Good afternoon, I'm Adrian Dix, I'm BC Minister of Health, I'm joined by provincial and territorial health ministers. I'm honored to be here on the territory of the Musqueam, of the Sqwamish, of the Slave of Tooth First Nations. It's a pleasure to be here with you for the second day of the discussion with my colleagues, this time with my colleagues Minister de la Santé, and this time with the federal and provincial. The discussions today have been brought about by a number of aspects of the public health system. We are still at a fundamental moment in terms of important efforts that all provinces and all territories have deployed and continue to deploy to recruit and train and retain professionals of health. Today we had, as yesterday, significant changes in the health of the country. Today we have, as yesterday, significant changes in the health of the country. As yesterday, significant discussions about the touch on many aspects of our public health care system. We focused on the health workforce crisis and the efforts being made in every jurisdiction already announced, already established in terms of the source of money that would come forward in every jurisdiction to support health human resources, the staff, the doctors, the nurses, the health sciences professionals, the health care workers we need in the future. We also discussed digital health and health data, public health priority areas and applying lessons learned from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, mental health and substance use services, including efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis in many of our communities and our provinces. The significant effort made in these areas is something that I think we need to emphasize. And there are examples in every single jurisdiction. Decisions to open multiple new medical schools and thousands of new nursing spaces by provincial governments committed not for a year, not for five years but long into the future to fundamental change in the way that we fund public health care. Decisions such as the one we made in BC last Monday in agreement with the doctors of BC to fundamentally transform primary care, the efforts in every jurisdiction to improve standards and the quality of life in long-term care. To focus on community care to address the fundamental questions around mental health and addictions. These were the subject of our work. This is the work we've done over the last number of days and the last two days and it was very important to share that work with the federal government and to hear their perspectives on the health of the state. It was an honor for those efforts. It was, of course, an honor to have Minister Duclos and Minister Bennett here with us today. I want to thank, I want to mention now, I guess, the elephant in the room or in this case the elephant not in the room. And that is where we are right now and the end of our discussions today. The provincial governments have been making the case for a fundamental increase in the Canada health transfer. This has been happening for a year or a year. Provincial premiers and ministers have been calling for the federal government to come to the table and have a serious discussion about the future of public health care. Why is this a good idea? The need is obvious everywhere in the room, in every primary care clinic, in every ambulance service everywhere in Canada. And we're building on what I think has been a period of extraordinary cooperation between the federal government and provincial governments and territorial governments with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was our belief, certainly Premier Horgan's belief, all the Premier's belief, all the health care that we have in Canada and we have the time to act that we had to as we were coming out of the pandemic as the value of public health care demonstrated is worth everywhere in Canada. This was an opportunity to have this needed discussion because demand, the demand for services which we spoke up at length yesterday in every single jurisdiction was growing and the provincial governments were making long-term fundamental investments to address immediate, medium-term and long-term facing public health care in our country. As you know, for the last year the federal government has not responded to these requests for a meeting between the prime minister and premiers with respect to the Canada health transfer and that is disappointing but not discouraging because I believe the moment is so essential for public health care so important for public health care that we have to have this moment now and we have to continue to make the case to convince because Canadians understand its value, Canadians believe in public health care and Canadians want us to act. Yesterday, as all of you know because you were in this room we received some comments. I got a text about 1257 yesterday after we had our morning meeting and just before we were going to have a conference to suggest that the federal government was suggesting that there was more money going to be available under the Canada health transfer, the prime minister made some comments yesterday. He made some more today reflecting a number of, I suppose you could call them views about the issue. Minister Duclos said there would be more money available and they spoke of conditions and so on. We responded to that in this room, I think, favorably. Not because we agreed with all of it but because we saw the first signs of federal engagement on a subject that Canadians and provincial governments and territorial governments have been seeking engagement on for a year. We were very, I think, positive. We put the, as they say the best possible view on that announcement. It, of course, became the subject to the press conference as these things do for most of the time after we weren't discussing all of the work we'd done in the morning. You didn't ask about that. You were asking about the prime minister's comments and minister Duclos' comments and if I were a reporter I would have done the same thing. Last night we had a dinner meeting with minister Duclos and then today we had our meetings with all of the subjects that I spoke about. At noon today, as members of the media will be aware and everyone's aware, the premiers of BC and all the other provinces on the direction of the head of the Council of the Federation now, Premier Stephenson of Manitoba released a statement that said in some exactly what the premiers have said 1,420 or so times since in the last year we needed to be a national conference on the Canada health transfer that we couldn't move forward by small sound bites from the prime minister that we needed to move forward in a fundamental way together working together as we have done with such commitment over the last two and a half years. So this happened of course as the statement by the prime minister yesterday happened in the course of our discussions and we were working towards a communique and a proposed joint news conference which ordinarily one would have expected to have. The federal government expressed its disappointment I suppose, Minister Duclos and others with the decision of the premiers to reiterate their important position on the Canada health transfer and the federal government chose to withdraw participation from both the communique and the federal government to join us. I want to say that I find that disappointing. There is work to be done both on the Canada health transfer and a lot of other things and we have been doing that work in many cases doing that work together. Provincial jurisdictions are fundamentally changing and investing more in our healthcare system and to succeed in the long term. I am not discouraged. I am disappointed of course because I would much rather and you would have much rather had a press conference with all of us and Minister Duclos here where we could have had these issues aired together and we are going to continue and I'm going to continue tomorrow and all the days after tomorrow to work with Minister Duclos as are all of our provincial departments. It is not the result that Canadians expect and I'm disappointed that a communique that would reflect all of the things that we engaged with together today and a press conference that demonstrated our work together as well as the need for a major federal infusion of money into the Canada health transfer didn't take place but I am as I say not discouraged. We are going to succeed in this because we need to avoid to succeed in the future to build the healthcare system we need the federal government to increase its role and support for public healthcare and not as has been happening for too long diminish that role. We need the spirit that we came together with under COVID-19 to be the spirit that we come together with in addressing the issues around the Canada health transfer and I am convinced that if we continue to do this work if we continue to make the case we continue to engage with our federal colleagues the prime minister will agree to a first ministers conference on the Canada health transfer where the changes, the improvements and the efforts that Canadians demand of their public health care system are given expression and voiced by their leaders and we are going to continue to work every day to see that happens and we are going to continue to work on our response to primary care. I want to say finally that this is for anyone involved in healthcare pretty solemn times. We are going to have a very challenging and difficult winter. We know that respiratory illnesses affected the southern hemisphere we know they are going to affect us in Canada that we have already seen evidence of that and we are going to continue to work on our response to primary care. We are going to continue to work on our response to primary care. It is there for all to see challenges with the COVID-19 pandemic with respiratory illnesses in general and we are seeing the effect of that everywhere. So we are determined to continue to do that work. To respond to Canadians need for more healthcare at a time after two and a half years of work. But disappointment today of the response to the federal government there is no detail about the amount of money there is no detail about the route ahead of us and the government has decided after the decision of the provincial prime minister to represent and to present once again their position on the Canada health transfer and deciding not to participate and communicate on our work together. Personally, I am disappointed but not discouraged. We are going to have a fundamental determination to go ahead to do the work that is waiting for us. And we are going to continue to do this work together and I am very proud of the land and the provinces of the country. I am very much impressed , even more impressed for my colleagues and for the work we have done together for the past few years. Thank you very much. We are happy to take your questions. Thank you, minister. We will now take media questions from the room. and to whom your question is directed, you'll have the opportunity to ask one question and a follow-up. Very indicate votre nom, votre média et le destinataire de votre question. Vous aurez la possibilité de poser une question avec un suivi. Nous allons passer maintenant à la première question. Bonjour, Christian Noël de Radio Canada. Ma question s'adresse à Monsieur Dix et à Monsieur Dubé aussi, s'il vous plaît. Monsieur Duclos est pas avec nous aujourd'hui. Donc, ça signifie que les progrès auxquels les Canadiens s'attendaient ont pas eu lieu. Qu'est-ce que vous avez à dire aux patients aujourd'hui, à la maison, qui attendent pour des médecins de famille, qui attendent à l'urgence et qui voient que le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces sont incapables de s'entendre? Premièrement, que je dirais pas encore, mais le travail continue. Et on va s'efforcer à faire du progrès. Mais aussi, qu'au Québec, contre le nombre de techniques et partout au Canada, les efforts s'accélèrent. Et les provinces et les territoires s'accélèrent aux réponses à la crise actuelle. Et on a vu presque quotidiennement cette démarche de la part de toutes les provinces et tous les territoires du pays. Et ce travail continue. Ce travail essentiel continue. Et nous avons, nous espérons que le gouvernement fédéral, qui a fait un gros travail pendant la pandémie de la COVID-19 depuis 2 ans, va nous joindre. Et je pense qu'ils vont nous joindre, mais pas aujourd'hui. Et il y a une déception. Mais je veux dire à tout le monde que nous travaillons avec toutes nos forces, toutes nos forces de faire les changements nécessaires, les mesures nécessaires, que ce soit le plan de M. Dubé et le gouvernement du Québec, le plan du gouvernement d'Alberta, surtout sur la question des réserves humaines. Donc ce travail continue. Ce travail a beaucoup bénéficié de nos efforts ensemble et encore avec le gouvernement fédéral depuis 2 jours. Et nous sommes déterminés de continuer à faire mieux. Après 2 ans de pandémie, les défis sont énormes pour tout le monde. Et la réponse est énorme aussi. Et ce dont nous avons besoin, c'est du gouvernement fédéral qui va travailler comme le gouvernement fédéral a fait depuis 2 ans sur COVID-19, va travailler à nos côtés sur ces questions et en faveur des Canadiens en général. Merci. Tu es toujours un côté un peu plus optimiste. Même si on est déçu que ce soit pas le résultat qu'on attendait aujourd'hui, moi j'ai eu l'occasion avec tous mes collègues, des provinces, de voir comment on n'a pas attendu l'argent du fédéral pour faire avancer nos dossiers. Alors quand vous demandez comment les patients devraient réagir à ça, je pense que tous les Canadiens, puis je parle pour les Québécois, de voir qu'on attend de l'argent du fédéral qu'on a besoin, mais en ce moment on attend pas de faire les investissements nécessaires. Ça c'est important pour eux, de savoir qu'on va le faire. Maintenant, est-ce qu'on pourrait l'avoir plus rapidement cet argent-là pour faire d'autres actions qui sont encore plus importantes? La réponse est oui. Alors je vous dirais d'un côté, moi je pense que ce que je retire beaucoup de cette première conférence-là à laquelle j'ai participé, c'est de voir la force de la cohésion au niveau de toutes les provinces et les territoires, que ce soit l'Ontario, l'Alberta, les territoires, les maritimes. Tout le monde en a le même objectif, c'est de dire au fédéral, écoutez, on peut faire la job, mais en ce moment on a besoin de votre aide puis on a besoin de l'avoir sans condition, parce qu'en ce moment nous on attend pas des conditions. On fait des investissements qui sont souvent au-dessus de notre tête, qui sont beaucoup plus importants que ce qu'on devrait faire. Ça nous prend l'aide du fédéral. Alors aujourd'hui, il y a une déception, on va continuer à travailler comme Monsieur Dix le dit, et je pense que toutes les provinces vont pouvoir faire la même chose. En même temps que vous comprenez pas le sentiment du ministre fédéral qui, alors qu'il est en train de discuter avec vous, il y a un communiqué qui sort, qui dit qu'il n'y a pas de progrès, alors qu'il travaille, j'imagine, à faire des progrès. Est-ce que vous comprenez pas la frustration du gouvernement fédéral de voir une conclusion avant la fin? Monsieur Dix, je vais rester. Monsieur Dix-lau répond à ça. Mais la demande des premiers ministres et du conseil de la confédération, Monsieur Dix-lau, elle est claire depuis un an et demi. On n'a même pas été capable de savoir ni les montants, ni les conditions. Alors aujourd'hui, on a dit, on peut pas aller plus loin. Le fédéral a pris la décision de pas être là. C'est son choix. Merci beaucoup. Next question. Hello Ben Milger, CDV News Vancouver. Minister Dix, we heard from a deputy minister from the federal health minister's office that the sticking points for them were the fact that the provincial and territorial ministers could not agree to the health and human resources and the digital health and health data items that were part of the plenary. What were the sticking points for the ministers that caused you to not support those two? Well, first of all, there was going to be a communique and the reason there's not a communique, a common communique about our common work together is because the federal government didn't want to join the communique and that's disappointing. But it's not the most important thing. I mean, the most important thing on both those questions, every provincial jurisdiction has put forward massive investments as Denise Dubé has just said, often well comprehensive into the future. When you have provincial government starting new medical schools, that's an investment decades into the future. And so I'd say with great respect to the federal government, they need to join us in that. And I find and they made the decision to not participate here today and that's disappointing, but I don't think it's the most important thing. I think and I believe there's going to be a deal on the Canada Health Transfer and it's going to be a deal because we have every jurisdiction in the country, all 13, coming together to make fundamental and important and long-term investments in public health care, investments that will require the support of the federal government for us to be successful over a long period of time. Because in Canada, the federal government has the taxation powers or the disproportionate taxation powers and we have the jurisdiction and we're working within that jurisdiction. So I'm optimistic that we can make changes. The idea that the federal government wasn't working on a communique until they were unhappy about the Premier's announcement today. I mean that's just what happened. And fair enough, they didn't like that the Premier's reiterated their position on the Canada Health Transfer. That's entirely fair of the federal government to do and their expression. But I think it's disappointing. I'm not sure it sends the best message. But in any event, I'm not concerned about that. We're just going to continue to do the work to build out our health care system to make the massive investments required, the ones that you've seen in the last few weeks in BC and countless other jurisdictions in the country. We're just going to continue to do this work. But the idea that there was some sticking point in the morning when what happened, and I would say disappointingly, is we were going to reflect on the work done and the work that has to be continued to do on those subjects and others. And they're not here. But it's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that we deliver care for Canadians. And we come out of this meeting as provincial and territorial governments and in our discussions with the federal government, stronger because of our cooperation, our work together. Follow-up? Well, you and the other territorial and provincial ministers and the Premier's engaged in finger-pointing with Ottawa. It is frontline workers and patients who continue to suffer. So after today, what do you say to patients and their families who are not getting the health care they expect? Well, with great respect, it's on behalf of those patients that we're making the case for a fundamental federal investment in public health care in our country. The necessity of that has been demonstrated in the pandemic and before that we cannot, when one of the partners is playing a smaller and smaller role, make the progress we need to make. But what I would say is this, we're making the changes. Last week, we talked about this yesterday, so I apologize for repeating it. But on last Monday in BC, we put forward a fundamental reform to primary care, $704 million annualized in the third year for that reform of primary care that we worked on with the province's doctors. That's investment. You look at the plan put forward by other ministers, the foundational work in our territorial governments on cultural safety, the work on health human resources, more nurses in Alberta, more nurses in Saskatchewan, more nurses in Manitoba, more nurses in Ontario, more nurses in the territories, more nurses in British Columbia, more nurses in New Brunswick, more nurses in Nova Scotia, PEI in Newfoundland, more nurses everywhere. That work continues, because nurses have told us we need to train more nurses, and we are. That we need to make workplaces safer, and we are. That we need to make pathways easier for internationally educated nurses, and we are. Now the federal government can help in some of those things. We talked about them today. But I think that we need to continue to do that work. Those are the things that matter to people. And when we put in new safety systems in our hospitals for nurses, that's progress, and that's what people want to hear. And they're going to hear from provincial governments right through that progress. And I believe, ultimately, we're going to hear from the federal government that they're going to support that with more resources as well, because it is the right approach for now to invest in frontline workers. And I remind you that Kaihai keeps statistics of that. It's called the Canadian Institute for Health Information. We as provincial governments are spending less money on administration and more money on frontline care, in spite of the demands of the pandemic and the incredible demands of delivering healthcare in a vast country such as this. And so when people ask, where's the money going? Is it going to go to healthcare? You bet it's going to go to healthcare. It's always gone to healthcare. And it will again. Next question. Richard Osborne Global BC. This is for Minister Dix and Minister Jones. Toronto's public health board today asked for the province to consider urgently exploring reissuing mask mandates starting with local schools. So for Minister Dix, is it something BC would consider? Minister Jones, the call came from Ontario. Is it something that would be considered there? Thank you. As we always have, and we will continue to do, we have very much relied on our medical experts, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, of course, in Ontario, Dr. Kieran Moore, and his expert advice. We will continue to do that. The input from Toronto Medical Officer of Health is important and part of that conversation. But in Ontario, of course, we have 34 public health units. So we'll continue to get that feedback and rely on experts like the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Ontario, Dr. Moore. Thank you. And I'd only add to that, I think, and this is true in every jurisdiction. The need for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and against influenza continues to be high. In all jurisdictions, we see something of the same thing, which is that those who've been already received their booster dose are anxious to get their second booster dose and are. The people that we really need to reach are the people who have been vaccinated twice, often more than a year ago, and need to get their booster dose of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. So I really encourage that. With respect to public health orders, we do follow the guidance of our public health leaders in British Columbia on those questions. But, you know, I want to also express my support for everyone who uses masks in indoor public spaces. Sometimes it's necessary. We're giving a press conference today. Obviously, we want to express ourselves. But, as well, there are circumstances when people... the guidance is to use masks and that they should strongly consider doing that. And certainly, all of the evidence is being reviewed and is always reviewed every day by Dr. Henry and her teams in BC in the same way as it is in Ontario and other jurisdictions. Follow-up? I'm good. Thanks. Next question. Hi, Justine Hunter from the Global Mail. The agenda for today said that you're going to be... I'm going to take this off so we don't get any feedback. You were asked to approve a Pan-Canadian Action Plan on health human resources. That didn't happen. And I'm wondering what specifically was wrong with that plan? Well, with respect to the federal position, what we have said, what we consistently said and we laid forward to our position is that we needed action and we've made that case on the Canada Health Transfer that we were, as each province, putting forward full health human resources plans that we are developing and there's a significant role for the federal government and we had a discussion of that and there's no agreement yet on going forward on some of those things but many of the actions within those plans are happening both at the federal and provincial level. So we did that work together today on that subject, but not just on that subject, on other subjects. And we would have responded and given sort of an assessment of the work going forward, which is that we're taking action on health human resources together and discuss what those actions would be. Taking action on issues of data, see what those actions would be and taking action obviously together on COVID-19. So that's the work we're doing, but let's be clear, we would have been here discussing those very questions with you with the federal government to participate and that's the way it goes. But the fundamental question for public health care in Canada, given the massive investments currently being made in every jurisdiction in health human resources, is whether the federal government will be with us or not in that effort and we're optimistic that they will be. Follow-up? Hi, Camille Baines with the Canadian Press. Hi, Camille. Apart from the Canada Health Act, individual provinces and territories have made deals with the federal government and money came with that. Would you be willing to do that now? Was that even part of discussions outside of the Canada Health Act? Well, I think you mean the Canada Health Transfer. Yeah, sorry. What's required now and we've been pretty clear for a year and we understood as a result of yesterday's series of sound bites on this question that the federal government saw that interest as well in a fundamental increase in the Canada Health Transfer which has declined over time as a share of health care funding. And so from our perspective, that issue is fundamental and we had understood, at least as recently as yesterday, the federal government understood that too. So what we need is a pathway forward. I mean, the federal government can come and totally defend its position. There are not preconditions for that discussion from us. Our premiers and the Prime Minister can have a First Ministers Conference and a frank exchange and we hope come out of it with a historic agreement on the Canada Health Transfer and that's what we're seeking. So, you know, there's always this you know, the federal government doesn't talk to us for months and then announces something in the budget and says well, take it or leave it. That's the kind of approach and that approach is not worthy of this moment. This moment when our health care systems need a fundamental change in the Canada Health Transfer. This moment when we need to come together because health care workers and Canadians need us to come together and that's why we are going to continue to seek a fundamental discussion about how we finance and support health care in Canada. And from our perspective, we are going to continue to make investments even investments in the long term maybe beyond our capacity without a change in the Canada Health Transfer because frontline workers and Canadians deserve that. We're going to continue to do that work and but what we see as of greatest value is that discussion around the Canada Health Transfer and we're very optimistic and today, yesterday the day before yesterday ultimately the absolute need of Canadians for that to happen will be reflected in the action of the federal government. In any event, provinces have never been more united about what the needs of our health care system is never been more united together in what we need to do and what you're going to see and have seen are the provinces and territories across the country who have come together with one voice at a crucial moment in the history of our public health care system and sought a national meeting with the Prime Minister. It's time the Prime Minister said yes to that. He is an experienced, talented and able leader. I think he's been in post longer than any other First Minister. I know he can handle a meeting but we need him to have one. Follow-up. Yes, immediate concerns of parents looking for meds for their children. What can you tell them apart from what we've heard recently about labeling issues? Can you assure parents that there will be supplies available on shelves when they need them? There are significant issues and it's one of the issues that we discussed today with Minister Duclos and I want to say that he's making significant efforts as are we including I think daily discussions with manufacturers to improve access. We obviously want to ensure that people aren't hoarding scarce supplies and that's an important message to get out to people but we also need to clearly address issues around the supply chain. So both provincial governments and in this case because it's a supply chain issue that's national and international the federal government are very involved in this question. Minister Duclos, I'm sure when he has his press availability shortly right here, he's taller than me. We'll speak to that matter if you ask him and but we're working together directly with manufacturers with one another to ensure as much as possible we can address. It's a real, very real issue for parents and one that I hear about every day and we're working on every day to try and fix working with the private sector and with all levels of government. Next question. Hi Minister Mike Crawley from CBC. Hi Mike. I've heard from you and from Minister Duclos about how important it is that the healthcare system be improved that this is what Canadians want, this is what Canadian healthcare workers want. It takes to detango though so what responsibility do you take or do the provinces take for the fact that this fell apart? Well I don't think things have fallen apart but we're not having a joint news conference and we're not having a joint communicate but our determination to see change and to see a change in the Canada Health Transfer continues and that work continues and yesterday as they say the Prime Minister and the Federal Minister of Health indicated an unknown that they were interested in adding an unknown amount of money in an unknown process to the Canada Health Transfer that is a sound bite further ahead than we were on Sunday and we have to take such progress where we can. What I can tell you though is that we've worked together over the last two days and the last day with the Federal Minister we are making in progress unimportant files but this question of the Canada Health Transfer is foundational and we believe that it requires a meeting of Prime Ministers and Premiers. Why? Because you need everybody in the room you need Prime Ministers and Premiers and Finance Ministers from our territories, our provinces and the Federal Government together in a room to come to an agreement on critical issues and all the work that would lead into that and I encourage the Prime Minister to take that action, to take that step and he hasn't yet but the key word he hasn't yet and so we're going to continue to do the work necessary and I think the value of having 13 jurisdictions united on not just this question but on the fundamental actions we're going to have to take together. Jurisdictions that are spending making the long-term investments now I think that demonstrates uh our goodwill we're going to keep doing that because our citizens need it, our patients need it our workers and health care professionals need it so we're going to keep doing that and I believe we're going to inspire the Prime Minister to come and have a First Ministers Conference with a Federal Government which should want to be part of this fundamental reform and we need them there with their commitment to the Canada Health Transfer that they come and they'd be part of that reform so disappointed and optimistic. Follow up? If you're saying things didn't fall apart in a different way what was actually accomplished here and what responsibility are you going to take for what little was accomplished during this actual meeting because I don't know that Canadians are going to see a single extra improvement to their health care system out of what you guys did these last two days. I think it's important with respect to that fundamental question of the Canada Health Transfer Mike that we continue to push and do the work because that is going to be foundational to a lot of the good work we do from years to come so continuing to make that effort, continuing to push for the premiers to continue to make it their top priority for to hear at least some acknowledgement of that from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health that's a movement forward on that important question but on top of that the progress we're making on issues of credentials between jurisdiction and within jurisdiction. The progress we're making on health human resources the common effort because remember improving pathways which is part of the work we're doing the practical work we're doing for international health professionals and international health graduates is only part of the task. We have to also increase our capacity domestically here in Canada and that means all jurisdictions working together to make that happen this week that's why you had a United Community yesterday that's why we're doing that work together that's why we're doing that work together every day and that's why we want the federal government to be part of that work especially by increasing the Canada Health Transfer so lots of progress in all of those key areas in particular health human resources but others that we're doing together and that work is going to continue and I must say the challenges are going to continue to be profound for our country they're going to continue to be profound for our country this is going to be a very difficult fall in winter for health care workers because of the COVID-19 pandemic because of other respiratory illnesses because winter is always tough in Canada for health care and we are going to continue to work with whoever wants to work with us and that includes the federal government or anybody else to respond to those issues urgent action in the short term urgent action in the medium term urgent action in the long term and it appears we have no questions on the zoom line so we'll go to our final question in the room good afternoon Moira Whiten with the Tai Yi Hi Moira Hi Minister we haven't seen each other in person in ages it's actually been three years in this room exactly but I know your voice now I see you in person which is great well thank you good to see you yesterday the urgency of your meeting here to ensure access to health care for Canadians was underscored from the BC coroner service 171 people were killed by toxic drugs in September can you share the nature of your discussions on ending the toxic drug crisis in Canada this week and what do you say to families who are so desperate for this crisis to stop killing their loved ones so Moira I'm going to ask Minister Malcomson Minister Malcomson to speak to that we had significant sessions on both days chaired by Minister Malcomson and today Minister Malcomson to respond thank you Minister Dix and I want to thank again my colleagues behind the solidarity the unanimity of effort across the country working on mental health and addiction issues was there are a lot of very powerful stories told in the room this is the first meeting of the health ministers that has involved mental health and substance use so many since my ministry was established five years ago two other provinces both Manitoba and most recently Alberta have established standalone ministries as BC did and now that we have a federal counterpart in Minister Carolyn Bennett and virtually every province has some form of a specialized assigned area of mental health and addictions the conversation was really moving to hear people's recognition of the loss of lives to addiction and substance use across the country Yukon had a lot of stories as did all the provinces about the terrible loss of life to drug toxicity and the range of new healthcare supports that are being stood up some provinces don't yet have supervised consumption sites but have plans to put them in place every province is building out their system of addiction treatment beds in every and the federal safer programs that are pushing out prescribed safe supply available in many provinces and then BC's prescribed safer supply program is still alone in Canada but in every case every province discussed their work to expand that system of care I'll make a special note though of the countries in Nunavut which we're clear to say that although some of their residents living in Southern Canada have indeed lost their lives to toxic drug supply what they're seeing in the north particularly is a suicide crisis and a real entrenched problem with alcohol and across the country the addiction treatment beds that we are building don't discriminate or they don't specialize often so when we're talking about building a system of care it may well tend to somebody's alcohol challenge that originated in trauma may be attending to somebody's opioid addiction or risk of overdose from drug toxicity again resulting from trauma or other childhood events and that was the tenor of the conversation in addition to prevention work investing early in youth mental health challenges across the board trying to get people connected with the care that they want follow up yes thank you a number of submissions for exemptions from sections 56 of the controlled drugs and substances act in BC have either been stuck in limbo or denied by Health Canada recently did those submissions namely from the drug user liberation front and the Victoria cannabis club come up in discussions and can you speak to anything you gleaned from Health Canada's perspective on those more bolder pilot project proposals I don't recall any conversation about any section 56 exemptions discussed at the table over the last two days any of my colleagues could certainly correct me on that of course British Columbia was very pleased to have the Health Canada approval of our section 56 exemption to decriminalize people who use illicit drugs as a way of combating stigma and to take the corner and Dr. Henry's advice on one of the causes of loss of life is people hiding their drug addiction using illicit drugs alone and dying alone in this particular climate but that's very specific to British Columbia's intentions and that's the only application the BC government had advanced for section 56 exemption I hope that Dr. Minister Bennett is available for media avail this afternoon she could speak to those more specifically thanks that concludes the questions for today's event thank you very much everyone thank you


And what I tell people now when they ask me, Ted, you've been through so much. How do you stay so positive? How are you able to make such a difference in other people's lives? I say, I've learned a lot of lessons and I will share with you some of the top lessons today. What I think is important, not just to get through adversity, but to live your best life. But also I wanna share with you the biggest lesson that I learned. And that is, we all have just one life. We are only here once. There is no second chance, there are no do-overs.  And this is a time in our glass of your life they're always running out. So I wanna tell you that my big reminder, that is my big reminder when people ask me about what I learned from those experiences. My brother, my sister, my mother, they remind me that any time that I'm feeling down, not 100%, that my time is limited. And if I wanna do what I feel like I'm here to do, I need to get moving. And I shouldn't stay down one second longer than I need to. And that's my story, but I wanna ask you, what's your reminder? It's a powerful story, a lot of people tell me that, but we all have a story, you all have a story. Maybe it's coming from a dysfunctional home, maybe it's struggling in school, not thinking that you're living up to the expectations of society or your parents. Maybe it's something completely different. And most of the time as men, we front, pretend, I'm good man, good, doing well, everything's awesome. We don't talk about those experiences, but we all have them. We all have the insecurities, we all have the fear, we all have the pressure, we all have our stories. And most of the time, like I said, we all push them down, but I'm gonna ask you now to open up to those stories and let that experience, whatever it is for you in your life, create a sense of urgency to do what it is that you feel like you're here to do. Because at the end of the day, life is not about finding yourself, life is about creating yourself. And it doesn't matter those external circumstances. You take what you've got genetically, home-wise, and you run with it.  And now I wanna talk about some ways that you can create yourself that I think you should create yourself.


Hello everyone. Today, we are going to talk about hedonism. This is the second part of our introduction to ethical theories. Now, we have talked about consequentialism. We have talked about consequentialism as the domain in which moral character of an action is judged by the consequences that the action achieves. Now, in the talk of consequentialism, we have shifted moral judgment from the act to the consequences it attains. But notice, we have not talked about what are these kinds of consequences. What is it that describes these consequences? Now, to describe these consequences is the job of a moral theory. So, this consequence is what would rightly be called as good, that any act is in the pursuit of what is good. But the question comes to be that what is this good? Good within quotation marks. Now, attaining the good as I read is a part of consequentialism that is an action. Attaining the good is a part of consequentialism that is an action is right if the consequences aimed or achieved are good. Now, are we substituting consequences with good? But is this explaining what consequences what good is? Hedonism is a theory which tries to answer this question that what is the nature of good? So, it is explaining or defining what is the good. And I put it within inverted commas because it talks about the concept good. Now, but then what is the content of this good or what is the description of this good? Hedonism proposes an answer to this question. It says that the good is that pleasure is the good. The true goal of every living being and what everyone ought to aim at. Now, as we see, hedonism talks about the true goal of every living being and what everyone ought to aim at. The key word here to remember is pleasure. Now, is pleasure the same thing as good? Now, the hedonist claim is that attaining pleasure or happiness. There may be a difference between the two, but for the moment let us assume them in the same bracket. That attaining pleasure or happiness is what we are naturally equipped with and this is our aim. Now, what are pleasures? Now, pleasures or happiness seems to be a natural phenomena that we are equipped with. The ability to feel or no pleasures is almost introspective. And hedonism goes ahead to claim that well, this immediate implicit knowledge of what is pleasurable or what is happiness inducing either in the short run or the long run is what ought to be the parameter for determining what is good. Now, the text referred is William Francona and on the page 84 he brings about some contentions about pleasures. I read, only pleasures are intrinsically good or whatever is pleasant in itself is good in itself. A hedonist may admit that some pleasures are morally bad or wrong or that some are bad because of their results. Now, this is to be noted. Only pleasures are intrinsically good or whatever is pleasant in itself is good in itself. A hedonist may admit that some pleasures are morally bad or wrong or that some are bad because of their results. Now, this is a contention of as put out by Francona. Now, the gist of which is saying that pleasure or happiness is the final standard, the desired final or perpetual consequence. Now, is pleasure the final standard? What is hedonism saying? Hedonism is trying to put forth that well, if we have the ability, the natural ability to know when we are happy about something or when we are not happy about something. This is a natural index which we are equipped with and this natural index is the foundation of moral judgment. This natural index will decide what is right or what is wrong. So, what the hedonist is saying is trying to bring about the relation between two notions, two notions which are good and happiness or pleasure. Now, what is the relation that is going to be between these two notions, good and happiness and pleasure? Now, whether it is that of equivalence or of definition or it is not equivalent, that is what is to be determined. Now, the hedonist says that well, whatever is good is pleasurable and whatever is pleasurable is good. So, in a way there is a relation between the two in that anything that is to be termed as good has to be pleasurable and anything that is pleasurable has to be a part of the domain good. So, there is a kind of interactive relation between the two, between good and happiness and pleasure. So, anything that is good, anything that is good is also pleasurable, anything that is pleasurable is also good. So, now, standing of these two claims, one and two and that they are almost being able to be interchange vice versa, this brings about a kind of definition to good. However, the hedonist stops short of defining the good as that which brings happiness, but this brings such a strong correlation that it is almost of an equivalence. Now, if the hedonist is true, what the hedonist is saying that there cannot be something which is good and is not pleasurable in short or long run. So, this is the essential claim that there cannot be something which is good and is not pleasurable in the short or long run. Now, this is the claim of the hedonist that everything that is that happiness is the final standard that we can, by which we can judge things to be good or consequences or moral acts to be good. Now, keep in mind that next theory that we talk about is utilitarianism and utilitarianism also subscribes to hedonism, where it claims that well happiness is pursued. Notice, we are not talking about the domain of the agent that happiness for whom, for how many happiness in the short run or in the long run or happiness over vis-a-vis pleasure or satisfaction. So, these are broader areas, but what now as a student of hedonism we need to know is that it talks about our natural ability to have a preferential hierarchy between what may be broadly termed as happiness, pleasure, satisfaction and what we morally call good. Now, getting a relation between these two is the ethos of the hedonist claim. Now, let us read what is on the slide. Pleasantness is the criteria of intrinsic goodness. It is what makes things good as ends. It is not just a coincidence that what is pleasant is good in itself and vice versa. This is again from our textbook. Now, what is this claim saying? It is saying that pleasantness is the criteria of intrinsic goodness. Intrinsic goodness meaning valuable in itself. It is what makes things good as ends. It is not just a coincidence that what is pleasant is good in itself and vice versa. So, here Frank Enna's version of hedonism is claiming that what is pleasant is good in itself and vice versa. That means, there can be nothing that which is not good and yet pleasant. So, what is this fundamental claim denying? It is denying one good, but not pleasurable and two pleasurable, but not good. So, it is trying to claim that well, it is denying that there can be nothing which can be termed good, but is not pleasurable and nothing can be termed pleasurable or pleasant as in the archaic language used which is pleasant or pleasurable and yet not good either in the short run or the long run. So, our ability to have to distinguish between natural, our natural ability to distinguish between happiness and pain is also our ability to distinguish between what is good and what is not good. Now, as we put up in the last sentence that there can be nothing which can be regarded as good and is neither pleasant by itself or in the consequence it brings about. So, for anything to be good, it has to be either pleasant by itself or it has to bring about pleasantness. So, only with these two characteristics can something be called good. So, therefore, there can be nothing which is good, but not pleasurable. Now, a few questions that we need to tackle that we have talked about the domain of pleasures. We have talked about pleasures and many of you would be wondering right now that I have loosely or used pleasure, happiness, pleasant satisfaction interchangeably. Now, this is for a reason because the hedonist what you might have got an impression is particularly the indulgent pleasure seeker, but hedonism as a philosophical principle is just claiming happiness. Now, that happiness can be interpreted in terms of satisfaction can be interpreted in terms of pleasure. So, giving it a wider domain that well some pleasures can fall in the domain of satisfaction, some pleasures can fall in the domain of happiness, some are downright pleasures. So, what about making a category or what about making a different scale of valuation for different pleasures as we see here that the question that we ask is are all pleasures of the same value right. How can we grade pleasures? Now, using the term happiness is rather ambiguous because it gives a scope of a lot of interpretation right. Now, as the hedonist is the creature of the senses that is not in a derogatory fashion being the creature of the senses. The hedonist is actually saying that our sensory apparatus enables us to distinguish between happy or a pleasant state of affairs from an unpleasant state of affairs and that becomes our parameter to distinguish from a good state of affairs to a and a not good or a bad state of affairs right. Now, how can pleasures be graded? Now, this you might like to know and perhaps those who would like to explore hedonism in greater detail can take the talks of or can go ahead with these leads that we will come across right now. So, coming to the slide there is broadly classification between quantitative and qualitative hedonists, quantitative and qualitative hedonists. Quantitative hedonists like Bentham maintain that the goodness of an activity is proportional to the quantity of pleasure it contains. But our question is can pleasure be quantified? When Bentham is making a claim that a goodness of an activity is proportional to the quantity of the pleasure it contains. But Bentham tried to work about a quantification of pleasure but it does not have to be such a systematic calculation. Consider it this way giving the benefit of doubt to or trying to make an empathetic understanding of the hedonist, the quantitative hedonist. Look at it this way suppose as a governmental body one has to decide between electrifying a village and providing portable water to another village, providing portable water to a village is higher in bringing about general state of happiness or providing electricity is more important in getting a better state of happiness. So, it is this kind of a calculation that Bentham would talk about that there is a gradation it does not have to be very accurately numerical it also includes people have tried to bring a very numerical attached numbers to pleasures. But by quantitative it is meant that we make distinctions or gradations in the amount of pleasure that can be contained in it. Now, the second pleasure second qualification that is talked about is qualitative hedonists. Now, the mill is one such hedonist, qualitative hedonists hold that pleasures differ in kind or quality. For example, pleasures differ in kind or quality. For example, the mental pleasures may exceed in value to physical pleasures. So, mill was a more refined hedonist, mills claim starts out to be that well pleasures can be qualified into either physical mental whether it can be various classifications. And therefore, the it is not just in the quantity of pleasure that we can make gradations, but there are also kinds of pleasures. Now, the kind of pleasure would determine what kind of hierarchy we set about it. Now, let us encounter another classification of hedonism between which is psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. Now, psychological hedonism is a descriptive doctrine that is, it describes a state of affair. Whereas, the ethical hedonism prescribes a course of action or an ideal or normative state of affair. Now, let me read psychological hedonism is claiming that well it is human nature to seek pleasure and avoid plain fairly simple. Ethical hedonism on the other hand reads humans ought to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Now, the difference between the two is in the word ought. This is a state of is a description, this is a prescription. Psychological hedonism describes the way things are. It is a descriptive thesis and ethical hedonism is a prescriptive thesis. It prescribes the way things should be, it is a normative thesis. Now, some things you might like to know that if ethical hedonism is true, therefore, it implies that psychological hedonism also becomes a true. Ethical hedonism true, psychological hedonism becomes true, but psychological hedonism being true does not mean that ethical hedonism is true. So, psychological hedonism is just a description of state of affairs whereas, ethical hedonism is a prescription, how things ought to be. Now, having said this, let us see what is or what could be the problem with hedonism. Now, people like Moore, G. E. Moore a famous philosopher have argued that the hedonists make an illegitimate inference from this is the premise to the conclusion. From the premise that pleasure and pleasure alone is desired as an end to that pleasure and pleasure alone is good. So, from what is desired to becoming what is good is this legitimate. Now, again this again leads from the normative descriptive claim that we talked about. Now, if we see that well pleasure is we seek pleasure naturally that is a factual state of affairs. Now, are seeking pleasure naturally does it become also that we ought to seek pleasure that is where the illegitimate inference difference is brought to light by G. E. Moore that hedonists make an illegitimate jump from what is the case to what ought to be the case. So, what is desired as an end and what is desired as an end and what is good they cannot be linked or there is no reason to see why one leads to the other. Now, there are some more issues that we need to talk about that let us let me let me give you an example. Let me give you an example let us talk about it let us do a thought experiment. Let us assume that there is a hedon machine as philosopher has conjectured that or let us say that we have something called virtual reality and that we are plugged into a virtual reality machine having all the pleasures or having the sensation of all the pleasures that we want and our bodies are on a life support system and they survive and our life continues to be the string of pleasures that they are. Now, this seems to be a tricky situation are we going to be as happy as we think we would be would you like to sit or be plugged into this virtual reality machine you could have all the pleasures that you would require, but would you call the life a happy life because it brings forth a deeper question a question that is a comfortable life and a meaningful life what is the relation between these two. Now, pleasure is when you are plugged into the virtual reality machine you have all the sensations and the pleasures that you would require, but on a cumulative effect does this lead to a happier state of affairs. Many of you would be appalled by the idea of this virtual reality machine and you would not consider being plugged into that machine at least not for life whereas there is something that is preventing you from feeling this as the measure of happiness. Now, those who are thinking that well this machine I do not want to be plugged into this virtual reality machine are implicitly non hedonists that is they to them it is clear that somebody who does something what he thinks is morally or ethically right has a certain sense of satisfaction a certain sense of happiness or accomplishment for that say why does Mother Teresa if I ask Mother Teresa that why have you been sacrificing your comfortable life and working so hard and giving up pleasures to serve the poor our country India is full of examples of such such people, but then what would Mother Teresa or any other saint in this matter reply that do I do it for the happiness I seek or as we have written here that the pleasure or the happiness or the satisfaction that we get is an accompaniment or a side effect or a byproduct. Now, let us read what is written on the slide pleasure as an accompaniment or side effect or a byproduct of our objectives and not the objective itself. Now, why this idea of being plugged into a virtual reality machine seems to be appalling to many it is because we are not targeting the happiness perhaps or the pleasure that comes along or even the cumulative satisfaction that comes along we need to do the what is good not because it brings out along satisfaction, but because it is good and satisfaction comes along with it. Now, this is the kind of an argument that the non hedonist would make that the hedonist stands falsified when he claims that all that we do is because it gets a satisfaction and only those things that get a satisfaction are things that can be called good. So, is good the second question that we come up is good the desired consequence or does the desired consequence become a good. Now, I will leave this question to you as an audience that is what we desire does it make something good that something is desired x is desired therefore, x is good or x is good because x is desired. Now, if your answer is latter that is x is good and therefore, it is desired then you are a non hedonist, but if your claim is that x is desired and therefore, x is good then that is an hedonistic claim. So, hedonism is an essential is an interesting and primary mode or impulse in human behavior that when it tries to naturalize human behavior to how we are equipped to go across life that our choices of our ability as sentient creatures to prefer pleasure over pain to prefer pleasure and to shun pain is a natural part of us and that is what should be perhaps the basis of a moral theory that any act is moral or only if it brings about the satisfaction the utilitarian takes it further says that well it increases the number of agents that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number we will be talking about that theory next. So, the hedonist in essence is making one hierarchy clear that we prefer pleasure over pain and this alone is the fundamental for making a moral judgment or making an ethical claim. Now, the hedonist therefore, can denies that there can be anything that is which is can be called good and is neither pleasurable in the short run nor in the long run. So, with this we come to an end of the topic of hedonism which is a fundamental moral ethos in most traditions be it the Charvakas in the Indian philosophical tradition or the Epicureans in Greek tradition. So, this is a very fundamental drive where it is trying to naturalize human beings into the creatures that they are and also as a rebellion to the extraordinary tenets of morality perhaps founded on religion which constantly restrict the natural preference order of human beings.