2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number 7

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Hansen: I would like the House to welcome today a very important delegation that is from the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena. They are here as a delegation from the Musqueam First Nation to draw attention to a very important issue, and that is the issues around the very important heritage site of the Marpole middens.

To the delegation that is here, I would like to say hi sa' ap ca — thank you. Thank you for coming over here today and raising this very important issue.

I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming all of them.

[1335]

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery is the next round of students at the PATHWAY Project in my consistency of Langford. The project coordinators, Jen Harrison and Randy Waldie, are here, along with students Dylan Craven, Tash Desrochers, Brandon Foster, Kenny Hodson, Shaye Paquette, Andrew Pilcher, Cody Rowe, Bradlee Rusk, Kathleen Shire, Aaron Smart and Tanner Woolsey. Would the House please make the PATHWAY Project participants very, very welcome.

It's also a very great privilege of mine to introduce a friend and a volunteer in my constituency office, former RCMP officer Krista Carle. She has been outspoken on a whole host of issues about her former employer, and she's a brave, outstanding woman. I want the House to please make her very, very welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: In the gallery today, visiting for the first time since her last visit when she was in high school, is a young lady who is attending Simon Fraser University in the political science program — a community activist and tireless volunteer and also a constituency assistant in my constituency office. Would the House please welcome Christiana Wu, who is with us today.

S. Fraser: I'd like to join the member opposite from Vancouver-Quilchena in welcoming members from Musqueam: Leona Sparrow, the treaty director; Ken McGregor, band manager; Dianne Sparrow, assistant treaty director; Trudi Cornick; and Amber Cornick.

Along with those members from Musqueam, I see the Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, president of the UBCIC; also Bob Chamberlin, the vice-president; and Don Bain, the executive director. Will this House join me in making them all feel very welcome.

R. Howard: We had the great pleasure of having lunch in the legislative dining room this afternoon, the three Richmond MLAs, to welcome friends and supporters and constituents from Richmond. We have the Yung family with us: Dr. Eric Yung, who was a Richmond board of education trustee and is also with the Terry Fox Institute as a research fellow; his wife, Dr. Grace Cheng, who is a scientist with the Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre; and their two lovely children — Megan, who is nine, and Evan, who is four. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three friends of mine who are in the gallery today: Katy Alkins-Jang, Brian Nasu and Lee Loftus. Please join me to give them a warm welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to join in welcoming friends from the Musqueam band and ask everyone to please welcome Laurence Paul, Wayne Point, Ruth Point, Susan Point and Robert "Bob" Guerin. Everyone, please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Visiting in the gallery this afternoon are several individuals from the office of protocol. They are Melanie Peterson and Jenny Pescod.

Accompanying Melanie and Jenny is Mark Collins, who is the protocol manager with the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. Mark worked as a B.C. legislative news reporter from 1980 to 1988, serving as president of the B.C. legislative press gallery for his last two years. He then worked in communications with the B.C. government Ministries of Government Services, Transportation and Highways, Finance, Corporate Relations, and Intergovernmental Relations.

Accompanying Melanie and Jenny is Mark Collins, who is the protocol manager with the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. Mark worked as a B.C. legislative news reporter from 1980 to 1988, serving as president of the B.C. legislative press gallery for his last two years. He then worked in communications with the B.C. government Ministries of Government Services, Transportation and Highways, Finance, Corporate Relations, and Intergovernmental Relations.

J. Kwan: I'd like to join with the members of the House in welcoming members of the Musqueam band. In particular, I'd like to ask the House to please welcome Abigail Speck, Brooke Peters, Brea Guerin, Kim Guerin and also Kweyacan Guerin. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

K. Conroy: I have two sets of introductions today. We have a delegation from the city of Castlegar, including our mayor, His Worship Lawrence Chernoff; newly elected
[ Page 11806 ]
councillor Dan Rye — it's his first time here in Victoria and first time at QP — and the city administrator, John Malcolm, who I understand is also a good friend of the Minister of Transportation. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

I also have the pleasure to welcome back to the precinct Pratik Modha. Pratick worked here in the '90s in a number of capacities, including with two Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — Corky Evans and Ed Conroy. I know that was an incredibly tough position for him to do, and he said he was always up to the job.

He has since then worked — he's moved up in the world — for the Premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, as well as a number of other ministers, and is currently working with Manitoba Lotteries Corp. He is back here visiting with his wife, Laurie Bailey — who was a former legislative reporter in Winnipeg but now works for Winnipeg Free Press — and his mom, Sheroo Modha. Sheroo also spent ten years working here in the Legislature. She was here yesterday visiting with friends and colleagues, and it was great to see her too. So would everyone please join me in welcoming them back to Victoria.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hi sa' ap ca, I raise my hands to our guests from Musqueam Nation here today to speak very strongly and with great force for c̍ǝsnaʔǝm and for the Marpole midden site, the national historic site.

I just want to welcome, in specific, Coun. Nora Stogan; Ashley Thorne; Jeri Sparrow; Coun. Howard Grant; and the health program manager, Coreen Paul. Please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join with my colleagues in welcoming a number of members of the Musqueam band who are here today to speak to members of the Legislature. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the lands manager, Fran Guerin, along with K. Louise Point, Aaron Wilson, Richard Bud James and Victor Guerin. Please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

QUADRA VILLAGE DAY

R. Fleming: I wanted to rise today to give recognition to a wonderful community event which takes place in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. I'm referring to the annual Quadra Village Day which takes place this Saturday, May 12.

Quadra Village Day was originally established to bring community members together and raise funds for improvements to the Quadra village area. This is an area that was once a very vibrant commercial centre in Victoria. It's just north of our downtown. But by the 1980s major retailers and grocers had left the area, leaving storefront vacancies and struggling businesses.

It was in the 1990s that the city, the province — mainly through ICBC and community members — began to fund improvements in things like safe walking in intersections and to start a revitalization of a business area that today is attracting all kinds of new entrepreneurs and activity and over the last 15 years has done some wonderful things.

The funds from Quadra Village Day and from the ongoing planning activity continue to fund physical improvements in the area — things like litter bins and benches and bike racks and attractive light poles, including public art and a banner project. These improvements have created an attractive and enhanced pedestrian environment which benefits businesses in the Quadra village area as well as the residents who call this area home on a daily basis.

The community event continues to grow every year. Last year Quadra Village Day brought over 2,000 community members out to support each other, to enjoy and learn from one another. It's for this reason that the planning committee wants to continue the tradition of holding Quadra Village Day — towards making it an even better, free, grassroots multicultural festival that brings people together.

I continue to benefit enormously from having my constituency office situated in the heart of Quadra village. It's a place where the sense of community has grown immeasurably over recent years, where there is a place of pride now. The members of the community and the business owners there have done tremendous things, and I wish all members of the House to send their best regards to Quadra Village Days and the volunteers involved.

SURREY TOUR OF INDUSTRY
AND FOREST COMPANY ISSUES

D. Hayer: Last Friday I joined the Surrey Board of Trade's third tour of the industry. It was organized by Surrey Board of Trade CEO Anita Huberman and president Mary Jane Stenberg. The tour showcased many of Surrey's industries and future development. It was broken into three tour groups, with each group visiting different business operations. On each of the three buses, tour clarification was provided by Randy Heed and Colliers International staff.

[1345]

The group I was with toured the lumber, beverage and agriculture industries within Surrey — the lumber operations of Teal-Jones, the Mill and Timber Products Ltd., Central City Brewing and the Honeybee Centre.

Teal-Jones Group's owners, Tom and Dick Jones, and their workers; Mill and Timber's David Gray; and Surrey Board of Trade members brought forward some of their concerns regarding fairness in the timber allocations
[ Page 11807 ]
given to the local milling industry, while an increased amount of raw logs are shipped overseas. They said they are well-paying employers, yet their mills are having a difficult time obtaining raw logs, while the export of raw logs is increasing. They are asking for fairness in the raw log allocation policy so that our local mills will not suffer from the shortage of wood to process.

Teal-Jones Group is also looking for fairness in the claims settlement and to have clear and fair government policies that define and limit the time it takes to solve claims against the government.

I mention this because our government prides itself on openness, accountability and fairness, and my constituents believe we need to look very closely at how we deal with what has always been the backbone of British Columbia's local economy, the lumber industry.

I also believe that government, regardless of which political party it represents, and our bureaucrats should listen to the concerns of our constituents and businesses to be fair and treat them fairly.

GROUP OF FIVE FUNDRAISING
FOR ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

D. Black: I often quote anthropologist Margaret Mead, who said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

The truth of this statement is demonstrated by the significant contribution that a small group of committed women have made to Royal Columbian Hospital and to New Westminster. In 2004, after being named New Westminster citizen of the year, Gerda Suess decided that she wanted to give back even more to our community, so she recruited a few friends, and the Group of Five was born.

One of the women, Shirley Piper, identified a need at Royal Columbian Hospital to purchase small items of medical equipment for which there was no budget. Since then they've raised over $100,000 to purchase hospital equipment. One year it was five calf compression devices which prevent the formation of blood clots. The next, they donated a new gurney and a power drill-wire driver for the fracture clinic. Other purchases include a blanket warmer, an operating room surgical hand table, cast removal equipment and a sit-to-stand lift.

A highlight was the acquisition of three body forms to position a patient on the operating table. Until that time, laundry bags had been used for this purpose. Recently they covered the cost of two skeletons used to help patients understand the treatment that they're receiving.

The Group of Five holds two fundraisers each year which receive generous support from many citizens in New Westminster and many businesses. I'm attending their spring luncheon again tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to hearing from these amazing women what their next project will be to assist Royal Columbian Hospital.

CARDIAC ARRESTS AND
AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS

M. Stilwell: Every 26 minutes another Canadian suffers a sudden cardiac arrest. It happens without warning, striking anyone, anywhere, killing more Canadians each year than car accidents, diabetes, breast and prostate cancer combined.

The majority of people killed by sudden cardiac arrest have no previous history of heart disease. Without help, the sudden cardiac arrest victims have just minutes to live. Each minute that passes decreases their chance of survival by nearly 10 percent, and their survival rate out of hospital is just 5 percent.

Those survival rates are due in part to a shortage of automated external defibrillators at public places. AEDs are cost-effective, easy-to-use, life-saving devices that deliver a shock to cardiac arrest victims whose hearts need defibrillation. AEDs can significantly increase a victim's chance of survival and are small enough that they can be installed at locations throughout any community, such as recreation centres, arenas and schools.

Organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation have been instrumental in leading public access defibrillation programs, coordinating the placement of AEDs around the country. To date more than 3,000 AEDs have been installed nationwide.

Manitoba is the only province to pass legislation that makes registering and maintaining AEDs mandatory. This legislation ensures that all devices are properly maintained so that they work when needed and also ensures that 911 dispatchers have access to a registry and can assist those helping a sudden cardiac arrest victim by guiding them to the nearest AED.

[1350]

Our province can do better and save lives. By setting in place protocols for distributing and maintaining these life-saving tools, we can guard against further loss of life.

ASCD WHOLE CHILD AWARD WIN BY
BYRNE CREEK SECONDARY SCHOOL

R. Chouhan: On May 7, I had the opportunity to attend the award ceremony for Burnaby's Byrne Creek Secondary winning the prestigious ASCD Whole Child Award. Byrne Creek is the first Canadian school to win this award, which is given to a school that goes beyond the focus on academic achievement and educates the whole child.

Byrne Creek is extremely deserving of this honour. Byrne Creek has a high number of refugee students, and more than 60 percent of the school population speaks something other than English as a first language.
[ Page 11808 ]

With the challenges that Byrne Creek faces and the huge range of learning needs, it has found unique learning solutions to serve the new immigrant and refugee families that make up our community. Grade 12 student Mahjobeh Badakhsh explained the community at Byrne Creek to me this way. She said:

"Students of Byrne Creek Secondary have stumbled on an amazing opportunity to gain insight about life lessons that simply cannot be covered in a classroom. Students find themselves viewing the world through various different perspectives and understanding life as they listen to stories of struggle and survival from their peers.

"Through this, they not only gain knowledge but gain wisdom that allows them to grow into wise, accepting and independent individuals.

"This is everything the ASCD Whole Child Award stands for, and I am proud to have ever been part of the loving family at Byrne Creek Secondary."

Byrne Creek's success is a collaborative effort, and I would like to thank principal David Rawnsley and the enormous effort of the teachers, staff and school board who work directly with the students each day for everything they have done to make Burnaby-Edmonds a better community.

MÉTIS COMMUNITY AND ORGANIZATIONS

M. Dalton: In the 1700s and 1800s French Canadians, Scots and others of European descent paddled and trekked across what is now western Canada. Many of these fur traders and explorers married native women, and from them, the Métis people were born.

Métis is a French word meaning "half-breed." The Métis infinity flag with its two concentric circles symbolizes the joining of the two peoples. Michif is a Métis language and is itself a mix of French or English and any number of aboriginal languages, including Cree.

The Métis were noted for their horseback riding, buffalo hunting, and many were coureurs du bois, runners of the woods. Farming became an important occupation for many of them.

The Charter recognizes the Métis as an aboriginal people, and today 600,000 Canadians identify themselves as Métis, including over 66,000 in British Columbia. The Métis are one of the fastest-growing people groups in Canada.

My Métis heritage is very important to me. My grandmother spoke Cree and French. My great-granduncle was the captain of a Métis horseback force called the St. Albert Mounted Rifles. My father, Peter Dalton, is very knowledgable in living off the land and makes great bannock and pemmican.

The Métis have a rich heritage in this province, and the government has been supportive in numerous ways, including the signing of the Métis Nation relationship accord, which develops partnerships in education, health, housing and other opportunities.

In Maple Ridge the Golden Ears Métis Society, or GEMS, was just established. Lisa Shepherd, Kelly Swift, Sherry Thompson and others took the initiative to provide opportunities for the 1,000 local Métis to connect with one another and learn more about their heritage and culture. Thanks to GEMS, other similar societies and the Métis Nation B.C. for engaging British Columbian Métis in helping them to reinstil our roots.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS MATERIALS
DURING BY-ELECTION PERIOD

J. Horgan: The B.C. Food Processors Association produces a monthly newsletter. In the April edition the newsletter contained an insert, "Growing Jobs, Increasing Demands for B.C. Food Products." The B.C. logo was on the top of the document. Canada Starts Here, the B.C. jobs plan logo, was on the bottom of the document.

[1355]

My question is either to the Minister of Jobs or the Minister of Agriculture. Which ministry produced this advertorial?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a new question.

J. Horgan: The B.C. Food Processors Association produces a newsletter. In it, as I said in my first question, was a document inserted by the government of British Columbia. The question is to the Attorney General. In that document there is reference to the NDP three times. In fact, this document characterizes NDP policy incorrectly and is a deliberate partisan attack.

My question to the Attorney General is: during the by-election period of April in Chilliwack-Hope, did the government of British Columbia register as a third-party advertiser?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not familiar with the document. I've not seen it before. I've taken the question on notice. If the member opposite would care to provide me with a copy, we'll follow it up.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, my supplemental question was not to the Minister of Jobs but the minister responsible for the Election Act, because it appears to me, on the surface of this document, that the Election Act has been violated.

The document was produced in April of 2012. It would have been distributed widely in the Fraser Valley. In fact, the head office for this organization is in the Fraser Valley.

In the Chilliwack-Hope by-election, during the election period — at a time, interestingly, that we're debating
[ Page 11809 ]
changes to the Election Act — it would appear that gov- ernment staff were used for partisan purposes and that literature was distributed by the government of British Columbia during the election period.

Again, my question is to the Attorney General. Does she agree with me that it's inappropriate for government material to be referring to an opposition party during a pre-election period?

Hon. P. Bell: I've already told the member opposite that I'll take the question on notice. If I receive a copy of the document, I'll follow it up.

M. Karagianis: Moments after the by-elections were over, a press release went out, issued to the media, that said: "I'm so proud of the great work of the strong B.C. Liberal candidates." That press release, oddly enough, was not issued by the B.C. Liberal Party. In fact, it was issued from the government Office of the Premier. The government director of communications, her communications director, was put down as a person of contact — a taxpayer-funded position.

Again to the Attorney General, can she inform the public how many government and ministry resources have been used in this kind of Liberal propaganda?

Hon. S. Bond: As to the previous question, we'll take that on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a new question.

M. Karagianis: When the government issues a news release that directly attacks New Democrats and names them in that, that's questionable. A news release that is issued from a legislative office….

Mr. Speaker: Member, I asked you whether you had a new question.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to talk about the policy.

After 11 years I would think the government would know what every taxpayer knows — that you cannot use taxpayer dollars for partisan material and partisan attacks on New Democrats or any other party.

I would like to know who is in charge of making sure that the government is not using taxpayers' resources to send out partisan attack ads or partisan attack material, during by-elections or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: Member, that question was taken on notice.

Attorney, if you wish to answer.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I was simply going to remind the member opposite that I have not seen the piece of paper. I would be happy to look at it. If the member opposite has a concern about election financing, the individual to contact would be the Chief Electoral Officer.

MUSQUEAM FIRST NATION
AND MARPOLE MIDDEN SITE

S. Fraser: There is clear evidence documenting continuous occupation of the Marpole village site known as c̍ǝsnaʔǝm for more than 4,000 years. The Musqueam have been trying to protect that site and asked this government for help almost a year ago.

[1400]

Will the Minister of Aboriginal Relations commit today to finally provide that help and work with all parties to ensure that this national historic site is given the proper respect that it deserves?

Hon. S. Thomson: The province fully understands and respects the significance of this site to the Musqueam. I want to add my thanks today to the members of the Musqueam who've travelled over and taken the journey over here to continue to raise awareness about the significance of this site to their history and their culture.

That's why the province is fully engaged with all parties — with the city of Vancouver, with the Musqueam, with the private property owner — in looking for a long-term, workable solution to this issue. We recognize the significance of it, and we've been engaged with all parties for a number of months now, looking towards a longer-term, workable solution. We'll continue to do that.

What's more important and equally important to recognize is that the intact remains remain on site, have not been removed. Work has stopped where the remains are while we continue to work for a long-term, workable solution.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Now, I'm somewhat skeptical of the response, and over 100 Musqueam are also skeptical of that response. The province has been absent from this process. After being asked for help last year, they issued two permits to alter the site just before Christmas when the band office was closed, without even informing the Musqueam. We have a heritage act that allows the destruction of a heritage site. There's a big problem.

This has been a national historic site since 1933. Despite that, it appears that the archaeological branch doesn't recognize that — the only group that doesn't recognize that. In April two intact infant burial sites were found. This is not only a 4,000-year-old village site; it is a pre-contact burial site.

Again to the minister: will you today in this House commit to the Musqueam people and to all the people of British Columbia that c̍ǝsnaʔǝm, this most significant
[ Page 11810 ]
cultural, spiritual and archaeological site, will receive all of the respect it deserves?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I said, we're aware of the significance of this issue. We've been working very closely with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. But one thing that needs to be clear is that this is not Crown land. This is private land and a private owner. That's why, because of the complexity of it, we've been engaged with all parties, looking for that long-term solution.

We've appointed a facilitator to work with all parties. That active communication and facilitation continues. Work is being done under the guidance of professionals, and we will continue to work with all parties to look to a long-term, workable solution for this important issue.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Liberals claim to recognize the significance of this site. Well, if they truly recognize the significance of this site, I wonder why they allowed a condo to be built on a national historic site.

Now the Liberals say they're working with the Musqueam First Nations. The Musqueam First Nations have put forward a proposal that would help solve this issue, and to date, the Liberals have not responded.

My question is to the minister. When will he respond so that the Musqueam do not have to stand at the site hoping that development won't desecrate that national historic site?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I said, we fully understand and respect the importance of the significance of this site to the Musqueam. That's why we're engaged with all parties. That's why we've appointed a facilitator to work with all parties to look for that long-term, workable solution. It's going take the cooperation of all parties to do that. We have been engaged with the Musqueam for some period of time. I've had the opportunity to meet with both the Chief and council on it and am working with my colleagues on this issue.

[1405]

I do find it a little surprising, just a little surprising, to have it finally raised in this process in the House. The members opposite…. We're open at anytime for a visit, to come and look at the whole history and all the implications of this, to be able to deal and discuss directly the steps that we're taking in working with the facilitator in looking at this very, very important issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the permits were issued, and condos have been sold on the site, a site which is a national historic site. Now the minister is trying to play catch-up when the developer is already moving earth around on that very site.

How is that good government, hon. Speaker? How is that respecting heritage? The opposition had a private member's bill, which has come before this House four times and which would have helped to stop situations like this from happening, yet the Liberals — nothing. They did nothing about this bill.

My question to the minister: how can we believe that he's seriously taking action on this, when it was his government that approved the building of a condo on a national historic site?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the province has engaged with a facilitator, with all parties — with the city of Vancouver, with the Musqueam, with the private property owner — working to look for a long-term, workable solution to this important issue. We recognize the importance and the significance of this to the Musqueam. We will continue to work with all parties to look towards that long-term solution.

I want to reaffirm that the important intact remains that have been found through the investigative process remain on site. Work has stopped on that site, and the remains are there. We will continue to work to look towards that solution, working with all parties. It's going to take the cooperation of all parties to find the long-term, workable solution, and we're committed with that facilitator to do that.

CONTRACT AT SPRING VALLEY
CARE CENTRE IN KELOWNA

K. Conroy: At Kelowna's Spring Valley care home 130 workers have been handed layoff notices because the owner of the home has decided to flip his contract to a subcontractor offering a cheaper price. This will create great upheaval in the lives of the up to 150 seniors who live at the home, as strangers will take the place of the familiar people who have cared for them for years.

Why is the Health Minister allowing seniors to pay the price as these companies cause further chaos at our seniors' expense?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member knows that the facility in question is a privately owned and operated facility, although it does contract for many, many beds with the Interior Health Authority.

Here's what's important: pursuant to the terms of that contract and the applicable legislation, there are standards of care that must be maintained. That is our pre-eminent and paramount concern: that the residents of that community are receiving care at the level they are entitled to and that the operator is required to give, pursuant to the contract with Interior Health and applicable legislation.

Inspectors are available and are prepared now to ensure, during any kind of transition of the sort being de-
[ Page 11811 ]
scribed here, that those standards are maintained to the benefit of the residents.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: The seniors that lived in that home were just fine with the care being provided. They were meeting the standards. They were meeting the regulations. In fact, the contractor had another three years on their contract.

But the company — because they can, because of policies by this B.C. Liberal government — is allowed to say: "We don't want you anymore. We're going to get rid of you. You're too expensive. We're going to bring in cheaper care." And that's what's happening, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the quality of care, when that happens in facilities, directly impacts the seniors living in the facilities when they lose their caregivers. We know that every time that staff changes, the care is impacted, and seniors suffer. And when 130 people lose their jobs, it's going to significantly hurt the seniors in that facility.

[1410]

Under the B.C. Liberals seniors are paying more for care and getting less care. Will the minister commit today to stop this revolving door of companies so that they can give seniors the continuity of care and the dignity that they deserve?

Hon. M. de Jong: Broadly speaking, residential care is provided in British Columbia by one of three groups: about a third directly by government, about a third by non-profit agencies and about a third by the private sector. We think there is an appropriate place for all three of those agencies.

What I think I hear the member coming perilously close to doing, on behalf of the official opposition, is actually articulating a policy position, which is that she believes the government should dictate and manage and run every single facility, including a privately owned facility. That is not the policy of this government.

The policy of this government, reflected in the contracts that are signed with health authorities and the applicable legislation, is that standards will be defined, inspectors will be in place to enforce and seniors will receive quality, dignified care in an ever-expanding range of residential care facilities.

CALL FOR SENIORS ADVOCATE

M. Farnworth: I hear the Minister of Education say there's a new policy coming. Well, actually, I want to talk about a policy that the government has said they're going to implement.

Seniors around this province have been waiting with bated breath, and there has still been no action on that policy. That is the implementation of one of the recommendations in the Ombudsperson's report on seniors, and that is the creation of a seniors advocate position. That's a policy that would be most welcome in the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, we have yet to see it.

The case outlined by my colleague from Kootenay West is an example of why we need a seniors advocate. We have different methods of long-term care facilities in this province, but one thing that would make the entire system work is the creation of a seniors advocate who can advocate on behalf of seniors, regardless of where they are, regardless of the type of accommodation they're in, in the province.

The government has made many statements on the issue, but we've yet to see action. Can the Minister of Health give this House and the seniors of this province a firm timeline as to when the position of seniors advocate will finally be implemented in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I can do that and more. I can also invite the hon. member to correct the record when he stands up for the inevitable supplemental. In fact, the recommendation for the creation of a seniors advocate was not in the Ombudsperson's report. It is something this government committed to because we care about seniors.

The Ombudsperson's report contained a series of very, very important recommendations. But we went beyond the Ombudsperson's report and said that seniors in this province deserve to have a seniors advocate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We are about to begin the consultative process in the next few days, in fact — the next few days or next week — to speak with British Columbians directly and seniors organizations to ensure that the mandate that is identified for the seniors advocate is one that enjoys the broad support of seniors organizations and seniors themselves right across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Health. There's a bill on the order paper in the name of the member for Kootenay West. Will the minister commit to call that bill tomorrow? We can pass it tomorrow and have a seniors advocate in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: No, I won't, and for two reasons. I'm not in the House Leader business anymore, and the member knows something about that.

Also, I believe that what British Columbia seniors require is an advocate who has a mandate that goes beyond merely regulating the relationship between the senior and the state. I believe that when 90-year-old seniors find themselves in a position where a private sector developer is improperly withholding a deposit that has been paid to them, there is a role for a seniors advocate to play in assisting that senior, from a consumer protection point of view.

That is why we are consulting with British Columbians, with seniors and with seniors organizations to ensure that when we appoint the seniors advocate, they have a mandate that will allow them to provide practical, on-the-ground assistance to seniors at that most important time in their life.

LOG EXPORT POLICY AND TIMBER EXPORT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECISIONS

B. Routley: From Port Alberni south to Sooke, logs from lands formerly in tree farm licences contribute to the millions of cubic metres of raw logs that are being exported from B.C. No manufacturing jobs or value-added jobs will be created from these log exports, and no real revenue to B.C. from these logs either.

For every boom of logs that is exported, this B.C. government collects just 14 bucks. You heard it right — 14 bucks.

The tree farm licence deletions continue to cost jobs in B.C. Why has the minister refused to act to protect the public interest, and why has he not acted to ensure logs create jobs right here in B.C.?

Hon. S. Thomson: The members opposite continue to like to throw out numbers. Here's a number that's important. The lumber exports to China…. Who is the number one exporter of lumber to China? That's British Columbia.

Lumber exports of 7.3 million cubic metres. That's the equivalent of 18 mills, 9,000 jobs in British Columbia. Those are numbers. That's what's keeping people working in British Columbia — a balanced approach where log exports, which we've had since 1912, are providing that balance that ensures that we have lumber for domestic mills.

We have a surplus test in place for the domestic mills. The diversified market is what's building capacity in this industry and building investment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: We know that the minister has on his desk at this moment a report from the timber export advisory committee recommending that logs bound for export be redirected to B.C. mills. We know that companies like Teal-Jones in Surrey and Coastland in Nanaimo would add jobs if they could get the logs. All this minister has to do to create those jobs is to do nothing.

The minister has overruled the advisory committee 86 times to export logs. Will the minister please just do nothing in this case? Will he commit to not overrule the committee and keep those logs in B.C. so that B.C. logs can create B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, 7.3 million cubic metres of lumber exported. The number one supplier to the market is British Columbia — number one in the world. That's what's building and creating jobs in British Columbia. All across British Columbia 18 mills are producing lumber for China — 9,000 jobs.

[1420]

That's why we're seeing investment in the industry. That's why we're seeing, to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, a $38½ million investment reopening the Radium mill; $1½ million in Canal Flats, the mill reopening in Vavenby.

The balanced policy, the balanced approach towards diversifying the market, is what's creating jobs and economic activity in British Columbia all across communities. We will continue to focus on that.

We continue to work with the timber export advisory committee in the efficient administration of the surplus test. We've engaged with them, as I've indicated before in this House. We're going to continue to engage with them to make sure that the surplus test, which is the foundation of the export policy, is managed efficiently and effectively.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister can speak to all the fiction that he wants. There's a reality here. The reality is that there is a process that is in place. The reality is that for 30 years a minister did not interfere with the expert advice from the timber advisory committee. But this minister, since December, has interfered 87 times, and in those cases what we have seen are raw log exports spike even more. We have seen Western Forest Products up 40 percent in the first three months of this year in raw log exports.

We know that every log sent offshore means that there is not enough for mills here in British Columbia. That is the fact.

I have a question for the minister. With the recommendations that are on the minister's desk, has he overturned the committee, or does he intend to overturn the expert advice of the timber export advisory committee?

Hon. S. Thomson: The reality is — and the member opposite indicated this — 30 years of an approach from the timber export advisory committee that has been con-
[ Page 11813 ]
sistent in terms of how they applied the fair-market-value and the surplus test.

The timber export advisory committee changed their process. To the member opposite, they changed their process, changed how they administered it. I think it's incumbent upon government, when that happens, to be able to review the policy.

That's what we're doing. We've engaged TEAC. We have independent expert advice being provided. That expert has met with TEAC. They've had input to the process. We're engaging further to make sure that the surplus test and the fair-market test, the two components of the surplus test, are administered fairly, equitably and efficiently.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
CHANGES TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION
ON FISH HABITAT PROTECTION

R. Fleming: During estimates debate I asked the Minister of Environment what he planned to do about the far-reaching impacts of federal changes to the Fisheries Act on British Columbia. He said he would not act on "speculation" and that his ministry had "not been consulted" and had had "no advance notice of changes to the Fisheries Act" but they "expect to be fully engaged by the federal government should any changes occur." On May 3 the minister said in this House: "We'd actually like to see the legislation before we make up a position on it."

Well, the bill was placed on the order paper in the House of Commons on April 26, and today the Conservative federal government is imposing a time limit on debate of the most sweeping changes to federal environmental law in 40 years — a limit that will likely push these changes through to be law within seven days.

I ask the Minister of Environment this: isn't it long past time that he took a position on exactly how this will impact B.C.'s fish and fish habitats and the future of our commercial fishery, our recreational fishery and aboriginal fisheries in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: I would say that British Columbians expect — and we certainly support the fact — that we have to protect fish habitat in this province. But we also recognize that there has to be a commonsense approach.

If the member opposite would like to talk to some of the agriculture producers in the Fraser Valley and learn about how they have to manage drainage ditches because of legislation that is decades and decades old…. Well, perhaps he would like to speak with them about how there is not a lot of common sense to some aspects of the old legislation.

[1425]

We will work with the federal government. We will ensure that critical habitat for fish is sustained and protected in a commonsense way that makes sense for British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will continue committee stage of Bill 41, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. Following that we will move to Bill 36, intituled the School Amendment Act, 2012. Should there be time, we would then move to Bill 37, intituled the Animal Health Act. In estimates this afternoon in Section A we'll be doing the Ministry of Health.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2012

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 41; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

R. Fleming: To the minister, I wanted to ask him some questions just about credits and debits. First of all, maybe he could just begin summarizing the major changes in definition under the amendments. The bill description is a bit scant. It's almost…. Well, it's entirely for my benefit, but just to begin discussion of this section, I wonder if he could outline the changes from how credits and debits will be calculated and remitted to government.

Hon. R. Coleman: We covered some of this in the previous sections with the previous critic. Basically, there's nothing remitted to government here. This is basically a report through the annual report that's based on a calculation. The credit they would receive is one tonne of CO₂ emissions for compliance.

That compliance concept of credit is different in this act versus the previous act, because before we were dealing with a weighted average. The weighted average is what made this very complicated, because we had the blended fuels. Now we don't have that, so now the credit can be applied to the fuel class of an individual fuel class.

[1435]

R. Fleming: I know that in the jurisdiction of California there is a market where fuel suppliers trade credits and that B.C., I suppose — as I'm reading this legislation — allows trading of credits, in theory. I'm just
[ Page 11814 ]
wondering how formalized a system does he anticipate will be set up between fuel suppliers, as a basis of these amendments.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's only tradeable between fuel suppliers in British Columbia and no one else. We are in the process of adapting and adopting the software that California has for doing that trading oversight, but only in British Columbia will they be able to trade between suppliers.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister…. He mentioned that British Columbia is sort of in mid-process of adopting a system that they have modelled on California's, where tradeable credits are presumably brokered or sold, and how that will work in B.C. — specifically, the role of government oversight. The director, of course, validates the credits. I'm just wondering, when they're in the realm of exchange, what he thinks the role of government will be in overseeing that.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we're not going to create any kind of a trading exchange. Secondly, the software we're going to use is what we'll adapt for B.C. We're not adopting California rules. It would be traded within British Columbia only, and it'll be reported out as part of their annual report to us.

R. Fleming: Does the minister have any information about the estimated value of credits based on volumes of fuel sold in British Columbia today?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we don't. Until the system actually comes into place and the fuels are separated and the carbon measurements are in place, it would only be me guessing at a value, because it'll be, like I say, not an exchange. It's only between people within British Columbia and nowhere else, so it's not like it's going to have some international pricing point, and it's not going to have some kind of stock exchange type of impact.

R. Fleming: In debating amendments in 2012 about a compliance period that began in 2010 but which is going to be extended to a startup date in 2013, I would appreciate the minister's indulgence to just answer some questions about how credits may have been already accumulated.

There have been companies in the precompliance period meeting the government's regulations. Have they been earning credits, and what has been the value? How have those credits been redeemed, and how have they been used by those fuel suppliers?

Hon. R. Coleman: During the reporting period only, there is zero value, zero credits and zero trading.

[1440]

R. Fleming: I appreciate the exactitude of the answer.

I wanted to ask the minister about subsection (5) of section 21, which deals with validation. Sorry, there are a number of sections that do here. There is (4) and (5) through subsection (7).

I wonder if the minister could, first of all, describe the difference between the three-month period and the compliance period in terms of its calendar year but also the role of the director here in validating credits. I guess it would probably be helpful, maybe, if he would confirm if this is a function that's going to begin in 2013.

Hon. R. Coleman: The thinking was that in order for companies to exchange credits within any given period, they would need to know that they exist — or what exists.

This creates a voluntary structure to report to the director every three months, by which he can validate possible credits that exist. Some companies may choose not to do that every three months. It's not mandatory. They can play catch-up within the calendar year, near the calendar year, with the reporting.

The real reason for this is just those who want to have information, share information, about credits that may be available — to allow the ability to know that, through the director, by doing this voluntary submission.

R. Fleming: Then, just to put it another way for the minister, the compliance period would be the maximum amount of time you could defer reconciling the credits that have been earned. I wonder if you could answer that.

Hon. R. Coleman: They have to report within any calendar year. That's mandatory.

R. Fleming: In this section there are a number of clauses that deal with the discussion we were having a minute ago, if I can go back to it, around transfers of credits. The minister, in a couple of answers, said that B.C. does not now and nor will it have a tradeable credit market modelled on the California one.

I'm just wondering, because there's an allowance for transferable credits between different fuel suppliers, if he could just sort of clarify for me the difference between a formal tradeable credits market versus what B.C. is pursuing here, which is a transferable-credits regulated activity by the director.

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is credits between fuel suppliers in British Columbia only. That provides them with certainty to know what's available if they need to trade between companies. There is no need for brokers, no need for banks and no need for an exchange under this model. It is strictly a model of…. If one company wishes to trade a credit that's been verified by the director, they can trade it within B.C. only, so there's no need for the
[ Page 11815 ]
other stuff.

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering if there is a scenario — might be a bizarre scenario — where there was a fuel supplier having a very difficult time complying and sourcing fuel according to these regulations and the company that had accumulated credits — whether there might be activity where there were transferable credits that were above the face value of those credits or whether that's something that would not likely occur.

Hon. R. Coleman: Not likely at all. This is only between suppliers. There's a limited amount of suppliers in British Columbia, so it's a very small area with regards to this. There's not going to be, I guess, a marketplace where you're going to have brokers that doing trading and all that. That's just not going to take place, because it can't. It can only take place between the actual suppliers, in British Columbia only.

R. Fleming: Between fuel suppliers, when they fill out their compliance reports and calculate credits or debits owing to them…. If the value of credits earned is the same as debits or penalties, if you like, for the fuel — is that the reason why there's not likely to be an incremental market value for credits? Really, a fuel supplier that's interested in acquiring credits would just as likely pay the debits in their compliance period.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the first thing that should be clear is this is not likely to occur. First, by separating the fuel sources…. All suppliers I've spoken to say they will be able to comply and meet the issue with regard to fuel supply.

But let's say, for instance, they had less credits calculated versus their carbon content, and they were in noncompliance. There would be two things that could happen. One, they could pay a penalty, which is identified, and they would pay that penalty to the Ministry of Finance, to the consolidated revenue fund.

I'll use an example, and we'll just pick two companies. Let's say there was a Shell and a Chevron. The Chevron was a little less, and the Shell one was a little high. So they had more credits than they needed, and Chevron needed a few more credits to get into compliance.

[1450]

So rather than having to pay a penalty, they chose to buy the credits from the other company. That's a deal between those two companies, and none of the pricing is set by government.

R. Fleming: The question I was asking was whether buying the credits had a higher value than avoidance of the penalty — therefore, that there was an interest in companies to purchase excess credits by another fuel supplier. So is that the case, that the cost of doing business is cheaper by acquiring additional credits than by facing penalties?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's a decision they get to make. We don't make it for them. So if they can get, you know, credits that would bring them up to compliance and save them a penalty, they can do that. They can negotiate with the other company that may have the credits. But as I said earlier, every company that I've talked to says that by separating the fuel supply, they feel that they'll all be in compliance. They won't have any difficulty.

R. Fleming: There's another subsection here that deals with…. "Part 3 agreements" is the header in the bill. It refers to agreements the director may enter into with part 3 fuel suppliers. It's subsection 8.01(2) that I wanted to ask the minister about.

Let me just read it into the record."The director may not enter into an agreement under this section unless the director is satisfied that the action a Part 3 fuel supplier proposes to take under the agreement has a reasonable possibility of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions resulting from the use of Part 3 fuels."

I wanted to ask the minister about the determination of reasonable possibility by the director and what sorts of things will inform a decision under this clause.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, the director will look at the proposal on its merits, initially — the reasonableness, other jurisdictions, the business plan and the scientific evidence — to make the decision.

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering if the minister could give a bit more of a description about what scientific evidence might look like in guiding the director to make this determination and this decision.

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and use an example to maybe clarify it for the member. The part 3 guys aren't the guys that are doing the gasoline and diesel — right? This is to incent, frankly, things like E85, where somebody will come with something…. They say: "We can do an additional additive fuel to lower the carbon content." The director is going to say, "Well, I need to know the business case. I need to know the scientific information behind it," because this allows for up to a maximum additional 25 percent with regards to it.

So it's an incentive to see if we can find other fuel sources, similar to what the member was talking about earlier with what we referred to as yellow grease, I guess — not quite that one, but some other product coming in. The director has to be satisfied that, added to the fuel, it's going to work, before he gives the equivalency relative to the CO₂ content.
[ Page 11816 ]

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's answer and the connection to the 25 percent credit bonus, if it can be called that. I'm just wondering why the number 25 percent was arrived at for determination and for the expansion and incentivizing, as he's described it.

Hon. R. Coleman: Through consultations we went out and came through with industry, this was added. They felt that this would push the envelope past the 10 percent by 2020 and actually push the credit within the marketplace to comply, to get past a higher level simply because it would push to allow other fuels — which may not be known today at the same level or could have the impact that we're looking for — into the system to be added to the fuel source to produce the carbon.

R. Fleming: If I could just go back to some of the director's powers. Under section 21 here, subsection (5), the director "may agree to issue credits" — there are terms of which he or she may do so — "under a Part 3 agreement for an action in respect of which the Part 3 fuel supplier also generates, or is likely to generate" — so there's future-oriented — "credits under section 6 (4)…for the same or a different compliance period."

I'm just wondering if there are any restrictions on how far into the future the likely-to-generate-credits horizon would have under these regulations.

[1500]

Hon. R. Coleman: This allows the director basically to move into a longer-term relationship with the milestones if somebody is developing a fuel that will actually have a positive impact on the content of carbon in fuel. One tonne is always one tonne in this discussion. One tonne of carbon is one tonne of carbon.

The contract would have milestones, and if the milestones were reached, they would then receive their credit. Those credits would be with them until the future, until they actually demonstrated that the credits were now usable, because they actually were using the fuel that would come into the mix.

J. Horgan: Can the minister clarify if they can earn credits now?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll go back to one note. I gave the other member an answer with regard to this.

Basically, we're in a reporting period. So there's no value, no credits, no nothing. When we come in, in July of 2013, we would then start to measure the credits to make sure the low-carbon fuel standards under part 2 were being met. I had a conversation with the member opposite with regard to how that would be only within British Columbia.

This second piece, which is part 3, which allows for different fuel additives — for lack of a better description — to come into the mix in 2013, would be done by regulation. When they enter in an agreement with the director on that fuel, they can start earning credits. But they do not get to use the credits until they can prove and demonstrate that the actual product is being used in creating what would be the reduction in the CO₂ by tonne.

J. Horgan: I appreciate…. My colleagues advised me of the fact that we're debating sections that have not come into force. We're now amending those sections, and they will come into force July 2013. Until that time, credits will not be collected, and trading will not take place. That's the answer the minister gave.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister and his staff could clarify why we're repealing this section and replacing it with the amended document.

Hon. R. Coleman: The previous section anticipated the weighted average, which this changes with the separation of the fuel. This is a simpler system — just a system of debits and credits and penalty.

J. Horgan: In the calculation it says the penalty rate will be prescribed by regulation. Will those regulations come into play in 2013 or beyond?

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: The regulation is already in place. One credit or debit is from one tonne of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions. The penalty rate was set by regulation at $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions. That's in place now.

The change here is the change to the different form of administrative penalty which allows for the debits and the credits, basically, on your carbon that you have, with the intensity of your fuel. The penalty rate is….

If you're zero on that, a zero-sum gain, then you have zero of the $200 you'd have to pay to the consolidated revenue fund, to the Minister of Finance. If you were, let's say, ten tonnes over your allowance, of what you're allowed, then you'd be paying ten times $200. If you were under, well, you'd just not pay anything, but you'd have some credits, so then you could trade the credits with a guy that's ten over within British Columbia, and he could get to even as well.

J. Horgan: The federal guidelines that are currently in place and currently active — how will we mesh? Is this the appropriate section to be discussing that? If you've touched upon it with my colleague, that's fair enough. We've got two sets of rules — one in effect and one not
[ Page 11817 ]
yet in effect. How will that impact suppliers when the two are harmonized, if I could use that word?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're not one and the same. The federal measurements are renewable volumes, and this is about carbon intensity, so they're completely separate. What they're doing doesn't affect this.

J. Horgan: In previous questions the minister spoke about the consultation process that he undertook when he became minister. During that consultation process, did suppliers raise issues and concerns about having to meet requirements at the federal and provincial levels — admittedly, both on different apples and different oranges but, nonetheless, increasing the burden on providing low-emission fuels to British Columbians?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. Actually, the opposite. Of course, the federal standards are lower on the one fuel and the same as ours on the other. When we went to industry, they said: "If you can separate the fuels, we don't have a problem here." It's the mix; it's the blend and the weighted piece that was causing the problem. Through that consultation, they said: "Yes, we have no difficulty, we think, in meeting these standards if you do it this way versus the other." That's why the separation of the fuels.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

J. Horgan: Could the minister explain this amendment?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's basically the same description. It's consequential, due to the separation of fuels. So it's how we're going to be credits and debits versus the previous, and that's the consequential.

Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

J. Horgan: Could the minister explain this amendment?

Hon. R. Coleman: This adds "general regulation-making power respecting applications and proposals under the act." This bill introduces a number of possible applications and proposals. This provision provides the ability to make regulations governing applications and proposals, should this prove necessary.

J. Horgan: Could the minister provide potential scenarios where this would prove necessary?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: This comes out of our consultations and discussions within the ministry. We have no specific examples as yet. But the consultations that we'll go through as we continue to have different opportunities for fuels that would come in by application to the director…. This would allow them, after the decision, to put it into the reg that something else can be added to a mix and what credit it would get for its carbon intensity and that sort of thing.

New fuels would probably be the classic example of this, which means you don't have to come back to the Legislature to amend the legislation to, basically, complete the work of the director if there's something you need to add.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

J. Horgan: This section is also consequential. However, in the explanatory notes for section 27 is: "repeals a spent regulation-making power." Could the minister identify what that spent power is and why it's spent?

Hon. R. Coleman: The spent power is in the first act under part 2. A part 2 fuel supplier could include "renewable fuel supplied by the Part 2 fuel supplier in the 12 months immediately before the start of that compliance period." That's a spent power because we no longer need it. That would have been 2009, and it's no longer needed.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

J. Horgan: There are a number of, again, consequential amendments in section 28. I would draw the minister's attention to 28(c): "respecting the calculation under section 6 (4) [low carbon fuel requirement], including, without limitation, prescribing the following." It goes through the "carbon intensity" and "carbon intensities."

I wonder, while we have an expert on your right, if you could give me an explanation as to why we're making these changes.

Hon. R. Coleman: Originally when the act was done, there wasn't enough information to inform on carbon intensity specifics, as there hadn't been the reporting periods. Now that we've had the reporting periods, we have more information, so we can now be more specific. Our legal advice was to put more specific wording into the legislation.

[1515]

J. Horgan: I know that there's always a debate about being comprehensive or being vague on these matters,
[ Page 11818 ]
and so we move from vague to comprehensive. Is that, in essence, what the drafters are suggesting?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was going to be glib. The answer is yes.

J. Horgan: Of course, I never want to miss an opportunity for glib from the minister. It's a shame he let it pass, but there'll be another day, I'm sure.

I'm sorry. I'm up on section 28, and I wanted to let it pass.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

J. Horgan: Now, this is the last section of the misc bill for which I have any responsibility. I just want to confirm…. I know the minister has had a very full and frank discussion with my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake about when this is coming into force and why the delay. I know the time frame has been shifted, and there are a host of reasons for that.

We are at this point, with this section, repealing the transitional section of the act that will have no effect after the end of 2013. Can the minister, just for my benefit — and I appreciate he has said to it my colleague — outline for me how it is we got so far behind on what was initially envisioned when we brought this legislation forward in 2008?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the difference was a number of things. First, we had to get the data from the reporting error, and then we had to take a look at the complexities of the information.

The second piece was the time to prepare it, to move forward. Then, as we came through that, when I became the minister last year, I became aware of this other issue. It was that if we had moved on the compliance and the mix being the two fuels mixed together, we could have had up to 2,000 people in British Columbia who work in small chain gas stations in B.C. being affected, because the major suppliers and the wholesalers were saying: "We may not be able to supply you with fuel in order to make this compliance, because the mix goes across the spectrum of the two fuels."

So what I did immediately, when I found out about that issue, is that I had the parliamentary secretary go out and do, basically, a consultation with the industry and everybody and said, you know: "What we should do is take a step back to look at the two fuels. How long it would take to do legislation?"

Obviously, it takes time, as you know. So we started working…. We got the report back in the fall. We worked through the fall to have the legislative changes here, in order to have a different compliance here to match it up, to try and make sure that we didn't have this unintended consequence of the measurement of the carbon intensity of fuel.

That would be the major reason that this piece, after all the complexities, went a little bit longer — just to prepare the legislation and do this.

On section 29, this repeals the section with regards to transitional rules. But later on in this debate…. Of course, it's unfortunate it's not numbered as 30. It's actually section 41 that comes in after the liquor piece in the transitional rules of the legislation, where it does put in the new transitional rules, effective on the dates that would be prescribed.

J. Horgan: I just would seek the indulgence of the House, with the passage of section 29, if we could, in the interest of staff, move to section 41 before taking up the liquor section?

Section 29 approved.

The Chair: With the agreement of the House, we will consider section 41.

[1520]

On section 41.

J. Horgan: With the benefit of direction from the minister and the Government House Leader, I'd just ask one last question, and that is: could he answer the obligatory question of what the purpose of this amendment is?

Hon. R. Coleman: It has to do with the part 3 agreements. Basically, it allows us to do a regulation to specify, because we won't have the previous year's information to set on the part 3, which is the new fuels. It's not the gasoline and diesel. That is under part 2. This is under part 3. It allows the director to specify the quantity in the first year as we get the final information over the reporting of that year.

J. Horgan: For these different categories, or different parts, the formulas and the amendments that we've already discussed this morning will have the same force and effect? I missed the first couple of words out of your mouth, Minister, and as a result, I missed the intent of your conclusion.

Hon. R. Coleman: The challenge here is that when we go into July 1, 2013, for the 25 percent incentive under part 3, we won't know the number, as to what it would do. The director will do an estimate, and the estimate will be 25 percent.

As we get forward, it will be 25 percent of the previous year's carbon amount — right? — that would then be allowed to be an additional credit if they come up
[ Page 11819 ]
with something, by agreement with the director, that they can add to fuel that will reduce the amount of carbon in the fuel.

In order to incent that, we have a 25 percent upside for fuels that would actually reduce carbon intensity. But they do that by agreement, with what we discussed earlier, with the director, based on scientific information and all of the things that would come into it. Then they can go into an agreement, and they start putting that in. To give them the credit early, we would do it by an estimate. Once we got through the first year, then it would become based on the previous year.

[1525]

Section 41 approved.

The Chair: By agreement, we return to consideration of section 30.

On section 30.

S. Simpson: Under section 30, the definitions, just so I understand this properly — a "catering endorsement." I'm assuming that says: "I'm a caterer. I'm a licensed caterer. When this comes into force, I then can get an addition to my licence that says I am now licensed to deal with liquor under the auspices of my catering business."

As a caterer, that gives me the right to do that, once it's approved and I get this endorsement. That's the sense of what that endorsement's on, and then a catering authorization is about an event that gets approved for liquor as part of the catering activity. Would that be accurate?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'll introduce the people. To my right is Karen Ayers, the ADM, assistant deputy minister, and the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch. To my left is Elaine Vale, who is a senior policy analyst in the branch.

Basically, the endorsement is for somebody that already has a liquor licence, like an existing licensee that has a liquor licence, and that's the endorsement to do the catering off site. The catering licence is new for people that don't have a liquor licence and don't have a liquor establishment under licence. They would get a new licence called a catering licence, and the event is the authorization for a specific event.

S. Simpson: I understand this. I understand the catering licence. There's this new licence that now allows you to be in the business of transporting and serving alcohol as part of a catering contract, if you have the appropriate approvals. You're now allowed to do that with this, and you get a new catering licence to do that, that says: "Okay. That's an allowable purpose under this licence."

The endorsement, then. I've got a liquor licence. What does that do for me in terms of catering? I presume that that will go to people who aren't necessarily caterers. Or is that saying: "You're a caterer now. We're prepared to give you, on top of your existing licence, this ability to add liquor to that"? I'm just trying to figure out kind of…. If I don't have a liquor licence, how does that work?

Hon. R. Coleman: What we do under liquor is if you have an existing licence — so let's say you have a liquor licence as a hotel; you have the liquor licence — all we do is give you an endorsement to do another function. We don't make you go get another licence.

But in this case, what the other piece of it is, is we have caterers, and this is what this change is about. It's to allow caterers who have a premise that don't have a liquor licence and don't have an endorsement to come and get a licence to be able to go and do off-site catering with liquor.

S. Simpson: I think I get it now. There's the discrepancy here, but the bottom line is I have a catering business. I don't have a liquor licence today because I didn't have a use for one, because I wasn't allowed, essentially, to use it.

This legislation passes. I contact the branch and say: "I'm Joe's catering business. I've been around a long time. I'm established. I would now like the licensing to allow me to do off site and to handle liquor, you know, with proper catering authorizations as they come up." Then the branch does a review and gives me an endorsement, and then I have a licence to be able to do that business. That is what I'm assuming.

[1530]

The catering authorization, I think, as the minister said, is for the event itself — that I'm getting a licence for. Could the minister tell me…? I'm just curious here. There are a lot of things in the definition. There's no definition for a catering authorization and what that is.

Hon. R. Coleman: It doesn't need to be there, because they can apply for an event, and the general manager can authorize any event. It's just a separate process, a separate thing. They always have had use for it. They've been asking for it for some time, but they were not allowed to do it.

The difference here is…. What we're doing is creating a licence so that caterers can be licensed to bring liquor to an event and you don't have to, for lack of a better description, send the bride and groom down to the liquor store to get their liquor permit, buy their liquor and bring it to the premises with their liquor permit themselves. The caterers, because they're licensed to do that, can now perform that function — bring the liquor and perform that service at the event as well.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I understand the minister's explanation. I just was curious, because I know in legislation we try to be as thorough as possible. It just
[ Page 11820 ]
seemed curious to me that as you added these new definitions to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, for some reason the authorization was not added to define what that would mean. But we'll pass that, because it's not here defined in any way.

Could the minister tell us…? I'm curious. I'm not sure that it necessarily relates to — or maybe the minister could tell me how it relates to — this piece of work. On the decision to repeal the definition of a club out of the list of definitions, why was that choice taken?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under Bill 20 we moved all the club provisions to regulations. And as that was done, this particular one was left behind and is no longer needed. That's why it has been deleted.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

S. Simpson: Section 31, as I see it, essentially talks about the requirements for any staff or personnel of a caterer who are serving and being bartenders or serving alcohol at an event that they may be contracted in. It talks about their need to have successfully completed a prescribed training program. I'm aware of Serving it Right. Are there any other programs that would meet that need, in addition to Serving it Right?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, there are not. In British Columbia it's Serving it Right. Basically, this requires a caterer and its employees who supervise or provide liquor service to have it. This provision is there to require the licensees, managers and servers of a licensed establishment to have completed a responsible servicing course. That's what's today in law with regard to licensed establishments in B.C. We're now applying it to caterers.

It's necessary to add this section in order that this requirement be applicable to things like residential events, since a residential event is not considered a licensed establishment. At the same time large, catered events can take place in large ways with liquor. It's to allow the caterer to match it up to Serving it Right, which is how we do it in all other establishments.

[1535]

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

S. Simpson: Section 32 lays out who, essentially, can obtain a catering licence or a catering endorsement and lays out some of the conditions around that. A number of those conditions "to carry on its business in the licensed establishment" are "is a resident of British Columbia or a Canadian citizen or is lawfully admitted…under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) for permanent residence, and is not a minor."

Could the minister tell us what the thinking is behind those specific citizenship requirements?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I can, to the member. The existing provision talks about business establishments and licenced establishments, which are basically fixed places with a resident citizen — being that that person is not a minor.

The changes here reflect a licence being issued for a specific establishment. That's what the existing section does. But because a catering business will serve liquor at various locations, the requirement for the corporate agent or manager to be a resident could not refer to a specific establishment.

This amendment clarifies the residency requirement for agents or managers of corporations that hold catering licences or hold a licence other than a catering licence and hold a licence with a catering endorsement. Basically, it's saying you either have a licence and you've got the endorsement and you can do the catering off site, or you have a catering licence and you can do it off site. That establishes it, because we can't do it specifically to the establishment.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I certainly appreciate it not being a minor. Just looking for a little bit of clarity about what the thinking is about the specific citizenship requirements: "…a resident of British Columbia or a Canadian citizen or is lawfully admitted to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) for permanent residence."

I'm just trying to determine what the requirement is for those specific requirements of citizenship, or some combination of them, in order to make this application or to be authorized to perform this function.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the existing provision in the act for all licensed premises in B.C. — that definition of British Columbia, etc. All this is doing is extending it to the catering licence, because they'll be covered under the same rules as the rest of liquor is covered off in B.C.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

On section 34.

S. Simpson: It talks here about if "at the site of a catered event," etc. It talks about activities. Some of this is activities that we would all, of course…. Presumably, they may lead to police intervention if it's of "a riotous, violent, drunken or disorderly nature, or the safety of one or more persons at the site is threatened."

In terms of the branch and the general manager, who's identified here as the authority, what's the expectation
[ Page 11821 ]
about how this gets supervised? These catering businesses, and presumably…. I'm assuming that most, if not all, catering businesses in this province are going to take advantage of this opportunity if they can, because it gives them business opportunities they don't have today, and it would make sense for them to do that.

How is the supervision of that going to occur through the branch?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to the member: I'll just sort of walk you down a bit of it. If there's a problem with a liquor establishment, we can suspend the licence of the restaurant, the bar or whatever the case may be. But some caterers could have more than one event taking place on a particular week or night or whatever the case may be.

[1540]

If we have a problem with one event…. Let's say that wedding A turns into a dispute between the Hatfields and McCoys, and it needs to be shut down for violent behaviour or whatever, with police. We can actually suspend the catering licence for that particular event but not affect the wedding down the street with the same caterer where they're not having the same difficulties. That's one of the things.

It also allows for the licensees that have endorsements, like the restaurant that has a catering endorsement…. This allows the catered event to be shut down without risk of requiring that the licensee's restaurant also be shut down. So it can be event-specific this way.

S. Simpson: I can understand how if you have an establishment and that establishment isn't operating in an appropriate manner over some period of time, whether you get police reports or you get inspectors' reports, the branch or the general manager gets to review that and determines that this particular establishment is not playing by the rules and then intervenes and shuts it down, suspends it — whatever is the appropriate action to be taken.

That happens over a bit of time, usually with some inspectors' reports and that. These often are one-off events. This is happening on Saturday night, and then it's over before Sunday or early Sunday morning.

It says that "the general manager may, without a hearing, suspend or cancel the catering authorization and order the immediate removal of patrons." What I'm trying to determine is how does that process…? What's the thinking on how that works? Do the police have to come and then they make a call to somebody, and whoever is acting on behalf of the general manager, with their authority, says, "Shut it down," from the catering point?

I'm just trying to figure out how that works when these events are right now and immediate, and you don't have the time to kind of look at them over maybe a few days.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, if we had a caterer who had a track record of bad events, the general manager could just suspend the licence. They don't get to have a liquor licence anymore. The next piece is for a specific event where you may have a problem. Under the act we have inspectors that could go and look. We get notification of the events. That's what our licensing process does. So we know where the large events, and what have you, are taking place.

Section 22(3) of the act also allows for the delegation of authority to the police, which we do. So if there's a local event, the police have the authority to shut it down as well, and then that can come back to the general manager for an enforcement hearing relative to the specific event, or a fine or whatever the case may be. Basically, the licensee has to assist in vacating the premises. If the general managers close an event, they have to be participants in this as well.

Really what it is, is that if we have a difficulty, the local police usually are the ones that would deal with it. The local police have the delegated authority under the act from the general manager to do so.

S. Simpson: In that case then, if you had an incident like that, and presumably…. I think we'll talk about this a little bit more in a section a little ways down. The potential there is that sometimes you get a caterer who maybe just isn't very good at what they are doing, and they need to have a hard look at them as to whether you want them doing this kind of business.

Other times, because of the nature of this, the caterer could be quite appropriate and doing everything right, and you might have a host and guests who are a little raunchy and not paying much attention to the caterer at all. They may be the problem, not the caterer, necessarily, in that case. The caterer might be trying to do everything as right as they can, but maybe the people that they've contracted with for their event are not acting appropriately.

How does the minister see that working? How does that review happen in terms of determining the responsibility — the culpability of the caterer in this versus the responsibility of maybe the hosts and the guests?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, the responsibility is the licensee's. If you have a licensed event, and you have the liquor licence, then you have the responsibility.

If you overserve, you're the one overserving, not the host. If you're the one that's allowing people to be intoxicated and come to the bar and get more drinks, you're breaking the law. If you're the person that's allowing somebody that's under-age to come to the bar and get a drink, you're the one who has a responsibility under the licence for that.

The responsibility is with the licensee, so there's no culpability if the host decides to come and push you. You
[ Page 11822 ]
could just say: "Sorry, sir. This is what the licence allows me to do. This is my licence under the law, and I have to meet my rules under Serving It Right and the regulations and statutes which I'm bound by."

The reality is that those are the rules. If there's a problem, the police can come to deal with some of the issues with intoxication and what have you, to shut down an event if necessary. That's no different than what it is today.

The difference here is that caterers are being licensed to be able to do this, to go and do events — right? They're getting a liquor licence, and they will have to take the responsibility for the management of that liquor licence, should they want the licence.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. But if they come and they're managing the licence…. The licence is around, and they're not handing out drinks to minors, and they're being conscious of people who maybe have been drinking — appear to have been drinking — a little bit too much, in terms of restricting their access to more alcohol. There are other activities going on in that event that they might be catering but somebody else is hosting.

Maybe there's the use of other illicit materials going on in an adjacent space. There may be other things going on. Somebody's out back smoking something they shouldn't be smoking. Who's responsible for that? Does that responsibility rest with the host or does it rest with the caterer who holds the licence — if the licensee is doing everything they can be expected to do to control that alcohol side of things?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is no different than a licensed premises. They have the responsibility. If there's somebody, let's say, that's buying rounds of drinks for tables, and they think there are people intoxicated, it's their responsibility to say no. If there's a problem, it's their responsibility to phone the police, who have the authority under the act — the delegated authority — for enforcement of the act.

It's just like in a bar or restaurant where you've probably walked in at different times and seen a loud crowd where somebody is buying rounds for the table, and there's excessive drinking going on, and it looks like a lot of intoxication. It is up to that establishment to say: "We are not going to overserve your table, so we will not be providing any more liquor to your table."

That's their responsibility under this, just like any other licensed establishment.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

S. Simpson: Section 37 talks about the ability of the general manager, as a condition of the catering authorization, to restrict or limit types and forms of entertainment that can happen at an event that's being catered. Could the minister explain a little bit about what the thinking here is, what those restrictions might look like and what the criteria for that are?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, this is saying that, as in any other liquor establishment in the province, there are certain rules. There are actually rules around exotic entertainment, for instance — both around minors being present and contact with the entertainment.

There are rules around gaming and minors being present. So even though you may be having, let's say, an event where you're having a poker night and you have tables or whatever, there cannot be minors present. That's another rule. There's a restriction. Things like drinking games. All these restrictions exist in all our licensed premises, and they're no different here.

[1550]

S. Simpson: I get that. So the thinking here is it might be those kinds of activities where you might engage…. Minors might be there, and there might be activities you don't want minors involved around, the same as you don't want them being able to get a drink.

Is the expectation that those rules become the same in the case of a residence? We have a lot of people who might bring in the caterers and bring that in and have a significant event at their home — bring music and bring a band and those kinds of things. Is that any different when it comes to a residence?

Hon. R. Coleman: The way this works is the same as it works today. In a residence, for instance, a person's residence is their private residence, so the rules that fit them are the same as would fit any residence today, and that is that you can't overserve. You can't serve to minors. You could be held liable in that case. The licensee, the caterer, would have to follow those rules. But the other activities are not within the power to go into a private residence and restrict because it's a private residence.

S. Simpson: Just so I'm clear, in a private residence, because it's that, those entertainment issues in that, other than if you're breaking the law…. Those entertainment questions will not be regulated in the same way as if I rent the hall down the street and have an event and bring a caterer and that in. It's different in the residence — unless, of course, you're breaking the law.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just like it is today. Yeah.

S. Simpson: Just a question that's on this. Actually, I'll save it. I'll do it under 38.

Section 37 approved.
[ Page 11823 ]

On section 38.

S. Simpson: It's a follow-up a bit on the comment that the minister made about a residence. If I have a party at my house and I allow my guests to drink too much and then go get in their car, I have a liability for that. I can be held responsible for that. Or as you say, if I allow people who are underage to access alcohol, I can be held responsible for that.

If I bring a caterer in to cater the event at my house, including the liquor, does the liability then move from me to the caterer? Or do I still hold some liability?

Hon. R. Coleman: This doesn't change any of the liability issues. Notionally, the licensee that is doing the catering and the liquor, if they were overserving and what have you, would have some liability, and the courts would obviously decide that. We don't get specific about that in the act.

[1555]

The residence. The residents themselves have to carry their own liability. When something happens in a residence — as the member said, if you allow somebody to get intoxicated in your house, they get in a car, and they drive away — there have been some cases where there has been found liability back to the homeowner.

In this case, this does not give you protection from your own bad behaviour just because you happen to have a licensed person who may actually have some liability if they're managing the bar, but they're also not necessarily in the rest of the house. I would think that that would be subject of a court case. It isn't prescribed in here.

S. Simpson: If I read 38(c)(2) with the addition there, which talks a little bit about what the minister is talking about, it says thatobviously, the responsibility…. If an offence "under this Act is committed by a corporation in relation to a catered event, the officer or agent of the corporation in charge of selling or serving liquor at the event is deemed to be a party to the offence" — so that's presumably the caterer who is selling or serving the liquor — "and is personally liable to the penalties prescribed for the offence as a principal offender, but nothing in this section relieves the corporation or the person actually committing the offence from liability for it."

Just trying to understand. I understand what the minister said about a residence. So now, if I rent a hall and I hire the caterer, under this, they're going to be responsible for that wedding or that event or whatever it is. They're doing their job serving the food, serving the liquor, making sure they don't overserve. But if there are activities there that lead to some kind of considered offence in the case of a commercial hall and that….

If I'm the person who hired the caterer to come in and do that, does my liability change at all around that, or do we know? Or am I, then, still liable to be considered for an offence under this as if I was doing this myself?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so you're clear, this is with regards to the licensee — right? If they commit an offence related to the catered event, "the officer or agent of the corporation in charge in charge of selling or serving liquor at the event is deemed to be a party to the offence." Basically, you could charge the corporation, you could charge the individual that's done it or you could charge the person in charge of the event if they're all working in the same place.

Basically, they don't get to hide from the liability of their responsibility under the act for any offences that they commit. It doesn't go to other liability. It's only with regards to…. If we charge you, and there's a $7,500 fine or a $500 fine, you cannot get away from your liability just because you're Sam who's at the bar versus the corporation.

Section 38 approved.

On section 39.

S. Simpson: Section 39 talks here about a number of things. I have a couple questions here. Under 39(b.2): "respecting catering authorizations and providing mechanisms for consultation by the caterer with public authorities, including…local governments, first nations and police in relation to catering authorizations."

[1600]

Could the minister tell us what the expectation is here around the caterer's responsibilities for that consultation versus, potentially, the host's responsibilities for that consultation? I want to have an event, and I hire my caterer. Does this say, then, that the caterer has the obligation to do all of that consultation as part of this process, or do I have the obligation to do it as the host who hires the caterer?

Hon. R. Coleman: I want to try and get this clear for you. Today if you get a liquor licence for a large event, the responsibility of the licensee is to go to the police station and notify. If it's over so many people, there are actually some jurisdictions that say that there is so much security you have to have and that sort of thing.

It's not a consultation, as much. This is respecting the authorization and basically putting into place the regulations it would define for the catering licence. None of that is there today.

We know what we do in other cases, but now we have this new licence. So if they want to run a large outdoor event where there's a beer garden or large beerfest type of thing, they're going to need local government approval, which would be included in the regulation. They would probably need licencing…. Actually, oftentimes it's signed off by local police.
[ Page 11824 ]

All of those authorizations and things that would be done have to be done by the licensee in order to have the event. So the regulation is going to state that you have to do these things in the case of specified events, because that's what happens now. The difference is, it's usually done by an individual or by a different group, versus the caterer.

S. Simpson: That's clear. What this now does is define the obligation here. The obligation rests with the caterer to either have done that or to have ensured all of that and the proper documentation is in place. They've got to have all that, and that responsibility is a responsibility of the caterer under this legislation — no longer of the host or the association or whoever they might be working for. That would be correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. It's twofold, actually. They have to do all that, and if they don't do all that, they're not getting their licence to be able to do the event. They won't be able to do the event because they won't get their endorsement to go do that, whatever event it is. But your explanation is correct.

S. Simpson: If I go down and look at 39(b.3), it's interesting. I just want to know what the thinking is: "respecting if and to what extent a caterer may be issued a catering authorization in relation to an event that is promoted by, or to which persons were invited by, the caterer."

[D. Black in the chair.]

Is the thinking here that there's the potential of a business opportunity here, where caterers who now have this liquor capacity that they didn't have before may in fact be promoting events that they are the promoter and the host of and then using their own catering operation to be able to facilitate the food and beverage side of that as they, in fact, become promoters using their catering licence to give them the ability to do that. Is that what that would allow?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually the reverse, hon. Member. The intent of this regulation is to restrict that. We're going to restrict the fact that you can't go out and sell tickets and set up your own events and use your catering and your liquor licence there. That's in clear contravention of what we're trying to do here.

Caterers asked, as part of their business, to be able to be in the business of serving liquor to their clients as part of their licence. That's what we're allowing here, both for the hotels with their endorsements and for the caterers with their licences. But the intention is to actually restrict in regulation what we're describing there.

[1605]

S. Simpson: Is the expectation here that at some point after the legislation is passed there'll be some kind of regulations or something prepared in relation to this — the short leash that you're preparing for catering companies so that they can't become promoters, essentially. Is that what the minister expects?

Hon. R. Coleman: This outlines the regulation-making powers and what we're going to try to accomplish. We've already done some consultation with industry and local government, but after the legislation is passed, before the regulations would be done, we will also go out now, once the legislation is passed, to do a comprehensive consultation with the local government and the catering industry, to do the regulations so they fit with the needs of communities. That's what the intent is.

S. Simpson: Under (b.4) it talks about catering "including, without limitation, the classes or categories of licence to which a catering endorsement may be added, the criteria that must be met before a catering endorsement may be added and terms and conditions that apply to a catering endorsement."

Can the minister tell us what the expectation is around those terms and conditions? Have they been prepared, or is that a work-in-progress?

Hon. R. Coleman: It will be things around storage of liquor, transportation of liquor. They haven't been developed yet. They'll be developed in concert with that other consultation process on regulation.

Section 39 approved.

On section 40.

S. Simpson: So 40 has a number of pieces under it, and I just want to touch on a couple of them. So 40, under 87, which adds a section 87 here, talks about: "…the site of a catered event is, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations, both an establishment and a licensed establishment for the period approved for the catered event in the catering authorization issued in relation to that event."

So that would include…. It might be that that might actually be defined a little bit in the previous section. I'll look. That pretty much would cover off any place other than a private residence. Would that be fair?

Hon. R. Coleman: Correct.

S. Simpson: In section 88, the catering endorsement section: "Subject to and in accordance with the regulations, a licensee may apply to the general manager for the privilege of selling or serving liquor (a) at one or more events, and (b) at one or more locations that are not the establishment in relation to which the licence was issued,
[ Page 11825 ]
and the general manager may, on any terms and conditions…" and so forth.

Is the thinking here that a caterer could come and say: "I have a contract with X organization or association, who are hiring me to do their catering. They're going to have six events over the summer or five events over the summer, in a number of different locations. Can you give me an endorsement or an authorization that will approve all of those under one permit or one authorization, and I get to do the whole thing? Or do I have to come back in some fashion and talk to the branch about each one of those — or in some combination? Or can I do it all as a blanket?"

[1610]

Hon. R. Coleman: This section isn't about what the member asked me about, but I'll answer that question too. This section really is about allowing an existing licensee establishment to apply for the endorsement for catering. It allows them to have a catering endorsement, so they can cater off site from their existing premises. That's what it is.

With regards to the other question, basically, not every event is going to have to have an approval. Events like weddings and that would be more like notifications. They will just notify the branch that they're doing an event. They can just do the notification. Large events, like if there was a huge beerfest in Stanley Park or something like that, would require approval.

There will be a regulation outlining the different levels, so that you won't have to…. If you had a client that said, "I want you to do five catered events, and they're just, like, at the house, or we're going to this hall and then that hall and that hall," and they're not major events, then they would just be notifications by the caterer that they're doing an event in that location.

It doesn't require them to go and get an endorsement for all of them. It's just a quick notification. It's not an intent to have this be so complicated that we're licensing every event for the caterer — right? — or the other, because we don't do that with special occasion licences now anyway, in many cases.

So the other one, approvals, would be outlined and defined in regulation with regards to more significant events that would then require the local government, police and those sorts of types of support.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer. The first part of that answer…. Is, then, the thinking here — about those who might get a catering endorsement — about what happens when a place, a restaurant, bar, location, existing establishment says: "We're going to grow our business and open a catering wing to our business now, because we think, with this new regulation that allows us to serve liquor and make that part of the business, it now makes business sense for us to do that for some reason, so I now am going to go out and open that piece of business"?

Is that what we're thinking here? That might be where I have a liquor licence, and I have an establishment, and I'm saying: "I'm going to expand to an off-site catering business from my operation." Would that be something that I'd be allowed to do?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just one clarification of my last answer. What will be notifications and approvals won't be set in regulation. They'll be done by policy and managed by the general manager.

Basically, we have restaurants today that do catering, but what they want to do is to be able to give a full service to their clients. Basically, they get an endorsement.

It's not a case of somebody deciding to set up a mobile bar, for instance. It is about…. You're actually catering food, and you're going to have liquor as one of the services. You're going to get an endorsement to your licence, or you're going to go and get the licence — if you're independent of the licensee already existing — to be able to go and do that business.

S. Simpson: Moving to 91, the general manager may "impose terms and conditions." There's a long list of the terms and conditions here. "Under policy," I believe the minister said, so I'm assuming that these terms and conditions will be developed as policy as well, by the branch — or expanded on in the policy.

Is the expectation that these will all be pretty clear in terms of what the requirements are? I think about things particularly like the requirements for reporting and recordkeeping, paper trails — those kinds of things — records of amounts of alcohol inventory, the ability to say, "Okay, how much was brought in? How much was served?" so you have some sense of that.

[1615]

Is the expectation that there will be a policy, a set of policies — something there that's readily available to a caterer, saying: "Here's the detail of how you have to meet all of these conditions"?

Hon. R. Coleman: These basically mirror the terms and conditions of other licences that we already have for liquor primary and food primary. Basically, we develop manuals that form part of their licence which say how you can operate — described and all that stuff. We have that for liquor primary and food primary. We'll have that for them as well. Basically, because it's a new licence, we have to contain this information in there so that we can actually now put it into the licence itself.

S. Simpson: I think about this mostly…. As the minister said, I think it makes perfect sense that, probably, in the majority of instances where there's catering, there won't be a requirement to actually come and get an approval because you're catering a wedding or you're catering a family event — you know, one of these things
[ Page 11826 ]
that goes on every day, not necessarily a large event, something that's often about a family or a personal or private gathering that's being catered.

In those cases, when you…. The series of some of these conditions — about games, about entertainment, about hours, about whether liquor can be sold indoors, outdoors…. There's a variety of things on this list here.

So I'm the caterer. I'm doing this wedding, which is a hundred people. It's nothing particularly exceptional. Do I get a stock set of conditions, which I will be given by the branch, that says, "Here's how you've got to operate," in the case of an event like that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, there'll be a stock policy guide. Then if they want to do something that's outside that, they would then apply to the branch to add that in. That's when they would get into not just the notification but quite possibly approval, because they're adding something that's outside the guides. The guidelines are pretty easy to follow, and they'll be just simply the same thing for this.

S. Simpson: Has the ministry thought about — has the branch thought about, probably — what we're talking about here in terms of scope? How many events are we going to see that are going to fall under this legislation, and how big is it going to be?

I'm thinking here about resource requirements in the branch as to whether there's any expectation this is going to increase resource requirements around supervision, around other things. You've got inspectors who are primarily out there working with establishments and doing their job around that. Does this change those resource requirements, and if so, how does that get dealt with?

Hon. R. Coleman: Based on the experience of other jurisdictions, this is very low risk. It requires very little additional resources, if any, because actually most of the events are very low-risk events. But just so you understand, there's a licence fee attached to the licence, obviously. This is what we call a thousand-dollar vote in government. So the licensing fees that are charged in any given year have to pay for the operation of the branch.

It's not that we go to general revenue or anything else to ask for more money. If there's a problem — or one develops, which we don't anticipate — then we would look at the cost of the fee relative to the cost of the branch to do the operation. But at this stage of the game our experience is that these are really low risk.

[1620]

You really don't need a whole lot of inspector time or anything else because, as the member described, you're not going to go running around on weddings and stuff like that. It's just really going to be a case of risk management.

S. Simpson: I agree that a fee structure that deals with cost recovery makes sense, so that if there are costs, they're paid for through some fee structure.

Is there a fee structure that's anticipated? What kinds of fees or what kinds of criteria are going to be put in place for the fees that a caterer will need to pay, presumably, to get authorizations and permits? There'll be some fee structure related to that when they get authorizations. How does that work?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through the consultation process after the act, we will be looking at this with the industry to look at what's fair and what we think the processing time is. We think it actually can be kept pretty straightforward and pretty streamlined and won't be onerous.

The fee process is something we would have to work out as we finally work out the details of it. Really, it's not going to be something that's onerous. It'll be something that'll be done through consultation with the industry, though. We've committed to them to do that as we process through to the regulations and the policy.

S. Simpson: The minister has talked before, and I certainly understand this, that in the case where something inappropriate happens, there are currently offences and penalties that are there that would apply here, as they might apply in other situations.

Does the minister envision any different penalties that are more specifically related to the conduct that might happen under this piece of legislation? Or is the minister satisfied that the existing suite of penalties for somebody who doesn't act responsibly is good enough?

Hon. R. Coleman: We do not contemplate any new suite of penalties. We think we have it covered within our penalty section.

Section 40 approved.

The Chair: Section 41, we've dealt with.

We move to part 4.

[1625]

On section 42.

B. Ralston: Both 42 and 43 simply repeal sections of the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, and what begins in section 44 is a substitution of other definitions after these ones are repealed. I take it that's the purpose. And if that's the purpose, that will be my only question on those two sections.

Hon. S. Bond: These sections were passed but not brought into force, because the partners, in fact, wanted to make sure that there were negotiations around the joint trust agreement. Those didn't take place until 2011,
[ Page 11827 ]
so that's why this is being done now.

Sections 42 and 43 approved.

On section 44.

B. Ralston: I think we're about to switch ministers.

My question is on section 44. It adds a definition of a "college joint management agreement." It refers to an agreement made on April 4, 2011. I think that's the agreement that the minister was referring to previously.

Can the minister briefly explain what the agreement is and why it's necessary to amend the act to accommodate it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Right now the provisions for the joint management of the college pension plan are in a schedule to the existing act. What we're going to be doing is removing it from the schedule to the act and making it part of the joint trust agreement. I do have a copy of that agreement, too, that I can make available to the member opposite if he wishes.

B. Ralston: There's a definition. It refers in this definition in section 44(a) to section 1 of schedule A. That is a separate section, section 53. There's considerable detail there, but can the minister broadly describe what the significant aspects of this agreement are?

It's a joint trustee agreement, which generally means that liability for the pension plan is shared. Can the minister perhaps just set out at a fairly high level what the significant features of the agreement are?

[1630]

Hon. K. Falcon: Just for the benefit of the member, the joint trust agreement, which we've shared with the member opposite, is basically the identical trust arrangement that is currently in the college pension plan.

We're basically just taking it out of there, and it's moving into the separate joint trust agreement. That joint trust agreement is negotiated and signed by the four partners to the college pension plan. So that's the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, the BCGEU, the Post-Secondary Employers Association and the B.C. government.

It takes effect on proclamation, obviously, of the amendments we're now debating. I'm advised that all the parties support the changes. Basically, what the member has in front of him, the joint trust agreement, just lays out the fundamental nature of the relationship between the partners and the trustees. It is, as I say, the same, with minor changes because it's no longer in an act. But it's virtually identical to what exists under the current schedule to the act.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain what's the legal advantage of doing it this way? Is it then that it becomes more easy to revise the agreement by mutual agreement rather than having it as an appendix to a statute? Is that the advantage?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. When the partners to the agreement unanimously agree to a change, they will have the ability to make that change without having to wait for a session of the Legislature to invoke a change within the Legislature.

B. Ralston: This also offers a new definition of the "municipal joint management agreement," the "public service joint management agreement" and the "teachers' joint management agreement." Presumably, these definitions are added for the same purpose that we're talking about in the previous college joint management agreement. There are similar agreements, unanimous agreement, being moved out of the statute for the same purpose. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: What this is doing is making the college agreement the same as the other three agreements which are already out of the act, so it is just mirroring what takes place with the other three.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

[1635]

B. Ralston: This amends sub-sub-subsection 9(2)(d)(v) of the Public Sector Pension Plans Act and strikes out "Minister of Finance" and substitutes "minister." Presumably that's because the statute may be administered in the future by someone other than the Minister of Finance. Is that the reason?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct. The responsibility for this act was actually assigned to the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour and Market Development in 2008 and then later to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This just allows more simplicity in the future to reference a minister as opposed to specific.

Section 45 approved.

On section 46.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to section 18.1, or adding a new 18.1 to what's described in the act as "Powers, functions and duties of the investment management corporation." That's the B.C. Investment Management Corporation.

The explanatory note says: "continues transitional provisions that were previously in part 4 of the act." I'm sure
[ Page 11828 ]
there's a straightforward explanation for this, but perhaps the minister can provide it.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is essentially saying that these ones that are laid out in 18.1 are still needed. The rest of them are no longer required and are spent and thus will be repealed.

Sections 46 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

B. Ralston: This substitutes by striking out "College Institute Educators' Association" and inserting the new name "Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC." That just reflects the name change of the organization, I presume.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes.

Section 50 approved.

On section 51.

B. Ralston: This section amends the Public Sector Pension Plans Act, schedule A, section 1, and substitutes a number of new definitions. Presumably these are definitions that are consistent with the amendments that are made previously in the sections we've just discussed, but I'd like the minister just to confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I can confirm that.

Sections 51 and 52 approved.

On section 53.

B. Ralston: This is a lengthy part that's added to schedule A which is described as part 1.1, "Joint Trusteeship," and it contains a number of aspects. Can the minister just briefly, for the purposes of the record, describe what is meant by joint trusteeship when it concerns the public sector pension plans in the province?

There are obviously significant legal consequences to that, including, to some extent, sharing of the liabilities in the event the plan comes up short. Fortunately, it hasn't, under the very steady hand of the B.C. Investment Management Corporation. Perhaps he can just confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, it's moving the joint trust agreement out of the schedule of the act into a separate joint trust agreement to reflect the arrangement that takes place with the other three major public section pension plans. The joint trust agreement arrangement, as the member would be familiar with it, is a model of pension governance that is increasingly being studied and emulated around the world.

[1640]

British Columbia in particular, as I mentioned in our estimates debates the other day on other things…. One of the things that I've heard regularly in my various trips, whether it's to rating agencies or financial markets, is a real positive acclaim for the approach that we've taken in the province in this joint trusteeship arrangement to managing pension plans.

The member is absolutely correct. Every three years there's the evaluation, the valuation that is undertaken on a triennial basis. Any shortcomings identified obviously have to be dealt with, and both parties have to come to the table and either provide additional contributions or, alternatively, look at the level of benefits, indexing, etc., to adjust those to meet and deal with the issue of any potential shortfalls.

B. Ralston: I want to give the minister a chance to compliment the forward-looking government of the 1990s that instituted the joint trusteeship plan that's so highly praised by the rating agencies. I know he doesn't often take advantage of these opportunities, but I'm going to provide him with one now.

Hon. K. Falcon: I will happily do so. That was an exceptional decision. I won't even use rhetoric by saying it's one of the few, but I will say it was a very good decision.

Sections 53 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 56.

B. Ralston: This "amends a regulation-making power," which is a power that's conferred upon what's called the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet. Can the minister briefly explain how the power is being amended?

Hon. K. Falcon: By the way, Chair, I should correct the record on our last discussion with respect to giving the NDP government of the day credit for this. It turns out that though it was initiated by the NDP, it was actually our government that pulled the trigger and implemented it. So I do want to correct the record, because I know the member would be very upset if I didn't make that clear.

I'm sure you'll get me on another one somewhere. Don't worry.

The reason for the amendment here, Member, is to reflect the appropriate regulation-making authority, since the provisions of the joint trust arrangements are to be removed from the schedule of the act, and to recognize the ongoing or future needs of the board.

So transition was intended to address the period of time required for the process of moving from the previ-
[ Page 11829 ]
ous act to the Public Sector Pension Plans Act. The move was implemented ten years ago, and there may be future regulatory requirements.

Sections 56 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

B. Ralston: This is another amendment to a regulation-making power. Is it similar or identical? I haven't checked the wording. It appears to be very close to identical, so perhaps the minister can just confirm that it's similar, with the exception of substituting the municipal board for the college board and that it's similar to the power and for the same reason that he described in the amendment to section 56.

[1645]

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Sections 59 to 61 inclusive approved.

On section 62.

B. Ralston: Similarly, another amendment to regulation-making power. It looks on reading that it's the same, identical to section 59 and section 56. The words are substituted, though, "by the public service board," and that appears to be the only difference. Perhaps the minister could just confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I can confirm that. It's the same as the prior.

Sections 62 and 63 approved.

On section 64.

B. Ralston: One last time on the regulation-making power. This would be the identical provision but for the "pension fund by the teachers' board." Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Sections 64 and 65 approved.

The Chair: We'll just take a minute and move to the Minister of Forests.

On section 66.

N. Macdonald: So we're with Bill 41, a miscellaneous act. We're going to jump around. I think the minister and I have a couple of sections here. The first is 66. So 66 and 67 look pretty straightforward.

So for 66, maybe the minister could explain what the purpose is.

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a very minor housekeeping amendment that corrects a minor error in section 37 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act from 2011. The situation here was that there was an amendment, and there was a reference to…. There was, in a sense, one small word missing that rendered the section inoperable in terms of moving forward with the intent of what the original Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act did.

The overall intent is to remove the reference, in terms of the delegation of authority, to move the references to specific decision-makers — district manager, regional manager — and to have the delegation authority rest with the minister.

The delegation authorities are provided on our website so that you can see it. What it allows, with the new structure of the ministry, is to provide greater efficiency in terms of providing the delegation authorities and to ensure that we place those in the right place. If a title changes or things, we don't have to go back to the legislation. It gives us more flexibility in terms of providing those appropriate delegations.

N. Macdonald: We've had a number of bills like this where the language has been changed for the reasons that the minister has given. So this is the consistent language that's being used in all legislation. That's my understanding.

[1650]

Is it that in all the legislation, the attempt is to structure it like this so that there's flexibility underneath that title to have ministry staff with, perhaps, changed titles still able to do the work without having to come in here and change legislation? That's the purpose as I understand it.

Hon. S. Thomson: That's correct.

Section 66 approved.

On section 67.

N. Macdonald: Again, it looks very, very straightforward. If the minister could just, for the record, explain the change here and the need for the change.

Hon. S. Thomson: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we have the authority on the deposit process, when you're applying for Forest Act tenures, to be able to have the ability to require the deposit from an applicant or a person who already holds an agreement.

The way that the previous amendment was worded — this came in the amendments in 2008 — restricted it to a person who already had an agreement as opposed to the applicant. So if a person was making an application and a deposit was required, if that person didn't already
[ Page 11830 ]
hold an agreement, then we didn't have the authority to accept or to take a deposit. This has always been the standard practice — to have the deposit process as part of the application process.

If the person is a successful applicant to it and then decides not to proceed with the agreement, then that deposit can be forfeited. So it puts the discipline into the application process. The way the previous amendment was worded, we only had the ability to accept it from a person who already held an agreement, not an applicant, who may or may not necessarily already have an agreement.

B. Routley: Was this also trying to correct speculative bidding, and did that actually occur? Was there speculative bidding?

Hon. S. Thomson: The purpose is to prevent speculative bidding. We've always done that by requiring the deposit and having the ability…. If a person is successful in the process and then doesn't follow through, that deposit is forfeited.

When we realized that, in terms of the amendment that was made in 2008, we didn't have that ability to accept the deposit, even though that's what we've been doing all the way along from an applicant…. That's why we need to bring the amendment forward — to make sure that we have the authority to be able to accept the deposit from both a person who is a current agreement holder and a person who is an applicant. That's a fairly straightforward amendment in terms of adding in the definition, both an applicant and a holder of an agreement.

N. Macdonald: It does seem fairly straightforward.

One last question, though. In the period that we're talking about, between 2008 and the present, were there incidents of where we found that the language wasn't good enough? Were there actual things that took place that, because of the language that was in place, there were problems with what could be described as speculative bids and things like that?

[1655]

Or is it something that was simply discovered and has been corrected without having the shortcoming drawn to the government's attention by an actual incident?

Hon. S. Thomson: This deposit requirement came forward when we were doing some of the drafting around the regulations for the new forms of tenure, like the fibre supply licence to cut and those forms of it. That's when we realized the gap that we had in the amendment that was made in 2008.

I'm advised that over that time period there are somewhere between seven and eight situations annually where there would have been an applicant, a deposit, and an accepted application of a person who didn't complete and had that deposit forfeited.

That's always the way it's operated. There's never been any challenge with it because that's always been the way the process has worked. It's just that we discovered the gap, and we wanted to make sure that we closed off that potential gap. I'm advised that it's approximately seven to eight situations like that per year — where the deposit would have been forfeited.

Section 67 approved.

On section 68.

B. Ralston: This deals with the Land Title Act. This is an amendment that's proposed to section 182 of the Land Title Act, which is entitled "The registration of restrictive covenants and easements." Perhaps the minister can explain the purpose for striking out the words "If a restrictive covenant, easement" and adding the definition of "party wall agreement."

We'll get to the definition of party wall agreement in section 69, but I take it that these are simply designed to accommodate the addition of a party wall agreement as a form of restrictive covenant or easement or similar legal instrument.

Hon. S. Thomson: The purpose of this is to be able to provide the ability to have party wall agreements added. This is something that local governments, particularly the city of Vancouver, have asked for to support overall direction in freehold housing.

Specifically what this section does is it amends the act. It does two things. It provides direction to the registrar of land titles regarding how to record against title interests that impose a burden on one title and grant a benefit to a different parcel. It also provides that the identified interests run with the land, the positive covenants in a party wall agreement, to run with the land rather than the current owner. It doesn't need to be expressly transferred when the ownership of the land is transferred.

The amendment adds party wall agreements to the list of specified types of interests to which this section applies. In practice, this would mean that the party wall agreements would be registered and noted against the titles to all properties affected by the party wall agreement and will automatically pass with title when it is transferred.

B. Ralston: The minister mentioned that cities, particularly Vancouver, have requested this amendment to the Land Title Act. Can the minister explain why?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: The basis behind this, and the reason that the city would like this, is to ensure that when there are party wall agreements in row housing — which is a form of housing that they feel is important to help develop more affordable housing opportunities — the
[ Page 11831 ]
party wall and the positive covenants that are in those party walls will transfer, will run with the land, so that both the owners are protected in the process. They feel it adds additional security.

It will prevent situations where there may be a party wall agreement that isn't moved across and that then would stay with the original owner when the property may be transferred or sold. It just provides that additional security in the process to ensure that those positive covenants that are in a party wall agreement run with the land.

B. Ralston: I know there's a definition of "party wall agreement" in the next section, but this applies where there are two adjoining but separate parcels of land. So this wouldn't apply to a common wall in a strata-titled building, I take it. This is specifically for the case where there are two adjoining but separate parcels and there's a common wall between two separate titles. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: That's correct.

B. Ralston: Now, the minister has mentioned that this is in the form of a restrictive covenant that is designed to run with the land. Is the covenant, then, an irrevocable one, in the sense that subsequent purchasers are not in a legal position to revoke, renounce or alter the covenant or the agreement without the consent of the other party to the agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that's correct. It runs with the land, so it could only be changed by agreement of the two owners.

B. Ralston: In the definition section of "Party Wall Agreements" it refers to "a grant of one or more positive covenants." Typically, in some cases there are what are negative covenants forbidding an owner from doing something in relation to the land, and sometimes cities or municipalities have those registered as a condition of development approval.

Can the minister explain what is meant, in general terms, by the legal language of a "positive covenant" as opposed to a negative covenant?

[1705]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to go back again to the intent here, this is about the ability to be able to register the positive covenants. Currently, the legislation does not provide that.

The positive covenants are provisions that require the party to do something that's an obligation related to performance — for example, repairing the wall. Those positive kinds of things are in those. They often require an expenditure of money by the party. They involve repair, construction or maintenance of the property that's important for both parties with the party wall. This is about the ability to register those positive covenants and have them flow with the land.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned that the city of Vancouver was particularly interested in this. I note that in the definition, a party wall means "a shared supporting wall." Is it envisaged that this will be used in the case of new row housing, for example — which is very common in other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe — where there are separate titles but, on the boundary, there's a shared wall? In addition, would this also apply to urban settings where there are adjoining parcels and there are two walls of adjoining buildings that touch at the boundary or at the imaginary line that is the legal boundary?

What is meant by it? I suppose what I'm interested in is: what's the definition, or what is intended by the reference to "shared supporting wall"? Is it a common physical structure, or can it be two separate parts — walls of adjoining buildings that join together at the boundary line and that structurally, one may support the other to some degree or not?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that this deals with the wall that's on the common boundary and shared. If there was a wall on either side of that common boundary, this would not apply.

B. Ralston: I suppose the difficulty arises in urban settings where, on the property line, there's no division between the two walls. It's simply that they're joined right together. Structurally, one may be, to some degree or another, supporting the other. Certainly, that might meet the definition of a "shared supporting wall." I just want to be clear about that. I don't think that's the intention, but I'm interested in what is envisaged here.

Then secondly, is this intended primarily for new construction? Or is it thought that there will be a rush to solve some problems that may have arisen legally between people sharing walls who've resorted to other methods for resolving their disputes, including litigation or simply bad relations? Is there a remedial effect intended as well, or not?

[1710]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, to confirm. These amendments are focused on freehold row houses. The provisions are not retroactive. What the changes would do would be to provide the opportunity, if there is a party wall agreement in place, that that can be registered. It does not force people to do it.

B. Ralston: Although, strictly speaking, I think we're on section 68, in section 69 there are some examples of positive covenants. It also talks about the binding effect. But what's the mechanism that the drafters have in mind
[ Page 11832 ]
for prospective revisions in the party wall agreement, should they be necessary?

I mean, in (b) they talk about "carrying out procedures to ascertain the location of cables, drains, pipes, sewers, wires or other conduits in or near the party wall and clearing, repairing or replacing them." And there's a thing about sharing costs as well.

So a dispute arises. The location of the cable, drain or whatever is not where it was thought to be in the plan. That sometimes happens. It's actually on one side of the boundary and not the other. What's the mechanism for then revising this agreement?

Is it simply by agreement of both parties that it could be revised, or is there an arbitration clause? In the event of a failure to agree on a revision to it, would it have to go to court? How would that be solved?

The intention seems to be to create a permanent covenant for the long term. One can imagine that over a long period of time, over decades, there might be a need to revise the agreement.

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: It is specifically in the legislation. There is not a dispute mechanism. There may be a process in the agreement itself about how you would resolve disputes, but in the event that that's not the case, it would be like any other agreement. It would have to go to the court process for resolution.

B. Ralston: It seems a little bit shortsighted not to include it as a requirement. I mean, one could simply…. I think the jurisdiction for land would probably be the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in any event. But presumably these agreements are designed to avoid litigation rather than to encourage it. So if you'll forgive me, it does seem to be an omission that, perhaps, should have been corrected or noticed. But that may be a personal opinion entirely.

In subsection (d), in the definition, it talks about "carrying out inspections, obtaining professional advice, drawing up plans." Would the agreement, then…? For example, in the event of a sale, typically one of the conditions of a sale is that it's subject to inspection by a certified home inspector.

In order to certify, I guess, the standing of the party wall, it may be necessary for the inspector to have access on notice to the property adjoining. Is that what is meant by "carrying out inspections"? I suppose for municipal inspection as well, if the common wall has services in it such as plumbing or heating or any of that sort of thing…. Is that what is intended there?

Hon. S. Thomson: I just wanted clarification, because we're dealing with section 69. I wondered if we had completed section 68 yet or not, or whether we should and then move to section….

The Chair: No, we haven't.

Section 68 approved.

On section 69.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister could then answer my question on section 69, since it does more properly apply there.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thanks for that clarification of the process.

Just to deal with the question. The party wall agreement provides the agreement between the two parties as to how those inspections would take place. Whether it is a certified inspector to come in to check it out from the municipal side, those powers and responsibilities for municipal inspection are part of the municipal government process or the municipal power, so the agreement would not preclude or override those municipal provisions.

What the party wall agreement does is simply provide the basis for agreement between those two parties about how any of those types of inspections that might be needed would take place.

B. Ralston: Two questions. One would be…. Unless you're the end unit, you'd have a party wall on either side. Is there any consideration of what the additional cost to a purchaser would be for those two agreements? Presumably, there'd be standard agreements, registered by the developer. But any thought of what the cost might be?

[1720]

Secondly, in subsection 223.2(3) there's reference to a breach. What would be the limitation period that would apply to a breach of the positive covenant in a party wall agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the question, to make sure I understood the question in terms of the cost…. If the process needs to be that the owners are registering the party wall agreement, then the fees are established by the Land Title and Survey Authority. If the application is submitted electronically, it's $72. If the application is submitted in another manner, it's $74. That's a standard registration fee for those types of agreements. So there's no additional cost division beyond what would be the normal registration processes with the Land Title and Survey Authority.

If it's a question around whether there are additional overall costs because there are party wall agreements, the process would be…. The developer who's developing the freehold housing would have party wall agreements as part of the process. Those would all be registered. It would be built into the overall costs when they're selling the properties.
[ Page 11833 ]

I can't envision that because there are party wall agreements in place, that would add additional costs to it, because the party wall agreements are actually meant to be…. This is why Vancouver and other local governments are interested in them in terms of providing that security and that incentive to support freehold market housing development.

I think the overall cost would be what the market is for those kinds of units. Having those positive covenants able to be registered I think provides that additional security, so I can't see it adding any additional costs to prospective buyers of those units or properties.

B. Ralston: Well, because the parcels would be…. I think each development would be unique. Presumably, there'd have to be some legal drafting that would be peculiar or particular to that particular site. There would obviously be a cost to that, so presumably, that's rolled into the cost of the development.

Is the minister aware whether the city of Vancouver, in its representations, intends to make the inclusion of party wall agreements in these types of developments a mandatory condition of development approval? In other words, you have to put them on if you want to get approval from the city. Is that the intention of the city?

[1725]

I know the statute, as it's drafted, is permissive, but it might be well within the power of the city of Vancouver or, under the Local Government Act, for municipalities to make that mandatory. Is the minister aware of what representations may have been made?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite pointed out, these provisions are permissive. We respect the authority of local governments in this case, and that could be conditions of approval. I'm not aware that the city has specifically said that they would make them mandatory provisions.

I think it was pointed out that each development is unique. This legislation — because of the interest from local governments and looking at many other jurisdictions, in terms of having those provisions here — was designed in this way to provide that opportunity and to be permissive.

B. Ralston: I think I'm near my last question. I want to just return to the issue of a breach of a positive covenant referred to in subsection 223.2(3) and my question about the limitation. Perhaps, with appropriate legal caution, the better course may be to not give an answer. But if there is an answer that's available to the minister, perhaps he could at least indicate or state, in some form, what the limitation might be.

Hon. S. Thomson: I hope I'm referring to the correct section here, 223.2(3). What this section does is it says that if the property is transferred…. What it means is the original owner, after the transfer — the original party to the party wall agreement — is not liable. They're out, and there's no liability left for the original owner, the original party to that party wall agreement.

B. Ralston: Again, I appreciate the minister may not, on the advice he gets, want to answer this. I suppose a situation might arise where the breach is discovered after the person has ceased to be the owner but took place while he or she was still owner. The issue would then be one of the appropriate limitation period.

I appreciate that may be sufficiently legally complex that the minister chooses out of prudence not to answer, but I'm sure that's a question that people might have.

[1730]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised by staff that out of prudence, that is a question that we should probably take on notice and provide the appropriate response to the member opposite to make sure that we've got the linkages to and understanding with the Limitation Act — I'm not an expert on that — rather than stray into that and, without a full briefing on it, undertake to provide a response to that question to the member.

Section 69 approved.

On section 70.

N. Macdonald: This is the Wildfire Act, and it's just changing some of the provisions in the Wildfire Act. So I guess the question is…. This limits liability for people involved in wildfire damages. Just what are the natures of the actions that liabilities are being removed from? Like, are we talking about simply in the fighting of the fire? Or is it in fuel treatment? What sorts of actions are within the scope of protection from liability with this change?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: Subject to and within the wording of the section, it does apply to the exercise of any power under the act.

N. Macdonald: There's the addition of a number of individuals. So maybe a better question would be: what's the purpose? What is the problem that the amendment is seeking to solve?

[1735]

Hon. S. Thomson: The purpose is to provide the same level of immunity under the Wildfire Act that is provided to other officials and employees in many other areas — under the Emergency Program Act, under the Fire Services Act. What it does is provide that level of immun-
[ Page 11834 ]
ity from individuals being named in any legal challenges or litigation against those decisions.

It does not remove the legal responsibility from government, but it does protect individual employees and officials and the list of protected persons under the legislation. It provides that immunity consistent with what has been provided in other legislation across government.

N. Macdonald: Can the minister give me an example of what type of liability might arise? What does that mean? What does the liability refer to?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think it's probably best to use examples here. This primarily arises out of decisions that are made by officials under extreme circumstances and pressure when they're fighting fires, in many cases dealing with interface situations and things.

What happens is that there will be people who may not feel the right decisions were made at the right time and feel that they need to litigate against those decisions. As I said, this doesn't prevent them from taking that action against a government generally. What it does prevent is them naming individuals in those cases, having to involve them in the processes of discovery.

What you find is that as you go through with the current civil processes, those discovery processes get expanded and that people get brought in to those that may have not had any part of the decision-making process in it. This is a negative against recruitment and retention in the branch.

What we're doing here is consistent across government, and we've worked with the statutory immunity committee to be able provide that level of immunity for the individuals but not for government collectively.

N. Macdonald: Just to come back to the scope of activities, we're talking about fighting wildfire, and presumably a decision made or not made about how to fight the fire would be one of the obvious examples. But are we also talking about people involved in evacuations or forest evacuations having to make decisions that are perhaps connected to the fighting of the wildfire but not directly part of fighting the wildfire?

[1740]

Are all of these things considered to be things that protected-person status would then apply to, people doing those sorts of activities? Maybe just a broader sense of the scope of activities protected.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, as we said earlier, it covers the broad range of powers and activities under the act. For example, a restriction order that would prevent people from going into an area would be the kind of thing that could be covered in that scope. People may, because they couldn't get back into an area, then be aggrieved in some way when something happens — so restriction orders, all of those kinds of things.

The broad range. It does cover the broad range, but it is consistent with immunity provisions across government. In the example of when it moves from wildfire provisions to a state of emergency, the provisions of the emergency measures act take place, and the immunity is provided in those cases as well. This is aligning the provisions of the Wildfire Act with those other statutory immunity provisions across government.

N. Macdonald: Part of the addition here is "(e) a person acting under an order made by an official under section 16" of the Wildfire Act. Can the minister, just in layman's terms, explain what that means for a person acting under that order?

Hon. S. Thomson: Section 16. I'm advised that it's a longstanding provision of the act. This is where people can be, in a sense, ordered to assist. It's usually forest industry staff, people in the industry in the area can be…. I think some people referred to the old conscription process.

What this means is a person acting under an order by an official under…. That's where your people are directed to assist. So when we do use that provision to give people direction, that's for providing them the same immunity that you would for an employee or any of the other named protected persons.

N. Macdonald: Could the minister give an example of what constitutes bad faith? Is that a legal term that is easily understood? Or in this particular circumstance, when you're dealing with wildfire, are there particular examples of acting in bad faith…? Subsection (3) would, of course, take away the protections that are contemplated with this amendment.

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: This is part of the legal process, has lots of jurisprudence in the court processes. The way that it is interpreted here, meaning then that it puts the onus on the person bringing the claim forward to demonstrate that the person operated in bad faith, a marked departure from normal procedures. As opposed to the individual having to say they acted in good faith, it is to say that the person bringing the claim has to be able to…. It puts the onus on them to prove that the person acted in bad faith and, therefore, wouldn't be covered by the immunity provisions.

N. Macdonald: Thanks for the explanation.

Just one last question. Are any of these changes based on experience from previous wildfire seasons, where the government realized that there was a gap that needed to be filled? Or is this something that's, again, as the minister has talked about with previous changes, just part of a
[ Page 11835 ]
process of legislative review?

Hon. S. Thomson: When the Wildfire Act was implemented in 2004, I think it was, the immunity provisions from the Forest Practices Code were not brought forward because at that time it was felt that the common-law process provided sufficient protection.

This is not the view currently held by legal counsel, resulting from actions. But it's part of a general legislative review not related to any specific circumstances. It's more to align the provisions now under the Wildfire Act with the provisions under other legislation across government.

Sections 70 and 71 approved.

On section 72.

B. Ralston: This amendment proposes a revision or an amendment to section 18 of the Property Law Act, which is entitled "Rules for transfer and ownership to oneself." It's an amendment to subsection (5). It looks as though it's consequential to the amendments that we discussed in relation to the Land Title Act just not too long ago in this same session.

Can the minister just confirm that these amendments, both (a) and (b), are consequential to the revisions to the Land Title Act?

And I can well appreciate that the Property Law Act does generate a certain amount of hilarity in the chamber, but it does seem a bit excessive at this time.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I can confirm that they're consequential to the previous amendments.

[1750]

Section 72 approved.

On section 73.

B. Routley: It's indeed appropriate that we finish up the day with some bafflegab and jiggery-pokery.

This section 73 really caught my interest, I must say — this validation period. I think you'll agree that this is just too juicy to be true. I'm sure there's probably a perfectly logical explanation. I can hardly wait to hear it, because this goes on to say that the validation period means "the period beginning on December 9, 2008 and ending on the date this section comes into force."

In (2) it says: "All things done during the validation period that would have been validly done had section 151(11) of the Forest Act, as amended by this Bill, been in force on the day they were done are conclusively deemed to have been validly done." And in (3): "This section is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions and must not be construed as lacking retroactive effect in relation to any matter because it makes no specific reference to that matter."

Wow. If there's a gold star for bafflegab, this person gets the gold star for sure. I'm not sure we have time to drill deep enough to find out whether this is really jiggery-pokery or this is just bafflegab at its best.

But I do want to make sure that we're referencing and getting this right, because I went carefully to 151(11) and — just for greater certainty and clarity — it says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting deposits and security of any kind." Aha, there's money involved here — money. Almost a smoking gun, we have. We've got money involved. It says: "…to be provided by the holder of an agreement" — more aha — "listed in section 12 or a pulpwood agreement, to ensure the performance of an obligation under this Act or the agreement, the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Wildfire Act or the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act."

This refers to the items listed in section (12), so now we have to read section (12). It says: "Without limiting subsection (11), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the following: (a) the type of security that is acceptable or unacceptable; (b) the form and content of the security; (c) the circumstances under which the security may be realized."

I can hardly wait to hear the answer to the question: exactly what is this intended to correct? What great problem do we have that this wonderfully crafted piece of legislation is intended to correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'll give a very simple answer, and not get into the bafflegab or the jiggery-pokery.

What this section does is that it simply validates where we took deposits before. Because we had that gap where we kept those deposits — when an applicant came and didn't complete on the agreement, we forfeited his deposit and kept those deposits — it simply provides validation of what we did, which was standard practice, in keeping those deposits we kept. And it provides the legal basis to do that, because we filled the gap and made it retroactive from the amendment that was brought through in 2008. It's straightforward.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported
[ Page 11836 ]
progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake: After a long week, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $16,032,867,000 (continued).

Hon. M. de Jong: Just flowing from this morning, a little bit of additional information to complete one of the answers I gave. This was the service plan performance measures.

[1435]

I think I indicated one additional measure. I can provide a little bit of additional information around that. The added measure is the number of people under 75 years with a chronic disease and admitted to hospital. That measure was added to recognize the importance of managing chronic disease before it requires hospitalization. It's part of our overall initiative around innovation and change. That's the additional measure.

The way we measure surgical wait times has been updated to measure whether patients are receiving surgery within the recommended time frame. It's from a new priority rating system developed by the Provincial Surgical Advisory Council, based on their clinical experience. That's an existing performance measure but a slight change in how it's being measured.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that clarification. We were talking about the health accord, and I indicated I had a couple of questions around an additional issue where there's, I think, potential for federal involvement. Recently there has been media coverage of a Westbank First Nation's plan to build a $120 million for-profit health care facility in the Okanagan.

Can the minister tell me what the government's position is on that — whether they have done any work in terms of the implications of that, and whether or not something like that would in fact be legal?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, a good question. An interesting proposition. We don't have a set position, because we don't really have all of the information about what this proposed facility and service would look like. We probably have more questions than positions or answers at this point.

It is interesting. Someone asked me…. It was a member of the media who got around to asking. I said that on the one hand, you don't want to stifle the attempts agencies make to think about new ways of delivering health care services, but I did say that the province would not be favourably disposed to any kind of a scheme that put us offside or at risk of sanction from the federal government vis-à-vis our obligations under the Canada Health Act.

Now, there is this very interesting legal labyrinth that arises insofar as facilities operating on reserve lands and the interplay between federal legislation and provincial legislation. So I have been careful, in fact, not to disclose a position, because we don't have enough information at this point, except to say that on the one hand, we're always interested in people, groups, communities and agencies thinking about new ways to deliver health care.

Our ultimate interest will be that whatever is proposed does not put the province offside vis-à-vis its statutory and other obligations pursuant to the Canada Health Act and the fiscal arrangements we have with Ottawa.

M. Farnworth: Does that mean, then, that the ministry is looking at the implications of a potential proposal like that? Are they in discussions with the federal government as to how those implications might impact the province's position vis-à-vis the federal government and the legislation and fiscal arrangements that we have around medicare in this country?

[1440]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we're certainly aware of the project, but — I think I have said this, as well, in the past — ultimately a lot of this will be determined by the federal position. If the federal government takes the position that this project, or this proposal, can proceed and that it is consistent with the broad suite of legislative requirements that derive from the Canada Health Act — in B.C., of course, we have the Medicare Protection Act — then that will drive a certain kind of analysis here.

If the federal position communicated formally to us…. I will say this. I have been, in the few comments I've made, pretty clear about this. We need formalized positions on
[ Page 11837 ]
this, as opposed to: "Yeah, we think this would be okay."

There's a lot at stake here, a lot of interest. So my hope is that as the proposal is developed further and that work and analysis take place with Ottawa — and I presume that will engage the federal ministry of Health, Indian and Northern Affairs and perhaps the federal Justice Department — what we, the province, will receive is a formal articulation of the federal position with respect to the proposal. At that point that may well trigger some additional work on our part regarding the provincial legislative structure.

M. Farnworth: Has the federal government indicated to the province that it is actively proceeding on work with regards to this proposal? If so, has the province requested to be apprised on an ongoing basis or involved in that work, given the impact it could have in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Nothing formal, although I should say that the First Nation advised me verbally on a particular occasion that they were engaged with the federal government. Whether or not they have delivered a formal proposal to the federal government, I'm not certain. There has been no formal engagement between the provincial government and the federal government on this matter as yet.

M. Farnworth: I want to move to another topic before we move on to seniors care and seniors issues. That is within the ministry itself. It's my understanding that the Associate Deputy Minister of Health, John Bethel, is leaving in the next two weeks. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Bethel was very much involved — in fact, I think he's the government's lead person — in the negotiations with the physicians and the BCMA around the issues and questions on, I guess, a new master agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: He has been the lead on the provincial team in those discussions.

M. Farnworth: Given the importance of those discussions and the fact that he's leaving, a number of questions arise about that. The first one is: is he leaving in the sense that his work is done, and there's now been an agreement reached with the BCMA? Are the negotiations advanced enough to be close to an agreement that his work is done?

When someone's involved in a project with a scope of that nature and has been over the last at least — what? — two, almost three, years, that's a significant amount of time and investment of a senior ministry official in a project. And then to leave…. The question becomes: okay, is it because the work is now done or because there are some real problems in terms of getting an agreement?

[1445]

My question to the minister is: is there agreement that has been reached with the BCMA? Can the minister tell us what's going on?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member correctly characterizes that in negotiations on the magnitude of these sorts, one can leave celebrating achievement or leave at the height of frustration. Neither would appear to be the case here.

Mr. Bethel has, first and foremost, been a key part of the leadership team within the ministry and has dedicated himself very, very diligently over the past number of years to this work and, as the member points out, to the negotiation.

It would be incorrect for me to leave the impression that his departure signals the achievement of a comprehensive agreement. But it would be equally inaccurate for me not to point out that, actually, some very good progress has been made. The team with which Mr. Bethel has been working are, I think, well placed to carry on with that work.

M. Farnworth: Well, that's a pretty broad answer. On one hand, we have not achieved an agreement, so I can't say that. On the other hand, I'm not going to say that it's gone off the rails, but that progress is being made. That could be anywhere from "it could go off the rails" to "we could have an agreement tomorrow." I guess what I'll do is go back to my original…. I'll explore this a little further.

Mr. Bethel has been the lead person on this, and the time invested is significant. I mean, relationships are built up in negotiations; issues are discussed. There is history around those issues.

Even with a team, when you lose that lead negotiator, that's a pretty important and significant change in the dynamic. It's a pretty significant change in what's taking place. Whoever takes over clearly has to establish relationships of trust, sitting down and working with the other side.

My first question will be: who will be taking over from Mr. Bethel in these negotiations, and are they a member of the current negotiating team?

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay.

A couple of things. First of all, the importance of continuity at the table is, I think, well stated, and the team remains in place. What I can tell the member and the committee is that the deputy, over the last number of months, has been very intimately involved in the discussions, and that will certainly continue. That's the Deputy of Health, Mr. Whitmarsh.

I had not meant to present quite as broad and sweeping a description as I did a moment ago, nor do I wish
[ Page 11838 ]
to leave any misconstruing of where we are. Good work has been done. We don't actually have an agreement, as in any of these, until both parties have ratified through their various processes. There are complexities associated, internal mechanisms within the BCMA. There have been good discussions that have led to high-level understandings in a variety of areas.

It would be incorrect for me to suggest to the member that we have an agreement. But I would also be remiss if I didn't suggest to the member that we are at a fairly significant and crucial and — dare I say — delicate time in those discussions.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's choice of words and language around this particular question. He's quite correct that there are no agreements or close to agreement until ratification has taken place. But of course, prior to ratification there must be something to ratify.

The minister has used the terms "high-level understandings" and "delicate" stage, which suggest to me, then — again, being careful of the language that I use — that while there is not an agreement that can be taken for ratification….

[1455]

Clearly, it sounds to me, then, that the negotiations themselves are at a stage where they are close to having something that may result in a document being able to be taken to the BCMA and to the government, which could lead to a ratification. Would that be a fair assessment of the state of where we're at right now?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think, listening to the description the member has given, that that is accurate. It does explain the care I am exercising in choosing my words, not wanting to in any way mislead the committee, but cognizant of the fact that if I were to pre-emptively describe something that has not yet occurred…. It is not my intention to put the work that has taken place at risk.

What I have learned from my involvement as minister is many, many complexities when you consider that the BCMA is this agency that represents a broad range of physicians, specialists, generalists. So taking ideas that may enjoy a measure of agreement and support at one table and turning them into the kind of language that is required for a formal agreement can be something of a mystical art. My intention is not to derail that kind of a process.

Again, though, I emphasize that it would be incorrect for me to leave the impression that the pending departure of Mr. Bethel signals that the work is done and an agreement has been arrived at. That is not yet the case.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. That still leaves me thinking, if we are at a crucial stage, that it does pose somewhat of a challenge, then, for government and the negotiations if the lead negotiator is leaving right at what I take from the minister's remarks is a fairly sensitive point in the negotiations.

I note with interest that clearly, it does raise some questions. But I accept what the minister is saying, in saying that while they're close, there's no agreement that's been arrived at yet. I'll be interested to see who will be leading those negotiations from the team.

When does the minister expect to be able to provide us with the name of who the new lead negotiator will be?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is that at this crucial stage the deputy will step in, Mr. Whitmarsh. The other members of the team are there. Ms. Nichola Manning, ADM, will be phased in as well. Some of this, of course, relates to the timing that may or may not unfold over the next period of weeks.

[1500]

I am certain there is a great deal of technical work to be done. At what point we cross the threshold and are able to say that there is the formal makings of a tentative deal available for ratification…. I think the hon. member is getting an idea of just what a crucial stage we're at, at this point.

M. Farnworth: I'll just finish with a comment as opposed to a question, and we can move on to seniors issues. That is, I've asked the minister a series of questions, and he's given me answers. I understand where he's coming from and what he's saying. I've listened carefully to the words he has used. I think that's important. But I must admit, it does strike me as somewhat of a puzzle that at a crucial stage in negotiations, a delicate stage, the lead negotiator is leaving.

I'm not assigning any conspiracy or anything like that. I just find it a bit of a puzzle that after such an extensive time on such an important issue, to be leaving at this particular point in time does strike me as somewhat unusual. I look forward to how these negotiations continue and unfold over the coming weeks and, potentially, months ahead.

With that, we can move on to seniors matters. My colleague from Kootenay West will lead that discussion.

K. Conroy: I just want to thank the minister and the staff for the….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: There are two questions I forgot to ask.

The negotiations — are they taking place under the net zero mandate?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer, I think, is no. The mandate that's in place now — and I can provide additional information — is not actually a net zero. It's a cooperative
[ Page 11839 ]
gains mandate that is slightly but significantly enough different from a net zero mandate. So the answer is no, but that's because there is not a net zero mandate in place broadly.

M. Farnworth: Then just to confirm, it's taking place under the cooperative gains mandate that the government has got in place on a number of their negotiations.

Hon. M. de Jong: The guiding principle is the same, but because we are not dealing with salaried employees, because we are dealing with a volume-based fee-for-service model, it would be, I think, inaccurate to suggest that the very same construct applies. But the guiding principle is the same in terms of finding efficiencies to generate additional fiscal wherewithal.

K. Conroy: I'll start again. I just want to thank the minister and the staff for the time in the estimates. I just want to also thank the minister's staff who help out, I know, our office a lot and help out people out in the health authorities and in the regions with the work that we have to do. I want to just acknowledge that. It's always much appreciated.

[1505]

I'm going to start with the seniors action plan that the government introduced a few months ago now. The first action plan that's in the actual plan itself is the appointment of a seniors advocate. We haven't got a timetable for this position. There hasn't been any legislation that the minister has in fact tabled. There is legislation on the order paper from this side of the House, but not from the minister. We keep pointing out to the minister that there is the other legislation that sits in a private member's bill that could be implemented if it was truly wanted to be passed a little quicker.

I understand the ministry is engaging in consultation around this position. So I'm wondering…. It sounds like, from QP, it's starting next week. Maybe not; maybe it has already started. I would just like to know: who is being consulted, and what is the timeline around the consultation for this position?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for her obvious ongoing interest in the matter. Here's the information that I'm afraid I didn't have at my fingertips a few moments ago in the House — but can provide some additional information.

We certainly did contemplate a six-month period of consultation around establishing the mandate. That has taken place in stages. It has involved internal government partners; arm's-length agencies like the consumer protection agency; the Ombudsperson; the Representative for Children and Youth, and also agencies who we would say are fully dedicated to advocating on behalf of seniors: the Health Coalition, the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations, B.C. Care Providers, Denominational Health and professional organizations. So that has been ongoing.

What will start on May 29 are local meetings and consultations. I think the first one will actually be here in Victoria and then move across the Island. I have locations so far: Parksville, Dawson Creek, Surrey, Vancouver, Burnaby, Kelowna, Cranbrook. There may be additional ones. Those are the ones I have now.

They will involve invitations to groups to come forward and present their specific thoughts around what the mandate for the advocate should include. The intention is to have that phase wrapped up by early to mid-July.

[1510]

K. Conroy: Is it the minister's intention to only…? Is it invitation only, or is it going to be open to the public? Can concerned people that want to have a say in this…? Is there a way to have any kind of input into this process?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm reminded that the format, which we intend to follow, is that the morning will involve invitations to specific groups. The afternoon will be a public session inviting members of the public and other agencies. There is also the website to which groups can provide their thoughts and submissions — so a combination of the two.

K. Conroy: I'm pleased to hear that, because you're probably going to be consulting at the worst time of the year — in the summer when people are gone. People are very passionate about this, so I'm sure there will be considerable interest about it. But it is a concern that it is during the summer and hasn't already started.

The consultation process, you figure, will be mid-summer. The minister believes that the process will be finished. Then is there going to be another time frame for the ministry to try to put information together, and are we looking at legislation in the fall sitting?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd certainly like this to take place and be completed in the way that would allow for the option of legislation in the fall — again, having the benefit of a little more time in this setting as opposed to the other place.

The one thing I do want to ensure is that drawing on the opinions of people…. I think we tend to have a pretty traditional notion around here of what an advocate looks like, because we have a number of them. We have a children and family advocate and the Ombudsperson. Again, they have tended to be statutory officers whose function relates to the relationship that exists between the citizen and the state.

I think there are issues out there involving seniors that require an advocate to have powers that go beyond that, or at least some mechanism by which they can impose
[ Page 11840 ]
themselves and play a role in assisting and applying pressure in circumstances where in private transactions seniors are being adversely impacted. I always use the one example because I found it so compelling — the Saanich Peninsula.

That takes us into a realm beyond the conventional officer of the Legislature. Again, I don't want to prejudge the submissions we're going to hear over the course of the next six to eight weeks. But my guess is that the drafting work that will follow from that will need to contemplate amendments to existing legislation, perhaps consumer protection legislation, and will involve more than simply an enabling document that creates a traditional statutory officer. It may be that, but it may be a lot more.

K. Conroy: It sounds like the minister has actually put some thought to it, which is good. This situation that I've come across is…. I'm wondering if the minister thinks this situation might be something that an advocate could have been involved in.

There's a senior in his 90s who doesn't have any immediate close family other than a sister. They don't agree on health care issues, so he gets a power of attorney, a good friend who knows what he needs and wants.

[1515]

The senior has a stroke and ends up in hospital. The power of attorney wasn't notified until a number of days later. In the meantime, the hospital accepted the sister as the closest relative to ensure that this deal with the senior's care…. The senior was trying to say: "I want to be kept alive; I want to have the proper measures."

A healthy fellow, other than a slight stroke, and the family decided that they would withdraw all — no fluid, nothing — and say: "It's over." The hospital agreed with the family even though the power of attorney was trying to get in to see the senior and talk to him. There were a number of calls made and people trying to figure out what could be done.

They contacted my office, even though they're not from my constituency, and we put them in touch with some people. The sister decided that maybe this wasn't the best thing to do and allowed the power of attorney to come back into it. In the meantime, six days passed, and they were trying to figure out: who do they go to?

Is that something you see an advocate doing — stepping in and ensuring that a senior would get care, making sure that a power of attorney is respected in a hospital situation and that the senior would get the care that he needed a lot quicker than what happened?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. Yes, is the short answer. Again, without prejudging the outcome, the fact that in the example the member has given, the person to whom power of attorney has been given, watching from the sidelines, saying: "What do I do? I am reasonably certain that this person who is right now disabled would not want this to occur. I have the power of attorney, yet I feel powerless."

To have an advocate whom that person could call and say: "What are my options? What can we do? How do I…?" So I do see the possibility of a role there. It's a good example because, of course, it's an example that falls outside, really, of any direct involvement with the state — except for the hospital, I suppose.

The other thing that comes to mind from the example given by the member, which I think is a good example, because I think it may occur, versions of it, with regularity…. I think we have a big job ahead of us, reminding and reinforcing the importance of advance care planning.

In this case, by far the preferred situation would be for the patient to have turned his mind to what to do in those circumstances and the power of attorney to know what those were, be able to pull them out, give them to the hospital. Now, in 20-20 hindsight, I think as a society we have a lot of work to do to remind people.

In fact, I thought I saw some public service announcement to that effect, but I'm not sure it was us that was doing it. But I do see a building public awareness and campaign.

Short answer: yes. I don't want to create the impression that a single advocate is going to represent a seniors police force, but providing guidance and assistance to the person with power of attorney in that case…. I think that's a reasonable situation to which an advocate or office of a seniors advocate might turn their mind and attention.

K. Conroy: I would remind the minister that seniors in that position, who are needing that type of support and help, are in their 90s and probably can't wait till next year. The fear is that there might not be a fall sitting so that the legislation could go through in the fall.

I'm not sure if this is a type of position that could be brought into force with an order-in-council or if it actually has to be legislated. It is a concern when we're dealing with people in their 90s that are compromised and vulnerable.

[1520]

I think sometimes haste can be an issue with this, but I think it needs to move quicker than slower with this position. From what the minister is saying, I'm wondering if what he's seeing is a stand-alone position, similar to the child and youth representative.

Hon. M. de Jong: There's certainly no dispute from me about the advisability of moving as quickly as possible.

I think there were two questions in the member's submission, one related to parallels with the Children and Youth Representative. Going back to what I said a few moments ago, yes, I think there are some parallels, but I don't want to rule out or suggest that I am ruling out the possibility that a seniors advocate would have authority
[ Page 11841 ]
or a jurisdiction that extends beyond situations that involved a senior and the state.

In my favourite example of the gentleman in Saanich South, a legislative officer like the children and youth advocate, arguably, wouldn't have had any authority to step into that. It was not something that involved consumer protection. Perhaps, but there was certainly no direct state involvement.

Asking a 90-year-old to navigate through some of these complex contractual documents and then leaving them to their own devices when someone tries to take advantage of those complexities can…. A lot of people have family support. Some don't. So I actually see a role here for that as well.

I know it is not customary in these debates, and I don't do it to be mischievous…. One thing I had thought about…. I'm interested in the member's thoughts. I do want us to move through this period of consultation.

The possibility of appointing on an interim basis a seniors advocate had occurred to me. Again, the powers he or she would be in a position to exercise might be limited, pending the passage of legislation, but they would certainly be in a position to establish an office and begin to proactively become involved in this work. That's something that had crossed my mind.

I won't ask for a specific response from the member. She will undoubtedly want to see what derives from the consultation as well. But it did occur to me that that would be a way, sooner rather than later, to signal in very clear terms our intention to move forward with this.

K. Conroy: Not to be mischievous myself, but the minister could bring for second reading…. The private member's bill could bring the position into place this week, next week and have the ball rolling. Then, once the consultation period is over, if there are any amendments that need to be done to the legislation, they could be done in the fall.

The position could be in place fairly quickly so that you have 90-year-old seniors that wouldn't be compromised. Just to add that back to the minister for something to think about. Even though there's lots of legislation, I'm sure we would be only too happy to debate that one.

I'm just wondering: while this process is happening, are there actually funds in the budget to pay for this position, to ensure that this position is compensated, that the office is compensated? Is there something there in this year's budget?

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: Pointedly, there is certainly funding in place to see us through the initial stages. The breadth and scope of the office will ultimately be determined by the mandate that is provided to it. That will drive, to a certain extent, the amount of resources — a polite way of saying "the amount of money" — necessary to fund it.

Suffice it to say that the government has identified this as a priority across government, and the resources will be found and allocated to ensure that the advocate is established and is able to function in a way consistent with the mandate that the Legislature creates.

K. Conroy: That's good news, in the sense that if you did bring forward the private member's bill for second reading, there would actually be funding there to make sure that the position had the resources to be able to start doing the advocacy work sooner than later. That's just as a point of clarification, in case I misunderstood that. Okay.

I just want to know if there's an end date to all of this. When do you actually think, once the consultation is over…? If there's legislation that has to be brought forward, from your perspective, when do you see this position being brought in, if there actually will be someone working and doing the work sooner than later?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm trying to contemplate the various scenarios. I think I can tell the member, with reasonable confidence, that the intention, moving through this consultation over the next couple of months…. We would certainly want to have the legislative foundation laid and a functioning advocate in place by early next year, with the caveat that if it's possible to appoint an advocate on an interim basis, that is something — the member will hear, from my comments — we're also contemplating, which would allow for someone to be in place sooner.

K. Conroy: I think people will be happy to hear that, so we'll look forward to that happening sooner than later. One of the other themes in the minister's action plan — I'm just going to read what it says — was a plan to implement "a single provincial phone line" to report concerns about seniors care. It's supposed to be in place by June of this year, which is next month.

Hon. M. de Jong: June 1.

K. Conroy: June 1 of this year. I just wondered: who will staff these phone lines, and how will that be set up?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: The deputy has declined my invitation and advises, instead, that there will be a core team of five individuals who will be drawn from various parts of the ministry — individuals who obviously have some background with respect to seniors issues, seniors advocacy. And I neglected to mention, on the record, that this is intended to be up and functioning by June 1 — so inside of, I guess, 2½ weeks now. We'll try to coordinate, as well, with the SeniorsBC website.

Following the receipt of a call, those individuals will
[ Page 11842 ]
draw on a variety of resources or the patient care quality network and some of the other resources within the ministry. The point is to try and provide that one place that a senior or a senior's family member can go to, to say: "I'm having this problem. Help me navigate, and help me get some answers."

K. Conroy: I'm assuming that this will be based in Victoria then. It'll be a position down here. It won't be regionally based. It'll be a 1-800 number, perhaps, down to here in Victoria. Will it be available 24-7, or is it just five days a week — you know, Monday to Friday during basic office hours? I'll let you answer that one first.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has described it accurately. I don't want to suggest that we're talking about a 24-hour hotline here. It is not that. It will largely operate around business hours. And yes, the personnel will be based in Victoria. There will be the toll-free number that people can access from anywhere in the province. That's the makeup of how this is intended to function.

K. Conroy: Who can access these lines? Is it open to anybody to access — the public, seniors, advocates, constituency assistants from MLAs' offices? Who can access…? Is it open for anybody to access?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a good question. No restrictions, so it's available to others.

[1535]

I must say, however, I'm hoping that if I acknowledge up front that this is a new resource, a new avenue, but that it is finite in terms of the capacity…. I'm hoping that they aren't overwhelmed by what we might call institutional calls. We generate those out of our constituency offices. Most constituency assistants, I think, very quickly develop a bit of a trapline and know how to navigate through the system pretty effectively.

I wouldn't want this to replace that and those institutional types of calls to crowd out the member of the public or the family member or the senior who, in a very unsophisticated way, might say: "I am lost. I don't know where to go with this problem."

So there won't be any restrictions, but I'm hoping that the limited capacity won't be absorbed by those kinds of institutional calls that the member correctly points out could also develop.

K. Conroy: Who will determine the timely follow-through? How will it be determined, and what's considered timely? If there's an issue that comes…. I can see some issues starting to come already that might have some real concerns expressed by families and the seniors themselves. So I'm just wondering: how is that going to be determined — the timely follow-through?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things come to mind. First of all, we will want to track calls and files. There's no question that there will be a variety of complexities. In some cases it may be a call for basic information that should be a relatively open-and-shut matter. In other cases…. The case I always harken back to here in South Saanich involved mobilizing the resources of a good number of people to push towards a solution.

I think there is another component to this that sometimes I find — at least I find this in my own constituency office — we are loath to and hesitant to exercise. But sometimes the answer is no. I mean, sometimes the answer is that which you are…. To avoid giving that answer, we're often inclined to spin out and create hope where none might exist.

There are many cases where that doesn't apply, but sometimes I find that someone is asking for something for which no resource exists, nor probably should it exist. Sometimes the best thing we can do is say: "Actually, the matter has been reviewed, and the answer in this case is no." I'm hoping those are minimal examples.

What you want to try and do is move things along and provide the citizen with the assistance, point them in the right direction and assist them in navigating through what can be a very, very complex system that is replete with abbreviations, anachronisms and jargon. I guess that characterizes many, many features of government, but when you're dealing with people who are, sometimes, very aged, it makes a complicated process that much more mysterious. If we can break through that on a lot of practical issues, then I think we will have enjoyed some success.

K. Conroy: I think constituency assistants face having to say no often. I know mine do, and if any of yours have dealt with DriveABLE issues, they've had to say no fairly often. But that's another ministry.

[1540]

Are the types of issues that will be dealt with only health-related issues? I'm thinking, because of all the issues out there with seniors…. Are there going to be some kinds of constraints put on it that it can only deal with issues that the Health Ministry would deal with?

Hon. M. de Jong: Neither the seniors advocate nor the help line we're discussing today is intended to be an exclusively health-centred initiative. I think, with respect to the telephone line we're talking about, it's clear that the personnel who will staff it will have a unique insight into health care–related issues. But in our country you have all of the complexities associated with overlapping services within departments of government, and then you overlay onto that the added complication of: "Well, that's a federal matter."

We believe we'll have people in place who are able in a practical and helpful way to help people navigate that
[ Page 11843 ]
as well, and not simply say, "Sorry. That's not my department," but actually help point people in the right direction or make a call and obtain additional information for them that will be of some practical use.

K. Conroy: Is this new funding in the budget, or is it existing funding taken from somewhere else? Is it funding that will just keep carrying on for years to come?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, I know, realizes that the health budget, the $16 billion amount we are debating as part of this vote, actually includes a sizeable increase over last year's budget of several hundreds of millions of dollars. It was not necessary for us, for example, to go to Treasury Board for a special allotment. It will come out of that increased amount as part of the overall ministry operation.

K. Conroy: Action 2 — your theme is about information. I think we're going to refer now to the advanced-care planning that the minister was talking about.

The ministry has put out a document called My Voice that is accessible on the website, but a number of seniors have asked for copies of it. I just want to walk you through the process my legislative assistant had to go through to try to get copies of this document.

She called the ministry — this is back in early April — and was told they didn't have any copies. There were going to be more printed at the end of the month, and she was given a number to phone at the end of the month. No, that was in March — sorry.

[1545]

So at the end of March she phoned the number that she was given by the ministry, and she was told they didn't have any so she should call printing services. She called printing services, and the person she spoke to said that the only person that could help was away, so could she please call the next day. She called the next day and said the name she was given and was informed that this person didn't have any. She had to go through another person, because that's where the printing orders came from. She was directed to a person at VIHA and was told that they did not give out that many.

A senior had asked us for about 20 to 25 copies. She was told it was in very short supply. Demand was greater than expected. She also was told that it was on line and that we should perhaps go and do it ourselves. It was possible to get individual copies, but not more than a few. She explained it was for a seniors facility, and they were having trouble accessing it on line. Then she was told there were a few public points where she could get it, where they could maybe get five or six, but she'd have to call back to check on that. This was all happening over a period of over a month.

She was also told that it was only the VIHA facility that could get it, even though she'd asked not only for a VIHA facility but also for a facility in the Kootenays, and that maybe she would have to contact the people in the Kootenays to try to get that.

The end result was that they suggested someone from the seniors facility would have to go to a public access point in their community to try to get some, but then there would only be a handful in each of the public access points. This is an experienced legislative assistant who knows what she's doing.

What we're hearing from seniors is that they're trying to access them too, and they're frustrated with it. It's an excellent document. I'll give the ministry kudos. Whoever wrote it up, it's a great document. People want it. They want to access it. Exactly what I was talking about happened with the 90-year-old senior that's struggling. Probably if he'd had a representation agreement, even though he had a power of attorney, it may have been easier for him in the hospital.

I'm just curious as to why this great document that the ministry would like to get out to people isn't easily accessible, especially on line. That's just the experience of one person.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the good news is the measure of interest in the document, and the fact that the member, having reviewed it and worked with it, sees in the document some merit and that it is effectively laid out.

Without in any way diminishing or disputing some of the complications or difficulties that the member has described, I am advised that the document consists of what the member has said is one of the most successfully and widely subscribed documents that the ministry has produced and that over 500,000 copies have been downloaded directly from the website. I think the document is about 40 or 45 pages. I suppose one could argue that for some, that represents a significant download with the ability to download and then print off additional copies.

I think, on balance, in the last ten or 15 years the government — Queen's Printer…. Governments have gotten away from stockpiling huge volumes of bound and printed documents.

I suppose at some point when you get to a document beyond a certain number of pages, there is perhaps more of a need to do that. The member may want to suggest that. If the member believes that, she should. I think at this point the view within the ministry is that with 500,000 downloads, people are taking advantage of that as a mechanism by which to obtain the document.

The member's experience may be different, and she may want to tell me today that printing additional copies and having them available is necessary. I guess what I'm acknowledging to the member is that we have tended to rely on people thus far accessing the document by downloading directly from the website, printing it and distributing it in that manner.

[1550]

K. Conroy: I think that goes to show that relatively young seniors, people in their 50s and 60s, are actually downloading it because they see the importance of it. What I was hearing from people is that it's the older seniors that aren't computer-literate that are struggling with it. I just think that has to be taken into consideration, because we also want the older seniors to make sure that they're getting access to it.

Again, it just speaks to that it's a popular document. I think more actually printed off copies would benefit seniors in facilities across the province.

In the action plan the ministry has also talked about enhancing the www.seniorsbc.ca website. This program has been in existence since 2009. It was part of the response to the Ombudsperson's first report.

My concern is that since 2009 it was supposed to be giving out the information that seniors wanted and families wanted, and it was supposed to be easily accessible information. It still doesn't seem to be, because it's still part of the action plan, and it's not going to be completed until September of this year.

I know that people have talked about that they can't access the readily accessible information that they'd like to access, things like more information on facilities. Just today I tried to look up a facility, and the most information I could get on it was that the website was defunct.

I got the phone number off the phone book in the Yellow Pages and kept going back to the fact…. Every Google address I went on about it, it was gone. That's a facility that's operating in B.C. right now.

I know that the ministry had talked about implementing accessible websites, potentially even going to as accessible as Ontario is. To this date it obviously hasn't happened to that degree. I just express concerns that it doesn't look like it's going to happen until September of this year.

Hon. M. de Jong: I always delight in the conversations about the deployment of technology within government. On the one hand, it represents this very, very powerful tool. If properly and effectively deployed, it provides the citizen with information and a window on government and public agencies that I think is very helpful.

The member won't get any argument from me, and we tried to convey that in the action plan. I don't believe we are there yet in terms of fully deploying in a user-friendly way the technology that would allow for easy access. We are trying to collate and present data collected from a variety of sources and then present them in a way that is meaningful.

I have seen earlier versions within B.C. and versions of this from other jurisdictions that, quite frankly, I don't understand. I'm not sure what it tells me, and presumably, that is not the intention.

What we didn't want to do is pick an arbitrary date and say that this is going to be done by such-and-such a date, knowing that the likelihood of meeting that target was remote. There are aspects of the Ontario site that I find very appealing, very helpful, that we'd like to emulate. There are some other areas where I think we can do even better.

[1555]

The best I can offer the member today in these discussions is that I have received assurance that we can reconfigure, redeploy and present this data in a way that is meaningful and helpful and do that by the date indicated. It will in some cases still be a herculean task, and I don't want to underestimate the challenge associated with that work.

K. Conroy: Will there actually be detailed information on licensing investigations done on both residential and assisted-living facilities so that families who are looking for places to go can go on line and see that the detailed investigation has been done and what the results of it are?

Hon. M. de Jong: From our previous discussions, I think I understand the member's question and interest. What I was verifying with the senior staff is that by the date, we want the public — seniors, their family — to be able to go to the website and see the information relating to all substantiated complaints.

Now, it is substantiated complaints. I think there is a wisdom in ensuring that we make that distinction. Those will remain, I'm told, on the website, on the database, for two years.

Depending on the seriousness of those complaints, there may be merit in the suggestion that they should remain longer than that, but the general rule would be that they would exist on the website for a two-year period — the full meal deal, all of the information relating to the complaint and the disposition of that complaint.

K. Conroy: I'm thinking that any complaint that's brought forward by a licensing officer would be substantiated. I'm wondering if there are other complaints that the minister feels could be brought forward onto this website. I'm just thinking that it would only be licensing reports, unless there are other things that could be brought forward — that the public itself could bring them forward.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I was trying to do was clarify so that I could pass on to the member the various avenues by which an inspection report would be generated. It could be the product of a regular inspection. They will all be available. It could be self-generated by a complaint derived from a caregiver, a family member. They will all be posted. Or a concern that the inspectors themselves have — those would all be available.

The third type, which I alluded to a moment ago — the complaint received from a resident or a resident's family, once substantiated — would also be available.
[ Page 11845 ]

[1600]

K. Conroy: Good. I'm glad that's clarified. That's what I was thinking — that most licensing issues were substantiated.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Will the site actually have information from each facility as to how much they charge, over and above subsidized rates — what kinds of services they offer and how much they charge for services that are offered over and above what they have to offer within the fee that the facility charges?

Hon. M. de Jong: The intention is as follows: for any residential care facility with whom the state, the health authorities, the ministry have a fiscal relationship — through subsidized beds, for example — you would be able to go on a single website and do a comparative assessment of what the costs are associated with those care facilities.

The intention will be for you to be able to answer that basic question: "Mom or dad are going to live here. What's it going to cost, and what services does that include?"

Now, the caveat I want to, on the basis of advice, lay before the member is the intention to have the information around the inspection reports…. The commitment is to have that comprehensively available by September 1. I am cautioned that I am not able to pledge that all of the information relating to the rate structures, as I have just described it, will be available on the enhanced site by September 1, that that information will continue to be added over time as it is obtained from the various facilities.

Inspection reports and information by September 1. The rate and fee information will continue to evolve. I've outlined what the intention is, but it would be incorrect for me to suggest to the member that across the province, covering all of those facilities, all of that information will be available as of September 1.

K. Conroy: So is there an expected date that facilities will have that information to the ministry? I think we find that sometimes people, if there is not an end date, will just put off doing it, and it can just not happen because of that. I think we've seen that in some examples with some of the health authorities with some numbers. So I'm just wondering if there is going to be an end date that facilities will have to have the information to the ministry by.

[1605]

Hon. M. de Jong: No, there is merit in what the member says. To set, as an objective, April 1 of next year for a comprehensive presentation of fee information, I think, is realistic and responsible. It will require a lot of work on the part of both the ministry and the facilities themselves.

Once done, keeping it up to date shouldn't be as onerous. Having it in place — so that people can do the kind of assessment that, I think, most families will do at that point in time — is a big job but, I believe, one worth doing. I know the member agrees.

K. Conroy: It was with great interest when I read this document. The ministry actually says it's going to have on-line information about wait times for facilities, because quite often we're told that there are no wait-lists for facilities, that there's no wait-list in the province.

So I'm thinking: how can you put a wait time on an on-line service and on-line information if there are no wait-lists? I'm wondering where the wait times are going to be coming from and if, in fact, there are wait-lists and, for some reason, that information isn't getting out there.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, an important issue. Hopefully, I will relay this in a coherent way and an accurate way.

The distinction between wait times and wait-lists. I'll start with the latter.

Wait-lists, in the way that we conventionally think of them, are a bit problematic here. Whilst one is waiting to get to a facility, the assignment of beds is influenced by urgency of need. Priority is assigned by assessment officers. So to suggest there is a list where the next on the list is always the next person to be placed would be inaccurate. There is that list, but it is influenced by a variety of factors, most notably the priority of the need for care.

[1610]

This can get complicated, because two people with otherwise reasonably identical needs, but one at home in rather dire circumstances and another in a private facility paying a higher amount for that care…. The priority would tend to accrue to the person at home, and that creates pressure or challenges and frustration on the part of the family and the person in the private facility. So there is tension there, to be sure.

What the intention is, by community, is to publish wait times, so that in a particular community where facilities exist, you would be able to go to the website and say: "All right, if I'm going to secure a placement in my town, here are the facilities, and here is the wait time associated with being placed there." Again, it can be influenced depending on some of those priority issues, but that's the objective — to publish wait times by community, as opposed to by facility.

K. Conroy: I think the minister still might have trouble getting that information out of some health authorities. I think it will be interesting to see the information as it comes through.

One of the issues also is standards and quality management. I'm going to get into all the regulations in a lit-
[ Page 11846 ]
tle more detail later. One of the things that the minister said was that starting April 2012, the focus of residential facility inspectors on high-risk areas will be increased. I just wondered what this means. Did the ministry actually hire more inspectors? What would be determined as high-risk areas, and how is that going to be carried out?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: My apologies for the delay. It's really a two-part process, the first part having been completed about a month ago — and that is the deployment of a new risk assessment tool. Where in a facility are the higher-risk areas that need to be focused on to a greater extent — whether it is bathroom design, hallway features, doorway features? Some of it can relate to non-physical matters — medication dispensement. What are the high-risk areas and activities associated with a facility that require and should receive additional focus?

That new risk assessment tool has now been deployed, finalized and, I'm advised by the senior staff, is showing such promise that I believe an invitation has been received to present findings and details around it at an international conference south of the border somewhere.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: San Francisco, next month. No, I will not be going, as appealing as that might be.

That part, part 1 of that process, therefore, has been completed, but now it remains to utilize the tool and identify and diminish the risk associated with those identified high-risk areas.

K. Conroy: So this is just a tool that's…. Well, not just — it sounds like it's a fabulous tool. It's a tool that has been brought in for existing inspectors to use. There are not going to be any more inspectors hired. That's correct? Okay.

I'll move on to the next question, then, now we've got that answered. One of the issues was around elder abuse, and in addition to the seniors action plan, there is the elder abuse prevention consultation paper, in which it says another action plan is going to be developed with concrete issues…. I think the minister is dealing with a lot of action plans, but I'd like to see some actions. They are all in writing.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: : I missed that unfortunately — or maybe fortunately.

It says: "Stakeholder comments will be integral to the development of this plan." I was wondering who the stakeholders are and if the plan will actually be implemented by the end date of December of this year.

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm glad the member asked about the work on seniors abuse, and I know that we are talking about all aspects of abuse, whether it be physical, mental, financial. Much of this work actually began prior to the release of the Ombudsperson's report, part 2, and the action plan, although we certainly rolled it in and wanted to profile the fact that it was taking place, it was ongoing.

There have been a number of sessions, I'm told upwards of six or seven, around the province as a way of drawing on the expertise that exists in communities. If I were going to point to one thing as signalling the general approach that the government is trying to take, it would be the specific funding that was provided to the community response network, which sort of got established and enjoyed some success in some communities but less so in others.

The $1.4 million that was provided was designed to provide that group with the capacity to establish a presence across the province in communities and begin the exercise of establishing an on-the-ground presence and network, as the name suggests, for seniors to tap into, when they are victimized by abuse or, in many cases, when they see evidence of abuse in others.

That's, as is frequently the case, one of the challenges here. The person against whom the abuse is being perpetrated is often in the worst position to seek assistance. It requires the intervention of someone else on their behalf to bring in the necessary resources to bring that abuse to an end.

We are hopeful that by developing the resources of the community response network, we will begin to see that community-based network develop in a formal way right across the province.

K. Conroy: I think it would be appropriate to acknowledge the work done by Sherry Baker and the people at the community response network, because they have done amazing work and with very little money. It's amazing what they have done to date with very slim resources, so I know the additional funds will be beneficial.

The minister didn't say, though, who they're actually consulting with in this. Is it just the people through the community response network or is it other people, too, that they'll be consulting with?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the best information I could provide on the spot here is from the note I have been given. So 11 consultations were held in February and March of this year in the five health authority regions, including an interministry meeting and one specifically with aboriginal organizations.

[1625]

There were a total of 130 participants from organizations representing various sectors — health, legal, justice, financial, education — as well as community-based and seniors-serving organizations. I'd have to get a break-
[ Page 11847 ]
down of the specific organizations, but perhaps that provides an initial indication of the broad range of discussion and consultation that took place.

K. Conroy: I'd appreciate it if we could get the detailed information and not have the minister read it now in estimates — the 130 participants. If we could actually get who was participating, if that's possible, I'd appreciate that.

One of the things the plan talks about is flexible services, and it talks about strengthening family physicians and home health teams providing end-of-life care through training. I just wondered how that was going to be done. Is it going to be done across the province? Are there going to be just certain places where it will be done? Will it be accessible to the Interior, as well, where end-of-life care is not as well established as it is in other parts of the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I appreciate her raising the issue of end-of-life and palliative care. We all have particular areas of interest, and this is one of mine.

[1630]

I think that one of the features of our aging demographic is that this is going to increasingly need to be a part of the landscape in ways that it hasn't been in the past.

To begin the conversation, let me suggest that the provincial initiative here takes place in a variety of ways and at different levels. So from a systemic point of view, there are specific initiatives around the training of physicians.

If I can say parenthetically, one of the things that I've learned over the last two years from discussions with a colleague of ours, the Minister of Labour, who practised as a physician in this area…. She has some very pointed things to say about end-of-life care as delivered by the medical profession, and the things we subject patients to on the basis of a culture that has developed around keeping people alive at all costs — and "at all costs" is a particularly appropriate phrase in this case.

The initiative to provide additional on-site training across British Columbia for physicians, to equip them to make sound decisions around end-of-life care, is something that has begun. I think it's got a long way to go. I hope my comments won't be interpreted in any way as criticizing, because I'm not equipped to criticize from an informed scientific basis.

When I watch the incredible work that takes place in terms of cancer treatment…. There is this growing body of academic material that talks about when it is appropriate to provide extensive radiation treatment versus when it is…. There's a whole bunch of stuff that goes into making these decisions, and there is an intention to provide far more training than heretofore has been the case to physicians around assisting people in making those decisions.

Similarly, the HealthLink B.C. palliative nursing link is up and running for those folks who are at home. An interesting thing, too — again, talking to the Minister of Labour, who advises if asked. Most people will, in the abstract, tell you that if they found themselves in a particular position, they would want to be at home. They want to die at home. If they find themselves in that position, the reality, apparently, is that attitudes change quite dramatically. People are afraid. Their family members are afraid.

They can stay at home longer with some basic support, knowing that they can call 24-7 to a specifically trained nurse who can talk them through a particular problem. I have not, fortunately, been through this myself. I have spoken with friends and family members who have.

The fear factor associated with having someone at home in a palliative condition…. Having the ability to call someone 24-7 and get some advice could be the difference on that evening between having to rush to emergency and being able to stay at home. So that resource is there as well.

We continue, within the ambit of the resources we have, to try and expand the provision of hospice services around the province. My attraction to hospice services is that wherever you go in B.C. where there is an active and vibrant hospice program, its foundation rests on an incredible volunteer base.

[1635]

Finding ways to provide the additional resources to allow that volunteer base to do its work I think represents sound social policy and incredibly sound fiscal policy. We get way more bang for the buck, because we're drawing on those committed volunteer resources.

I'd like to do more. There are 263 funded hospice beds around the province now. That's less than we require. It's more than we had, so we're getting there. But I am a big believer in the hospice movement.

K. Conroy: This is an area where the minister and I will definitely agree — that we do get our bang for our buck out of the non-profit organizations across the province that are providing hospice care, especially in rural B.C., where there are very limited services.

I'm not sure if the minister knows, but we're very fortunate in the Castlegar-Trail area to have a research project by UBCO that they just got to investigate better ways of providing end-of-life care in rural B.C. They picked those two communities. It's a great project that's just getting started, and we're really looking forward to that, because it's something that's time has come.

I'm glad the minister went into detail about the tele-nursing support. I was a little concerned about that. I wasn't quite sure what it meant. I had visions of someone getting counselling for end-of-life care over the phone, and I just thought: "That's not something that could happen."

I'm glad it's actually nursing, and I'm assuming it
[ Page 11848 ]
would be a number referred to families that are staying home and needing that extra care. Okay. That makes a little bit more sense than when I first originally asked it.

I think some of these other ones we're going to get into with the Ombudsperson's report. The only thing that I was wondering about is one thing with the telehealth. Is it just going to be one line based out of Victoria, or is it going to be…? It's just going to be 1-800 again — similar to the other line?

Hon. M. de Jong: The system is set up by a 1-800 number, but in this case I'm told that the arrangements are made with individual nurses who are on call at home. They are located across B.C. In fairness, I think most of them are in the Lower Mainland, but the possibility of drawing on the resources of a nurse participating from anywhere in British Columbia is real — one number.

There's a triage component, so you direct the call to the person with the right skills, but you could end up speaking with a nurse located anywhere in British Columbia.

K. Conroy: We will talk a bit more about hospice issues and palliative care when we go over the Ombudsperson's report too. That's not the only opportunity that the minister will have to talk about it.

One of the items in the action plan was to pilot innovative approaches for home support services in different communities. I'm just wondering if the minister could talk a little bit more about exactly what that pilot is.

[1640]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll begin the discussion by pointing to something that I and the government are pleased about and somewhat proud about, and that is our partnership with the United Way, which has given rise to the establishment of pilot projects thus far in five or six communities. Our hope is to expand, with the $15 million that we've identified, into upwards of 64 communities.

The logic goes like this. You have a senior or seniors, a family in a home that they lived in for many years, and their ability to, for example, maintain that home is not what it once was. Their ability to stay there is influenced by their ability to clean, to do basic maintenance — clean the gutters, cut the grass.

At a certain point, if that work becomes overwhelming, they may be obliged to move, in circumstances where they really don't want to. They're very happy where they are. By drawing on the resources of this partnership, we can facilitate the modest amount of home support that is sufficient to keep folks in their home — a pretty good investment.

Now, I will take advantage of the member's question — again, at some risk — to provoke, hopefully, a discussion that I also think needs to occur. Sometimes the amount of support required can be very modest. If we tried to quantify that amount, it might be, over the course of a year, $1,500 or $2,000. We've developed a program that is intended to try and fill in some of those gaps.

But I must confess and say to the member — and she is obviously free to comment and disagree with me — that I do find it curious that we have…. The one thing I don't believe we talk enough about is the resources and the wherewithal that families themselves have. Sometimes a senior family in the Lower Mainland may own a home free and clear — good for them; they worked hard — and their ability to stay there is tied to being able to bring someone in to do their grass and do some basic maintenance.

The government, the Legislature — I can't remember if it found universal support or not — now excuses seniors — and, in fact, all families, but historically it has been seniors — from having to pay their property tax. The takeup on that option is remarkably small, yet for seniors in their late 70s in a home in the Lower Mainland, it can instantly result in an additional $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000.

I understand the hesitancy. God knows I understand it, looking at my own folks: "We've always paid our taxes, and we always will." Yet there is now a mechanism in place where asset-rich, cash-poor seniors can tap into an additional asset.

Yes, there's a modest interest rate charge, very modest, when they sell their place, but as we look to be more innovative about the kinds of supports that the state and taxpayers provide, of the sort that we are talking about here with the United Way.

[1645]

I think that realistically, we have to have the courage to talk about and develop some of those opportunities for individuals and families. This doesn't apply to everyone, but it can apply to a lot of people who, by utilizing some of the options that presently exist, would find that they have far more capacity than they may think.

The combination, I think, is important. What I've described certainly doesn't apply to everyone. Many seniors don't own their own home, and they clearly don't have that option. But a surprising number do. In fact, an overwhelming majority who do never consider that option and never consider the additional freedom that might represent for them.

I've shamelessly taken advantage of this opportunity to reveal and put on the record a bias I have and a hope I have that we can do more to encourage seniors to take advantage of some of these programs and tools that exist, which allow them to draw on their own resources and lessen their reliance on the assistance that other taxpayers provide.

K. Conroy: Unfortunately, the Government House Leader didn't see fit to give us another two or three weeks of opportunity to debate. So I don't think we have time to really engage in that debate now. Maybe at another
[ Page 11849 ]
time we can do that.

I talk to people that are working with the CASI program and managing it in different communities. It's an interesting concept for home support, and in some communities it's working quite well. It is volunteer-dependent, so there is a concern that the money that is going into those programs, although well spent, is actually taking away from home support dollars where people need medical home support.

We know that if a senior gets medical home support, they can stay in their home a lot longer than ending up in acute care or residential care. My concern is around: is that funding in lieu of looking at more funding going into home support? I think we have to acknowledge that the people doing the work…. There's one paid person, and everyone else is volunteer. Fair enough. It is working in some communities, but in some it's a bit of a struggle.

I'm concerned about making sure that isn't going to be taking the place of any additional funding that should be going into home support.

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, I'll try to keep my response shorter this time.

The priority clearly is medical home support, and I can provide the member with numbers about how that has grown over the years.

This CASI program is incremental to that. In the same way, I suppose, that I have this bias in favour of the hospice movement because of how it marshals the additional resources of volunteers…. The member is correct. It's a little bit like priming the pump with some modest resources to capitalize on that spirit of volunteerism.

But the member has also heard my bias, which I think is largely supportive, or I hope would be, of her proposition that the state's primary responsibility and focus, with limited resources, would be on medically necessary home support that allows a person or a family to stay in the home. That again, I say, makes it all the more important that we find ways to encourage and allow people to draw on their own resources to provide some of those additional types of support that will allow them to stay in their own home.

The taxpayers have a finite amount of money that can be devoted to this. We in this place get to choose where that is going to be focused. The primary focus will always be on medical supports, medical home supports. The rationale for what we've done here is that with a very modest amount of funding, we are able to help unleash that spirit of volunteerism, which creates some additional benefits and allows others to stay at home longer.

K. Conroy: Just to clarify, there are numerous people, seniors, that don't have families that they can rely on to provide that service, so I'm obviously thinking of them. Some people would think that hygiene, cleanliness, is health-related and a medical necessity.

It's interesting, and we'll get into it more with the Ombudsperson's report. B.C. is one of the few provinces that doesn't provide those kinds of hygiene and, maybe, housecleaning services through home support. But we'll get more into that. We'll have more opportunity.

I just have one more question. In the action plan it says that the ministry is going to do a review of existing best practices of seniors care across Canada and other jurisdictions. I'm wondering if the review has started. What other jurisdictions are going to be consulted, and is it just across Canada or internationally as well?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, it has started. It has tended thus far to focus on what we might describe as the larger jurisdictions both within Canada and abroad — so Ontario and Alberta within Canada; the U.K. would be an example outside of our boundaries. The objective is to try and ascertain what the best practices are for a coordinated, seamless provision of home support, primary support, ancillary support — the mix the member alluded to a few moments ago between health care, clinical care versus other health-related services that will allow someone to stay in their home.

[1655]

There's this whole continuum that starts with treating the post-surgical wound to the support stockings to hygienic considerations to healthy eating and nutrition — the whole gambit and everything in between. How have other jurisdictions aligned themselves to remove the overlaps and to provide, in a way that the citizen can understand and the taxpayer can support, that web of home support? Again, the objective is to allow someone to stay at home as long as possible in circumstances that are dignified.

K. Conroy: Just to add to that, the ministry would be well advised to look at the country of Denmark, which has one of the best seniors care in the world. It's been shown in studies. Actually, one of the key things that they've done is made sure that their home support is bar none. They've actually been able to lower the number of residential care beds they have and ensure that more people stay at home with the supports they need.

I'd highly recommend it, having parents of Danish descent and watching what happens to my relatives over there. So it's well worth looking into. The U.K. might be okay, too, but I just have personal experience. Lots of studies have shown that.

I'm okay with this part, if you want to take a break.

The Chair: The committee will take a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]
[ Page 11850 ]

R. Chouhan: My questions are about The New Vista Society. The New Vista Society in Burnaby is one of the finest long-term-care facilities in B.C., as we all know. Many of its residents are requiring more end-of-life care, yet The New Vista Society's per diem has dropped substantially for the last many years.

My question is: why has New Vista's per diem dropped since 2007-2008 as compared to other care homes' funding?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I'm familiar with The New Vista Society and its home. I think it's on Edmonds, if I'm not mistaken, in the constituency that he represents. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in terms of responding in a detailed way to adjustments to the per diem, in part because I don't have the information but also taking into account the fact that the health authority will make adjustments itself. Also, some of the data will be influenced by the degree to which residents contribute to the cost of their residency there.

The best I can do at this point is endeavour to obtain the details over the last five or six years about the funding arrangement that's been in place with Fraser Health Authority. It may be something that we need to come back to on Monday.

R. Chouhan: I have a total of three questions. I can ask those questions now, and maybe the staff can look into it and then provide those answers on Monday. I'm not going to be here Monday, but at least they will be on the record.

In 2010 The New Vista Society was asked to reduce RN staffing by approximately half. The best practice literature does not support a reduction of nurses, as reported in the review of the literature prepared for the nursing directorate, B.C. Ministry of Health in November of 2006. That report is called Residential Care Quality: A Review of the Literature on Nurse and Personal Care Staffing and Quality of Care.

New Vista is providing quality care at a significantly lower cost with good outcomes. So my question on that point is: why is New Vista being asked to disrupt something that is already working?

My last question is…. Fraser Health and the Ministry of Health have sent letters to family members, boasting about increases to the newest grant without taking into account the full costs, such as it does not include benefit cost increases. Fraser Health does not fund New Vista for increased long-term disability premium costs. These costs have escalated.

The proposed new funding model assumes benefit costs at 26 percent. New Vista's actual benefit costs were at 32.4 percent for 2009-2010. This represents a shortfall of $500,000. The question on that point is: why are New Vista's full costs not being funded?

Those are my three questions, Mr. Chair. Maybe the minister and his staff can look into it and provide information on Monday.

[1715]

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe while the member is here, I can probe for a little bit of additional information. With respect to his second question regarding registered nurse coverage, is he able to advise the committee who made the request or who issued a directive relating to RN coverage?

R. Chouhan: The New Vista Society met with Fraser Health. It was Fraser Health who asked for a reduction in nurses staffing at New Vista Society.

Hon. M. de Jong: Last point. If the member has correspondence relating to that, I'd be happy to receive it. Otherwise, we'll do what we can to track down some answers.

R. Chouhan: My understanding is that the New Vista Society has already sent a letter to the minister's office. I'll contact them tomorrow and, if not, make sure that all the details are in the minister's office early next week.

K. Conroy: I should point out that there will be more questions like that on Monday around individual issues and just overall around funding in the sector. I want to move into antipsychotic drug use in residential care facilities and talk a little bit about the report that was done, showing that there is a significant increase in the use of antipsychotics in seniors facilities.

The one story that lays heavy with me, which really shows the concerns that people are expressing…. I've talked to numerous families that are expressing concerns about it, and I think one report came out loud and clear that there are concerns.

A family had a father, 86, who went into a residential care facility — quite a gregarious fellow. He had some issues, though, with a stroke and a fall and had never been on antipsychotic medication. Within weeks of being in the facility, he started to sleep all the time, fall asleep during meals at the tables, and was drooling. They couldn't figure out what was wrong with him.

We suggested that they get a hold of his medication chart. They asked for the medication, and sure enough, he was being prescribed three different antipsychotics that he'd never been prescribed before. That was what was causing him to fall asleep, to not be himself. They had to slowly wean him off those drugs. This isn't a person who was any risk for violence or any of the issues around dementia that the drugs are prescribed for. It seemed to be just as a matter of course that the facility decided to prescribe the drugs. We can only assume for what reasons.

It's a real concern out in the sector. I know the review
[ Page 11851 ]
found that there were gaps in communication between staff and family members, which is obviously what my example illustrates. The concern for me was that the report showed that over 50 percent of seniors in residential care were receiving antipsychotic drugs.

There have been numerous stories about it, and the recommendations in the report didn't go, I think, very far. I'm wondering what the ministry is doing about it. I know there were significant recommendations in the Ombudsperson's report that we can talk to…. I just want to know where the ministry sits now with the recommendations from the initial report.

[1720]

Hon. M. de Jong: An important topic. An important report that speaks to an issue that I think does generate a measure of concern and anxiety.

What I, in general terms, took from the report — and the report does far more than this and recommends far more than this…. The overarching message that I took from the report is that there are still significant gaps that need to be overcome in the communication that exists between the clinicians who prescribe some of these products and either the patients or, more often than not, the patients' support network, the family members. They need to actually take the time to have a discussion about why a particular pharmaceutical product is necessary, what the dosage should be and what the duration of the prescription should be.

On the number that the member has alluded to, which certainly does appear in the report, the only caveat I attach — and I am relying on memory now — is that I think in identifying 50 percent…. I wouldn't want to leave the impression, because I don't think that the report wanted to, that this means that 50 percent are constantly on antipsychotic drugs.

It does say, I think, that up to 50 percent at some point are receiving antipsychotic drugs, and that's a high number. It is particularly high when you consider…. In the aftermath of this, I looked at some other material. There are facilities — I think one in Minnesota, if I'm not mistaken — that have set as a target and achieved the elimination of antipsychotic drugs.

I am still satisfied, as a layperson relying upon the clinical advice and material that's provided, that there is an appropriate place for the use of these products. But I would also describe myself as a minimalist, suggesting that they should be used when absolutely necessary and not as a default mechanism to influence behaviour.

We are actively involved in work with — we have established a new set of guidelines which, if the member doesn't have them, I'll be happy to provide to her — clinicians, physicians, pharmacists to do more to promote a proper understanding of the proper use of the product and the overarching importance of having a discussion with either the patient or the patient's support network, family, prior to prescribing a drug or a series of drugs.

That's roughly where we're at, and I can get into more detail if the member wishes.

K. Conroy: The minister says that they've implemented or they're discussing guidelines?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have new guidelines.

K. Conroy: They have implemented guidelines. So they're guidelines, and they aren't actually regulations that people have to follow. They're guidelines for facilities and physicians.

[1725]

One of the recommendations that the Ombudsperson had put was that the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act be amended to ensure that the health care providers administering the medication are legally required to do a number of things: to make sure that the medication is documented; that there's consent; that the resident is consulted and, if not the resident, the family, whoever is the person best able to do that; when the consent was provided; the duration of the consent.

It's not a guideline. It's actually a regulation that people providing this medication and providing the care to seniors have to follow. I'm just wanting to make sure that there's clarification there.

Hon. M. de Jong: The part of the member's question, submission that I didn't get is…. I think she posed questions about the advisability of issuing regulations pursuant to a specific act, and I missed the act that the member referred to.

K. Conroy: The Ombudsperson recommended that it's through the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act that the guidelines were put in, that steps be taken to amend that act to ensure that the proper procedures are followed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry. I was trying to break this down into something discernible and understandable. We have guidelines that relate to the procedures physicians must follow for prescribing. The recommendation and the legislation that the recommendation refers to relate to circumstances and the manner in which consent is obtained from a patient — sometimes a patient who is not in a position to provide consent.

[1730]

Guidelines that govern physicians and clinicians when they're prescribing; legislation and regulation that would be applicable for the circumstances and the manner in which consent is obtained — yes, that would be regulatory, subordinate legislation.

K. Conroy: Is the minister going to ensure that the
[ Page 11852 ]
legislation or the regulation happens so that it does protect seniors in facilities? I mean, he has talked about guidelines, but what we're asking, then, is: are the issues around consent going to be formally brought in, amended to the legislation to ensure that…?

Obviously, it seems that the stories are true. I mean, there's far too much usage of antipsychotics. When it's appropriate usage, that's fine. But when it's inappropriate usage for restraining issues or for…. I know facilities where…. "It's just easier that way." That's what some staff have said. They don't like it, but that's the way it is. There have to be some regulations put in so that this can't continue to happen.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's one of those circumstances where a simple intention has run up against, apparently, lots of complications.

The intention was pretty straightforward. That is to establish a regulatory framework that would guide the manner in which consent is obtained from an individual. This has developed in concert and contemporaneously to the advanced planning guidelines that we were talking about a little while ago, earlier this afternoon.

The dilemma that has been created is that where someone has created an advanced planning document, there is a place to go to obtain that consent. Where someone has not, it becomes a little more complicated — well, a lot more complicated — and begins to involve the public trustee.

The concern of the public trustee's office is: what are the implications of that for dealing with a regular stream of consent requests? Not a lot of disagreement around the principle; some operational challenge concerning how to make it work in practice. It's not an excuse for not advancing, but merely an explanation for why the ongoing work has not resulted in an actual regulation being posted.

[1735]

It would seem that in some of these other circumstances, particularly the complications that arise when the patient, the resident, is incapable of providing consent, and there is no immediate family or caregiver to seek that consent from…. We have to overcome that.

The member is correct. We have guidelines to address the act of dispensing the medication. Consent, as the report indicates, is a fundamentally important part of the equation. Having a clear legal framework around how to obtain that consent is, I agree, very important.

K. Conroy: I'm sure that with all the great minds in the Ministry of Health and the legal beagles or whoever you need over there to make it happen…. I'm hoping that the minister's going to nod and say that it's something that's being worked on and going to be implemented fairly quickly, because it is a situation of dire concern.

One of the ways Ontario has dealt with it is to actually hire 700 health care workers, specifically to put more health care workers on site. I hear that again and again. If we had more people, then we wouldn't need to use the drugs. I don't know if that's something that the ministry is considering.

Also, in relation to the Minnesota facility, they actually put more staff on. They actually end up saving in the long run, because even though the staff costs more, the health care costs are lowered for the actual care of the residents in the facilities. They live longer and happier and more active lives and aren't susceptible to all the other things that come with when you're lying around not doing anything, which we can go into detail on. But I'm sure the minister gets where I'm going with that.

I wonder if there are any plans to actually look at hiring more health care workers so that we can reduce the level of antipsychotic drugs used in facilities. Also, are there other plans to actually monitor the usage of antipsychotic drugs in facilities to better monitor what's happened to date?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I'd say is that I am very interested in the Minnesota model and how they have managed to drive their use of these products down to virtually nothing. That is, I think, a noteworthy achievement.

I am reminded and can provide the member with a copy of the report relating to the reinvestment that derived from the residential rate adjustments. I am told that over the last two years it has seen that across the broad suite of residential care facilities — I mean the publicly owned, the non-profit and the privately operated — in excess of 1,000 additional FTEs have been hired, admittedly in a broad range of areas — nurses, caregivers.

There has been a dramatic expansion in the number of people hired. We're happily training more people now also, so we have a fairly robust domestic pool of talent to draw from. There are still shortages in some cases. So that is taking place.

[1740]

I guess what I would say is that I will not quarrel with the proposition that having additional human resources available is an appropriate objective. We've tried to act on that. What I am obliged, also, to do is…. Our capacity is not infinite. It is finite for both the health authorities — particularly the health authorities — and the facilities as they operate. They are endeavouring to do so within the confines of the finite fiscal resources that are available to them.

Having said that, the additional millions of dollars that derived from the residential rate adjustment were utilized to do what I think, in part, is what the member is advocating, which is to hire more people.

K. Conroy: We'll have an opportunity to canvass the whole issue around the residential rates and the increases and where it actually went to on Monday.
[ Page 11853 ]

But just further to this, are there any plans by the ministry to actually monitor the rates of antipsychotic drugs that are used in facilities, to see if the usage is going down and to ensure that it's not being used for issues around restraint or just because some facilities don't have the staffing that they should have?

I'm wondering what kind of guidelines are being put in place for that, and how that's being monitored.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, there is monitoring occurring. What I was inquiring about is the manner in which that is taking place and what the reports might look like, so that one year from now one could do an analysis of what the trends are.

We're fortunate, I'm reminded, that because of the construct of the PharmaCare and the PharmaNet system, we're able to draw on some of that data and also, at the facilities level, to examine the utilization and the use. My guess is that the most robust data set is going to be that which we are able to obtain from PharmaNet.

K. Conroy: So is there some consistent format that's going to be utilized across the province to ensure that you're getting data from the actual facilities themselves, as far as the increase in staffers or just the issues around use of antipsychotic drugs? Is there some way to access that? Just looking at the numbers through PharmaCare isn't going to tell the ministry if it's working. You can see if the amount might be lowered, but is it actually working?

[1745]

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that I'm satisfied there is a robust monitoring system in place that ties in with the CIHI methodology and collection of data. It tracks not just the utilization but the very behavioural issues that the member referred to, ultimately providing data around the clinical experience — or in this case, the residential experience — of each patient.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the methodologies that have been developed. I will say this, however. One of the things I've learned in the last year is that the methodologies developed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information enjoy a pretty wide degree of regard and validity. I take some measure of comfort from knowing that our systems are networked with theirs and are providing data in a form that they can report on as well.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada