk’uz Dené. They are just such solid individuals who are

fierce advocates for everyone in the Cariboo. We share a strong passion for

the importance of literacy and education and training.

I would like the House to welcome the Chiefs and the Southern Dakelh

Nation Alliance. Then I have a second group. That’s okay. We can welcome

them.

The second guest has been a mentor and a friend of mine for many

years. We’ve shared a lot of trauma and a lot of sorrow, but we’ve also

shared a lot of joy. She’s also teaching me the Dakelh language, so if you

would permit me.

[Dakelh was spoken.]

Doreen Patrick is a knowledge-keeper. She is down in Victoria,

training front-line workers in the importance of language, carrying on the

languages, and the importance of music. Would the House please thank all

knowledge-keepers in the province of British Columbia and all of our guests

today.

[1:40 p.m.]

B. D’Eith: It’s not often that you get to hang out with somebody who you went to

school with back in the day. I was so pleased today to be able to have lunch

with Mary-Ethel Audley, who’s in the gallery today. We went to law school

together, and we graduated from UVic in 1989.

Mary-Ethel has had an amazing career as a senior executive with the

government of British Columbia and also 12 years with Royal Roads, and we

had a wonderful lunch today catching up and bragging about our kids and just

enjoying reconnecting after all these years.

Thank you, and please make her feel very welcome.

P. Milobar: I wish to rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the birthday of a

proud British Columbian, a Canadian female athlete of the 20th century, an

Olympic champion and a retired senator, who has helped make Sun Peaks

Resorts not just one of B.C.’s premiere mountain resort communities but one

of North America’s premiere mountain resort communities. Would the House

please help me wish Nancy Greene Raine a happy birthday today.

Hon. J. Osborne: I, too, am very pleased to welcome some guests from a smaller or more

rural community in my riding. Today in the gallery we have Karen Ross, Grant

Scott and Danyn Fine. They are from beautiful Hornby Island. Karen and Grant

are not only longtime Hornby Islanders, but they both exemplify the very

meaning of community-building.

I think that Hornby Island might have the highest number, per capita,

of non-profit organizations, and I think that Karen and Grant have been

involved in at least half of them, if not more. From affordable housing to

community economic development to arts to environmental conservation, these

two people are so deeply committed to making Hornby Island a better place to

live. For our meeting earlier today with the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure, Grant brought along his grandson Danyn to learn more about

the work that we do here in this House.

Would the House please welcome them along with me.

T. Halford: Just after lunch, I had the great opportunity to meet with the Family

Services of Greater Vancouver. Attending today are Maria Howard, who is CEO,

Marnie Goldenberg, vice-president, and Ariane Fleischmann, manager of

communications and advocacy.

I ask that the House please make them welcome.

F. Donnelly: I have two guests that I’d like to welcome.

Members of the Pacific Salmon Foundation are here with us — Mike

Meneer, the CEO and president, along with Jason Hwang, the vice-president of

salmon. They’re here in Victoria meeting with the minister and myself, and

they’re talking about all things salmon and conservation. They’re very

focused. They do great work. They support a lot of organizations in the

province, and they are just on the tail end of a very successful gala that

they held last week in Vancouver — one of the post-COVID events, over 500

people. I think they raised nearly half a million dollars at this event. The

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and I attended. It was a fantastic

event.

Will the House please join me in welcoming those two.

I. Paton: Today I’d like to welcome to the gallery the hardest-working lady I

know, the rock behind everything I do. She pushes me out the door every

Sunday afternoon to come here — my wife, Pam. She’s a farmer extraordinaire

and a classic horse person. With her are our friends from Tsawwassen, Roy

and Monica Toigo. Please make them feel welcome.

I think they may be in the precinct, but my cousin Heather, who I

haven’t seen in probably 25 years, was taking a tour of the building today

with her husband, Eric Beck. I welcome them if they’re here today for

question period.

D. Davies: You know, this afternoon I was touring a couple of folks around from

up in my neck of the woods, and it was really nice to see so many people

back in the building, tourists visiting this incredible people’s House,

looking at the architecture, hearing the stories.

[1:45 p.m.]

It was really a pleasure to show them around. I do want to welcome,

from the city of Fort St. John, a couple of residents as well as my Rotarian

friends, Beth and Steve Horchan, who are down here for a week. With them,

they are joined by Beth’s sister, Ann Malott, and John Heed, both from Fort

Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to do a shout-out to someone that I’ve hope got online. She’s

trying to get online. She says: “What do I need to get online for?” It’s my

baby sister’s birthday today. She’s a big “O.” I won’t tell you which one.

Ah, she’s 60. What the heck. She’s a pretty amazing young woman, from my

perspective. She and her husband have a business up in Whistler. They were

Whistler’s business of the year, and they do incredible work in that

community. She is just a really great sister, great mom, great wife, great

person.

Wish I could be there with you, but I can’t. We will celebrate this

summer, as soon as we can get together. Love you.

B. Stewart: Well, it’s a pleasure today to welcome several guests, not from my

riding but two people, Jerry Chen and his partner, Anthony Ho. Jerry and I

met in Shanghai, where I met his father. They had a store there that is to

die for, of Canadian products. They currently own SunFarm Products, which

represents very legendary products here in British Columbia, SunRype

Products as well as Inniskillin wines. They’re here in the precinct today,

headquartered in Vancouver, looking for export opportunities. Please welcome

Jerry and Anthony.

I also want to recognize two constituents, Brian and Elayne Alexander,

entrepreneurs with Bella Outdoor patio and deck covers. You might not know

them personally, but if you happen to visit some of the many wineries in the

ridings from Boundary-Similkameen all the way up to Vernon-Monashee, you’ll

be pleased to know that their products have been installed from Predator

Ridge to Tinhorn Creek, Black Hills, Mt. Boucherie, Gray Monk and many more.

Anyway, look for that, and if you need help during the next heat dome, you

know who to call.

I’ve got one more. I know there’s probably a time limit and I’ve used

up all my time, but I wanted to invite Cheryl Doll, who is my constituency

assistant. Cheryl started in a career in the oil patch, working for Duncan

McNeill and Stream-Flo in Calgary. She’s a land man.

She came to Quails’ Gate Estate Winery in 2005 and helped build the

restaurant, building, working and shepherding that through.

She became my CA in 2009, when first elected — a fierce supporter of

constituents’ rights, knows the difference between right and wrong, known by

many government staff.

As I toured her around here today, they’re coming out of their offices

to say hi. She’s known in ICBC and WorkSafe and has many alliances but

served Premiers, cabinet ministers and MLAs and the constituents of Kelowna

West.

I’d like to welcome Cheryl Doll.

A. Singh: It was my wife’s birthday over the weekend, so would the House join me

in wishing her a very happy birthday. I wouldn’t be able to do the work here

without her generosity.

J. Rustad: It’s been a busy time around the household for me. Last Friday it was

my wife’s and my 27th wedding anniversary. Then on Saturday, it was her

birthday. She’s one year away, coming up on a big number. I look forward to

celebrating that with her next year. Then on Monday, it was my

mother-in-law’s birthday.

The main reason for me coming up and standing up here today is that I

want to wish Maverick Matthews a happy first birthday. Maverick is a

great-nephew of mine. My wife and I weren’t able to have children, and my

brother has six. I’ve got six nieces and nephews, so we do a lot of things

with them. I’m just so proud and happy and pleased to see the first

grand-niece and nephew that I have in the family.

Would the House please congratulate my niece Rebecca and her husband,

Ben, on their child, Maverick, on their first birthday. I was going to say

wedding anniversary. I don’t know why. Too many things happening.

[1:50 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WILD SALMON AND STEELHEAD

PROTECTION AND

RECOVERY

F. Donnelly: All pacific salmon are in crisis. Interior Fraser steelhead are on

the brink of extinction. First Nations, scientists, and wild salmon

stewards tell us action is needed now along with a significant

investment if we are to turn the trend around for B.C.’s wild salmon and

put them on a path to recovery.

Whether it’s unsustainable harvest rates, pathogens from open-net

salmon farms or destruction of salmon habitat, all have contributed to

the current dismal returns. That’s why I’ve been working hard, along

with B.C.’s minister responsible for fisheries, on a wild salmon

strategic strategy and action plan for B.C.

We know what is needed. Co-manage wild salmon with First Nations.

Move salmon farms off the wild salmon migration route. Apply a salmon

lens to all ministries that impact wild salmon and their habitat.

Protect that habitat in designated salmon parks and sanctuaries. Heal

the land, with a focus on restoring riparian areas and implementing

nature-based solutions in fire and flood-prone watersheds. Remove

barriers that prevent wild salmon from getting to their spawning

grounds. Expand the lake enrichment program that adds nutrients to the

sockeye rearing lakes. Clip the adipose fins of all hatchery finned fish

in B.C.

We know the province can’t do this alone. That’s why we need to

sign an agreement with the federal government and First Nations

committing us to one coordinated wild salmon recovery plan for British

Columbia. We also know a significant investment in wild salmon recovery

efforts is needed, similar to the scale of the pacific salmon strategic

initiative.

What’s at stake? We risk seeing wild pacific salmon go the way of

the Atlantic cod. It’s been 30 years since that moratorium was put in

place, and Atlantic cod still haven’t recovered.

We can’t let that happen to B.C.’s wild pacific salmon and

Interior Fraser steelhead.

MOOSE HIDE ANTI-VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN

M. Lee: Tomorrow is Moose Hide Campaign Day, an opportunity for all of us

to reflect on the intergenerational trauma experienced by Indigenous

families and communities and show our solidarity and commitment to help

families and communities to heal and to end violence against women and

children.

Indigenous women and children experience a disproportionate level

of violence and racism. Last month the report by Statistics Canada found

that 65 percent of Indigenous women in B.C. have experienced some form

of violence. This is 15 percent higher than that of non-Indigenous

women.

The vision for the campaign came to Indigenous co-founders Paul

and Raven Lacerte while on a hunting trip in their traditional Carrier

territory. They harvested a moose and had the idea to tan its hide and

cut it into squares to inspire change. This was the start of the Moose

Hide Campaign, a national grassroots movement for Indigenous and

non-Indigenous people, particularly men and boys, to join together and

take a stand against violence.

The moose hide pin is a unifying symbol for all of us to raise our

consciousness and familiarize ourselves with the experiences of

Indigenous peoples and communities. It is a symbol of hope and serves as

a visual commitment to honouring and respecting the women and children

in our lives. More than three million moose hide pins have been

distributed since 2011.

As part of this day of action, people are welcome to participate

in the one-day fast or watch the virtual ceremony. Here in British

Columbia, Victoria, we will be gathering at noon tomorrow for the walk

to end violence, which will end here on the Legislature grounds. I hope

everyone in this House will join me tomorrow in reaffirming our

commitment to ending gender-based violence in B.C.

We raise our hands to the Moose Hide Campaign for the vital work

that they are doing to end violence against Indigenous women and

children. By engaging all British Columbians, we can work together to

build a better province that is safe for all.

[1:55 p.m.]

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

AND MARRIAGE

PROPOSAL

R. Glumac: I would like to begin today by acknowledging all the partners that

support the very unique work that we do here in the House. This

certainly isn’t a normal job, by any means.

I’d like to acknowledge one person in particular, and that is my

partner, Haven Lurbiecki, who is up in the gallery today. Haven, I just

want to say you’re an amazing person with such a big heart and such a

passion for making the world a better place. Every day you make my world

a better place.

I feel so fortunate that I met you four years ago. I remember,

actually, the moment that you changed my life. Every moment since then

you’ve made my life more vivid and alive, and everything that I do is

more special because I get to share those experiences with

you.

I know that our life is just beginning. There are a lot of

adventures ahead for us, and I look forward to all those adventures. I

just want to say you fill my heart with love, and I’m not afraid to

share that with everyone.

I just have one question for you. Will you marry me?

[Applause.]

I think that was a yes. In order to make it official, I’m going to

go to the gallery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I think that was….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Shhh.

I think that was the first proposal ever made in any Commonwealth

parliament, inside.

SOUTH PEACE OILMEN’S ASSOCIATION

M. Bernier: My wife would want to know why I’m looking around the gallery

right now, because she’s not here. Let’s take a moment to pause for

that.

That was beautiful. Thank you very much. I’m glad I was able to

witness that.

For my points today, which won’t be able to top that by any means,

this last weekend was the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic started

where the South Peace Oilmen’s Association was able to hold their annual

lobster fest and fundraiser in Dawson Creek. That’s right. In the heart

of the oil patch, on the east side of the Rockies here in British

Columbia, we had lobster in Dawson Creek.

Now granted, they had to fly in over 500 of them from the east

coast for this special fundraiser, but it really showed that our

community was eager to get out. They were ready to have a fun night,

have some great food and, more importantly, raise funds for our

community with the South Peace Oilmen’s. Unfortunately, I did have

tickets for that event, and I ended up having to stay here in Victoria.

I know my lobster did not go to waste, though.

The South Peace Oilmen’s Association was registered in 1991 as a

not-for-profit society. The purpose originally was for the organization

to have a social network for those who got out, supported and worked in

the oil and gas sector. But it very quickly worked into a not-for-profit

society working and volunteering to raise money and funds for the people

in our community.

They provide a Christmas tree every single year for our light-up.

They’ve raised money for our waterslide, for a walking path, for our ski

hill. They donate to minor hockey, the South Peace Motorsports

Association, the hospital foundation, STARS ambulance and the child

development centre, just to name a few. It’s an amazing

organization.

[2:00 p.m.]

I want to thank all of the people involved with the South Peace

Oilmen’s in my region for the support they have for our not-for-profits

for our region and what they’re doing to give back — people like

president Allan Armstrong, Bryan Kropp, Murray Pratt, Geoff Stanhope,

Curtis and Kathy Yorke, Jim Inkster, and the ever-busy Paul

Gevatkoff.

Thank you to all of them who help and volunteer their time for the

people in my region.

CANCER AWARENESS

A. Singh: April was Cancer Awareness Month. It was proclaimed by our

province as Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil Month. As we came past

the close of that month, I wanted to again recognize the impact that

cancer has had on Canadians.

As you can imagine, all things cancer have been in the forefront

of my mind these days. Cancer remains the leading cause of death in

Canada. An estimated two in five Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer

in their lifetimes, and about one in four will die from

cancer.

My mother was one of those who passed away from cancer a few years

ago. She battled breast cancer for over two decades. My father is also a

cancer survivor. Many in this House have either come face-to-face with

that diagnosis or also have loved ones that have been impacted. My

friends here that have bravely faced cancer will testify to the surreal

feeling one gets when they are first told they have cancer. The anxiety

it creates for oneself and for one’s loved ones is a phenomenon in

itself.

Lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancers are expected to

remain the most commonly diagnosed cancers, accounting for 46 percent of

all diagnoses last year. Melanoma cancer continues to increase, despite

being a highly preventable cancer, while thyroid cancer is decreasing.

It’s expected that the three leading causes of cancer death will be lung

cancer, at 25 percent; colorectal cancer, at 11 percent; and pancreatic

cancer, at 7 percent.

These rates have thankfully been declining over the last few

decades. Current five-year net cancer survival is estimated to be 64

percent for all cancers combined. It wasn’t always so. Those statistics

are a lot better than they have been in the past, and that’s a testament

to the significance of continued research and detection and early

treatment — and how awareness programs, like the Canadian Cancer

Society’s Daffodil Month, have helped improve those

statistics.

I encourage all that have faced cancer, either as a patient or as

a loved one, to continue to share their stories and to spread

hope.

CAMPAIGN FOR NEONATAL

INTENSIVE CARE UNIT IN

TERRACE

E. Ross: Emily’s baby isn’t due for another five weeks, but suddenly there

are signs the birth is imminent. She and her family rush to Mills

Memorial Hospital in Terrace, and it’s a treacherous and unpredictable

drive in the fall, winter and spring on northern B.C. roads. At the

hospital, they put Emily in an ambulance by herself and whisk her to the

airport and pray that the weather allows for the 90-minute flight to

Vancouver. If not, it’s another 90-minute ambulance ride to the next

airport, and again, they pray for better weather.

The Dr. R.E.M. Lee Hospital Foundation has started the Closer to

Home campaign to add a new neonatal intensive care unit to Mills

Memorial Hospital in Terrace, B.C. Mills Memorial Hospital serves

patients well beyond the Skeena constituency, with almost one birth

every day. Mills Memorial Hospital services communities from Atlin,

Dease Lake, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Houston and Smithers to Haida Gwaii,

as there are no other T3 hospitals in the northwest service delivery

area.

More than 75,000 people, including 40,000 First Nations in 28

communities, experience what Emily experienced. Mary Denton, who had to

be flown down, said: “The isolation of suddenly being down there and

trying to figure out everything for back home was an absolute

nightmare.”

To paraphrase Ron Bartlett, chair of the Dr. R.E.M Lee Hospital

Foundation, to have infants and newborns prepped to be put on an

airplane to be shipped to Vancouver when they really should be cuddling

their mom — that’s pretty harsh on a little one.

The financial goal is simple, $14.5 million. But the goal is

extraordinarily needed to keep vulnerable babies and their anxious

mothers and families closer to home, because our children

matter.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

S. Bond: One in five British Columbians is without a family doctor, and the

situation is getting worse. In fact, by eight o’clock this morning in

Surrey, the Brickyard Medical Clinic was at capacity. Here in Victoria,

unbelievably, the sign on the door at the James Bay urgent care clinic

reads: “Until further notice, we’re not able to offer drop-in doctor

urgent care.”

This is the reality that people are facing in our province. Family

doctors — so essential to the system that we appreciate in British

Columbia — are leaving their practices. Walk-in clinics — the wait times

are the longest in the country. And our doctors and nurses are

overwhelmed.

Results matter. The minister knows that the results are getting

worse everywhere in the health care system under this government.

Yesterday we learned from the minister that he will not be tabling the

health human resources plan until the fall — a year late.

When is the Premier going to fix the broken system so that British

Columbians can get the care that they deserve?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that on the issue of attachment to a family

doctor, the number of people lacking a family doctor doubled from 2003

to 2017. This has been the trajectory of things, essentially increasing

every year except for 2008 and then 2018 and 2019.

One of the major challenges at the moment for in-person visits to

family doctors is the decision that I made and the Ministry of Health

made in consultation with doctors in April 2020 to create new billing

codes for virtual care to support, at the most difficult time in the

history of B.C. health care, family doctors and primary care at a key

moment. That was a successful initiative, and family doctors, who are

the foundation of our primary care system, deserve the credit for

it.

We went from 17.9 million in-person visits to 5½ million, but we

increased the number of fee-for-service visits by adding virtual visits.

This has had a profound effect on our system as well. There is an

increased complexity of patients that family doctors see.

The result of all of this is that we need to continue to take the

steps that we’re taking that are in consultation with family doctors and

that have family doctors at the centre of it and divisions of family

practice at the centre of it, which are building out primary care

networks and addressing fundamental issues in our fee-for-service

system, which seem to favour, I would say, both episodic care and less

serious care. We’ve got to take serious steps, and that’s what we’re

working with family doctors to do.

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

S. Bond: I think that the minister has no idea what his answers elicit from

people in the health care system when they hear the same answer day

after day after day after day that fails to acknowledge the reality of

these challenges not just for our health care workers but for patients

in British Columbia. Surely to goodness, the minister cannot think that

it is acceptable to find a sign on a clinic that says: “Until further

notice, no help here for urgent care.” It’s simply not

acceptable.

That’s not the only situation. Since January, the people in

Ucluelet have been trying to save their family medical practice — their

only family medical practice. They approached their NDP MLA, and that

accomplished nothing. At the end of this month when the lease is up,

another 3,000 British Columbians will lose their family doctor. As the

mayor said yesterday: “Quite frankly here, we’re at D-Day.” That’s the

reality of how British Columbians feel. Another 3,000 patients at risk

of losing their family doctor.

The minister might be uncomfortable with the questions, but it is

time that he gave a meaningful answer that gives hope to British

Columbians and health care workers across this province.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s not just statements; it’s action. It’s yes, 59 primary care

networks in B.C. developed in consultation with family doctors that have

added 965 people to that system to support family doctors and to provide

basic patient care. That’s action.

The member says it’s not working. It is extraordinarily

effective.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I’m interested in the opposition’s view of an issue — of

attachment to family doctors that, in the years when they were in

government, doubled, which increased the rate, because you say: “Oh,

there are more people in the population. The rate increased by 80

percent.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: Those were the circumstances then. We are taking action. We’re

adding primary care centres. We’re adding primary care

networks.

The members try and pretend COVID-19 didn’t happen at this moment.

They try and pretend, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: The most…. No, no.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the answer, please.

Members, let’s hear the answer. Members.

Hon. A. Dix: You know, hon. Speaker, it actually happened. We went, in one

year…. It actually happened, in primary care….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The question was asked. Now is the time for the answer.

Okay? Let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. A. Dix: We went from a system that was overwhelmingly in-patient visits to

one that was virtual visits overnight. It had a significant effect on

patients, on health care providers, on doctors, on everybody. That is

the point at which we are at now.

The job is, I think, to go step by step, work through these issues

that are real for family practice doctors and increase complexity for

them, increase challenges for them and the work that they’re doing,

which continues to be extraordinarily challenging in the community, to

support them with teams and to continue to do that work — not to talk

about it and respond with rhetoric, but with action.

That’s what we are doing, and that’s what we’ll consistently do in

the days and weeks to come.

J. Sturdy: Well, speaking of rhetoric, it’s really no consolation to people

in communities that are losing their family doctor. Certainly, we

haven’t seen any action in the Sea to Sky. In Squamish, the Diamond Head

Medical Clinic has lost over a third of their doctors and last month

wrote the government asking for help. The letter says: “All of us have a

breaking point.” I don’t think there is any question about

that.

Will the Premier act, and what will the Premier do before more

residents in Squamish lose their family doctor?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, acting is what this is all about. With respect

to….

We have, in B.C., the largest family practice residency program in

Canada. We do, because we’ve added 60 additional spaces under this

government — action there. Action to, yes, add nurse practitioners;

double the number of nurse practitioners. Action to create 59 primary

care networks. Action to create urgent and primary care centres. Action

to create Indigenous-led primary care centres. Action to increase

community health centres and to support and expand the ones that we

have. All of that is significant action.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: We are going to, in this system, working together — and it’s as

true in Ucluelet as it is in Sea to Sky — on the ground to address

issues that are significant for people. That’s what my colleague, the

MLA for the area, has done and led that effort to continue to make that

happen. That’s what we are going to do in Ucluelet and in Sea to

Sky.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Well, regardless of the minister’s statements, I’ve had

correspondence from doctors on the bay, in Horseshoe Bay, Squamish,

Whistler. I had a big delegation from Pemberton just last week.

Residents in the Sea to Sky do feel like they’ve been

abandoned.

Nobody can even take a bus to get to the doctor, if we had a

doctor, but now they’re losing them. Forty percent of Whistler residents

are without a family doctor. Clinics are closing. Just last week the

Town Plaza Medical Clinic in Whistler — gone.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is what it feels like if you lose your doctor. This is from

one of my constituents: “I’ve watched loved ones suffer and die due to

the lack of adequate primary care in this province. The fact that it’s

gotten this bad is disgusting.”

When is the Premier going to fix this?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, you fix it by training more doctors. You fix it by adding

family practice doctors. You fix it….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, we have. We’ve done that.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, when the question was being asked, everybody was

quiet. Now it’s the time for listening to the answer.

Hon. A. Dix: Adding 20 percent more residency spaces is action. Adding primary

care networks that aren’t created by me but created in consultation with

local communities and local divisions of family practice — that’s

action. That’s how you address it. You build out team-based care. We

need to train more family practice doctors, and we need to support the

family practice doctors we have.

As members know — this was true when I became Minister of Health;

it has improved somewhat since then, but it’s still the case — we are

overwhelmingly, in B.C., a fee-for-service system. It’s 80 percent in

B.C., 79 percent in B.C., 46 percent in Ontario, for example. We’re

overwhelmingly that system.

One of the things that system does not do adequately is deal with

the increasing complexity of patients. That’s the system we have, and

that’s why we have to work together, in a system we work out together,

to ensure that our family practice doctors are stable in the community.

But we have invested the resources. We’ve added 965 people to primary

care networks, and we’re going to continue to do so.

REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT

A. Olsen: The Mental Health Act is outdated. It prioritizes discipline and

control and makes people with mental illness feel like they’ve failed

for having a health issue. The act hasn’t been seriously updated in 25

years. Advocates, legal experts, community members and independent

officers of this Legislature have all called for a serious update and

review of this act. A couple of weeks ago the all-party committee

reviewing the Police Act recommended the same.

The Tyee reported that the government was modernizing the

act, and then the Attorney General said that there was no plan to

modernize the Mental Health Act. Community members told me that they

knew that that initial report was too good to be true.

In 2001, this government celebrated the largest investment in

mental health services in B.C., yet it’s remarkable that the government

is investing all this money into a problem but has not changed the

foundation of the issue. It remains untouched.

Decades from now this government could be known as visionary

leaders who responded to a growing mental health crisis.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

When is she going to review and update the Mental Health Act?

Hon. D. Eby: The member raises some important questions about the Mental Health

Act. It’s one of the statutes in the province that deals with

involuntary care. We have an Adult Guardianship Act as well. Staff

within the Ministry of Attorney General are doing a review of the Adult

Guardianship Act right now.

The member will also know we just passed, in this House, a

significant modernization of the Mental Health Act, providing basic

legal information to people who are involuntarily detained. It’s one

that passed, I’ll note, with all-party support, for which I’m grateful,

because it’s an important part of our system to ensure that people have

the safeguards and are able to take advantage of them as they move

through the mental health system.

We aren’t able to do everything at once, but we’re doing important

work on these statutes that are really important to people’s lives

across the province.

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

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

FROM POLICE ACT

REFORM COMMITTEE

A. Olsen: We actually have changed one significant part of the act. We have

not done a significant review of the Mental Health Act in decades, yet

we are expending hundreds of millions of dollars on that act that is

founded on values that are from a completely different generation, and

those are the outcomes that we’re getting.

We know that outdated acts can cause harm. They don’t reflect the

lessons of history or the tidal wave of social change that we’ve seen

here in this 21st century.

[2:20 p.m.]

We can see this when police are the primary response to mental

health crises instead of trained crisis responders. That brings me to

another act that needs updating, the Police Act.

The committee reviewing the Police Act recently tabled a report, a

couple of weeks ago. It called for transformational change. The B.C.

Police Association liked the report. The representatives that I spoke to

at an event earlier this week were very supportive, and, in fact,

expressed to me their gratitude for how the committee articulated the

challenges that police services face in this province and how we

navigated what can be tricky territory.

The response from some when we tabled that report was that it was

dead in the water. Why? Well, because governments can’t do

transformational change. The response from this minister was that there

was going to be consultation this summer. I don’t believe that’s good

enough. This file needs leadership. We’ve got a session that is almost

over, and British Columbians haven’t seen that leadership

yet.

To the Minister of Public Safety, will he commit to delivering on

the recommendations of this committee and establish an oversight

committee to work with him to transform policing and public safety in

our province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. What I can tell you is that I

think the committee did some outstanding work and did deliver to this

chamber — and in fact, to the public — a very comprehensive report in

terms of how we reform policing in this province.

What is critical, and what I have said publicly and when the

committee was struck, is that we need to change and reform and modernize

the Police Act. That work is underway, and the work of the committee is

going to be a critical component on the reform of that piece of

legislation.

What I can tell you is that my public statements so far have been

that the report is now within my ministry. The analysis on the

recommendations is underway. But what I can tell you, and that we have

committed to, is that there is a new Police Act going to be coming. The

report that was done by the all-party committee, unanimously approved,

is a critical cornerstone of that work.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

M. de Jong: Last week, despite having promised boldly creative measures to

better protect citizens from the threat of prolific offenders, the

Attorney General managed to underwhelm virtually everyone by announcing

another study. Predictably, this has done absolutely nothing to address

the growing safety concerns of British Colum­bians, and the

attacks on innocent victims continue.

On Monday, here in Victoria, another victim was threatened and

attacked with a weapon. That prompted the Victoria police to issue a

statement confirming that the suspect had been arrested earlier that day

— arrested for breaking a previously court-ordered condition not to

possess knives. He was released.

There are a variety of things that the Attorney General could be

doing now to reduce these random violent attacks by prolific offenders,

but while the list of victims of the catch-and-release approach

continues to grow, apparently the Attorney General’s idea of creativity

is to call for another study.

How many more victims of prolific offenders will there be over the

next four months while the Attorney General and the government sit there

and wait for another report?

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of points. I know that the member who just asked me that

question is a former Attorney General. I know he understands the

independence of the judiciary. He’s a member of the bar. He understands

the structure of government, the structure of the justice system. When a

court releases somebody on conditions, it’s not my decision. It’s not

the decision of government. It’s the decision of the court, applying the

federal criminal law.

He raises an important question, though, which is: what can the

province do within that context to address these issues? He suggests

that the, frankly, important work that is underway right now around

identifying some of those solutions is all that this government is

doing, which is simply incorrect.

[2:25 p.m.]

We are opening 500 complex care beds across the province for

people with serious mental health and addiction issues. We’ve opened

thousands of units of supportive housing that, in communities like

Vernon, have driven down the crime associated with people living outside

and trying to survive on the street — a reduction of 55 percent in that

city. So we are doing that important work.

In addition, there’s a working group of police and Crown counsel

right now identifying ways that they can better work together on this

issue, and we have the investigation by a respected senior police

officer and an expert in mental health and corrections issues

identifying further solutions for us.

I appreciate the concern and the question. I share it. But what I

would appreciate as well is education of the public around what we can

do within the provincial context and what our shared work is

together.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: I listened carefully last week to the Attorney’s comments in the

House, and I’ve listened carefully again today. I fear that he is

addressing, or attempting to address, only one portion of the

problem.

I used to prosecute in the courts. There are members on both sides

of this House who have been involved in law enforcement, and I think

they would agree with me when I say to the Attorney General that sadly,

there is a group of people out there — a small group, but a group

nonetheless — who are criminals. They rob. They steal. They threaten.

They assault. They even kill when people get in their way. They have

chosen to lead a life of crime, and they will continue to lead a life of

crime until they are caught and taken off the street. Until that

happens, they’re going to continue to terrorize innocent

victims.

The Attorney General’s promise of another study does nothing to

address this. It has prompted comments from people like Chief Alphonse,

who has said: “If that’s the Attorney’s idea of creativity, then we’re

in big trouble.”

The Attorney could dedicate Crown counsel to prolific offender

files. He could update charge assessment policies and provide general

directions pursuant to the Crown Counsel Act. He could expand the use of

electronic monitoring technology. Those are all things that he can do

today, but he has chosen to do none of those things and instead

wait.

It’s the Attorney General’s job and the government’s job to keep

people safe. How is waiting another four months keeping people

safe?

Hon. D. Eby: I appreciate the suggestions from the member, which come from the

terms of reference that I gave to these investigators to look at. How

quickly these things can be implemented, whether they be would effective

at addressing the issue, I think, are preliminary questions to ask

before rushing to implementation.

I appreciate the member holding me to the fire on this. This is an

important issue. We need to address it. Four months is a long time.

That’s why I said to the investigators: “If you identify solutions

earlier, don’t wait. Bring them to me, and we will address

them.”

This is the same approach we used with money laundering to stop

money laundering in our casinos. This is the same approach we used with

ICBC to fix ICBC. This is the same approach we’re going to use to fix

this issue.

Now, I note that in a previous question period, one of the members

across the way…. It wasn’t a question; it was just shouted at me. “We

had a program,” someone shouted at me. So I looked into it, and they

did.

I understand that four months is a long time, but when the B.C.

Liberals established a program, they announced it in 2006. Let me see

here. They implemented it in 2008. And then when the program showed

results, they cancelled it. So we will take a different approach. We

don’t have to wait the full four months. If the investigators find

results sooner that we can implement, we will.

The precondition to taking action is to know that the action that

you’re going to take has the highest chance of success possible. So

we’re going to do that, and we’re going to address this

issue.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

IN VANCOUVER’S

CHINATOWN

M. Lee: As the Attorney General may have monitored and seen, there were

significant outcries of concern expressed at the public safety and

violent crime council meetings in Vancouver both at the end of April and

last night.

[2:30 p.m.]

We continue to see concerns, particularly from individuals and

other representatives of communities, including in Vancouver’s

Chinatown. There are marginalized Asians and seniors in their community,

in their words, that feel a lot of fear of coming out and walking on the

streets in the neighbourhoods. We’ve seen this unchecked violence and

crime with no consequences on the streets of Chinatown, and it’s only

getting worse.

The Attorney General’s friends at Pivot Legal also spoke at last

night’s council meeting — the same Pivot Legal that received $150,000

from this government last year. No surprise, Pivot Legal supports the

Attorney General’s soft-on-crime approach. Yesterday a representative

from Pivot Legal explicitly called for a boycott of Chinese

Canadian–owned businesses that ask for more police protection: “I have

no issue recommending people not shop at businesses that explicitly

advocate for ‘more police on the streets.’”

Why is the Attorney General aligning with his friends at Pivot

Legal by choosing to delay for another four months and doing nothing

about the crime that is hurting the Chinatown community?

Hon. D. Eby: I worked at Pivot Legal Society 15 years ago — was really proud of

the work that I did there. I worked when the other side of the House was

in government, when we begged them for housing, for mental health

support, for harm reduction services, for a safe injection site — things

that they embrace now, by the way. But at the time, they fought so hard

against, we had to go to court and get orders.

Now, it sounds like the organization is a long way from where they

were 15 years ago, but I can share some information with the member

about what’s happening in Vancouver in terms of criminal activity. So we

are seeing an increase in reports to Crown counsel around what are

called person offences — things like uttering threats, minor assaults,

threatening communications. I say “minor.” It’s not minor for the person

it happens to. It’s just how they’re categorized.

But we’re seeing very significant decreases in property offence

reports to Crown counsel, a 44 percent reduction since 2017-18, a 41

percent reduction in reports to Crown counsel on

administration-of-justice offences and a 17½ percent reduction of other

offences. So clearly, we’re seeing a change in the pattern of criminal

activity. It’s very concentrated in the downtown area. It’s changed

during the pandemic, and policing is part of the response. The member

knows that the Solicitor General intervened to ensure that Vancouver

Police have the resources they need to address this issue, so it’s

unfair of him to portray this government….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Langara will wait for his supplemental.

Attorney will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s unfair of him to portray this government and frankly, me, as

being opposed to police services where they’re needed in downtown areas,

including Chinatown. But it’s also incorrect to present police as the

only solution to this issue, because they are part. They will tell you

that when it comes to the mental health and addiction issues that are

driving a lot of this activity in Chinatown and other places, they need

those social services as well — services we put in place that, frankly,

I had to sue the previous government to try to get.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

P. Milobar: Let’s be clear. No one believes this Attorney General, with his

background, is tough on crime. Everyone knows and everyone agrees that

his catch-and-release system has failed miserably. It’s been failing

year over year over year — all five years that he’s been the Attorney

General.

The numbers are getting worse. Public perception of safety in

their own community is getting worse. We’re hearing of four-plus

unprovoked stranger attacks in Vancouver each and every day.

Seventeen-year-olds in Surrey getting kneed and punched and kicked in

the head while they’re trying to take a bus home, where they should feel

safe. Terrace. Prince George. Kamloops. Name the city. This is happening

on the streets.

This Attorney General chooses to slough it off, and how does he

slough it off? He tells us he’s going to have creative solutions last

week. Everyone just wait for it. “I’ve got creative solutions.” His

creative solution? Wait four months for another report, so another 500

people in Vancouver and in Chinatown can be attacked, let alone every

other city in this province. That’s his creative solution.

It’s as if he’s not in charge of a ministry, and the Solicitor

General doesn’t have a ministry fully staffed with subject matter

experts that could have been providing advice over the last two years on

how to deal with this problem.

[2:35 p.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: Again, when is the Attorney General going to stop passing the

buck, stop his catch-and-release, stop being so soft on crime, and

actually start providing some results and some safety to the communities

that have been demanding it and will keep demanding it over the next

four months?

Hon. D. Eby: It is interesting, the kind of crime that the opposition is

interested in and the kind that they weren’t interested in. When I took

over responsibility for the gaming portfolio, I was shown videos of

people unloading bundles of $20 bills out of duffle bags.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I wonder if anyone on that side asked themselves the question:

“Where does that money come from? And what does it mean, as a

government, that we accept that and support the activity that generates

that money?” I just offer that as an observation.

I will say that I’m incredibly grateful to the chamber of commerce

in Terrace, to Mayor Basran, to Mayor Helps, to many people who have

expressed their support for this important work. The same way that we

fixed the crime that was happening in B.C. casinos, that government

ignored — that same method is what we’re doing here. We’ve got experts

in the area identifying solutions that we can….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: What have we fixed? People walked into casinos with duffle bags

full of cash, and we banned that activity. And in two weeks….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The money from the drug transactions that are taking place in the

Downtown Eastside, through B.C. casinos, under their watch….

Interjections.

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

Members, come to order.

The Attorney has the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: We’re not afraid to address the issues. We have the support of

mayors. We have the support of the chamber of commerce in Terrace for

taking these steps. We’re going to address this issue just like we

addressed all of the other messes that that government left us

with.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 21, Professional Governance

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Health.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m assisted today by Rebecca Freedman and Kate Haines, both

directors in the office of the superintendent of professional

governance.

I look forward to the member’s questions today.

M. de Jong: The change in terminology that first appears in the legislation in

section 1 recurs several times. It’s probably worthwhile for the

Attorney to place on the record the rationale behind the change in

terminology that appears here and elsewhere in the act.

Hon. D. Eby: This change reflects a philosophical shift. The terms council,

councillor, president and vice-president are typically associated with

membership-based organizations that advocate for their members, rather

than a regulatory body which is intended to represent the public

interest in their work.

Amending what I will refer to as the PGA, the Professional

Governance Act, with terminology that is more consistent with this

regulatory function, as opposed to a membership organization, helps

clarify the distinction that we’ve been trying to draw here and ensure

that the act’s language reflects how we hope and expect these bodies to

operate as defenders of the public interest, rather than defenders of

their membership’s interest.

S. Furstenau: Following up on that, I’m wondering if all of the bodies have

already changed their terminology, or is that underway and expected to

be done by a certain point?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will note that this will be brought into force by

regulation, so if the bill passes the House, then notification will be

sent out to the regulatory bodies. Once they’ve had an opportunity to

plan for and prepare for amending material that they have internally,

like their bylaws and other regulatory documents…. Once they’re ready,

then it will be brought into force by regulation. So the scheduling will

be passage of the act and outreach to organizations. They’ll do that

work internally, and then it will be brought into force by

regulation.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

[2:45 p.m.]

M. de Jong: The act, as it presently exists and as it will be amended by these

provisions, allows for other governing bodies to be captured by the

provisions, and there are regulatory provisions that allow for that.

We’re aware of the Architectural Institute of B.C. being added to the

list of professional regulators.

What, if anything, can the Attorney indicate to the committee,

beyond the Architectural Institute of B.C., about possible additional

professional regulators being added and captured by the provisions of

the act?

Hon. D. Eby: The technical term, I’m advised, is an investigation. That is,

essentially — and the language will change — a designation assessment,

so work by the office of the superintendent of professional governance

to assess the designation and the appropriateness of the application of

the act to the relevant profession.

There are two professions that are currently under investigation —

it sounds more ominous than it is: home inspectors and landscape

architects. As part of the work of the office of the superintendent of

professional governance, when they do an investigation, an assessment of

a profession for inclusion under the act, it’s published in the

Gazette . Both of those have been so published.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful. The impetus for launching an investigation, within

the context of the act and as the Attorney has just described — where

does that come from? It doesn’t appear to me that the provisions of

these amendments change that at all. But if I’m incorrect, this would be

an appropriate time for the Attorney to disabuse me of that

notion.

Hon. D. Eby: The initiation of an investigation can come either from government

or from the profession. So there is an application process, where an

interested group of professionals can apply to the office of the

superintendent of professional governance, the OSPG, to have an

investigation started. Or internally, within government, there can be a

request for an investigation.

The member is correct. There is no intention within the bill to

change that investigation process. However, there are changes to some

provisions, as a result of this bill, that correct what is described to

me by staff as inconsistent language, where in some places, there’s

discussion in the law about designating a profession. In other sections

that are referring the same process, it’s described as designating a

regulatory body.

Those provisions will be corrected to be consistent in their

language by this bill. But that shouldn’t change the intent or the

intended process at all in relation to an investigation.

M. de Jong: Again, that’s helpful. So I’ll restate it to ensure that I

understand correctly. Those that could initiate an investigation for the

purpose of determining whether a profession is going to be captured for

regulatory purposes by this legislation would be either the profession

itself or the government, presumably — and maybe the Attorney General

can answer this — formally, through a decision that is

published.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’m not sure if it’s an OIC or a gazetted decision. But there

doesn’t seem to be a provision, nor do these amendments create a

provision, whereby the office, itself, of professional governance could

initiate an investigation. It must come from one of those two other

sources.

Hon. D. Eby: The request-from-government process is that a letter is sent to

the superintendent of governance by the relevant minister. Then the

superintendent, on reviewing that and deciding to proceed with an

investigation, will gazette that decision and commence the

investigation.

Now, it’s important to understand that what we’re talking about

are the designation assessment investigations to decide about a

professional designation. There is a third way that a professional

designation investigation can start. That is under

section 10. The

superintendent has broad authorities to initiate a different kind of

investigation, which is an investigation into the state of a profession.

As part of that investigation into a state of a profession, the

superintendent can initiate designation investigation.

So there are three ways: on application, through government or

rising out of a

section 10 state-of-profession investigation on the

superintendent’s own motion. That is all that I would add to the

member’s

summary, because otherwise he is complete and

accurate.

S. Furstenau: Just one question about the amendment of the definition of “firm.”

It changes to “a legal entity or a combination of legal entities that is

engaged in a regulated practice,” and the change is from “engaged in

providing services in respect of a regulated practice.” Could the

Attorney just explain what this change in definition is meant to

do?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the old definition created some confusion,

particularly in relation to professional services that are generated

within a firm and consumed within the firm but not offered to the

public. An example would be that I run a manufacturing business. I have

engineers on my staff that provide advice to me about manufacturing.

None of their advice goes out to the general public, but I use their

advice internally to refine our manufacturing process.

The question is: well, do these services that are internal to my

business, not offered to the public, count as services that are

regulated under the PGA? That was the confusion. So this is aimed to

clarify that, yes, it was our intent that that kind of service, even if

it is inside a firm, is captured under the act. The change in definition

is meant to clarify that so that there is no further

confusion.

M. de Jong: My next questions, for the information of committee members,

relate to clause 5.

Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

M. de Jong: Amendments to

section 7 of the act are technical and detailed, but

I’m going to ask just a couple of questions.

In clause 5, sub (7)(2) of the original act is changed, and sub

7(2)(c)(iii). My question relating to that: does that change follow from

the changed definition of “declaration,” or is this simply designed to

take account of the fact that there is a different mechanism by which

declarations may be submitted to the superintendent? I just wasn’t clear

on what gave rise to the need for the change.

Hon. D. Eby: The change here is that, previously, conflict-of-interest

declarations needed to be filed and provided to the superintendent of

professional governance.

Now, under these amendments, all conflict-of-interest declarations

need to be completed for every service that a registrant provides. They

must be kept on file within the…. The registrant needs to keep a copy of

all of those declarations, either through their employer or personally.

Then they must provide copies of those to the superintendent or to a

regulatory body or to a government ministry on request.

[3:00 p.m.]

It is a change in process, rather than a default filing with the

superintendent. Now the registrant will be keeping copies of all

declarations and providing them on request. This is an enabling piece of

legislation, so that will be the process that we anticipate the

regulations under this

section will be setting up.

M. de Jong: Is the intention with that now-amended process that those

declarations of conflict of interest would be accessible by members of

the public, or is there a specific restricted group of agencies that are

intended to have access or which would be provided access?

Hon. D. Eby: The enabling legislation permits a regulation to require the

public disclosure of conflict-of-interest declarations. In the first

iteration of the regulations we do not anticipate including such a

provision. But if necessary, government will not hesitate to do so. I

will note that currently under the act there is a public register with

an annual declaration of competence to practise in the area, which is

required to be public.

M. de Jong: Okay. I’m going to move now into the legislation before us. We’re

in clause 5. Sub (

b) refers to a proposed amendment repealing paragraph

sub (d)(ii) of the existing act.

My question is as follows. My reading of the existing act is that

under the general duties and responsibilities of the superintendent,

they are entitled to provide advice to both — and I’m going to use these

terms — the regulator and the professional association. I’m going to

suggest that that is the advocacy group for the profession.

My reading of the amendment is that whilst the terminology is

changing slightly, the intention is to maintain the superintendent’s

ability to provide advice to both the regulating agency and the

professional advocacy, or what will now be known as the professional

organization. Do I have that correct, or are there more substantive

changes relating to the superintendent’s abilities to provide

advice?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has that correct.

M. de Jong: And then I think my final question on clause 5 relates to the

third proposed amendment, which in the bill appears as sub 5(

c) and

proposes an amendment to sub 7(2)(

d) and strikes out certain language

and inserts a reference to the regulations. Can the Attorney explain

what has given rise to the change? In particular, has something arisen

that has provoked his staff and his advisers to suggest that there is a

need for a specific reference to additional regulatory powers in this

section?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There’s not been a concern about a particular incident or context

that led to this change. It is intended to reflect the shift from the

requirements being in the statute around these declarations being in

regulation now.

S. Furstenau: Just to start and give it a little bit of context, could the

Attorney General describe what the purpose is of the

conflict-of-interest declarations?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two components to ensuring protection of the public

around the conduct of registrants and their qualifications.

The first is a public register, where registrants have to declare

their competence in different practice areas so that the public knows

that the area this person is practising in is one where they actually

have the ability to do the job properly and safely.

The second is conflict of interest. The member will be familiar

with the South Island Aggregates case, where a conflict of interest was

identified in a professional working in relation to that site. That

case, and those facts, would have been different under these changes.

The professional would have been obliged to prepare a

conflict-of-interest report, identifying any potential conflicts of

interest. This in itself requires all professionals to reflect on

conflicts they may have that might compromise their ability to take on

certain files.

A professional who doesn’t prepare one of these, doesn’t fulfil

the requirements of the act or is incomplete in a conflict declaration,

provides an opportunity for the regulator to engage in discipline and

provide that oversight. Where the report is complete and the

professional takes on work that they are in conflict with, the form

provides evidence to the regulator that the individual was aware of the

conflict and took on the work anyway. This is information that was not

available in that file to the regulator.

[3:10 p.m.]

The intent behind the conflict-of-interest declaration is

accountability for the professional in relation to conflicts

professionally, but also to give them a moment to reflect and to think

about what their conflicts are on an annual basis to ensure that they

are making good decisions when they take on work.

S. Furstenau: I am indeed deeply acquainted with the SIA case, which I think was

an example of something that we would consider to be quite far off the

charts. However, I think it was a symptom of a system that existed and

created the conditions for that to exist.

I guess another question on this, in the general sense around

conflict of interest: are there conflicts of interest that could be

declared and be considered, rendering the professional unable to do the

job that they are considering doing? So are there conflicts of interest

that make it that that conflict, even declared, is too significant for

the work to continue?

Hon. D. Eby: The idea behind these declarations — having prepared one of these

forms and made a list of conflicts when looking at a prospective piece

of work where the professional is considering whether they are able to

take that work or not because of the conflict of interest — is whether

there needs to be, in terms of a firm, mitigation steps taken where a

particular, let’s say, engineer that has a conflict does not participate

in a particular project, and only engineers that don’t have conflicts

work on that particular piece of work.

It could be an aim of mitigating the conflict in that way or in

simply causing the professional to turn down that work because of the

conflict or to resolve the conflict in order to take the

work.

S. Furstenau: The competency registry, as I understand, is publicly available.

Are these conflict-of-interest declarations, as a registry, also

publicly available?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. The competency registry is publicly

available. In the first iteration of the regulations that we anticipate

bringing this

section into force with, the conflict declarations will

not be public. If it turns out that we do need to take the step of

requiring the additional administrative requirement of making them

public, we will do so.

S. Furstenau: The Attorney General, in his opening comments, indicated

protection of public interest and public safety. That’s the underpinning

of this. So if the declarations are not public, and then, according to

these changes…. I’d like to get a little bit more deep into the changes.

Does that undermine the protection of public interest, as was the

intention with making these conflict-of-interest declarations included

in this in the first place?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The intent of the declarations is to support the regulator in

oversight, but the regulatory body is not the only entity with access to

these forms. The superintendent of governance will also have access to

them, but so will ministries of government.

So statutory decision-makers that are asked to make a decision

about a particular land use, let’s say, and are relying on a

professional opinion of an engineer or an agrologist or another

designated professional, will be able to request and will have access to

these conflict-of-interest declarations to inform their decision about

the work that’s been presented to them.

In that way, that is something that is new that’s contained in

these changes, and in that way, we hope to ensure the protection of the

public.

S. Furstenau: Back to the SIA case that the Attorney General raised. The

conflict there was a secret profit-sharing deal. Is profit-sharing

between a qualified professional and their employer still considered

acceptable, or is that considered not acceptable anymore?

Hon. D. Eby: Staff remind me that these regulations are one aspect of

regulation of the conduct of professionals. There are also codes of

ethics of the various professions that speak to conflicts of interest,

as well, that we rely on.

This regulation-making authority creates the ability for

government to prescribe certain types of conduct which would require a

conflict declaration. In any initial iteration of these regulations, we

anticipate that the regulations will outline what I’ve said — that

conflict-of-interest declarations should be made, that they need to be

kept on file and that they need to be provided on request to ministries,

the superintendent or the regulator.

As we move forward, it’s possible that we will go through and

enumerate particular types of conflict, but that is not anticipated in

the first round of regulations.

S. Furstenau: The amendments, as I understand, allow the superintendent to

receive declarations only if required by regulation. Can the Attorney

General kind of elaborate on what that means exactly?

I think that there’s a concern here — we heard this in the

briefing — that there’s a desire to “reduce red tape.” What’s

interesting about the history of this act and how we all got here was

that it was the lack of red tape that puts me in this seat right now.

I’d love to see that reduction of…. I’d love to not see a reduction of

oversight when it comes to these kinds of activities and

decisions.

I’ll give an example of a recent conversation that I had, and I

think there’s a cultural aspect to this in terms of the culture of

expectations or understanding of how this system can work. It was with a

realtor, talking about a particular circumstance where there would be an

environmental assessment. The realtor says, “Oh yeah, yeah, but we know

we can get the assessment we want,” which indicated to me….

Here we are in 2022, and I don’t know if the culture has changed

that much, if that’s the understanding of somebody that would be hiring

a qualified professional and saying — I don’t think he knew my history —

to an MLA: “Yeah, we don’t worry about that, because we can get the

environmental assessment that works for us.”

[3:20 p.m.]

Given that this is really rooted in recognizing that there needed

to be a cultural shift in the realm of what is informing decision-making

when it comes to land use in this province and how that is being

informed, can the public be assured and feel trusting that the

information that is being used for making decisions — when it comes to

land use decisions that can have enormous impacts on communities — is

truly trustworthy and beyond reproach?

My concern with changing this, to the superintendent to receive

declarations only if required by regulation, is that that’s the

stripping away of one of the layers of oversight by government, because

things had been moved out of government’s hands and into this other

realm of professional reliance. The piece that appears to have been

lacking, and building up in that lack over time, was the sense that we

can be assured that government is playing its role.

My question for the Attorney General is, in moving this to receive

declarations only if required by regulation, what is the justification

and the expected outcome for this? And who was consulted in bringing

forward this change?

Hon. D. Eby: In 2018, the Ministry of Environment published a white paper, an

intentions paper regarding these declarations. The feedback to that in

relation to proposed regulatory development for implementation was that

the administrative challenges, costs and consequences of requiring

regulatory bodies to annually collect, maintain and check all these

conflict forms for registered professionals was very significant and

that the upside of such a process, compared to what’s proposed in these

regulations, was limited.

A pause was taken in the work that led to the development of these

provisions, to allow us to implement this conflict-of-interest

regime.

[3:25 p.m.]

The superintendent of professional governance, if there’s an issue

with the profession, can issue guidance, recommendations and directions

to that profession to address any issues that are identified around

completion of these forms, audit of these forms, and so on. Beyond that

authority of the superintendent — if there’s an issue with the

profession identified with these forms and they are refusing to do the

work that is necessary so that the public can have confidence in the

completeness, accuracy and reliance on these forms, by registered

professionals — this regulatory power allows that government can require

professions to make them public.

The hope, though, is that this system will be sufficient to

achieve two goals: one is protection of the public; the other is

efficient and effective regulation.

S. Furstenau: I’m just going to take away, particularly, from the Attorney

General’s answer that in terms of stakeholders, it was really the

regulatory bodies and the superintendent. I’m just wondering if I’ve

missed anybody in who was consulted.

Hon. D. Eby: Staff don’t have the figures in front of them, but they estimate

between 60 and 100 responses to the intentions paper were received from

members of the public, from regulated professions and from professionals

in regulated industries.

S. Furstenau: I understand that that was the response to the 2018 paper, and

that’s what’s informing these decisions. Was Mark Haddock, who wrote the

report for the Minister of Environment, consulted about any of these

amendments?

Hon. D. Eby: No, he was not.

S. Furstenau: I think this can be my last one on clause 5. I’ve got other

questions on the conflict-of-interest piece later on, but again, one

question is around certified non-registrants. Does this change have any

impact on the term or the definition of “certified

non-registrant”?

Hon. D. Eby: This is not related to that change.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

M. de Jong: The existing act contemplates matters of intervention. It

contemplates investigations and audits by the superintendent. The

amendment included in clause 6 creates an additional means for

intervention, in the guise of an inspection. It lays out some of the

circumstances and the manner in which an inspection can take

place.

I wonder if we can just begin by having the Attorney explain what

has taken place since the passage of the original act in 2018 that has

prompted the belief in the need for creating this additional power of

inspection?

Hon. D. Eby: The mischief that this is aimed at was a gap in the legislation

enabling preliminary work to be delegated by the superintendent to staff

to make the decision about whether or not an investigation is

needed.

[3:30 p.m.]

To date, the office of the superintendent of professional

governance has been relying on the

Interpretation Act for this

authority. Putting it explicitly into the statute is thought to make it

clearer — the superintendent’s authority to delegate — in case it were

challenged.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The idea is that not every immediate indication that an

investigation is needed might manifest an investigation after staff have

collected a little bit of information. So doing that preliminary work

and allowing the superintendent to delegate that work will result in

efficiencies in the office and also provide clarity around the authority

to delegate that work.

The Chair: Member.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

All right. So the professionals whose practice will be covered and

governed by the application of the act will, of course, have some

interest in properly understanding what might trigger this additional

means of intervention by the superintendent. What can the Attorney offer

by way of additional information?

The initial test seems to be a public interest test, as set out in

the proposed sub 9.1(1). The Attorney, it seems to me, has described

this as a preliminary step to an investigation. Is that the only

circumstance in which he foresees the superintendent making use of this

newfound power of inspection? What would trigger it? Is it a

complaints-driven process? Can it derive from concerns that the

superintendent herself or himself may have?

So some additional information or description from the Attorney

about the circumstances in which he believes the public interest would

trigger an exercise of the newly created power of inspection.

Hon. D. Eby: There is no limit to the reasons that could cause the

superintendent to conduct an inspection. It could be a complaint. It

could be something in the media. It could be something from another part

of government indicating that there is an issue.

The superintendent and staff are open to receiving information

that could lead them to conduct an inspection under this

section through

any number of mechanisms, in terms of what would trigger that. We do

anticipate that this

section would only be used to determine whether or

not to conduct an investigation.

It’s a big deal to launch an investigation. It needs to be

gazetted, and it’s quite resource intensive and quite significant for

the professional body involved. So deciding whether or not to conduct

one and doing the preliminary work about whether an investigation is

necessary is a critical function of staff and the superintendent, and

this is intended only as an explicit authority to do that

work.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In a circumstance where the superintendent does choose to exercise

the authority granted under 9.1 and launches, commences an inspection

or, as the Attorney points out, assigns to a staff member the function

of, responsibility for conducting an inspection, does it follow that

that would produce an inspection report? Is the regulatory body or the

agency that has been subject to that inspection entitled to a copy of

that report?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that there is policy work yet to do about the process

to be followed under this authority to conduct an inspection. But the

superintendent is bound by the principles of administrative fairness,

even in regards to the inspection that could lead to an investigation.

It is possible that one of the outcomes of the inspection could be a

letter or report from the superintendent, or it could be guidance or

direction from the superintendent to the body. But that policy work has

yet to be done.

M. de Jong: Maybe, then, I could ask the Attorney to articulate and anticipate

somewhat the work that remains to be done. In a circumstance where this

new authority is exercised and an inspection is launched, presumably

that is a significant step and would generate within the field governed

by the regulatory body some interest and, perhaps, some

concern.

My submission would be that, for a whole host of reasons,

including preservation of the rules of natural justice, it would be an

extraordinary circumstance in which, at the completion of that

inspection, the agency or the regulatory body wouldn’t want to know and

be able to receive confirmation that either the inspection had uncovered

something that was of concern to the superintendent or had failed to

uncover matters and would want to be able to tell, for example, their

members that this inspection has taken place and these are the

results.

All to say that as that policy work continues, it would be

helpful, I think, for the agencies that are going to be governed by this

act, or are governed by this act now, to at least have an indication

from the Attorney General that, in his view, it is consistent with the

rules of natural justice. It is, practically, wise for the body that has

been inspected, in now a very formal way, to have access to the written

results of that process.

Hon. D. Eby: Staff with some experience in this area…. This entire bill comes

to the House based on any practice to date and the experience of the

staff of the office of the superintendent of professional governance in

implementing the act.

[3:40 p.m.]

They advise that sometimes the issue that would cause an

inspection to take place is a relatively minor issue. There just needs

to be clarification with the professional body about a particular issue,

and it can be resolved quite quickly.

Some are really significant and profound, arising from litigation.

I would imagine — I think we’ve discussed a couple of times now — the

South Island Aggregates issue would be a very significant development

that could result in a more far-reaching inspection and then

investigation.

The core guiding light, whether it’s minor or a major incident

leading to inspection, is administrative and procedural fairness. The

member is right that part of that could easily be a report back from the

superintendent about the activities that were undertaken, what was

discovered and why an investigation is or isn’t needed. But that

wouldn’t necessarily be appropriate in all circumstances, given the

spectrum of potential issues that come up.

Staff will be doing the policy work around this to develop it, but

it is unlikely to include a mandatory report every time an inspection is

undertaken. The concern was that there was potentially an area of

challenge, a gap in the statute. We were relying on the

Interpretation

Act. And just to be clear, when staff do that work — delegated by the

superintendent — of clarifying an issue, gathering information from the

professional body, they have the authority to do that.

M. de Jong: Does the Attorney General anticipate that the creation of this

additional authority to inspect will provoke the need for additional

staff to be hired?

Hon. D. Eby: Staff advise that this is work that was happening anyway under the

Interpretation Act. This is a clarification of the authority for that

work, so no additional staff are anticipated to be needed.

M. de Jong: In the provisions themselves, in the proposed sub 9.1(2), there is

a description of the powers that the superintendent would assume in

conducting the inspection. The one that attracted my attention is sub

(2)(c), referencing the requirement — the superintendent’s authority to

“require a person to operate a thing, carry out a procedure or

demonstrate a skill….”

What’s an example of that? Most of these are things that empower

the superintendent to access records and make records and take

photographs and inspect. This one actually imposes an obligation on

someone to do certain things. What’s an example of where that power

might be exercised and required as part of an inspection?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that this

section is modelled on the Environmental

Assessment Act’s recent amendments — that as part of assessing the

competence of a registrant or the registrant’s training or the oversight

of a regulatory body, it may be required for a registrant to demonstrate

a particular skill, whether in relation to a piece of equipment or to do

work that they have claimed competence to be able to do.

S. Furstenau: I’ve appreciated the canvassing of this at some depth from the

critic for the official opposition.

[3:45 p.m.]

For clarity, as the act was originally contemplated, was it that

there wasn’t an interim step to go to an investigation and now this is

being inserted — that that inspection step is part of it, or was it that

there was always going to be an inspection, and that’s what’s in the

Interpretation Act, and this is just for clarification? I’m wondering if

the process is changing because of this.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the process is not changing as a result of this.

This is a codification of what has been the practice that previously

found its foundation in the

Interpretation Act and now, in this

amendment, has greater clarity and a lack of ambiguity or area for

challenge about the authority to do such an inspection by expressly

setting out what staff have been doing, in the plain language of the

statute.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. de Jong: Clause 7 includes the proposed amendment to subsection 10(2) of

the act. The amendment to 10(2)(b)(iv) doesn’t concern me because it’s

not in force. But when I look at the marginal note — and I’m going to

confess to the Attorney and his staff that I’m not entirely sure of the

mechanism in terms of statutory construction by which this happens — the

marginal note tells us that the superintendent’s ability to conduct

investigations in respect of declarations by registrants is

removed.

Really, two questions flow from that. I’m not entirely sure how it

does that, and maybe with the assistance of his staff, the Attorney can

explain that. Then, secondly, perhaps the more important question is the

rationale for — insofar as we are talking about the protection of the

public interest — removing that authority and that ability.

Hon. D. Eby: There is no intended change to the broad authority of the

superintendent to conduct an investigation through the change. There

doesn’t need to be a specific naming of that authority because of the

breadth of the authority that’s contained in the legislation.

Subsection (iv) related to an offence around declarations, which

we’ve discussed, which are not required to be filed under these

amendments. So therefore, the offence has been delinked here and

removed.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: All right. I’ll restate it, just to make sure that I properly

understood what the Attorney has said. The specific reference to the

superintendent’s ability to conduct investigations in respect of

declarations by registrants isn’t required, because that authority, the

Attorney has explained to the committee, exists elsewhere in the general

power provisions of the superintendent. Have I understood that

correctly?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s correct.

S. Furstenau: I’m going to get it said again for another time, to make sure that

I’m totally clear on this. I’ll put it in a different way. The

superintendent will indeed still have the authority to make

investigations in relation to declarations by registrants. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that is correct.

M. de Jong: Here’s a gratuitous comment that the Attorney need not respond to

but that I will direct above him, around him, through him to the

statutory drafters and those that make marginal notes that are generally

pretty helpful. Perhaps including what the Attorney has just said in a

marginal note would be helpful and not provoke concern on the part of

legislators who are examining the legislation.

The Attorney doesn’t need to respond to that.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. de Jong: That last comment was in no way meant to slight the work of

drafters, who possess a unique, extraordinary talent that virtually no

one else in the world possesses.

I suppose, not surprisingly, if there’s…. Besides the

section that

we’ve dealt with around the creation of the inspecting power, any time

the Legislature and the executive council speak to fees, it will

generate interest on the part of those for whom those fees might be

applied. I’m not interested in, for the purpose of this conversation,

revisiting past battles in this assembly. There has been some unhappy

history recently around conversations as they relate to fees.

The general question that I guess we can begin with around clause

8 is: since the advent of the passage of the original act in 2018, what

has given rise to the decision now to include specific provisions around

the collection of annual fees from regulatory bodies?

We’ll start there, and the Attorney will probably anticipate the

next question thereafter about the quantum of those fees.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are two values at play here. One is: in having the office of

the superintendent of professional governance entirely funded by the

registrants, there is a perception of risk of regulatory capture. In

other words, the people who are paying the piper get to call the tune.

On the other hand, the other value that’s at play here is the public is

currently funding an office that provides its services to the benefit of

the registrants of regulatory bodies. They provide a value-add, a

service that wasn’t there before.

I think, in the best traditions of public policy, this provision

aims to split the baby, essentially. The registrants contribute to help

support the service from which they benefit by paying fees that support

the office of the superintendent of professional governance, but also,

the public maintains some funding for that office as well so that we

avoid the risk of regulatory capture.

The goal of the authority to collect fees is to provide

flexibility for the long-term operations of the office and ensure

fairness to taxpayers that they are not carrying the full freight of the

work that benefits registrants.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General has helpfully, I think, summarized some of

the considerations that go into determining whether a fee is going to be

charged or collected and then, thereafter, what the quantum of that fee

will be.

The government, in 2018, presumably resolved that conundrum or

that debate by deciding not to include a fee provision, a mechanism by

which fees could be collected by the superintendent from regulatory

bodies. It appears to have changed its mind — “it” being the executive

council. The government appears to have changed its mind.

What has prompted that change of view? And not to keep anyone in

suspense, whatever the Attorney General can offer…. I’ll ask the

question eventually. When we consider the overall budget — and I’m sure

he has some general numbers around the overall budget for the office of

the superintendent — what’s the order of magnitude? Having created the

regulatory power, to what degree…?

I will say this. The point was made to us and perhaps the Leader

of the Third Party, during a briefing, that the intention was not to

operate on a full fee-recovery basis. But we didn’t get much beyond that

in terms of where the executive council believes the appropriate line

is. Regulatory bodies, at least, will be interested to know that as they

watch the Legislature consider these provisions.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are two pieces that have changed since the original

implementation of this regime. The first is that in the initial

iteration of this legislation, three of the regulated bodies had

voluntary registration, and there was concern that a fee would dissuade

individuals practising in these areas from registering on a voluntary

basis. Now, those three professions have reserved practice, so if you

want to practise in those areas and use that title, you must be a

member. So whether or not there’s a fee will not influence somebody’s

decision about membership.

The second concern at the initial stage was that had we

implemented a fee at that stage, only the five designated professions

that were subject to the act would have such fees imposed by government.

Since then, the Health Professions Review has recommended a similar fee

structure. The five professions under this act would not be the only

professions that are required to contribute to their

oversight.

Those were the two major changes. I can advise the member and any

interested parties who are watching that we do expect this charge to be

a nominal charge. At this point, we anticipate that it would be less

than 50 percent of the operating budget of the office obtained through

this fee. However, I will note that there remains to be a Treasury Board

process, which will involve engagement with the affected bodies to

ensure that the fees are reasonable and do not unfairly burden

registrants.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful. Less than 50 percent of the cost of the operating

of the office. What is that? I should have that number in front of me. I

don’t. What is the overall budget for the office, and what is 50 percent

of that amount?

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised that the budget is about $1 million

currently.

M. de Jong: What I think we have learned from the Attorney thus far is that,

subject to the processes that would be undertaken via Treasury Board and

other cabinet-level approvals for the setting of fees, his advice to the

committee today is following the achievement of this fee-related

authority — the fees collected pursuant to this authority. To his mind,

the cumulative amount would be less than $500,000. That would be spread

out amongst the various regulated professions. Is that a fair comment on

my part?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Does the authority provided in clause 8 — it seems to, but I’ll

ask the Attorney to confirm this — allow for the setting of different

fees and different fee levels for different regulated bodies, and if so,

what variables will come into play in determining what those differences

might be?

Hon. D. Eby: This will be informed by engagement with the regulatory bodies. It

is possible that the structure could be a per-registrant charge in

recognition of the significant disparity in sizes between the various

regulatory bodies. It’s also possible that it could be a fixed amount

for the regulatory bodies where, if the number of registrants increased,

fees would go down because the cost to that regulatory body would be

shared over a greater number of registrants.

We’ll be engaging with the regulatory bodies and going through

internal process around this to ensure a fair structure for

registrants.

M. de Jong: Does the Attorney General accept this proposition that I’ll put to

him in the committee? That is, given the nature of how a regulatory body

exists and derives their means to operate, any fee imposed on the

regulatory body pursuant to clause 8 in the new

section 22.1 would

logically and ultimately be passed along through some manner or through

some formula to the individual registrants within that regulatory body.

Is that a fair proposition on my part?

Hon. D. Eby: We anticipate that the structure of this will allow autonomy on

the part of the regulatory body about how they pass through the charge

to members. They may have different structures of membership — part-time

members, retired members, and so on — that may lead them to impose

different structures. That will be part of our engagement with them, but

we don’t anticipate that the fee regulation would prescribe that level

of detail.

M. de Jong: I wasn’t trying to pin the Attorney General down or suggest to the

Attorney General that the regulation pursuant to this act would

prescribe amounts for individual registrants. My request of the Attorney

or my question to the Attorney or proposition to the Attorney was

merely, as a matter of principle, acceptance of the proposition that,

ultimately, moneys received by the Crown from a — I’ve got to use the

right term — regulatory body….

Pursuant to these fees, the regulatory body would ultimately,

through some mechanism, be recouping those fees or drawing those fees

from their members, from their registrants.

Hon. D. Eby: I think, ultimately, as a regulatory body, the main source of

revenue is very likely to be — and almost as a matter of common sense —

the registrants of that professional oversight body. They may have other

sources of income. They may have investment income. They may have other

means of offsetting some of these charges. It is an open question about

whether the fee amount that is imposed by this regulation would cause

these bodies to increase the fees to their members. But I don’t really

think that’s the question the member is asking.

[4:10 p.m.]

It’s that functionally, on the ground, the member may not notice

the difference between a portion of their fee going to government or

staying within their regulatory body, but ultimately, it is that

registrant that is paying that amount, either through their existing

annual fee or through an additional annual fee imposed by the regulatory

body. It really depends on the amount of the fee, the source of income

of the regulatory body and the fees already collected by the regulatory

body from their membership, what impact that’s going to have on the

annual invoice that a registrant receives from that regulatory

body.

S. Furstenau: I think I only have one, but again, I appreciate all of the

clarifications that have happened here. This

section allows the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make the regulations requiring the

regulatory bodies to pay the annual fee of a prescribed amount, and

we’ve heard a lot about how that will be informed — about half the

amount of the cost of the office of the superintendent.

Given that this will happen in council by regulation, can there be

an expectation that it will be transparent, ultimately, how the

calculation is made and how it’s ascribed to different regulatory

bodies?

Hon. D. Eby: We anticipate that, certainly, an OIC by its nature is public and

is published, and that the OIC would have the details about those fees

in it so that the public would be able to determine the respective

charges to each of the regulatory bodies.

M. de Jong: For the information of the committee, my next questions will

relate to clause 11.

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

M. de Jong: My guess is, but I’ll pose it as a question, that the amendment

contained in what will become 5.1 is intended to address a practical

problem that I have some familiarity with, in terms of the timeliness of

appointments of lay councillors that I believe are made by

order-in-council.

I suppose the question that begs asking, though, is: is the

Attorney at all concerned that by including this provision, the pressure

will be off individual ministers, the pressure will be off the executive

council — the pressure will be off everyone to address something that, I

think, historically has, at times, been a bit of a problem. Sometimes,

it’s because elections intervene. Other priorities come along. And I’m

not suggesting that there is generally any nefarious intention, but

these positions can be vacant for some time.

This seems like a convenient way, but I can also foresee a

circumstance in which it can become problematic in circumstances where

there might be a battle brewing and the alignment of the board…. I

should use the right terminology now hereafter. Yes, the board. It may

become really important in terms of votes or directions. It strikes me

that there is now the possibility that a lay councillor whose term has

expired could stay there for much longer than was originally

intended.

[4:15 p.m.]

I get the practical problem that probably has given rise to the

inclusion of this amendment, but I hope the Attorney will confirm that

I’ve interpreted that correctly, and he’s heard my concern about how

that solution could give rise to some complications down the

road.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s useful to take a step back and reflect on the role of a lay

councillor on a regulatory body. These are appointees by government.

They are described as lay councillors because they do not have the

professional accreditation of the body that they’ve been appointed to

oversee.

Their role is to be there to ensure that the regulatory body

considers the interest of the public and members of the public who don’t

have that professional qualification, to make sure it passes the smell

test, essentially, what the regulatory body is doing in terms of public

confidence. It’s really important that those lay councillors remain

present and that they are present on the board and that they provide

their perspectives to the board.

This provision is not something that we just came up with. The

repealed Engineers and Geoscientists Act, for example, the old

section

9(2) said: “A councillor whose term of office has expired may continue

to hold office until a successor is appointed or elected.” This is a

refinement of that. It’s the lay councillors who get that extension, but

the principle is the same.

The member outlined at least one scenario that could result in a

delay of an appointment of a lay councillor, an election is called, for

example, or — we saw a very good example in the pandemic — an emergency

where government’s attention is drawn to other things, understandably.

Yet that professional body also needs to respond urgently. To have that

lay councillor on that body at that time is important.

The member raises some important concerns, but it’s certainly the

intention of government to continue appointing in a timely way lay

councillors to these bodies.

S. Furstenau: There is a description in here that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoints a new lay coun­cillor

after a merit-based process. Can the Attorney General describe, now that

this legislation has been in effect for a few years: what does a

merit-based process look like?

Hon. D. Eby: The merit-based process for appointment begins with a notice of

position that’s issued. Staff work with the CABRO, the government

appointment board resourcing office, to develop a notice of position,

which is published.

The notice of position includes a list of skills and

back­ground or experience that government is seeking for the

position. Skills may include things like experience with public

administration, law or accounting; lived experience relevant to the work

of the governing body; and maybe geographic, that the individual comes

from a particular geographic part of the province; or the person brings

to the table diversity of their own lived experience and who they

are.

[4:20 p.m.]

There are a number of different values and skills that government

looks for in these appointments, which could include just lived

experience as well as formal education. There is an interview process

conducted by staff of the office of the superintendent of professional

governance and the CABRO office. Based on that interview process,

candidates are recommended to the minister, and then the minister

recommends the appointments to cabinet. They are then appointed through

order-in-council.

S. Furstenau: Given that a lay councillor would serve a three-year term, when

would that merit-based process begin?

Hon. D. Eby: Appointments are for three years, and then the councillor has the

option of agreeing to a three-year extension. There are two separate

processes. If, coming up to the end of the third year, the person

indicates that they don’t wish to be reappointed….

At about six months before the end of the third year, they’re

canvassed by the chair or by CABRO or by staff in the office of the

superintendent of governance about their desire to be reappointed. If

they say no, they don’t wish to be reappointed, that’s when the work

begins around the notice of position, interviews, and so on, as I

outlined earlier.

If the person indicates that they do wish to be reappointed, the

chair conducts a review of the performance of that councillor and

reports on that performance to the board resourcing office and to staff

at the office of the superintendent of governance. The superintendent,

then, based on that evaluation, makes recommendations to government

about whether or not the individual should be reappointed.

All that tends to happen in that six-month window before the end

of the first three-year term. As the person comes up to the end of their

second three-year term, similarly, in the six months prior to the

expiration of their term — at the end of the sixth year of their

appointment — that process of posting and interviews would

begin.

Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On clause 14.

M. de Jong: The amendment repeals the provision of

section 31 in the act that

says: “The registrar must cancel the registration of a registrant if…(

b) the registrant has failed to pay a fee for renewal of registration or

another fee within the required time.”

[4:25 p.m.]

I guess the question that flows from that is: have I missed

something elsewhere in the amendments or the act? What happens if a

registrant doesn’t pay a fee? What part of the act triggers what

repercussion, if any?

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, if you read this in isolation, you might think that we’re

removing the teeth — the ability of the body to collect fees to ensure

their operation. But this is a statutory cleanup process, as the member

may have guessed.

The relevant

section that this is being moved to is

section 23 of

the bill text, which is

section 50.1 of the act itself. In 50.1, there’s

a list of potential authorities of a regulatory body, relating to the

potential to cancel or suspend the registration of a registrant in a

number of scenarios, listed out (

a) through (i). It was the feeling of

the drafters and staff that this authority to cancel or suspend

registration based on nonpayment of fees fit better in this list than in

the existing section.

Clauses 14 and 15 approved.

On clause 16.

M. de Jong: Again, some terminology being cleaned up here in subsection 32(7).

What, if any, significance is there in the…? The existing provisions

speak of a “chair who is appointed in accordance with the process and

selection principles.” This will simply delete the word “process.” Is

that just deemed unnecessary in the context of modern

drafting?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two layers of hierarchy within the council. There are

the councillors themselves, and then the councillors can form

subgroupings of committees to deal with different aspects of

regulation.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Oh. I’m going to clarify this before I continue, if the Chair

could give me one second.

You can always learn. There are two strata of oversight

authorities. One is the councillors themselves. There is a process set

out in subsection 25(1) and selection principles related to the

appointment of the chair and the councillors that make up this

group.

[4:30 p.m.]

It is a very rigid and formal process, as it should be, because

the councillors have a great deal of authority and responsibility. The

section in question imposes that same process as well as the selection

principles on the chairs of committees that deal with discrete areas of

regulation — for example, the discipline committee, the credentials

committee, and so on.

You may easily make the mistake of thinking these are

subcommittees of the larger council. They are not. But they do have very

discrete areas of responsibility. This amendment aims to keep the

selection principles referred to in subsection 25(1) that inform the

selection of councillors for election to the broader council while

recognizing that the rigid process is not as applicable in selecting

chairs for these committees as it is for the governing council

itself.

So it’s meant to provide a more flexible appointment process while

maintaining the selection principles referred to in subsection

25(1).

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. de Jong: What, if anything, has happened that has prompted the removal of

the provisions that allow for the limited use of referenda?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The concern here is that we’re getting away from this model of

regulatory bodies being seen almost as membership organizations, serving

the interests of members, and towards a model of regulatory bodies

serving the public interest. Part of that overarching philosophy is

undermined by the idea that the members of the regulatory body could get

together and pass a resolution that would bind the regulatory body in

the registrant’s interest, which is the current structure.

If registrants get the right amount of support at a general

meeting, they can, currently, bind the regulatory body to resolutions

that may be in the registrant’s interest but may not be in the public

interest. The purpose of the Professional Governance Act and the general

shift here is to focus on the public interest and the protection of the

environment, rather than protecting the interests of the registrants

alone.

This has been the subject of judicial commentary, discussing

concerns that referenda can be made without proper consideration of

balancing the issues at hand in terms of the public interest.

This

section doesn’t remove the ability of registrants to raise

issues — because registrants, on the ground, can bring forward and

should bring forward their concerns to the regulatory body — but it does

remove the binding nature of these resolutions and makes them only

advisory in nature. They will obviously be brought to the attention of

the regulatory body through the process itself, and also by extension to

the superintendent. So it is still a mechanism by which concerns can be

brought forward, but they are no longer binding.

M. de Jong: Wouldn’t subsection (4), though, have addressed the concern that

the Attorney has articulated? I understand the proposition that says, as

a regulatory body, the idea of membership-driven initiatives and

resolutions must proceed with caution. But wouldn’t the existing

subsection (4) have provided some assurance that the public interest

would have remained paramount?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is broadly correct that the act does underline the

importance of the public interest. A regulatory body could potentially

use subsection (4) to reject a resolution’s binding holding, but there

are two considerations.

One is that a proposal could be consistent with the public

interest, with the act and the regulations and not constitute a breach

of a duty or repeal a bylaw of the regulatory body yet still not be a

priority of the regulatory body and divert resources away from work that

is more significantly in the public interest or that is set out in their

workplan to achieve public interest goals. These referenda are resource

intensive for regulatory bodies and divert the attention of the

regulatory body from the public interest and the oversight of the

membership towards particular concerns of the membership.

Now, that may be an appropriate thing. But to impose a binding

resolution on a regulatory body versus an advisory opinion coming from

the membership is a different consideration and requires a different

response. Our feeling is, in putting this forward, that this balances

the ability of registrants to raise issues with the resource-intensive

nature and the need of the regulator to stay focused on public interest

work.

M. de Jong: I won’t belabour the point. I think eliminating the mechanism by

which the membership, or the registrants, going forward, can initiate a

measure for consideration by the registrants…. Maintaining that, I

think, can be an important outlet, on occasion. It doesn’t happen often.

It generally happens in circumstances where the professional body is

dealing with an issue on which there are some divisions and some deeply

held positions.

I understand the rationale being advanced by the Attorney General.

I would suggest that in protecting that important principle of

protecting the public interest, the need to eliminate this absolutely,

especially given the presence of subsection (4), wouldn’t have been

necessary and wouldn’t have been my choice. But I have recorded that for

the purpose of this discussion.

S. Furstenau: Further to the comments here, I think when the Attorney General

indicated that a resolution such as this would, as I understand, be

brought to the attention of the superintendent, the superintendent’s

office…. Were that to happen, would there be a mechanism…? Or even if a

council were to make a change that was considered not to be in the

public interest, does the superintendent have a mechanism for inserting

him or herself into that to ensure that decisions, not by referendum

anymore but made by council, are indeed in the public

interest?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Staff from the office of the superintendent of professional

governance monitor general meetings of regulated professions so do track

membership feedback as well as, should this bill pass, advisory

resolutions.

In terms of the decisions of the regulatory body itself, whether

acting on an advisory, resolution or otherwise, if the superintendent of

professional governance is of the opinion that the particular decision

is not in the public interest or is otherwise a source of concern, the

superintendent has the ability on an investigation to issue a number of

escalating measures.

The first is an advisory measure, a guideline from the

superintendent advising that the regulatory body is off base and needs

to re-examine their decision. The next step is directive. This is a

binding direction from the superintendent to the governing body that

they must do something. The final step, if those first two steps fail,

is a fairly significant outcome: the appointment of a public

administrator for the regulatory body, who then will take the necessary

steps to address the issue.

M. de Jong: There seems to be happy alignment on the opposition benches,

because my next question relates to clause 21, and I think that is the

Leader of the Third Party’s wish as well.

Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive approved.

On clause 21.

M. de Jong: I just wanted to clarify. Again, as a function of the rewriting

and the reconfiguring of certain provisions, the authority here to

provide services in a regulated practice through limited liability

partnerships and the…. The amendment to subsection 42(2) of the act — is

that necessitated by the addition of what will be the new

section 83.1?

Is that what prompts the amendment to sub 42(2)?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: These two provisions are connected, absolutely. They both have

distinct functions, but they are both required. They have

interoperability. They have distinct functions, but they are both

necessary to achieve the intended effect.

M. de Jong: I ask that because my understanding was that under the existing

provisions of the statute, registrants could provide services through

limited liability partnerships. So the new (b.1) wasn’t required to

allow that to happen.

Similarly, the ability to “establish conditions, limitations and

requirements for registrants to provide services in respect of a

regulated practice” through limited partnerships. That’s also something

that the existing act contemplated. So I suppose if that is correct,

then what has prompted the…? Is this a case of wanting to provide more

explicit authority for those activities? Or is something else driving

the creation of the separate (b.1) and (b.2)?

Hon. D. Eby: The Partnership Act does allow a regis­tered professional to

practise as part of an LLP, but it does have a requirement. Essentially,

the professional governance statute for that profession must allow it.

There are professional governance statutes in British Columbia that do

allow people to practise as professionals and organizes LLPs; however,

the Professional Governance Act does not currently allow

that.

This amendment will allow the possibility of a regulated

profession under the Professional Governance Act to petition for the

authority to be able to operate in this way and for it to be added to

the regulation, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the Partnership

Act and allowing the professional to practise in this

structure.

S. Furstenau: Could the Attorney General…? Can we start out with just a

description? We have some people in the gallery, I’m sure, who are

watching this with great interest. What would it look like to have a

registrant provide services through a limited liability partnership? How

could that be described in sort of plain layperson terms?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll do my best. It is a technical area. Limited liability

partnerships are a business structure. They are a particular kind of

partnership that — and it’s going to sound a bit circular; it’s right in

the name — limit the liability of the partners who are in it. Now I’ve

just used the same terms in the name to define it, which is far from

straightforward, so I’ll take it a little bit further.

If you are a partner…. If the member and I decided to go into

business and we formed a partnership and we wanted to operate as a

limited liability partnership, the reason why we might choose that

business structure for our business is that if we borrowed money to get

started — to rent a place, to put up