Legislation

The Laboratory Services Act passed second reading yesterday and now moves into committee stage. As noted in a government press release when the Act was first introduced in mid-February:

“The act enables government to strengthen patient services and ensure that resources are deployed efficiently and where they’re most needed.

This legislation provides authority for the Province to better co-ordinate in-patient and out-patient clinical laboratory systems provincewide and enables British Columbia to enter into agreements with service providers to provide greater certainty regarding costs.”

Below please find my speech at second reading on this important piece of new legislation.

First, I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s overall efforts to better streamline our health care system. As health care creeps up towards 42% of the provincial budget by 2016-17, there’s no question that fiscal prudence requires us to find more cost-effective ways of delivering quality care. Developing our community and home-based care systems, enhancing the role of nurse practitioners in the delivery of primary care, and educating British Columbians on practical steps they can take to stay healthy are all examples of important initiatives we can take to make our health care system more affordable for British Columbians.

I therefore appreciate the steps the Minister takes with this bill to move further in building a more cost-effective care system. Standardizing and streamlining British Columbia’s clinical laboratory system could create opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication and over-supply of laboratory services while also ensuring better coordination of services and flow of information between lab technologists and other care providers. Such changes could help make our system more cost effective while also improving the quality of care patients receive.

However, it is important that as we find new ways of streamlining our health care system—of finding more cost-effective ways of delivering health care—that we also take the steps necessary to protect patient safety and to ensure that we maintain—if not enhance—the excellent quality of care we have come to know in British Columbia.

Laboratory technologists play a critical role in our health care system, offering analysis that informs how our health care providers respond to patients’ needs. This role extends from prevention to diagnosis to treatment. As the Minister has noted, “laboratory medicine is advancing rapidly”—the system, the technology and the expertise that informs laboratory medicine is constantly changing. Yet unlike physicians, nurses and so many other health care providers, lab technologists are not a regulated profession with clear and enforced standards of practice and education that ensure all laboratory technologists have up-to-date knowledge of the rapidly advancing system.

I am concerned that there is a trend beginning to emerge that we are moving towards streamlining services without doing the due diligence to ensure we are adequately protecting patients. We have seen this in the debate around Island Health’s new Patient Care Model, Care Delivery Model Redesign where Registered Nurses are being replaced by Health Care Aids, contrary to existing evidence, without first ensuring that health care aids are regulated to a standard necessary to fulfill their new, critical role. I wonder: Will we see the same here with the laboratory services act?

Streamlining health care services needs to go hand-in-hand with maintaining, if not enhancing, quality of care and patient safety. With other health care professions—such as with physicians and nurses—we have found that regulating care providers is an effective and efficient way of achieving this goal. As we look to streamline laboratory services we should also take similar steps here to regulate the related professions, to protect patients, and to ensure a consistent, high quality of care.

I do, of course, recognize that the Minister may have plans to this effect in place already and so I simply offer this concern to the debate and would appreciate any comments the Minister may have in response as we move forward.

As this is a rather multifaceted bill with potentially significant implications for our health care system, I will reserve my overall judgment of the act for committee stage, when we have the opportunity to discuss the specific details and changes it would make.

Earlier this session the government introduced Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act. This act essentially allows the government to issue park permits for two activities that are unrelated to the mandate and purpose of our parks. The first is that park-use permits can now be issued for film production. Generally I support this development, and think that it could provide a boost to our film industry. The second is that park-use permits can now be issued for “research” activities.

Prior to this legislation, park-use permits could not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minster, they were necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park. This Bill now allows park-use permits for film production and for ‘research’.

Research can mean different things to different people. Research can mean a study on an endangered species, or it can mean exploratory drilling. Some types of research seem appropriate for our parks and fall within the purpose and mandate of our parks, others do not. Leaving out a definition of research without any parameters around what will and will not be allowed under a ‘feasibility study’ is leaving our parks open to possible industrial development in the future.

Current regulations and policy does define and constrain research activities that will be undertaken in our parks. However, regulations and policy can change without any public input and without public announcement. Legislation, on the other hand, is openly debated in parliament.

There is a lack of public trust on this issue. There is a lack of public trust that government has the best interests of our parks in mind, particularly given the strong opposition to pipelines going through our province. Instead of unilaterally weakening the laws that protect our Parks, the government should instead undertake an extensive public consultation in order to obtain the social license that is critical for this type of change to the Parks Act.

Today in the house I stated that:

“Public trust is a key component of why I am opposing this Bill. The public does not know why this Bill is being brought forward, and does not necessarily trust government to ensure that this Bill will not undermine our parks. Although the policies and regulations around the issuance of research permits do have specific constraints, these policies can be easily changed without going through the legislature. Today the public is concerned about pipelines and large industrial projects going through our province, and it is not surprising, therefore, that this legislation which weakens the requirements for the issuance park permits, has faced considerable backlash. Indeed, of the legislation introduced thus far this session, this Bill has gained the most significant and controversial media attention that I have seen in quite some time.”

I also stated that “Our parks are world-renowned and are a huge part of our tourism industry, they are enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every year, and in many ways, represent the best that “Beautiful British Columbia” has to offer. This legislation weakens the current legislation of the Parks Act, and there are many who fear that it paves the way for industrial projects through our parks.”

Understanding the concerns around this Bill my staff and I were prepared to call for an amendment to delay the enactment of the Bill, allowing for public engagement and clarification of the Act. However, before I spoke to the Bill the official opposition, sharing many of my concerns, introduced an amendment calling for a delay of 6 months on the enactment of Bill 4. This is a move I fully support.

My Views towards the Bill in Full

The Park Amendment Act, introduced earlier this session, has some elements to it that I believe warrant support. In particular I was happy to see the inclusion of a more streamlined and accessible park permit issue process for activities related to film production. This legislation will likely attract additional filming business to the province, and I applaud the government for its foresight in including film production components in this Bill.

However, I have considerable concerns around how the concept of “research” is being proposed in this Bill. Good research is an integral part of forming good policy and I am a firm believer in the principle of evidenced-based decision making. The problem with how this legislation uses the term ‘research’ is that it does not define the term, it does not give any limiting parameters around what types of research would or would not be allowed, and it provides no guidelines on how the research activity is to be conducted. I am aware that there is a definition for research as well as guidelines around how research permits can be issued within the parks policy, but herein lies the problem. Policy and regulations can be changed and modified without public input or awareness, in contrast, modifying legislation has a clear accountability process.

The reason why we have parks in this province is to preserve and protect the most outstanding natural environments and ecologically diverse areas of British Columbia. Our parks exist for the use and enjoyment of British Columbians today and for the future generations of tomorrow. Indeed, the mission of BC parks is to “protect representative and special natural places within the provinces Protected Areas System for world class conservation, outdoor recreation, and education.” Furthermore, in its mandate BC Parks outlines its commitment to British Columbians through:

• protecting and managing for future generations a wide variety of outstanding park lands which represent the best natural features and diverse wilderness environments of the province.
• providing province-wide opportunities for a diversity of high quality and safe outdoor recreation that is compatible with protecting the natural environment.
• Maintaining British Columbia’s ecological diversity through the preservation of representative, and special natural ecosystems, plant and animal species, features and phenomena.

Operating on this understanding of the purpose of our parks, this Bill fails to define research in a way that ensures that the mandate and underlying purpose of why our Parks exist, is not undermined. One definition of research that I would argue is compatible with the mandate of our parks is one used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization defines research as “experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view.”[1] I would like to draw attention to that last section of this definition and highlight that research in this sense is done, and I quote, “without any particular application or use in view”. Being a scientist by trade, I believe this definition encompasses the spirit of what good research in our Parks should entail.

For example, research that is focused on understanding the endangered Vancouver Island Marmot within the Haley Lake Ecological Reserve is, in my opinion, entirely acceptable as the underlying motivation of the research is to acquire new knowledge of this species. This type of research is also directly compatible with the mandate and purpose of our Parks.  In comparison, exploratory drilling ‘research’ or widespread ore-sampling ‘research’ in the same type of protected area is not acceptable, as the motivation behind this type of research is likely for an industrial project which would directly contradict the mandate and purpose of our Parks. In my view, this latter type of research that supports a specific application or project within our parks, and which also inherently works against the purpose and mandate of our Parks, is problematic to say the least.

The proposed legislation will overrule previous clauses of the Park Act which ensure park use permits are not be granted unless it is clear that the permits “will not be detrimental to the recreational value of the park”. Current legislation also states that permits “must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved”. By allowing park use permits to be issued around this vague concept of ‘research’, particularly research focused on undertaking a “feasibility study” for virtually any type of “prescribed project”, we are opening our Parks to special interests whose intentions may not align with the interests of British Columbians.  It seems to me that this legislation is, intentionally or not, prioritizing industrial proposals over the preservation and protection of the parks of British Columbia. Given that we are discussing protected crown lands meant to preserve and protect places of ecological sensitivity, the habitats of endangered species, or places of historical and natural significance, should there not at least be some basic guidelines imbedded in the legislation around what type of research can be conducted and how it must take place?

Public trust is a key component of why I am opposing this Bill. The public does not know why this Bill is being brought forward, and does not necessarily trust government to ensure that this Bill will not undermine our parks. Although the policies and regulations around the issuance of research permits do have specific constraints, these policies can be easily changed without going through the legislature. Today the public is concerned about pipelines and large industrial projects going through our province, and it is not surprising, therefore, that this legislation which weakens the requirements for the issuance park permits, has faced considerable backlash. Indeed, of the legislation introduced thus far this session, this Bill has gained the most significant and controversial media attention. Six of the leading environmental organizations that are active in this province and which have memberships representing many tens of thousands of British Columbians, have condemned this Bill. Good governance requires outreach and consultation on controversial topics and I encourage the government to actively engage the citizens of British Columbia in public forums before enacting Bill 4

Our parks are world-renowned and are a huge part of our tourism industry, they are enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every year, and in many ways, represent the best that “Beautiful British Columbia” has to offer. This legislation weakens the current legislation of the Parks Act, and there are many who fear that it paves the way for industrial projects through our parks.

As the Bill does not define the term research, and does not outline what constitutes a valid research activity within the protected areas of British Columbia, I cannot support this Bill. Before this legislation is passed I ask the government to explicitly define the term research, to produce research guidelines that would ensure any research activity done within our Parks would follow specific rules, and to amend the definition of a “feasibility study” to contain specific limitations and parameters which would ensure that these feasibility studies are compatible with the mandate of our Parks. Furthermore, as this research will take place on public lands, I believe that the Bill should clarify that any research activity which receives a park-use permit must be done in a manner that is consistent with the long-term health and purpose of the park. I ask that all of these requests be enshrined within legislation.

I think that in BC right now, there is a general lack of public trust at this juncture for changes to the way parks are administered, particularly with the uncertainty around major pipeline projects. Despite some positive aspects to the legislation, the fact that the public does not trust the reasons why government is making amendments to the Park Act is a serious concern.

I question whether the government has obtained the necessary social licence to make changes that could contribute to streamlining the development of industrial projects in our parks – projects which in some cases, a majority of British Columbians are opposed to.

I am opposed to the nature and direction that this legislation currently takes, and I urge the government to carefully consider the long-term consequences of passing this bill as it stands today.

Today I spoke against Bill 2: Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. Below is the text of my speech.

I wanted to use my time here at second reading to address two general areas of concern that I have with this bill. The first concerns the tool used to ensure “effective representation.” I’ll speak to an alternate tool that’s been alluded to by other members earlier that could be considered. The second concerns the criteria used for identifying the 17 ridings for protection

I must say off the bat that after hearing some of the speeches from members opposite, I’m surprised that they have not bought into the hundred thousand jobs which were suspected to be occurring in the north. This legislation may not have actually been as needed as they’re implying.

First, to effective representation.

In the governments white paper on Electoral Boundary Reform they walked us through a fascinating history of the challenges and legal decisions that informed how we determine the boundaries of our electoral districts. These legal decisions highlighted the Canadian “right to vote” was fundamentally a right to “effective representation”. The first condition of this right of effective representation was that of “relative parity of voting power, meaning that a citizen’s right to vote should not be ‘unduly diluted’ compared to another’s”. However, relative voter parity was found to be impossible to achieve in practice, and in fact could be undesirable as factors such as “geography, community interests and minority representation” come into play. Deviations from this voter parity could therefore be justified in so far as they serve the goal of “effective representation”.

You will all have read the White Paper, and so will be familiar with these principles. I do not repeat them for the purpose of taking up time, but instead to highlight the essence of the government’s justification for protecting these ridings, and to build the case for this House to consider an alternative.

I do not think it is helpful for us in this House to pit rural B.C. against urban B.C. Nobody wins when we start to politicize this process.

In its White Paper, the government paints a picture of the Province where certain regions of the province, namely the Kootenay’s, Cariboo-Thompson, northern Vancouver Island, and northern British Columbia are representing smaller and smaller portion of BC’s overall population. These same regions are geographically diverse, creating localized communities of interest – interests which need effective representation.

My issue with this Bill is not on whether or not we need to ensure effective representation of certain regions of our Province – it seems clear to me that it is our responsibility to do so. My issue is with the proposed tool used to ensure effective representation. Freezing the number of ridings in 3 regions of the Province while at the same time freezing the overall number of ridings at 85 appears to me to be a rather blunt tool to ensure effective representation. In fact, I would argue that it fails to do so. It will inflame the issues of representation in the fastest growing parts of the Province, primarily in the Lower Mainland, making their votes worth relatively less. While I am not a lawyer, I question whether or not this legislation would actually survive a court challenge.

The communities that will be underrepresented are no less “localized communities of interest” than the ones this legislation seeks to protect in the North. The communities that will be underrepresented will include ethnic minority groups in communities throughout the Lower Mainland, who already feel that their voice isn’t well represented in the legislature. This brings me to an alternative tool that the House could consider when looking to protect everyone’s right to “effective representation” – voter dispersion.

Effective representation requires an MLA to be accessible to his or her constituents. Ridings, such as North Coast, where the population is dispersed amongst numerous small communities through the region are much more difficult to effectively represent than, say, Vancouver West End where population density is great and population dispersion is small.

Dispersion is different from density. Population dispersion is a measure of the degree of population scatter around a region whereas population density is a measure of the population per unit area.

Mathematically, population density is determined by dividing the total population in a riding by the total area of the riding. Population dispersion is calculated as the ratio of the distance scaled population to the unscaled population. In my view, it provides a very effective tool to measure representation.

This brings me to the second point I want to make about this bill. Paul Ramsey, a Victoria resident, is a statistician and author of the Clever Elephant blog. He has undertaken an extensive analysis of population density and dispersion in all 85 British Columbia ridings. In reviewing the White Paper and the work done by Paul Ramsey on his blog I am uncertain as to the criteria that the government is using to determine which ridings should be protected.

When I look at the list of ridings being protected I see an inconsistency between the arguments the government is advancing about why regions need to be protected and which areas have subsequently received it in this legislation.

First, the two major outliers through this analysis are Kamloops North-Thompson and Kamloops-South Thompson. They appear to share very little in common with the rest of the ridings that are to be protected. They do not significantly deviate from the average population per riding, nor are they among the largest ridings, by area or dispersion. The only identifiable characteristic is their proximity to other ridings which appear to be significantly deviated from the average. This raises the question of criteria – namely how the government selects the ridings that are to be protected.

For comparison, the ridings of North Island, West Vancouver-Sea to Sky, Powell River-Sunshine Coast and Alberni-Pacific Rim could arguably constitute a region in need of protection under the same arguments advanced by the government for the other regions. These ridings share a geographic region and contain numerous small communities, challenging geographic characteristics and in some parts are also seeing a shrinking population relative to the rest of the province. While the population deviation of plus or minus 25% from the provincial average is met for these ridings as well as the two Kamloops ridings, a far more compelling case could be made based on population dispersion for them to be protected.

I use these ridings merely to highlight the point that there is a lack of explanation around the criteria the government used to select these ridings. In order to protect the integrity of the Electoral Boundary Commission now and in the future, I feel it is in the government’s best interest to clarify why certain ridings are to be protected, while others will not.