Today in the legislature I tabled Bill M218: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, 2019. This bill seeks to ban the practice of so-called conversion therapy by prohibiting the provision of the treatment to minors and the payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance or MSP. All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported and accepted, not persecuted for who they are. Below I reproduce the video and text of the Bill’s introduction.

Prior to introducing the bill, my caucus colleagues and I held a press conference indicating our intention to table the bill later in the day. I am very grateful to Peter Gajdics (survivor and author, The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir) and Yogi Omar (queer activist and vice president, Vancouver Men’s Chorus), who joined us at the press conference to offer their views on the importance of this bill. My introductory remarks at the press conference are reproduced below.

I am also grateful to Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo (former Member of Provincial Parliament), Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc (Professor and Executive Director, UBC Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre),  Nicola Spurling (president, Tri-Cities Pride),  and Ian Bushfeld (BC Humanist Association), who kindly offered us words of support included in the media release (appended below).

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first time.

Conversion therapy is an abusive, dangerous practice that must be banned to protect the safety and health of British Columbians — children and youth in particular. This is, fundamentally, an issue of human rights. Medical and scientific associations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, condemn the practice, but it continues to this day and it continues to this day in British Columbia.

It’s particularly important and timely to be advancing this ban today, as we hear news that the United Conservative Party of Alberta is walking back the previous government’s commitment to end the practice there.

This bill seeks to ban the practice of so-called conversion therapy by prohibiting the provision of the treatment to minors and the payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance or MSP. All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported and accepted, not persecuted for who they are.

I’m honoured to be standing alongside LGBTQ2S+ advocates, including survivors of conversion therapy, as we reaffirm the rights of all British Columbians to be who they are and to live in safety. It is because of your advocacy that we are here today.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M218, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Press Conference Remarks

I am very pleased to be joined today by advocates and leaders from the LGBTQ2+ community in bringing forward a bill to end the abhorrent practice of so-called conversion therapy.

It is particularly important and timely to be advancing this ban today, as we hear news that the United Conservative Party of Alberta is walking back the previous government’s commitment to end the practice there.

Conversion therapy is an abusive, dangerous practice that should be banned to protect the safety and health of the LGBTQ2+ community – children and youth in particular.

This is an issue of human rights.
British Columbia has been a leader in protecting and celebrating the LGBTQ2+ community. We were the second province to extend marriage rights, and we continue to support the sexual orientation and gender identity program in BC schools. However, we know there is more work to do.

Over this legislative session, our team has worked collaboratively with members of the LGBTQ2+ community, health professionals, legislative drafters, and legal experts to ensure that our bill does everything within the provincial jurisdiction to prohibit this practice.

In this regard, British Columbia is currently behind much of Canada. Ontario banned this practice provincially in 2015, as did Nova Scotia in 2018. While we believe that this practice should not be happening anywhere in Canada, the federal government responded to this issue by saying it is up to the provinces to address this. So we will.

I am so thankful to the many community members who have worked with our team to develop this bill.

I want to thank a few people who are here today. Nicola Spurling, president of Tri-Cities Pride; Christina Winter, chair of the BC Green Party equity and diversity committee; all of the young people here today to support this bill; and of course our staff team that has worked so hard to make this happen. There are many more who were part of this who couldn’t be here today, and we are so appreciative of their contributions.

In listening to the stories of people who have had their lives impacted by conversion therapy, it is clear that the harms this has caused the LGBTQ2+ community are immense. I commend the brave people who have stepped forward to share their stories, so that we legislators can understand how vital it is to end this practice. It is because of your advocacy that we are here today.

Our bill will prohibit the provision of conversion therapy to minors by health professionals, the payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance, and the expenditure of public funds, like MSP, for the provision of conversion therapy.

I hope that all members of the legislature will support a ban on this practice and bring a close to this dark chapter of BC’s history. I invite both the BC NDP and BC Liberals to join us in following the tri-partisan leadership demonstrated in other provinces by either supporting this bill or tabling their own.

I would now like to turn it over to the true experts on this file, the people who have been fighting for this for decades, and the real reason we are all here today.

I am very pleased to have met this morning with Peter Gajdics, someone who has shared his story of experiencing conversion therapy many times. He has been at the forefront of the movement to ban this, and I would like to invite him to say a few words.

— Break for Peter’s comments—

I would like to now invite Yogi Omar to say a few words. Yogi was a member of the City of Vancouver’s LGBTQ2+ civic advisory committee, and worked on their motion to ban conversion therapy in the city. He has been an advocate for LGBTQ2+ people for a long time, and I am so glad he was able to join us today.

— Break for Yogi’s comments—

Media Release

B.C. Greens table legislation to ban conversion therapy
For immediate release
May 27, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Today the B.C. Greens, alongside stakeholders and LGBTQ2+ rights advocates, are tabling legislation that will ban the abusive practice of conversion therapy and protect British Columbians.

“Today we are tabling the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, which will protect the human rights, health, and safety of LGBTQ2+ people by banning so-called conversion therapy in our province,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party. “This bill supports those with diverse sexualities, gender identities and expressions. It sends a clear message that it is ok to be who you are, that your elected officials and those in positions of power hear you and will act now to protect your human rights.

“Conversion therapy is a pseudo scientific practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity that has harmful, long-lasting impacts and puts lives at risk,” Weaver continued. “It is particularly important and timely to be advancing this ban today, as we hear news that the United Conservative Party of Alberta is walking back the previous government’s commitment to end the practice there.

Medical and scientific associations, including the American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organization, oppose conversion therapy. This ban prohibits the practice of conversion therapy for anyone under age 19 and MSP being charged for conversion therapy practices. It does not limit access to gender-confirming surgery or legitimate counselling and support services.

“I am honoured and humbled to be standing alongside LGBTQ2+ rights advocates, including survivors of conversion therapy, as we reaffirm the right of all British Columbians to be who they are and to live in safety,” added Weaver.

Earlier this spring, the federal government rejected a plea to ban conversion therapy at the federal level, calling it a provincial and territorial issue.

“All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported, and accepted – not persecuted – for who they are,” Weaver said. “The time to act is now.”

Quotes

Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo, former Member of Provincial Parliament (Ontario) –

“It was my honour to have tabled and passed Canada’s first ‘Banning Conversion Therapy’ Bill, now law, in 2015. As other Provinces have followed suit, it’s absolutely time British Columbia acts. Have no doubt it is happening there and that means children’s lives are being put at risk. Suicide rates soar among our vulnerable when their very selves are seen as ‘sick’ or ‘wrong’ in some way. Saving children is what banning this deadly practise will achieve. The time is now.”

Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Professor and Executive Director, UBC Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre –

“Persuading or forcing young people to participate in conversion therapy is the opposite of caring, it rejects who they are and reinforces stigma and shame. Family and community rejection are key causes of emotional distress among LGBTQ2S youth, and have been linked to suicidal thoughts and attempts. By banning conversion therapy in BC, we join other provinces, cities, states, and countries around the world in standing against discrimination toward LGBTQ2S people.”

Peter Gajdics, survivor and author, The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir –

“Bans on ‘conversion therapy’ are important because they destabilize a belief system, an ideology, still held by too many people that says gay or trans people are inherently ‘broken,’ by virtue of their homosexuality or trans identity, and must, therefore, be ‘fixed.’ When I left my own six years of ‘therapy,’ in 1995, before the phrase ‘conversion therapy’ was commonly used, I had no words to describe what had happened to me; at the time, all I felt was shell-shock, like a hole had been blasted through my gut. It’s not so much that I wanted to kill myself as I thought I was already dead. In truth, so-called conversion therapy is soul-crushing torture that ends up not even being about ‘changing’ sexual orientation as it is about eradicating homosexuality, silencing it from the bodies of people who are gay. Legislative intervention helps prevent torture.”

Yogi Omar, queer activist and vice president, Vancouver Men’s Chorus –

“The practice of ‘conversion therapy,’ continues to occur, particularly in smaller cities, and we need our Government to step in and protect our Community. Many LGBTQ2+ individuals, especially younger folks who are still exploring their gender identity and sexual orientation, are left with little or no choice but to go through these practices in order to feel they belong to their community. ‘Conversion therapy’ survivors have expressed that this practice does not actually convert anything, it will only lead to the feeling of self-hatred, isolation, and depression. Banning this practice provincially will not only help LGBTQ2+ community in British Columbia, it will also lead the movement to ban this practice nationally in Canada.”

Ian Bushfeld, BC Humanist Association –

“Humanism is based on a commitment to science and compassion. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of every human being. We therefore categorically reject the dangerous claim that one’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through therapy. We support efforts to ban the practice and urge MLAs to support this private members’ bill.”

Nicola Spurling, president, Tri-Cities Pride –

“There is no credible scientific evidence indicating that someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed, and attempts made to force someone to live contrary to their identity are abusive and trauma inducing.  There is no place for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, as outlined in the BC Human Rights Code and the Human Rights Act of Canada.  As such, I call on British Columbia’s provincial government to end this archaic, and unscientific practice, and to send the message that our province will no longer tolerate these attacks on LGBTQ2+ people.”

Background

World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization issued a statement in 2012 saying, “Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation.” It added this type of therapy poses a “severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons.”

The Canadian Psychological Association weighed in on the practice in 2015, saying it “opposes any therapy with the goal of repairing or converting an individual’s sexual orientation, regardless of age.”

Earlier this month the federal government indicated it believes the governance of conversion therapy was a provincial and territorial issue. Some jurisdictions have already taken action on this human rights issue.

• • Ontario: In 2015, Ontario made the practice illegal by initiating an outright ban.
  • Manitoba: In 2015, Manitoba also outlawed health professionals from offering conversion therapy.
  • Nova Scotia: In fall 2018, Nova Scotia made it it illegal for health professionals to provide conversion therapy for minors.
  • Vancouver: Summer 2018, City of Vancouver passed a law restricting businesses from offering it.

• Canada: In March 2019, Ottawa rejected a plea for a federal ban on conversion therapy, calling it a provincial and territorial issue.

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 | macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature we also debated at second reading Bill 18, Workers Compensation Amendment Act. This bill aims to expand the presumptive conditions that currently exist under the act to wildfire and indigenous firefighters and to fire investigators by broadening the definition of firefighter. Previously, these workers were not able to claim presumptive causes for illnesses (cancer, heart disease, mental health disorders associated with their work). A presumption under the act provides that, if a worker has been employed in certain occupations and develops a disease or disorder that is recognized as being associated with that occupation, then the condition is presumed to have been due to the nature of their work, unless the contrary is proved. With a presumptive condition, there is no longer a need to prove that a claimant’s diagnosis is work-related.

I took the opportunity at second reading to talk about what is not in the act. In particular, I argued that the presumptive clause for mental disorders needs to be extended to other workers in British Columbia. While two weeks ago the government extended the presumptive clause to include 911 dispatchers, nurses and some health care workers (an issue that I have been pestering government about in numerous meetings and in Question Period on May 31, 2018 and on October 25, 2018), I firmly believe we need to follow the lead of Saskatchewan and Alberta and extend it to all workers.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 18, Workers Compensation Amendment Act. While this bill is relatively without controversy, the lead-up to the implementation of the bill is not. I’ll come to that in a minute.

The bill before us expands presumptive conditions for forest fire fighters, Indigenous firefighters and fire inspectors, allowing them to more easily claim coverage for work-related illnesses like cancer, heart disease and mental health disorders that, already, a traditional municipal firefighter would be eligible for.

This was really an oversight in definition. I understand the rationale for bringing forward the amendments that we’re discussing and debating today, and of course, I support those amendments. The groups were previously exempt from the ability to claim presumptive clause for the listed illnesses for no other reason than oversight, frankly. The bill expands coverage by changing the definition of “firefighter” to include a person whose main job is to investigate or to suppress fires. It puts some context into the bill.

Let’s go back to 2017. The member opposite from Chilliwack articulated the B.C. Liberal government added presumptions for breast cancer, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma as occupational diseases for firefighters. This was back in 2017. This added onto several other diseases that fell under presumptive clauses for firefighters. However, forest fire fighters were not included in the definition of “firefighter” and did not receive the presumption.

Now, one might suggest or say that in fact fires in, say, a city, where you might have a chemical plant or a Home Depot, might be slightly more dangerous than forest fires, which are just traditional wood, etc. However, a carcinogen is a carcinogen, and the forest fires in rural areas are going far beyond rural areas these days.

We only need talk about the citizens of some of our rural B.C. communities and what they’ve had to deal with — and sadly, I suspect this summer, as well, in light of the fact that the seasonal forecasts are for much above normal temperatures and drier than normal conditions in British Columbia, both of which are setting the stage for yet another forest fire season. Let’s hope not, but sadly, it looks that from the seasonal forecast.

In 2018, the NDP government introduced changes to the Workers Compensation Act that would designate PTSD and certain other mental disorders as presumptive conditions that are linked to specific kinds of jobs. The changes applied to firefighters, police officers, paramedics, sheriffs and correctional officers. It did not include forest fire fighters or, more importantly, nurses, dispatch operators, teachers and others. Let me say why that was unacceptable in my view.

We know that there are traditional jobs that are male-dominated jobs: police officers, firefighters — strong lobbyists who come here and meet with us year after year, and they’ve been very effective at lobbying. However, jobs like nursing, teaching, 911 responders — which traditionally or historically have larger numbers of females — have not had the same success in having their working conditions dealt with through changes in law. To me, that’s unconscionable in 2019 that we still consider professions that are predominantly male-dominated as preferential in terms of the offering of amendments or support in legislation than those that are traditionally female.

Unacceptable. In fact, I conveyed as much to the deputy minister of the minister’s file over the last several weeks, suggesting to him that we may not support this bill if the government did not fix the error from the previous bill. And they did. For that, I am very, very grateful. On April 16 of this year, an order-in-council was signed that extended the mental disorder presumptive clause to emergency response dispatchers, which means a worker whose duties include one or both of the following: dispatching ambulance services, firefighters or police officers, receiving emergency calls, etc. It also included health care assistant and including the term “nurse.”

Now, this is really important, because when we talk about workplace trauma, particularly with the issue of mental health disorders, I frankly see very little difference between a first responder who happens to be a nurse in pediatric intensive care watching a child go through the trauma that it’s going through, than, say, perhaps a police officer who sees the same thing in the street. These are traumas.

I go to the teaching profession, and I look at the number of teachers. I know we have very high dropouts in the first five years of teachers because of the overbearing stress that new teachers are put into, the conditions, where they’re not given the support. And if they don’t have support of administration, this can lead to mental health disorders. Even today, the teacher has to go forward and actually argue that it is caused by work as opposed to have it presumed to be caused by work, if they have the appropriate designation from a professional, and workers compensation could still do that.

You know, I understand the importance of this bill. I understand the importance of fixing the errors that were created, but we must not forget that the errors that were created are not just in the context of the historical context of the bill but are in the historical context of society more generally. We often fixate on errors in a piece of paper, but there are systemic errors in our society that we need to address. This bill, while going a small way to fixing the errors in the previous bill, and the order-in-council going a longer way to actually bring into the fold nurses, emergency responders, health care assistants…. I still think that in the province of British Columbia, we have an awful long way to go to ensure that labour laws, workers laws, employment standards, are actually the same for women and men.

They may be the same for women and men who are forest fire fighters. They may be the same for women and men who are police officers. But where they’re not the same is in historically male-dominated professions compared to female-dominated professions. That’s a problem, and that problem has yet to be addressed in its entirety here in the province of British Columbia.

In April 2019, the NDP government introduced legislation, this bill, that expands cancer, heart disease and mental disorder presumptions to include wildfire and Indigenous firefighters as well as fire investigators who deal with the aftermath of often traumatic fire. I have no problem with the extension there. I have no problem with the correction of the error that occurred in the previous bill. Through regulation, as I said, nurses, emergency dispatchers and health care assistants were added. That’s also to be lauded, but as I said, there’s been no change or movement towards changes in teachers.

Social workers are yet another example of a profession that historically has been dominated by women, so we don’t have the squeaky wheels coming into the Legislature, lobbying us daily and so nothing gets done. But as legislators, it behooves us to think beyond what is lobbied and think about broader societal change that needs to occur.

I’ve said in the past that what’s wrong with this legislation is we’re not talking about teachers in this province, teachers who work in environments of bullying and harassment with unsupportive administrators, who struggle and take leave but are not covered by the WCB because they have to prove that their mental illness or disorder directly came from their workplace. Imagine that, working in an environment, an abusive environment, one where going to work each day requires you to build up the courage to get out of bed., to show your face in that class knowing that you have no support from your administrators, knowing that you have children who you’re seeing in conditions that you cannot control. You know what they’re going through when they go home. You know they may be coming from an abusive family. You know you have a duty to respond. But you know you feel frustrated by an inability to actually get a solution there.

That can lead to stress. That can lead to systemic stress that can lead to mental disorders. Now you have to start to recant this and prove it. It’s devastating for people. I hope that we can move forward as we go on.

Again, last October, this is what I said: “While I’m pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out. In particular, I’m profoundly troubled that professions such as teaching and social work, professions that employ disproportionate numbers of women compared to men, are being left out.”

I’d suggest that, perhaps, a number of us in this Legislature should actually think a little beyond the immediate and start thinking about gender-based analysis with some of the legislation we’re bringing forward. Is the legislation we’re bringing forward to deal with this problem really creating other problems because it’s not dealing with systemic other issues, or is it just dealing with this one here? I think there’s some work that needs to be done.

There’s absolutely no question, as I said, in my mind that we need to have presumptive clauses in place for police, firefighters, correction officers and sheriffs. But there’s also no question in my mind that we need to include more workers. We need to include teachers. I’ve said it probably three or four times. Social workers. Even on construction sites, the Speaker, you yourself — or was it the minister? One of you two were on a construction site. Was it construction site union leader? One of you two. I’m not sure. Perhaps it was the Speaker or perhaps….

Can you imagine if you’re on a construction site and you’re a crane operator. The crane falls over, and it’s your best friend. That crane operator falls over, and you’re the first responder there on the ground to scrape the person out of the crane cabin on the ground. Now you have to prove if you have PTSD from that result. You have to prove that that’s a direct consequence of your accident, as opposed to being presumed that it would be coming from that accident. I don’t see much difference there.

During the debate on the Workers Compensation Act last year, I moved to grant the presumptive clause for work to all workers. I actually didn’t get a chance to move the amendment because games were being played by members of the official opposition who, despite an agreement before lunch that they still had further questions to go, decided not to ask any questions after lunch and so shut down debate, which I thought was quite deplorable at the time. I still do. I would hope that we wouldn’t stoop to such levels as we move forward.

I like to think that we could at least bring ourselves to the standards already in place in Alberta or in Saskatchewan. These are provinces where all employees are covered. It’s likely that had my amendment gone forward, it would have been ruled out of order. Nevertheless, the point of doing it was trying to raise it to debate. Why is it we are picking winners and losers in society? Why don’t we recognize that mental illness is an issue that recanting and trying to prove, on the work-related side, that it’s because of your work can actually be a very troubling process to go through.

We know the WCB, the Workers Compensation Board, can, at any time, challenge anything that is brought forward, but at least the presumption clause is there. In fact, by actually requiring a presumptive clause for all workers, the premium that is based on your claims will ensure that bad-apple employers get their act together to start dealing with some of these issues, particularly in office work, where systemic bullying and harassment can lead to stress, anxiety, mental illness and mental disorders that are not dealt with by the institutions because they’re afraid to create waste. If they start seeing their WCB premiums go up, oh, boy, they’ll have to start dealing with it.

In 2018, the government did not include 911 dispatchers in their Workers Compensation Act. Again, I pleaded with the Minister of Labour, both in question period as well as in the third reading of the bill — the previous Workers Compensation Amendment Act — that they actually be included. I am pleased to see that they have been, through order-in-council.

I read a compelling testimony about a nurse who no longer practised because she couldn’t after the horror she experienced — she was in the audience there as I read her story — being a front-line nurse. Again, a traditional woman’s occupation that we have now included through order-in-council. But surely, as a province that claims to have progressive leadership, we should be taking a card from Alberta. Can you imagine thinking of Alberta as the progressive? Or Saskatchewan? These are the progressive examples of labour presumptive clauses that we’re seeking to bring to B.C. Saskatchewan and Alberta, for heaven’s sake. Surely, progressive government here in B.C. could extend the presumptive clause beyond what it is now.

While, obviously, my second reading remarks have extended more broadly beyond the actual content of this bill which I speak in support of, I think it’s important to caveat our support in the broader context that we still have a lot of work to do. While this bill is a very fine step in the right direction for those workers it is affecting, there are so many other workers in our economy, so many others that I believe should be considered through an extension of those professions included.

I have no intention of not continuing for it. I intend to continue advocating for those workers to be treated with the same fairness as we treat our firefighters and our police officers. I agree that we need to look after the well-being of our firefighters and our police officers, but we also need to look after the well-being of our teachers, our social workers, our nurses — which we are, to some extent —  and so many other professions that often go unrecognized because they’re not squeaky wheels. They’re not here en masse lobbying us, because they’re not organized. I think that’s a shame.

I and my colleagues, I’ll note in conclusion, will be supporting this legislation, clearly. We’ll continue to advocate, hoping we’ll extent the presumptive clause, moving forward, to other professions

Today I had the distinct honour of opening the 2019 Masters Provincial Swim Championships at the Saanich Commonwealth Pool. Below I reproduce the text of my opening remarks.

Text of Opening Remarks

It is an honour for me to be here with you to open the 2019 Masters Provincial Swim Championships at the Saanich Commonwealth Pool.

I’m delighted that so many athletes are participating in this event and I’m particularly impressed with the diversity among participants, with almost an equal number of men and women (48% men and 52% women), and ages ranging from 19 years to 95 years.

12% of the 228 swimmers competing are over the age of 70.

I was so impressed to learn that a 95-year-old competitor is swimming in 7 events, from 50 meters to 800 meters. What a tremendous example of healthy longevity and what is possible in the sport of swimming!

I understand the 95-year-old competitor is aiming to break the world record in her 800 meter freestyle swim event and I wish her success in this goal and I know that everyone here will cheer her on to success!

In fact, I hear that many swimmers are planning to break BC, Canadian and World records at this meet. May each of the 228 participators have a successful meet and reach your goals, whatever they may be.

Swimming is truly a wonderful sport for all ages and all levels of ability. We know that swimming is one of the best forms of exercise, contributing to good physical and mental health and well-being.

Swimming promotes inner well-being and resilience, as well as improving fitness and stamina. The benefits go far beyond fitness, and include the fellowship and pleasure that arises from participating with others who have the same interest.

“Fun, Friendship and Fitness for Life” is the motto of the Masters Swimming Association of BC.

Through your love of swimming, you can experience the team camaraderie and social contact that often leads to lifelong friendships. Swimmers of all ages and abilities can improve their technique and build stamina – and have so much fun in the process.

An event like this is only successful because of the dedicated organizers and volunteers who support the athletes. To prepare for a big event like this requires huge effort and commitment. There are over 70 volunteers and over 30 officials coming together to make this meet a success. I would like to congratulate all of you and thank you for the countless hours you put in for the sport. Without dedicated volunteers, this simply could not take place.

There will be 30 different events in the meet, ranging from 50 meters through to 1500 meters. I understand that there are 6 competitors from the U.S.A., 2 of whom are from Kona, Hawaii.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend a special welcome to the international competitors.

In closing, may I once again congratulate all the participants and wish you a wonderful weekend of competitive fun and being with friends, new and old.

Would everyone now please rise for the singing of the U.S. and Canadian National Anthems.

Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 20: Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019 at second reading. This bill eliminates the collection and payment of MSP premiums through several sectional repeals of the Medicare Protection Act. The bill also requires the commission to notify a beneficiary when their enrollment is being canceled. The bill introduces transitional provisions to allow the commission to collect outstanding premium debt.

As you will see from my second reading speech, reproduced in video and text below, MSP premiums have existed in British Columbia in one form or another since 1968. Successive NDP, Socred and BC Liberal governments retained or increased this form of regressive taxation for more than 50 years. It wasn’t until the BC Greens made this an issue in 2015 that the BC NDP and BC Liberals could not ignore that action was taken.

I am sincerely grateful to the seniors at the Monterey Centre in Oak Bay who brought this issue to my attention in 2014. As a consequence I initiated a campaign to eliminate the MSP in January 2015. Over the following two years I raised the issue numerous times in the Legislature including tabling a petition with over 65,000 signature on it, responding to myriad emails, and encouraging British Columbians to contact their local MLA to raise awareness on the issue.

In the end, all three parties agreed to move towards the elimination of MSP in the 2017 election campaign. No party could afford to ignore the regressive nature of this form of taxation in light of the widespread attention British Columbians were now giving it. Further details are provided in the speech below.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand and speak in support of Bill 20, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019. This bill enables the elimination of the regressive approach to MSP premiums in the province of British Columbia.

I’d like to start by correcting history, because history is often overlooked. A lot of people are trying to take credit for what’s going on with MSP reform today. I can tell you that MSPs were introduced in British Columbia in 1968. That’s 51 years ago. Successive Socred governments, Liberal governments, NDP governments have come and gone, and each and every government has done nothing to eliminate MSPs. Not once.

It wasn’t until the mid-2000s that this form, this approach, this regressive approach, was turned into a form of indirect taxation, through the B.C. Liberals, a one-size-fits-all approach to taxation. In essence, a head tax, a head tax that led to rather myriad issues.

This issue became front and centre in British Columbia in January of 2015, an issue that the B.C. Green Party brought to the Legislature in January of 2015, with a call for the elimination of MSPs. Both the official opposition at the time and the government at the time will recall I introduced a petition with 65,721 signatures on it that was put together by Michelle Coulter, from Ucluelet.

I introduced another petition of about 7,000 names who contacted the B.C. Green Party. I also proposed at that time an alternate means of actually eliminating the MSP that maintained the revenue. It was at that time that overwhelming public support started pressuring the B.C. Liberal government at the time, and the NDP opposition jumped on it.

So as people reflect upon this historic event today, I would suggest to them that they should look no further than the influence of the B.C. Green caucus on government policy to get us to the elimination of MSPs when, as a single MLA sitting in this House in 2015-2016, we as a group turned this into a provincial election issue and had people fighting over themselves trying to determine who would eliminate it first.

I say that again with sincerity and by pointing to the history. So 1968 was when we introduced MSP premiums in British Columbia. The very progressive Barrett government of the 1970s didn’t touch MSP premiums. The Liberal and Socred governments thereafter didn’t touch…. I daren’t even say this, because I’m so sick and tired of hearing about the 1990s, but nevertheless, in the 1990s, another NDP government didn’t eliminate MSP premiums.

Those last 16 years that we’ve heard so often didn’t eliminate MSP premiums. But I would suggest that it was in those last 16 years that, actually, public pressure and public concern rose. The reason why is people started to recognize that this was tax creep. It was tax creep happening in a truly regressive fashion, in a one-size-fits-all fashion. Whether you earned $3 million a year or $30,000 a year, you were paying the same premium.

What we proposed, what the B.C. Greens proposed in 2015, was a different way of looking at the funding of the premium, a funding that mirrored what goes on now presently in Ontario. While we applaud that the government has eliminated MSP, we would not have done it this way. We would not have done it this way, because the way the government has chosen is to singularly pass that cost on through an employer health premium.

Now I recognize, and we support the notion, that there was room to grow the employer health premium in British Columbia, as we were by far the lowest employer health premium in terms of employee paying in the country — the payroll tax, in essence. However, the approach we took is that we believe it’s important to place a value on a service, but that value should actually reflect your ability to pay.

We had proposed a measure that followed and mirrored what is done in Ontario, where each and every person in Ontario has an item called an Ontario health care premium. That’s a progressive amount, much akin to what we see in employment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. You have a third line. It’s called Ontario health premium, which, for low income, is precisely zero dollars, and if you earn over $200,900, I think it is, you pay something like $900 a year — a progressive amount. So there is a value to the health care services — a small cost, based on your ability to pay — which ensures, then, that revenue comes in, but in a progressive fashion. That was our approach.

That was an approach that would have actually not led to the double-dipping situation we have for this single fiscal year. It’s an approach that would have also recognized that across British Columbia, there are many collective agreements where the signing of those agreements has actually included costed benefits, which is the employer paying the medical services premiums. That’s a costed settlement against an agreement that a union, a collective bargaining unit, has actually costed against the salary settlement.

Now, unfortunately, through the elimination of the MSP premium, what has happened is that costed settlement against past settlements is now vaporized. So those benefits, which were accrued and negotiated away by unions from north to south and east to west…. They now can look back and say to their union members: “We have lost that ability to negotiate for that thousand or whatever dollars a year that was coming off.”

I’m actually quite shocked that the NDP decided to choose this approach, because they have thrown under the bus, in essence, every single member of a labour union in the province of British Columbia that had a negotiated settlement that included the medical services premium being costed against that settlement in terms of the actual past negotiations. That’s, in essence, something like $1,000 that has come off each worker’s costed rights. The unions in British Columbia should be up in arms over the NDP approach, because now that costed benefit has vaporized.

Those previous salary settlements could have had that extra amount that was costed to pay the premium added to salary and other benefits. I’m surprised, honestly. I’m surprised that we haven’t heard protests from the unions. Well, maybe not, in light of some of the other kinds of things we’ve seen in areas where they’ve been given…. But that, to me, is quite remarkable.

That progressive approach would have avoided many of the problems that we see with the implementation, particularly for this year. It is this year that there’s a problem with the double-dipping. It would have recognized the costed settlements that were in place with existing collective agreements. It would have respected that amount, moving forward, by allowing members who gave up that money, gave up that in a negotiation, the right to have that come back to their actual negotiated package.

You know, in 2001 and 2002, the B.C. Liberals rose the MSP premium something like 50 percent. Then they froze it for six years, and then again, in 2009 and 2010, they started to increase it again, 4 to 5 percent each year, until 2015. By 2017, all categories of MSP premiums — individuals, families of two, families of more than two — had doubled since the B.C. Liberals took office in 2001. That started to create dissent within the broader public in British Columbia — the sense that there was an unfairness, which is why we had so much support for this initiative that we took on in 2015. As I mentioned, 65,721 signatures were on a petition put forward by Michelle Coulter that I brought to this Legislature. I believe I introduced that in 2016.

It was an issue that I know there wasn’t a single MLA in this room that did not receive many thousands of emails on, from chain emails across the province.

I’m glad that government today and the opposition at the time, and the Greens, in the election campaign, were all climbing over ourselves to say who would eliminate MSP premiums first. I don’t think…. In fact, one of the moments in the 2017 leaders’ debate I thought was quite a fine moment, from my perspective — selfishly, he says — was when I asked the now Premier: “So let me get this right. In your campaigning for MSPs, what you’re planning…. You have a plan to develop a plan to come up with a plan.” That was the NDP approach. And he agreed, remarkably.

In fact, one of the plans to develop a plan to come up with a plan was to create a committee — an MSP Task Force. Government actually put such a committee together before the budget last year, and then decided that government knew best exactly how it was going to move forward with the elimination of the MSP, despite the fact that the committee had yet to actually return their reports.

So while the committee was talking about a variety of measures and metrics and ways that the revenue could be replaced, whether it be through a sugar tax or whether it be through a small employer health tax or whether it be through a health care premium, government decided to go its own way and go 100 percent with the health care premium.

That’s government’s prerogative and government’s choice. As I say, again, I’m surprised that there wasn’t uproar within the union movement in this province, because I can tell every single union member in this province that has had, historically, MSP premiums paid by their employers, that they’ve just lost out a thousand bucks plus, at least, for each and every one of them, from a negotiated previous costed settlement against what they were owed and deserved because that was costed against their settlement.

It’s actually quite remarkable that government has gone this way. And yes, I know this full well because I have acted as chief negotiator twice in bargaining agreements where we have actually costed our MSP premiums against a negotiated settlement. So yes, I know this to be true.

With that said, I do applaud the fact that we are, indeed, moving towards the elimination of MSP. The co-benefit that is not often talked about is that there’s an entire bureaucratic structure that is no longer needed. There are literally tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of letters that are emailed every month saying: “This is what your MSP premium for this month will be.” If you think about 100,000 letters going out at $1 a letter, that’s $100,000 a month for a start, but it’s much, much more than that.

We also know that there is a very serious problem in terms of collecting long-term debts that have been accrued in the MSP premium. Part of it is unknowing debt — there are those who can’t pay — but there are also those very egregious examples out there where people have gone away and not realized that they, apparently, owed MSP. They come back to rather large bills.

I’ll give you a real-world example. A student might be working in British Columbia for one summer after graduating from high school. Say they graduate from high school in June, they attend their convocation, and they work through the months of July and August. They might have a union job. They might actually be in a union job where they look at their paycheque and they realize that, as part of their employment, the employer was paying MSP.

So they go and take their job. It’s their first job straight out of high school. They see that the employer is paying the MSP, but they don’t really know what that is. Then they decide that they’re going to go to Europe for college. They go to Europe for four years; they leave the province of British Columbia. They may go to France or Britain or Germany or Sweden or Norway and attend a collage there for four years. Then, perhaps, they might want to come back to Victoria or Vancouver and work in British Columbia.

Well, guess what. The second they come back to British Columbia, they get a bill. They get a bill for four years of MSP premiums plus accrued interest because they did not opt out of MSP when they left the country to go to these other jurisdictions, for which they were 100 percent covered by the local jurisdiction. When you’re a student in England, you’re covered. If you’re a student in other jurisdictions across Europe, you’re covered. But you’re expected to continue to pay here unless you physically opt out.

Now, the number of people who physically opt out has been so small, you could almost count it on a hand, because people didn’t know they had to do that. The number of people who had these outrageous bills presented to them upon their return is huge. Therein lies the problem.

We know that what happens is that a young person — and there are many examples of this — will come back from abroad. They’ll get the bill, and they have a choice: do they pay this bill they think they owe, even though they weren’t eligible — or they may have been eligible, but they didn’t use it, or even know they did — or do they not? In many cases, they don’t.

What happens then is that collection agencies start to come after them. Then they have a credit rating…. They’re starting off in their life. They may have worked for one summer — one summer — in a union job. They didn’t that that company that was paying them actually was paying the MSP. They come back four years later, and they get a bill for thousands and thousands of dollars. They don’t know what this is about. And then the collection agent comes after them, and on and on it goes.

That’s no longer going to be the case, and that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing, because we don’t need those collection agencies. We have a lot of debt on the books that is going to have to be forgiven, I suspect, or collected by some other means, but at least we’re moving forward and beyond this.

Again, coming back to this. This was a campaign issue from the B.C. Liberals. They didn’t want to be left out. Fifty percent cut, they planned. When the B.C. NDP ran, they campaigned to eliminate….

They didn’t really articulate how. Frankly, I don’t think they actually figured it out, because their plan was to develop a plan to come up with a plan, and the plan was going to be first developed by a committee that was developing a plan that they ignored.

They staggered their way through, and they decided to come through with this employer health tax approach. That’s their prerogative. We understand that. We recognize that they are government, and they have these choices to make. While we support the overall notion of MSP being reformed, we don’t believe that that was the appropriate way to go in its entirety. A small component, yes.

The B.C. NDP campaigned on cutting the MSP, and they initially did it by 50 percent. In actual fact, what they did was basically leave in place the B.C. Liberal budget, which had already reduced it by 50 percent. They had promised to move on to the entire elimination, which is where we are right now.

The first step of the MSP premium, reducing by 50 percent, happened in Budget 2018. Here we are now moving forward with the completion, through this tax. Again, when I look at this…. We’ve had a platform issue even in 2013 — going back to the history. In 2013, we were calling on the elimination. It actually was formally put forward repeatedly in 2015 and 2016. As I stated, I’m very, very pleased that we’re actually at this position now.

Overall and in conclusion, since 2015, we’ve outlined a number of regressive natures…. One of the things that we’ve outlined, as well — and I hope the Minister of Health takes note — is that right now we’re penalized in British Columbia for being a destination of choice for elderly Canadians.

Why I say that is that it’s very simple to calculate the amount of money that is spent on health care and weight that as a function of age. We know that the average age in British Columbia is lower than the average age in other provinces. We know that the federal Canada health transfer is based on the number of people, with no age weighting to that number of people. So we know that when you do a simple weighted average….

We know how much health care money is spent as a function of age. We know it increases exponentially toward the latter years of your life. We know that when you take the age profile of the province and you weight the Canada health transfer by that age profile, B.C. is short by something in the order of $200 million of Canada health transfer money that should be coming to us, based on an age-related approach.

We know that people in British Columbia may work in the oil sands in Alberta during their younger years. They may be paying provincial taxes in Alberta. They may be working in the Hibernia fields. They may be working in a factory in Ontario. Then in the latter stages of their life, they may choose to come back and live in a place where there’s no snow in the winter. Where is that place? That place is often Vancouver Island.

We know this is going on in Canada. That is the beauty of this great nation that we have: we allow people to freely go from east to west and north to south. We encourage people to come here, and we have a long history of being a home…. In fact, Victoria — I’ve grown up here. I don’t know whether it’s still called this, but it certainly was called this when I was a younger person: the city of newlyweds and nearly deads. I’m one of those few people who has moved from the age of newlywed to nearly dead. There are not many of us out here, but I am….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Maybe. The member for Chilliwack-Kent is suggesting I’m speaking too soon. I hope so. Certainly, I’ve watched the growth of this town over the last 57 years, and my goodness, it has grown. It has grown and become more diversified. It’s quite exciting.

But coming back to that Canada health transfer. I sincerely hope that we do have the pressure being put on the federal government to reflect upon the nature of the Canada health transfer and the unfairness of people paying their taxes in other provinces and then retiring to British Columbia.

I would suggest that it is entirely defensible to argue that the Canada health transfer should be weighted by age, based on the amount of health care spending we do as a function of age. I’ve done the calculation. And 200 million bucks? We could use that. I’m sure the minister could use 200 million bucks. We could fund all sorts of drugs, like Orkambi, for example. I’m just joking. But we could — $200 million is nothing to sneeze at. This is something that I hope they’ll encourage.

Anyway, with that said, I do commend the Minister of Health. I mean that sincerely. We in British Columbia are very lucky and fortunate to have a minister who goes so deep on files and is truly committed to this file. We’ve seen some very good things happen in this province. This is one of them. Again, I don’t necessarily like the way the funds are being replaced, but I do certainly have full confidence in the Minister of Health, the direction he’s taking this province in health care.

With that, I’ll take my place and thank him for his good work.

Budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Advanced Education were held on March 7. I took the opportunity to ask the Minister about the status of government’s review of progress made at British Columbia postsecondary institutions towards the implementation of sexualized violence & misconduct policies.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange. As you will see from the response, government has established a working group comprising of students, institution staff and a community organization resource was convened in December 2018.

The working group reviewed the feedback received and provided input to the development of a draft action plan for the minister’s consideration. Review of institution policies was an area considered by the working group.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My final area for canvassing is with respect to the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act that was brought in under the previous government. Under the act, the minister can direct a post-secondary institution to conduct a survey or to review its sexual misconduct policy in order to determine its effectiveness.

We’re aware that a survey was actually done on the effectiveness of this legislation and post-secondary policies. So my question is…. I’ve a number of questions here. Are there plans for a more substantial review of these policies in the future, and if yes, what is the timeline for that?

Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for the question. I first want to acknowledge his advocacy. I want to acknowledge the former government’s efforts to put a law into place. I want to acknowledge that these steps will lead, hopefully, to better safety and outcomes for people.

Most of the institutions formalized their policies in 2017, and the legislation requires institutions to review their policies every three years, whether the minister directs it or not. Most institutions will be undertaking reviews prior to May 2020. These reviews are required to include student consultation. Institutions are responsible for the review of their policies in determining what amendments or additions may be needed to best meet the needs of their students and campuses.

Further to the survey that was undertaken by the ministry as part of an outreach engagement campaign in the winter of 2017-2018 after we formed government, a working group comprised of students, institution staff and a community organization resource was convened in December 2018.

The working group reviewed the feedback received and provided input to the development of a draft action plan for the minister’s consideration. Review of institution policies was an area considered by the working group. We will be working closely with the institutions over the next several months to further explore next steps.

I can assure the member opposite that recommendations are being drafted as we speak. I’m anxiously awaiting what the students and the working group has had to say. We as a government are committed to moving forward to ensure that we address student safety on campus.

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

A. Weaver: I must note the hour, hon. Chair. I would suggest that, perhaps, it is appropriate for the minister to note said hour, and I’ll take my place and allow it.

The Chair: Go ahead with your question. Just that this will likely be the last question.

A. Weaver: I will make a comment. I appreciate the answer from the minister. Of course, different institutions have a different capacity to actually introduce and enable these sexualized violence and misconduct policies. Some institutions have been more successful than others.

We have also undertaken an attempt to receive feedback from various institutions across the province, particularly of student groups. There is differing and varied implementation, and I certainly look forward to the recommendations coming forward from that group, because there is a lot of work that needs to be done.

Of course, as the minister will know, institutions do not want sexualized violence issues to be public because institutions want to be branded safe institutions for their student body. There’s an inherent desire to keep this under the radar, so to speak, and one of the purposes of introducing the policy measures last time was to ensure that institutions grapple with the very real problem that’s ongoing. I look forward to the results.

In September, the ministry began an information campaign. This campaign featured posters that implied that rape culture is wrong. These posters, however, were not very informative. Students need information about the supports that are available to them.

I had a series of questions here. I can just toss them all out at the same time, because the minister should’ve received these in advance. Who did the ministry consult in the design of these posters? Will this information campaign be continuing next year? Will there be a substantive review of the effectiveness of this campaign? How will the ministry incorporate support resource information into the posts going forward?

Hon. M. Mark: Again, thank you for raising the important issue. If we’re talking about making systemic change, we have a law. The law led to policies. The policies, when I came on as minister, were found on some websites — if you had a password or not. I’m not trying to be critical, but I didn’t think it was good enough to have policies on a website that means nothing to students.

We wanted to reach out to students who told me as minister, when I visited all of the campuses, that this was a serious issue. And it’s one that takes great courage for people to come forward to say: “I’ve been a victim.”

Regardless of who you are, I’m not telling you what the face is. That was the point of the campaign. The campaign was: we don’t know what that face is, and let’s not generalize. Let’s not stereotype that it’s a guy or girl.

Part of the idea of Tinder…. I’m not familiar with Tinder; I’m married, for those of you watching at home. Tinder — you know, swipe right, swipe left. That was the idea. The idea was to try to capture a younger audience. I’m not 22. I’m not going to university anymore, where we know that young people are on their phones. And we wanted a campaign that was going to be somewhat provocative.

I heard from students, who said: “Hey, we weren’t really expecting this from the minister.” It was a step and a strategy that we’re doing. We have a working group that is giving us as a ministry a lot of suggestions and recommendations and advice on what we should do to address this very, very serious issue. But when it comes time for the campaign…. The campaign was timed to meet the highest points of risk, the first two weeks of school. We launched the campaign again in January, with the highest points of risk in school.

I can’t answer your question about whether or not we will relaunch the same campaign. I’m taking direction advice from the students who have taken their time to tell me how we should address this systemic issue. There will be more to come, but that was, in essence, the premise of how we came up with the campaign. Was it enough? We wanted a campaign that could speak for itself. Part of it was to get people talking.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report completion of the resolution of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, report progress on the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training and ask leave to sit again.